NEF in CS5

[raczoliver]

<blockquote>

<p>Can give us some examples of this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. I can use Capture NX if I want to.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>Yup, <strong>some</strong> (key word) proponents of DNG suggest you keep your original raws. No argument some do. Some don’t.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You look more foolish with every post. Some do, some don't, eh? Okay, please link or cite a single expert that advocates throwing away the original raw after converting to dng.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Okay, please link or cite a single expert that advocates throwing away the original raw after converting to dng.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There’s one on this page that advocates each person make their own decisions and who doesn’t save his proprietary raw (again, you need to actually read and attempt to comprehend the text before posting). He advocates users decide what they feel is useful and not useful to archive based on their own needs, something you should actually think about sometime. </p>

[garrison_k.]

<p>lol. I'll take that as "no" then.</p>

<p>I'm on side with Thom. I can't find a fault in his philosophy towards dng.<br>

http://www.bythom.com/dng.htm</p>

 

[KenPapai]

<p>I started down the DNG road a few years ago and gave up. Too much of an extra step in the post processing work flow and I still see no real advantage in repursuing DNG (from Canon raw). It's those little metadata things proprietary to Canon I am "afraid" of losing and the extra time and storage of saving DNGs and raw files (extra storage and again, more time).</p>

<p>However, both Andrew & Garrison make good points.</p>

<p>Until I see that Adobe and Photoshop are coming to an end then maybe I'll change my habits.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I’ll take that as “no” then.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anyway you take it is suspect IMHO based on what you write based on your misunderstanding of English. <br>

I don’t advocate, I educate. You are the one who advocates and without much education I can see (unless providing specious and simplistic claims, Google searches is your idea of education). Here and elsewhere on this site, people ask about DNG. I provide them a URL about the spec and its capabilities. I expect them to use or not use it based on<strong> their needs</strong> and what they learn about the advantages and yes, the disadvantages. I don’t hijack threads and make simplistic negative statements or advocate a workflow I might use as the “<em>common sense</em>” implying not following it to the T (like your silly math about backing up 8 iterations above) is not common sense (meaning nonsensical). </p>

<p>I don’t advocate users implement DNG any more than I advocate they keep or not keep the proprietary raws. I tell them the ups and downs of the decisions they can make and treat them like adults who can decide for themselves. I stated I don’t keep the proprietary raws and why. If someone feels the same way, fine. If they don’t, fine too. IF you can find a technical issue with the article on DNG above, I’m happy to look into it and discuss it. If your main beef with DNG is it doesn’t fit your needs fine, but thus far, all your rants about DNG (in a number of threads here) have had little meat (the bit about backing up sidecar files versus the entire DNG has merit to some degree). So hopefully you now understand that not <em>proponents</em> of DNG but rather users of DNG may or may not keep their proprietary raws and that your point that (all) Proponents of DNG recommend you backup your proprietary raw files is another simplistic statement that can’t be proven and isn’t even relevant. As I said, after educating yourself about the format, if you want to keep the proprietary raw or you don’t, its entirely your decision based on your unique needs. Period. </p>

<p>What I do advocate if that is the right term is for open raw standards because it only helps and doesn’t hurt photographers (of which I am one). I’m unclear if you are or have ever been a working photographer and I’ve asked you why you spend so much time slamming an open raw format and why even a small part of your efforts are not aimed at achieving this raw standard but in typical form, questions addressed to you are ignored! </p>

<p>You can take the above answer to your question as yes or no. Its just another post of yours to distract us from questions asked <strong>of you</strong>, an M.O that’s tiring and not necessary. Now maybe we can get back to the lack of transparency of a certain Mr.K? You got some work we can see? A web site? A bio? For all we know, you work for Nikon or Canon as an anti-DNG proponent (lobbyist) who finds those who do use DNG terrorists. Please prove this idiotic conspiracy theory I made up is wrong. We are all ears.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>'So the question is, doesn’t Dave have to do some work to support camera format #395? I suspect he would.'</p>

<p>Sure, though often this is pretty trivial. With some flavours of NEF, the only significant difference is the string in the 'Model' tag. As far as I know, things only get tricky when Nikon starts playing games like encrypting the MakerNote.</p>

<p>'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.'</p>

<p>We would! We'd also be better off if all our cameras used a standard lens mount, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. With the current situation (the biggest manufacturers using their own in-camera raw files), I can really see only 2 classes of users really benefiting from a DNG workflow:</p>

