NEF in CS5

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I would think the proprietary metadata adds will remain in perpetuity as they give the camera manufacturers a few minor advantages if you use their s/w.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It might and I have no problem with that if at the same time, I could switch from proprietary raw to DNG just as I can switch to JPEG. Then, I could have access to my raw data the day the camera ships. Then users who feel the proprietary metadata is useful can use it, the rest can discard it. There is no technical reason we can’t have such a switch, its all political and to some degree, due to the attitude of owners who are unaware or don’t care that the raw data the camera provides, unlike the JPEG, is proprietary and a burden on others. </p>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>NX2 shows me the focal point on an NEF file. DNG, I believe doesn't or at least I don't recall seeing how to get that. So there must be some loss of info in the conversion?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>DxO has just recently started accepting dng's. And I don't have time to confirm but I believe DxO behaves like NX2 with the nef and gives you lens corrections when using nef. But you lose this option if you've converted to dng before hand.</p>

<p>Dng is not for me. The conversion throws out data you might want down the road.</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>Guess I confused myself. It is the proprietary metadata. Nevermind. BTW, I do know that erd party sw can process NEF files. I use LR3 myself.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>The wise are waiting until DNG becomes a recognized ISO standard and then have the large manufactures like Nikon and Canon output as dng.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You obviously don’t know the ramifications of waiting for a body like the ISO to get stuff done or how such “standards” don’t insure much. Look at how well JPEG 2000 with its ISO “support” changed the world.. Not. So you think it takes ISO “certification” for Nikon and Canon to finally provide us a DNG switch? That says what about the current camera manufactures who DO support DNG? If you spent half your time and energy dismissing DNG (and Apple) and actually tried to convince users to ask (demand) Nikon and Canon to support DNG, or lobby those companies to provide us our data in an open format, your efforts would be far more useful to the industry and fellow (assuming you are) photographers. </p>

<p>Again, there is zero reason why Nikon or Canon can’t provide a proprietary raw, JEPG, DNG and maybe TIFF. If they stopped thinking all we photographers want is bigger sensors, and instead listened to a vocal user community that wants an open raw format, it might happen. “Efforts“ of people such as yourself serve no purpose other than expounding some odd agenda. Tell us <strong>why</strong> we should ignore and forgo the implementation of an open raw format? In what way is this good for the photo community? </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I think they all do, Douglas.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, usually many months <strong>after</strong> the camera has shipped because it takes that amount of time for each company to hack the proprietary raw format, run it through Q&E, beta test it, document it etc. Lightroom 3.3 just shipped with new camera supported**. Typically Adobe has to update this app every 13 weeks or so in order to apply bug fixes but primarily to add new cameras that have shipped since the last version. 13 weeks is pretty quick too, many smaller companies take longer to update their converters. What this means again is, you the customer get to wait on your favorite software company to again take valuable time and resources to support a new camera that you can’t access in their products. All thanks to proprietary raw data. </p>

<p>**Additional camera support for several new camera models including the Canon PowerShot 95, Nikon D7000 and Olympus E-5 </p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>Rizwan, you might find converting to dng a logistical nightmare for your workflow like so many others have.</p>

<p>I back up my files on DVD and an external hard drive. This is common practice. Like most others, I take it a step further and make a duplicate of those two copies and get them out of the office and put them "off site" in case of a disaster. I know have four copies of a single nef raw. The proponents of dng suggest you keep your original raw when converting to dng. To do so, and follow my back up regime, I've just doubled my back up and archiving work load as I know have 4 copies of a nef and 4 copies of a dng. I don't want 8 copies of a single picture. This takes a lot of time with no proven benefit in terms of picture quality or performance.</p>

