DNG

[travismcgee]

<p><em>I watched this video yesterday for further breakdown.<a href="

rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Link</a></em></p>

<p>Great video. Thanks. Julieanne Kost spoke at a seminar I attended awhile back. She does a great job.</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<p>Not all products support DNG Dave, YMMV. Naturally if you were using such a product, you wouldn't, nor couldn't use that file format. The same is true of PSD! Not all applications support that format. Not all applications support raw data. So one has to do some homework and see what products they want to and can use. FWIW, DXO <em>seems</em> to have some DNG support, you can output a linear encoded processed file from DXO in DNG to pass onto a product that supports it. I don't use DXO so I'm not sure if it supports DNG upon 'import' or not. </p>

<p>IF the <strong>fear</strong> is Adobe, well forget saving data in PSD or TIFF, they control both. One is proprietary and requires a licensing fee to use in other products, the other is an openly documented format that doesn't'. But Adobe controls both. So if you're really afraid of file formats Adobe controls, may I suggest JPEG . <br>

Marc makes valid points about some factual (not solely opinion based) <strong>disadvantages</strong> of DNG. Ingestion does take longer if you are converting to DNG. I find this a minor point as I don't sit around while ingesting into LR, it's slow with or without the DNG step. I find the speed up after the fact, in viewing previews or in time saved no looking for DNG Profiles and so forth counter this initial speed hit. But converting isn't a free lunch, hence we need a 3rd option on our cameras to spit out a DNG along with proprietary raw and JPEG. Don't hold your breath on that one, especially when so are openly (and often without merit) dismissing DNG. More ammo for the big manufacturers to do nothing and keep this a political issue, not one based on customer needs or desires. </p>

<p>Another <strong>disadvantage</strong> of DNG comes at backup time. The XMP sidecar is tiny. So if you edit 100 images, the next time you backup, that step will happen far faster than backing up 100 DNG's. Again, I don't find this an issue in MY workflow since all backups are done on schedule while I'm sleeping. It does take longer for my to update to CrashPlan! </p>

<p>Yet another possible <strong>disadvantage</strong> is that you are writing data into the DNG over and over again if you do any tiny edit. I've heard that this could cause a higher possibility for data corruption. I've as yet never had a bad DNG show up but maybe I'm lucky. I have multiple backup's so if this did occur, I'd be OK (to a point). <br>

The data verification of DNG is a moving target (in a good way). </p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"Eric your backing up process is a little more long winded than mine, Lightroom 4 you just convert on import and then there is an opting to delete originals, I did it last night just a test, it's no biggie. I won't be storing RAWS and DNG that is for sure."</strong><br>

<br>

I'd rethink that. It's a standard process, Simon, to keep your raws when converting to dng. I think it's foolish to throw them out; very few do. Yes, thanks, aware how to convert. I couldn't sit here with my loud mouth and speak without experience, like some others. I've been using LR since 1.1 and using the dng converter since they introduced it. For the longest time, a new dng converter was included with raw updates that we downloaded. Adobe themselves don't even bother doing this now and also over the years, their marketing efforts of dng has also ground to a halt. It's not very good for confidence building. Make no mistake Simon, I just stopped converting. And for years I preached and pushed dng just like Andrew does. Then I realized how much time it takes to do this dng, to ingest and back up and transfer and how it slows down our workflow. I like to try other software as people ask my opinion and I tried opening my dng in other software like DPP, NX2 and DxO and felt a bit of anxiety when I couldn't. How wonderful is this "open source" raw file format when it's not accepted elsewhere? DxO Labs is pretty huge and has a massive amount of weight and respect out there. <br>

<br>

Saving 15% hdd space when a 3TB drive is $150? You're tripping over dollars to save pennies. Nothing is for free in this world, dng conversion comes at a huge cost that you might not be able to foresee at this moment. One should be asking at this point, <strong>"What data is being thrown out?"</strong> DNG has lost it's allure and completely slipped in popularity in the professional world. Yes, I loved the idea, it was a wonderful utopian dream. The whole point was to have manufactures output an open source raw format; a jpg of raw formats. But it never flew, never achieved iso9000 status etc etc. Until all that happens, I feel you're losing editing and software options as you hedge your bets you'll be an Adobe user forever and ever.<br>