<p>(a) Users of ACR/LR (or any other raw processors that can save edits to DNG) who want to keep all their edits in a single file (rather than in a sidecar, etc.).<br>

(b) Users of old versions of ACR/LR (etc.) who don't want to upgrade just to support a new camera.</p>

<p>Proposing DNG as a supposedly more 'archival' format than NEF is, I think, a solution in search of a problem. The NEF file structure is well-known, and (unless they've changed it) is even based on the same ISO standard as DNG:</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_Image_File_Format_/_Electronic_Photography</p>

<p>The devil is in the undocumented details in each variant, of course, but we have the dcraw code for that. Recent NEFs do contain encrypted metadata (which dcraw can crack), but then so do the DNG files derived from them, which faithfully copy the whole MakerNote across.</p>

<p>Users who do benefit from DNG need to be aware of the potential pitfalls if they also don't archive NEF. If (e.g.) they decide down the line they like the 'Nikon colours' that match their in-camera jpegs better than the ACR output, they can't go back to NX. And of course there's the 'original in-camera file' issue we've discussed before in relation to competition entries:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WQjJ<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Usgn</p>

<p>So, choose the workflow that suits you, but do it for the right reasons and be aware of how this affects the ways the files can be used.</p>

<p> </p>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>I started down the DNG road a few years ago and gave up. Too much of an extra step in the post processing work flow and I still see no real advantage in repursuing DNG (from Canon raw). It's those little metadata things proprietary to Canon I am "afraid" of losing and the extra time and storage of saving DNGs and raw files (extra storage and again, more time).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same here, Ken. In seven years, dng still hasn't taken off. It isn't the gem we hoped it to be. Most of us have shrugged and gotten over it.</p>

<p> </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Last time I checked the most current version of Capture NX2 had not yet been updated to work with the NEF files from a Nikon D7000. I've been shooting with a D7000 since late October.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Adobe Camera Raw 6.3 and Lightroom 3.3, and Adobe's DNG conversion software have been able to work with D7000 NEF files since day 1, even when all three of the Adobe products were only in the release candidate stage. </p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>The D7000 is supported by Capture NX 2.2.6 (released in late October) and by the version of the free View NX 2 package that ships with the camera (and which now has a reasonable set of raw conversion options).</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>Ellis, maybe you're right, I don't know, because I don't have a D7000, and don't bother about things that don't affect me. The issue you describe would not affect anyone who does not have the latest camera models. However, not being able to use NX2 on DNG files (regardless of what camera you use to take the original picture) is enough for me to stick with NEF for the time being. I only occasionally use NX2, but I do use it, and I would not want to throw away the option. I totally believe that it is not Adobe's fault that Nikon does not support an open source file type, but that is another thing.</p>

<p>We are all photographers, either as a hobby or profession, we have a common interest, and find it rather sad that people don't get along because they prefer to work with different file types. </p>

[barry_sanford]

<p>I have been writing computer software since the mid-80 when assembly language was common, and FORTRAN was the only high level language available. I have also been an overly-serious amateur photographer since the late 90s. As someone whose paying job is writing product-based, proprietary software for a manufacturing company, I have a perspective on the whole RAW issue that most photographers may not have. This is not to say that my perspective is any more valid than that of others, it's just one that seems to always be lurking around but never fully stated. That perspective is that, from the camera manufacturer's point of view, the RAW data is part of the camera product, not part of the photographer's product. More specifically, it's part of the camera function in taking an analog image from the lens to a data file in an open format such as TIFF or JPEG. The fact that the manufacturer allows us to "grab" this data while the image is transiting from analog to TIFF, is something market pressure has forced, but not necessarily something the camera maker would prefer to do. When seen from this perspective, RAW data was never intended to be anything more than a transient step, lasting anywhere from milliseconds to a few days of post processing. It was certainly never intended to be a long term archival format.</p>

<p>Most modern computer software systems are developed with object orientation. That is, a strict binding between data and algorithm. If RAW is the data part of the object, then the converter is the algorithm part. Lose either one and you have nothing. How many people who archive any form of RAW data also archive a copy of the converter software along with it? Not many I'd bet. Even if they did, is the converter compiled for a processor that is till active like the Intel, or for some now defunct processor like the once popular Motorola 68010?</p>