<p>The great thing about xmp side car files next to your nef's, is that is that this tiny xmp file is all you have to keep backing up if you have made changes to your image. Many love this and when we move to cloud computing and storage, it will be of even greater benefit.</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>The proponents of dng suggest you keep your original raw when converting to dng.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They do? Which proponents would that be (all, some, you have some stats?). Personally I don’t keep any of my proprietary raws, I convert on import into Lightroom. I have zero need for them. I have no need for the proprietary data that DPP may use since I have about 4 other raw converters I’d use if I couldn’t use Lightroom. So Rizwan, keep a copy of the NEF if you wish, don’t if you don’t have the need. No one here I’m sure has done anything statically accurate to determine if the DNG users of the world keep or don’t keep the proprietary raws. Some do, some don’t. Some like to make up claims that have no basis in fact. Some like to make up simplistic points that they think sound compelling until you wonder where on earth they came up with their facts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I back up my files on DVD and an external hard drive. This is common practice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Common to who? I can see zero reason to spend the considerable time (time which you use knocking DNG conversions) to write data to a DVD. Multiple hard drives, (including RAIDs) on and off site, yup. The only digital captures I’ve ever lost in 19 years are those I can’t render because of proprietary raw data (or PCD).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To do so, and follow my back up regime, I've just doubled my back up and archiving work load as I know have 4 copies of a nef and 4 copies of a dng.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if someone is folly enough to follow your regime does the math work that way. You think maybe someone would just keep four copies of the DNG or 3 copies and one NEF? A belt and suspenders is one thing. Two belts and 4 suspenders is crazy. You’re what, Herb Ritz or Greg Gorman, your work is that valuable to the world?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The great thing about xmp side car files next to your nef's, is that is that this tiny xmp file is all you have to keep backing up if you have made changes to your image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True indeed. But then there’s all the useful data that isn’t stored in the sidecar file (some is proprietary) like the JPEG rendered data in the DNG, the DNG profile. So you back up over and over again, all those sidecar files to DVD?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Many love this and when we move to cloud computing and storage, it will be of even greater benefit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So they would NOT be storing the original raw? Cause that’s the big sucker to upload to the cloud. Just upload the DNG once, then save when you wish, the LR database which also stores the equivalent of the rendering and then some. Easy to update if necessary (unlikely) the DNGs on the cloud if you have the database. You can have DNG and the equivalent of XMP sidecar data without thousands of tiny separate files, most of us are going to backup the database anyway (lrdata or whatever database file the DAM is using).</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Not archiving NEF has two significant real-world consequences. You can't use Nikon's software to read DNG, which means you have no access to Nikon's own device profiling (the thing that gives the nice default colours from NX conversions that many of us like). You also can't provide an original in-camera file to anyone who might request one (like a competition judge or a newspaper editor - some competition rules explicity disqualify entries where this file can't be produced).</p>

<p>There's absolutely no risk that any common, current raw file will become unreadable in the forseeable future (barring nuclear war, asteroid impacts, or a successful Palin/Voldemort campaign in 2012). All of these files are supported by dcraw, a tiny C program with freely available source code that will compile on any common operating system (and most of the uncommon ones):<br>

http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/<br>

You may never use dcraw itself, but its quite likely you'll have come across one of its many derivatives (listed on the project page).</p>

[miguel_martinez4]

<p>Funnily enough, all converters mentioned by Garrison K. are only one: dcraw. All those programs he mentioned extract the raw data out of the proprietary NEF files using dcraw. Yes, even photoshop. The data is eventually treated in different ways, but Dave Coffin's code is ubiquitious.</p>

<p>By the way, what happened when Nikon encrypted the white balance of the D200? What will happen if they suddenly decide to encrypt the whole data? </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>or a successful Palin/Voldemort campaign in 2012</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, now you’re really scaring us!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All of these files are supported by dcraw...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All the files (as of today) are supported by Adobe too. Once they, like dcraw decode the new proprietary format. Or does dcraw have some capability that all the other raw converters lack that can from day one, automatically render this new proprietary raw? On Dave’s page, he states:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/dcraw.c">dcraw.c -- decodes raw photos, extracts thumbnails, and displays metadata</a>. Supports 394 cameras at last count.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So if Canon comes out with the 5DMIII tomorrow, doesn’t Dave, like Adobe, or anyone else not using dcraw in their converters have to do some work to make that number 395? <br>

An interesting web page about dcraw can be found here:<br>

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/dcraw/index_en.htm<br>

You’ll find Guillermo hanging out often on Luminous Landscape. </p>

<p>Dave is to be commended for his work and his motives and this paragraph sums up the issues for those of us capturing raw data (OUR raw data):</p>

<blockquote>

<h2>Motivation</h2>

<p>While most camera manufacturers supply raw image decoding software for their cameras, this software is almost always <a title="Proprietary software" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software">proprietary</a>, and often becomes unsupported when a camera model is discontinued. The file formats themselves are often undocumented, and several manufacturers have gone so far as to <a title="Encrypt" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypt">encrypt</a> all or part of the data in their raw image format, in an attempt to prevent third-party software from accessing it.<sup id="cite_ref-1" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup><br>

