Do you use DNG...

[cnhoff]

...or not for some reason or is it just not worth caring about?

 

Thanks

[emre]

Not until Bibble supports it.

[William Kahn]

I'm toying with it. It has one attractive feature: Metadata is written into the image file and not into a separate .xmp file or the ACR database. So when you move the file, the metadata goes with it automatically, not as a separate step.

 

What's "Bibble"?

[afx]

Bibble is my favourite RAW converter: check out http://www.bibblelabs.com/

<p>

I might use it once Bibble supports it.<p>

cheers<br>

afx

[alan_gage]

I use ACR and I started converting all my RAW to DNG. Maybe I've just been suckered; but it sounds like a good deal to me. No side car files is really nice and the smaller file size doesn't hurt either.

 

I might feel a little different if I used Canon or Nikon; but as a Pentax user the future of the company might not be as strong. Somewhere down the line I can see where there might be problems finding someone to convert PEF files. Even if the company doesn't fail but just changes their RAW format the number of cameras just aren't as strong and I can see them falling off the wagon of many RAW converters.

 

At least this way even if DNG turns out to be a flop I can still convince myself that since it's not a proprietary format there's no reason for someone not to support it.

 

Alan

[minicucci]

Christian; I use DNG conversion for all shots, with the embed original raw option selected.

(I also archive the original raws, pre-DNG, to DVD). That way I can always extract the

original raw file should I want to use DPP or something like that. The only downside is file

size. With raw embedded, each file will go from an average of 8-9 MB to an average of

12-14 MB.

 

In addition to the DNG file's incorporation of xmp sidecar files (a wonderful side benefit), I

love it because it allows me to convert through the 100-shots-per-folder hierarchy that

my Canon camera imposes by checking the "Include all sub-folder images" option. I just

convert all of the contents of the DCIM folder into a single DNG folder and then open all of

the DNG raws into Bridge without having to bother with the 100 per folders.

[howard_slavitt2]

I use it for all RAW files. I save a copy of the original Canon raw format on a backup disk. Then I make another copy that I convert to DNG, so at the end of the day I have one copy in each format. I like working in DNG format better because all RAW setting changes are saved in the original file.

[robert_martin5]

I have not tried DNG yet. When you convert existing RAW files that already have XMP files does DNG save the settings from the existing XMP files in the DNG file?

 

Since Adobe does not release new RAW converters for Photoshop CS with new cameras would converting the RAW file to DNG allow you to use the CS raw converter on the new cameras?

[minicucci]

"I have not tried DNG yet. When you convert existing RAW files that already have XMP files

does DNG save the settings from the existing XMP files in the DNG file?

 

"Since Adobe does not release new RAW converters for Photoshop CS with new cameras

would converting the RAW file to DNG allow you to use the CS raw converter on the new

cameras?"

 

Hi Robert: the DNG conversion will copy over any prior xmp data and integrate it in the

converted file.

 

Re your second question, ACR still will not have a camera profile to work with. You can

jigger the file with a hex editor to use another camera's profile but results would be

uncertain.

[robert_martin5]

Patricia, thanks for your response.

 

I am a little confused by your answer to my second question. I thought Adobe's goal with DNG was to make the image file independent of the camera that generated it - like JPG, TIF files. Maybe this only applies to DNG files generated by the camera rather than converted using the converter software.

[briany]

Robert, you're right. The DNG converter needs to know how to get the native camera format into the DNG spec, but from there, DNG will be independent of the camera, as you say. See here: <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ECAz&unified_p=1">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ECAz&unified_p=1</a>

[x]

My experience so far is that DNG does not work 100% in the way I would expect it to.

 

I've been trying to process raw files from an EOS 5D in Photoshop CS (not CS2) by taking the DNG option. Adobe have a standalone DNG converter so you can convert the 5D raw files to DNG format without using Photoshop. However, the PS CS File Browser will not display a thumbnail image of the .DNG file. If I double click on the image I can do a raw conversion. The version of Adobe Camera Raw I'm using is the newest for CS - 2.4. In Raw Shooter Essentials I can't display the .DNG thumbnail either.

 

So in summary, by going the DNG route I can do a raw conversion of a 5D file in PS CS but I can't display its thumbnail image in the Browser.

 

If DNG was completely independent of the raw format, this sort of problem should not occur. I am concened that the wonderful "independent" picture of DNG spelt out by the hype is not true in practice.

 

Comments anyone ?

[howard_slavitt2]

Can't answer your DNG problem with Photoshop CS 1, but DNG works perfectly with Canon 5D files in Photoshop CS 2.