<p>Archiving ~recoverable~ computer data over a long term (50, 100, 200 years, for example) is fraught with difficulties that even our top commercial/government/military computer facilities wrestle with. It's doubtful that the photography industry will solve this problem while on it's present tack of supporting numerous RAW proprietary formats as archive formats.</p>

[garrison_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>Now maybe we can get back to the lack of transparency of a certain Mr.K? You got some work we can see? A web site? A bio?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not really sure how my site of boring photos and tear sheets and client list would strengthen anything I said or further discredit what you have?</p>

<p>Predictable though, how you only bring this up when you lose an argument. It's always the same. When you're words don't hold water, you'll start over semantics in a grande fashion of double-speaking distraction. Then when that fails you move onto paragraphs of putting words into others mouths with a nice blend of ad hominem abuse. For your finale, as if an autistic child flailing around in the swimming pool, we're treated with the good old "where's your website's" routine like it's some sort of trump card. It's old.</p>

<p> </p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>http://xkcd.com/386/</p>

 

[garrison_k.]

<p>haha, that's funny. thnx</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not really sure how my site of boring photos and tear sheets and client list would strengthen anything I said or further discredit what you have?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let us be the judge (the point of being transparent). </p>

[anders_andersson2]

<blockquote>

<p>How many people who archive any form of RAW data also archive a copy of the converter software along with it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Barry, your arguments fit the theory. However, in practice there are several free and/or open source programs that can read the "proprietary" RAW files of most major cameras. You have Picasa, FastStone, IrfanView, Xnview, and UFRaw, just to mention a few. In addition Mac OS X has built in support for more than a hundred different proprietary RAW files. The formats are hardly a secret.<br>

Further, the "well documented" DNG format comes in different variants that sometimes cannot be read. Apple's Aperture, just to take one example, used to choke on DNG files converted to "Linear Image" and for some DNG files from specific cameras or lenses (sic!). I do not know if these problems are fixed, but I would not bet on it.<br>

It is not certain that all DNG files from today will be readable in a hundred or even fifty years' from now. They are not even universally readable today.<br>

It is not impossible that all current NEF files will be readable in a hundred years time, as there already is open source code that can read it.<br>

What will happen is uncertain, and only future can tell. I suggest we all convene here again in a hundred years' time to settle the case.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Barry and Magnus, you both make very good points. However...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You have Picasa, FastStone, IrfanView, Xnview, and UFRaw, just to mention a few.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The more options the better but going back to my Kodak experience, there is no real insurance that a converter we can operate today, with today’s OS will operate tomorrow unless you also archive a computer and OS that will run the converter. Now maybe due to the few products that could handle the Kodak data in the old days, this problem was far more severe. But its a possibility. Photoshop 1.0.9, the first version I owned and CS5 can both open a JPEG and the differences in OS, hardware etc haven’t affected this functionality. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Apple's Aperture, just to take one example, used to choke on DNG files converted to "Linear Image" and for some DNG files from specific cameras or lenses (sic!). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That’s a bug that Apple has to deal with, its not a DNG issue is it? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is not certain that all DNG files from today will be readable in a hundred or even fifty years' from now. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>No more certain than with a TIFF (which has undergone some changes over the years). The differences are, being an open format, its more likely and easier for someone who has the ability to write software to read those files in fifty years. But yes, there is no guarantee. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is not impossible that all current NEF files will be readable in a hundred years time, as there already is open source code that can read it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes today. But that tells us nothing about tomorrow. And this is true of all formats. I used to use a product for contacts called “<em>Now Contact</em>” and the company is gone, the software can’t run on modern hardware. I can (could) export out a txt file and import that into my newer contact software. But it wasn’t 100%, I lost some data (links to calendar items). Compared to not being able to open an image, not a hill worth dying on but I can’t say I’m happy about this. I have Hypercard Stacks I built that I can’t use because there is no Hypercard anymore, it can’t run under OS X. So we all have probably experienced data we were working with in the past we can’t work with today. Its for these reasons I try to avoid such data loss and for me personally, losing an image or losing a contract address is far from equal. I suppose that means I have to render every damn raw as a TIFF if I want even more insurance I can access that data in the farther future. </p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>If the files still exist in a century (the real issue!), and you've archived a copy of the dcraw source code (or someone else on the planet has), then I'd bet on readability of all current raw formats (including DNG). The dcraw source is written in ANSI C, an open standard that's existed for 20 years already, and which will compile on any sane operating system now and in the forseeable future (if only for the benefit of computer historians!). Will you have an appropriate camera profile to do an accurate conversion, though? Maybe now would be a good time to make appropriate standard ICC profiles for your cameras and store them alongside that copy of dcraw (better grab the lcms source too) with your raw files (NEF, DNG, or whatever). And save a tiff, too, to preserve your 'final intentions' for each image (after editing) in a standard colour space. Better yet, make some archival prints...</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>I have been writing computer software since the mid-80 when assembly language was common, and FORTRAN was the only high level language available. I have also been an overly-serious amateur photographer since the late 90s</em>. </p>