Given this ever-expanding plethora of raw image formats, and uncertain and inconsistent support for them by the manufacturers, many photographers worry that their valuable raw images may become unreadable as the applications and operating systems required become obsolete.<sup id="cite_ref-2" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup><br>

In contrast to proprietary decoding software, dcraw strives for simplicity, <a title="Portability (software)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portability_(software)">portability</a>, and consistency, as expressed by its author:</p>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="20" valign="top">“</td>

<td valign="top">So here is my mission: Write and maintain an <a title="ANSI C" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_C">ANSI C</a> program that decodes any raw image from any digital camera on any computer running any operating system.</td>

<td width="20" valign="bottom">”</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>dcraw's open source nature is crucial in assuring this universality: even if its author loses interest in developing the software, or in supporting a particular model of camera, interested users are free to extend it. This helps ensure that it will be possible to decode supported raw image formats far into the future, even after the cameras that produced them are obsolete.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kind of sounds like DNG in terms of the motives.<br>

This is also an interesting sentence on Dave’s page:<br>

<strong>I'm designing a digital camera. How do I convert its raw photos into something that dcraw and Adobe Photoshop can open?</strong></p>

<dd>

<blockquote>Download <a href="http://dl.maptools.org/dl/libtiff/tiff-3.8.2.tar.gz">LibTIFF v3.8.2</a> and apply <a href="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/libtiff.patch">this patch</a>. Then use <a href="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/elphel_dng.c">this C program</a> as a template for converting your photos to valid <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html">Adobe DNG</a> files.</blockquote>

<br /></dd>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>They do? Which proponents would that be (all, some, you have some stats?). Personally I don’t keep any of my proprietary raws, I convert on import into Lightroom. I have zero need for them. I have no need for the proprietary data that DPP may use since I have about 4 other raw converters I’d use if I couldn’t use Lightroom. So Rizwan, keep a copy of the NEF if you wish, don’t if you don’t have the need. No one here I’m sure has done anything statically accurate to determine if the DNG users of the world keep or don’t keep the proprietary raws. Some do, some don’t. Some like to make up claims that have no basis in fact.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And where's your stats to show me incorrect? I can point to John Nack, Adobe DNG page et al, all insist that you keep and back up the original raw after converting to dng. It's common sense. Heck, we can even take a PN poll, "Do you throw out your original raws after dng conversion?"</p>

<p>Perhaps in your little utopian adobe bubble you don't feel a need to keep them, but suggesting others to throw them out after conversion is the worst advice I'd read here in a long time.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_cooper]

<p>Maybe you guys should go out for a beer (or something else) together.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>He talks too much. His neighbors wont even drink beer with him.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>or a successful Palin/Voldemort campaign in 2012</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, now you’re really scaring us!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All of these files are supported by dcraw...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All the files (as of today) are supported by Adobe too. Once they, like dcraw decode the new proprietary format. Or does dcraw have some capability that all the other raw converters lack that can from day one, automatically render this new proprietary raw? On Dave’s page, he states:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/dcraw.c">dcraw.c -- decodes raw photos, extracts thumbnails, and displays metadata</a>. Supports 394 cameras at last count.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So if Canon comes out with the 5DMIII tomorrow, doesn’t Dave, like Adobe, or anyone else not using dcraw in their converters have to do some work to make that number 395? <br>

An interesting web page about dcraw can be found here:<br>

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/dcraw/index_en.htm<br>

You’ll find Guillermo hanging out often on Luminous Landscape. </p>

<p>Dave is to be commended for his work and his motives and this paragraph sums up the issues for those of us capturing raw data (OUR raw data):</p>

<blockquote>

<h2>Motivation</h2>

<p>While most camera manufacturers supply raw image decoding software for their cameras, this software is almost always <a title="Proprietary software" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software">proprietary</a>, and often becomes unsupported when a camera model is discontinued. The file formats themselves are often undocumented, and several manufacturers have gone so far as to <a title="Encrypt" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypt">encrypt</a> all or part of the data in their raw image format, in an attempt to prevent third-party software from accessing it.<sup id="cite_ref-1" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup><br>

Given this ever-expanding plethora of raw image formats, and uncertain and inconsistent support for them by the manufacturers, many photographers worry that their valuable raw images may become unreadable as the applications and operating systems required become obsolete.<sup id="cite_ref-2" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup><br>

In contrast to proprietary decoding software, dcraw strives for simplicity, <a title="Portability (software)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portability_(software)">portability</a>, and consistency, as expressed by its author:</p>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="20" valign="top">“</td>

<td valign="top">So here is my mission: Write and maintain an <a title="ANSI C" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_C">ANSI C</a> program that decodes any raw image from any digital camera on any computer running any operating system.</td>

<td width="20" valign="bottom">”</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>dcraw's open source nature is crucial in assuring this universality: even if its author loses interest in developing the software, or in supporting a particular model of camera, interested users are free to extend it. This helps ensure that it will be possible to decode supported raw image formats far into the future, even after the cameras that produced them are obsolete.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kind of sounds like DNG in terms of the motives.<br>

This is also an interesting sentence on Dave’s page:<br>

<strong>I'm designing a digital camera. How do I convert its raw photos into something that dcraw and Adobe Photoshop can open?</strong></p>

<dd>

<blockquote>Download <a href="http://dl.maptools.org/dl/libtiff/tiff-3.8.2.tar.gz">LibTIFF v3.8.2</a> and apply <a href="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/libtiff.patch">this patch</a>. Then use <a href="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/elphel_dng.c">this C program</a> as a template for converting your photos to valid <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html">Adobe DNG</a> files.</blockquote>

<br /></dd>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>or a successful Palin/Voldemort campaign in 2012</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, now you’re really scaring us!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All of these files are supported by dcraw...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All the files (as of today) are supported by Adobe too. Once they, like dcraw decode the new proprietary format. Or does dcraw have some capability that all the other raw converters lack that can from day one, automatically render this new proprietary raw? On Dave’s page, he states:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/dcraw.c">dcraw.c -- decodes raw photos, extracts thumbnails, and displays metadata</a>. Supports 394 cameras at last count.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So if Canon comes out with the 5DMIII tomorrow, doesn’t Dave, like Adobe, or anyone else not using dcraw in their converters have to do some work to make that number 395? <br>

An interesting web page about dcraw can be found here:<br>

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/dcraw/index_en.htm<br>

You’ll find Guillermo hanging out often on Luminous Landscape. </p>

<p>Dave is to be commended for his work and his motives and this paragraph sums up the issues for those of us capturing raw data (OUR raw data):</p>

<blockquote>

<h2>Motivation</h2>

<p>While most camera manufacturers supply raw image decoding software for their cameras, this software is almost always <a title="Proprietary software" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software">proprietary</a>, and often becomes unsupported when a camera model is discontinued. The file formats themselves are often undocumented, and several manufacturers have gone so far as to <a title="Encrypt" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypt">encrypt</a> all or part of the data in their raw image format, in an attempt to prevent third-party software from accessing it.<sup id="cite_ref-1" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup><br>

Given this ever-expanding plethora of raw image formats, and uncertain and inconsistent support for them by the manufacturers, many photographers worry that their valuable raw images may become unreadable as the applications and operating systems required become obsolete.<sup id="cite_ref-2" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dcraw#cite_note-2">[2]</a></sup><br>

In contrast to proprietary decoding software, dcraw strives for simplicity, <a title="Portability (software)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portability_(software)">portability</a>, and consistency, as expressed by its author:</p>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="20" valign="top">“</td>

<td valign="top">So here is my mission: Write and maintain an <a title="ANSI C" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_C">ANSI C</a> program that decodes any raw image from any digital camera on any computer running any operating system.</td>

<td width="20" valign="bottom">”</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>dcraw's open source nature is crucial in assuring this universality: even if its author loses interest in developing the software, or in supporting a particular model of camera, interested users are free to extend it. This helps ensure that it will be possible to decode supported raw image formats far into the future, even after the cameras that produced them are obsolete.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kind of sounds like DNG in terms of the motives.<br>

This is also an interesting sentence on Dave’s page:<br>

<strong>I'm designing a digital camera. How do I convert its raw photos into something that dcraw and Adobe Photoshop can open?</strong></p>

<dd>

<blockquote>Download <a href="http://dl.maptools.org/dl/libtiff/tiff-3.8.2.tar.gz">LibTIFF v3.8.2</a> and apply <a href="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/libtiff.patch">this patch</a>. Then use <a href="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/elphel_dng.c">this C program</a> as a template for converting your photos to valid <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html">Adobe DNG</a> files.</blockquote>

<br /></dd>

 

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[Richard Williams]

<p>'The data is eventually treated in different ways, but Dave Coffin's code is ubiquitious.'</p>