<p>What does that mean? I too am a professional programmer and started programming in high level languages before 1975. By 1985 there were over a dozen high level langues in professional use. Fortran has been around since 1960, so has COBOL. BASIC was "new" in the '70s and then Pascal hit the scene in '77 or so. So many others I could list. Maybe your date is off Barry -- a typo?</p>

<p>In any case, back to on topic, I'll forego my earlier DNG conversions until I see no more third parties will support my Canon raw image files. That will NEVER happen anyway.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Will you have an appropriate camera profile to do an accurate conversion, though? Maybe now would be a good time to make appropriate standard ICC profiles for your cameras and store them alongside that copy of dcraw (better grab the lcms source too) with your raw files (NEF, DNG, or whatever).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ICC camera profiles are a hit or miss proposition anyway and not necessarily needed, certainly for rendering. The raw converter has to assume some color space before this even comes into play (raw files are scene referred, ICC profiles are output referred). Meaning you have to render the data before you can even build an ICC camera profile (which isn’t the case with DNG profiles, they are scene referred). Since the converter has to make some assumption about the spectral sensitivity of the chip and filters even before final rendering and they can all do this differently. IOW, its not a real issue. </p>

[anders_andersson2]

<blockquote>

<p>The more options the better but going back to my Kodak experience, there is no real insurance that a converter we can operate today, with today’s OS will operate tomorrow unless you also archive a computer and OS that will run the converter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure you fully got my point. I'm not interested in the number of options available to me. I am interested in the fact that the formats already are documented/cracked so well that a number of software makers have been able to use the information.<br>

The code is there. It is available for anyone to see. When it is written in c++, that means that anyone with knowledge of that language can convert it to any other language. Even in one hundred years' time or a thousand. You do not need any specific computer or compiler, provided you have the skill and patience to convert the code to an existing environment.<br>

Check for example http://ufraw.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ufraw/ufraw/dcraw.cc?revision=1.235&view=markup to see some source code for the interpretation of raw files from hundreds of cameras.<br>

This information will not be lost. Ever.<br>

I admit that it is not a trivial task. I could never do it myself, for example. And the interpretations ufraw/dcraw make are usually much worse than the current commercial software, like Adobe, Aperture, View NX, Capture NX, and so on.<br>

However, the problems and the complexity to interpret DNG are not negligible either, as can be seen from Apple's failure to fully support the format.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Check for example <a rel="nofollow" href="http://ufraw.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ufraw/ufraw/dcraw.cc?revision=1.235&view=markup" target="_blank">(link)</a> to see some source code for the interpretation of raw files from hundreds of cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So if the camera in question is found by doing a search, all is not lost. That’s somewhat comforting. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, the problems and the complexity to interpret DNG are not negligible either, as can be seen from Apple's failure to fully support the format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you are being too kind to Apple in this respect, others can do this (Raw Developer hasn’t chocked on any DNG’s I’ve feed it yet). Now if they (Apple) could work with Adobe, Epson and Canon to get the print path cleaned up under Snow Leopard first, I’d gladly wait on the Aperture team to deal with DNG. </p>

[anders_andersson2]

<blockquote>

<p>Raw Developer hasn’t chocked on any DNG’s I’ve feed it yet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How many dozens of camera makers have you tried? You clearly have not tried DNG from a Sigma DP1 before RAW Developer 1.8.2, when support was introduced.<br>

Check http://mac.softpedia.com/progChangelog/RAW-Developer-Changelog-13369.html to see all the dedicated development they have had to make to support different variants of DNG.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>You clearly have not tried DNG from a Sigma DP1 before RAW Developer 1.8.2, when support was introduced.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, don’t own one but I do know about its linear DNG issues. I’d be happy to try a linear DNG through RD if you wish. But if as you say, RD was able to deal with the issue, Apple should as well. </p>