<p>As Dave Coffin puts it "Dcraw has made it far easier for developers to support a wide range of digital cameras in their applications. They can call dcraw from a graphical interface, paste pieces of dcraw.c into their code, or just use dcraw.c as the documentation that camera makers refuse to provide". But this doesn't mean that all the derivatives are the same converter - some are just informed by the code or use bits of it. Photoshop certainly doesn't use the whole thing, though the developers are familiar with it. Thomas Knoll commented about specific details of the dcraw code when discussing Nikon's white balance encryption, though he didn't use dcraw's reverse-engineered decryption key for legal reasons.</p>

<p>Dave Coffin responded pretty quickly to the MakerNote encryption issue - you can find the key (which e.g. ExifTool also uses) by seaching the code for 'xlat'. It's conceivable that a camera manufacturer might one day use a more effective encryption scheme than Nikon's rather feeble effort, and perhaps apply it to the whole file. If at this point Adobe did a deal with the manufacturer to provide a key (like the Nikon WB arrangement) and the DNG converter worked with these files, then there would be an additional argument to adopt a DNG workflow. But given the flack Nikon had over WB, this doesn't seem terribly likely. And of course none of this would affect the formats in use today.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>And where's your stats to show me incorrect?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never said you were incorrect and I don’t have to! You made a point. Its up to you to back up that point with some <strong>facts</strong> or we can and should just dismiss what you said as something you pulled out of your back end.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can point to John Nack, Adobe DNG page et al, all insist that you keep and back up the original raw after converting to dng</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, so whatever John Nack says on his blog is your proof? Doesn’t John Nack suggest the use of DNG? It would appear you two are in this case (where it doesn’t suite you) in disagreement. Your simplistic statement (again) was: <em>The proponents of dng suggest you keep your original raw when converting to dng. </em>Perhaps another case of your sloppy writing you really wanted to say: <em><strong>Some</strong> proponents of dng suggest you keep your original raw when converting to dng. </em>That would actually make some sense!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps in your little utopian adobe bubble you don't feel a need to keep them, but suggesting others to throw them out after conversion is the worst advice I'd read here in a long time.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>English must be a 2nd language for you. <strong>Where</strong> did I tell others to throw away their DNGs? I used my workflow as an example suited to me only. I actually said: <em>So Rizwan, keep a copy of the NEF if you wish, don’t if you don’t have the need. </em><br /> What apparently you find so difficult to fathom is that unlike you, I try to show people <em>options</em> based on facts, and let them make up their own minds. Doesn’t matter to me if everyone or no one keeps their proprietary raws. I don’t make silly blatant statements like you do so often here. Statements like “<em>Close the door and forget using DNG</em>”. If someone decides to work differently then I, unlike you, I don’t dismiss their workflow let alone hijack threads that have nothing to do with DNG, then in the middle start spouting more nonsense as if it were factual. Didn’t you get hip to the silliness of your Google searches as proof of your points after many of us pointed this out to you? Worse, when we ask you salient questions to back up your supposedly valid belief systems, you usually ignore the question, once again making me think you either don’t have a clue about what you are so sure is correct or have some other motive. <br /> You are an anonymous poster here with pretty strong beliefs but not a lick of transparency about who you are, what you do, why you feel your opinions are so correct. You have a single image on your info page (which I certainly hope doesn’t represent your photo skills in large, sorry). What chops in the photo or imaging industry make you so darn sure of yourself? When others call you out, you dodge the question or ask a question with a question like <em>And where's your stats to show me incorrect? </em>Its all very black and white with you, your way or the highway. God forbid anyone ask you to back up anything you’ve posted. You know its right and dammit, those are the facts as you see em. <br /> You sure have a lot of points to make but you sure have zero to back em up. You are entitled to your opinion, you are not entitled to your own made up facts. You ever hear of peer review? <br /> <em>Perhaps in your little utopian adobe bubble you don't feel a need to keep them, but suggesting others to throw them out after conversion is the worst advice I'd read here in a long time.</em><br /><br /><em>...terrorist words like "proprietary formats" </em></p>

<p><em>Why are you creating more work for your self and converting to DNG?</em></p>

<p><em>Speaking of making pennies, a pro Adobe mag and someone like Andrew that makes their living waving Adobe's flag, is the last resource I'd seek for an objective opinion on DNG.<br /></em><br /> You really serious with this nonsense Mr. K? It has to be difficult to sleep at night wanting to be some kind of real photographer, or expert/guru of imaging when you can’t even read a post and reply without distorting what was clearly written staring you in the face. ...<em>suggesting others to throw them out after conversion is the worst advice I'd read here in a long time.</em> (simplistic overstatement after totally misunderstanding what was written YET AGAIN). So how about it Mr.K, just who are you <strong>really</strong>, lets see some images you created, some articles on the subject of DI you’ve written, some awards from your peers (whoever they might be). Or at the very least, try reading a reply and attempting to avoid misunderstanding what was written while putting words in people’s mouths. That would go a long way towards having others read what you have to say with such vigor and taking you at all seriously. Otherwise we’ll have to tell your mommy no more posting on the grown ups forums.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>'Then use <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cybercom.net/%7Edcoffin/dcraw/elphel_dng.c" target="_blank">this C program</a> as a template for converting your photos to valid <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html" target="_blank">Adobe DNG</a> files.'</p>

<p>Dave Coffin is actually a fan of the DNG format, see e.g.:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701davecoffininterview.asp</p>

<p>But just because the Adobe DNG converter exists, he (or anyone who succeeds him) isn't going to stop writing code to handle in-camera raw format #395 directly (just as DNG 1.4.0 will also be supported). As far as most FOSS developers are concerned, Adobe is just another proprietary software company that (when it comes right down to it) can only be trusted to act in its own interests. Sometimes these interests have some overlap with those of the open development community (as when Adobe provides a useful and 'open' file format), sometimes not.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>But just because the Adobe DNG converter exists, he (or anyone who succeeds him) isn't going to stop writing code to handle in-camera raw format #395 directly (just as DNG 1.4.0 will also be supported).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would certainly hope not! The more options, the better! The question was about the need for Dave, like Adobe to update this code whenever a new camera comes out. So the question is, doesn’t Dave have to do some work to support camera format #395? I suspect he would. And yet when model 395 comes out and spits out a JPEG, no work at all. My point is, we’d all be better off if the manufactures produced a standard raw file, having private tags to place whatever proprietary data they wanted to supposedly maintain whatever competitive advantage they think they see there. That’s what we have in ICC profiles. The format is fully transportable in all ICC aware applications. There are private tags that vendors can use without destroying the openness of the format. We can have our cake and eat it, we just have to make our desires strongly known to the manufacturers. Its our data. </p>

[digitaldog]

<p>That should read: <strong>Where</strong> did I tell others they should throw away their NEFs?<br /> Of course I never did.<br /> You want to keep em, keep em. You want to throw them away, throw them away. Nearly everyone who can makes such informed decisions are adults.</p>

[digitaldog]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe you guys should go out for a beer (or something else) together.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Think he would drink beer with a adobe bubble, DNG proponent terrorist, pro Adobe mag that makes their living waving Adobe's flag? <g>.<br>

When he is of legal drinking age (or acts like it), that be fun. </p>

[digitaldog]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe you guys should go out for a beer (or something else) together.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Think he would drink beer with a adobe bubble, DNG proponent terrorist, pro Adobe mag that makes their living waving Adobe's flag? <g>.<br>

When he is of legal drinking age (or acts like it), that be fun. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p> Garrison K wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The proponents of dng suggest you keep your original raw when converting to dng. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I advocate using DNG as your archive raw format, but while the approach of keeping both the proprietary and dng format (and they are kept in the same virtual envelope) approach may work for some few people, I don't use it --with the sole exception raw files from Phase One cameras,. I make a duplicate of those and while one is converted to dng (and archived using Lightroom v3) the other is kept in Phase One's raw format for processing in Capture One Pro 6 raw processing software -- and I don't know of very many who do keep both. </p>

<p> </p>

[anders_andersson2]

<blockquote>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>"The proponents of dng suggest you keep your original raw when converting to dng."</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>They do? Which proponents would that be (all, some, you have some stats?).</blockquote>

<p>For example the book "Real World Camera RAW with Adobe Photoshop CS5" by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe.<br>

It says that Bruce archives one copy of each image as DNG-with-raw-embedded to long term storage while using a smaller compressed DNG as working file.<br>

Jeff archives a copy of the original RAW and uses a DNG version as working file.</p>

[digitaldog]

 

<blockquote>

<p>For example the book "Real World Camera RAW with Adobe Photoshop CS5" by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, <strong>some</strong> (key word) proponents of DNG suggest you keep your original raws. No argument some do. Some don’t. Writing "<em>The proponents of dng suggest you keep your original raw when converting to dng.</em>" as if “the proponents” are some well organized group, or some network or committee of DNG users is another example of how some present their arguments poorly and with prejudices. Just like saying about your workflow <em>This is common practice. </em></p>