<br>

The deal breaker for me, thanks Anderew, is that the dng conversion process bakes in certain edits and removes some flexibility of editing in the future. <strong>Who wants that?</strong> This completely goes against the paradigm of using raw and being able to revisit and change your edits. Yet this hindrance is not the case with your native raws. I've gone through the ringer, from native raws, to years of dng, and back to native raws. It's safer, quicker, and cheaper with native raws.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Simon. There's no reason why you have to keep the proprietary raw and DNG if you don't want to. Eric would like you to believe, based on HIS workflow and opinions that this is a must. He stated (incorrectly) in the last back and forth: <em>Pat, everyone, including Adobe and it's apostles, suggests you keep your original raw when converting to dng.</em>This isn't accurate, it isn't factual, it's his opinion which is fine. I for one do NOT keep the proprietary raws, I have zero reason to do so. You asked a valid question upon seeing Eric's point about file storage space, namely you can and if you want, you should keep just the DNG and toss the proprietary raws. The sky will not fall doing so as Eric likes to point out to others who work with a different workflow.</p>

<p>As I pointed out to Dave, there are products that do not support DNG. I have at least two other raw converters not built by Adobe that support DNG that I would have no issues using should Adobe implode. In fact there are plenty of options I'd use well before I'd use the manufacturer's raw converter. Now IF I felt the need for that product, I'd keep the proprietary raws (minus one advantage, now more storage but as Eric says, a 3tb drive is cheap, so who knows how he uses the added storage as an argument, but he's usually stretching). His argument that DNG doesn't save much space and drives are cheap plays into using cheap drives to keep both formats. He can't but would like to have it both ways. Kind of telling...</p>

<p>What you have here thus far are <strong>posts with facts</strong> and <strong>posts with some passionate opinions</strong>. I suggest you view the facts and come up with your own opinions as to what you will do in terms of DNG. I've provided two articles and other's have provided the video link (which dismisses some of what Eric has stated thus far) based on fact. However, if Eric or anyone else has technical disagreements on the facts presented, we should discuss this as a peer review of the articles.</p>

<p>Eric doesn't like DNG, he doesn't use it. That's great. I have no dog in this fight, I could care less what you or Eric use. But decisions like this should be based on facts not politics. You've got a good deal of factual information about the options, the rest is up to you. Further, the so called deal breaker for DNG that Eric pins on me is just a <strong>misunderstanding</strong> on his part! Every article and video referenced in this post points out that converting with the correct options to DNG <strong>doesn't alter the raw data</strong> a lick. As for why Eric went through the ringer for years, well I have to suspect he's in need of some help both in terms of workflow and presenting salient and factual arguments here and in any other post you can find discussing DNG.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Given that its sensible to back up ( and personally I have Lightroom set to back-up every load into Lightroom as it uploads) I don't get this either/or dilemma. The files I use, sitting on internal HDD and accessed by Lightroom etc are DNG. The back-up, on external drives and virtually always switched off, are CR2. So i could if pushed find any image I've taken since the beginning of digital as CR2 if I have to, including those I've chosen to delete in DNG form. But on a day-to-day basis I'll take the advantages of DNG. </p>

[jenkins]

<p>Eric I only meant long winded in the DVD back up, not something I do and the video I watched on DNG conversion which I posted looked a little convoluted, it must be an old video. It's certainly not a problem in Lightroom4, easy as pie.</p>

<p>I don't and can never really see myself working outside of Adobe for processing, until I hit a problem I am going to give it a whirl, I know plenty of professionals that do so I will take my chances, if in fact there are any.</p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"But decisions like this should be based on facts not politics."</strong><br>

<br>

Or the insight and empirical evidence from those that use cameras and actually practice this stuff? <br>

<br>

<strong>"Further, the so called deal breaker for DNG that Eric pins on me is just a <strong>misunderstanding</strong> on his part! Every article and video referenced in this post points out that converting with the correct options to DNG <strong>doesn't alter the raw data</strong> a lick."</strong><br>

<br>

Nice try, please cite where I said dng alters the raw data. But <em>(</em><em>that the dng conversion process bakes in certain edits and removes some flexibility of editing in the future.</em>) is your own words, you confirmed it for us here at Feb 05, 2013; 12:36 p.m. in this thread.<br>

<br /><a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00bJJK" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00bJJK</a></p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"I think you're talking about hiding the extension for known file types. Not the same thing."</strong></p>

<p>Yes, correct Dave, sloppy language and beers and hockey on my part. How about Chicago? 23 games...Nevertheless, I never see xmp in folders. And I move all files withing LR or Bridge, so would never see xmp</p>

<p><strong>"As I understand it, your edits are always stored in the Lightroom catalog. You can then store a copy in the xmp file to transfer the edits to other programs with the raw file if you want. It's not required for Lightroom or Photoshop, so I don't do it. When I export from Lightroom the edits are baked in anyway."</strong></p>

<p>An xmp file is made the second you open a raw in PS, it is required, Dave. And your edits are not always stored in the catalog. Only your backed-up catalog has your stored edits. Many of us just quit LR without backing-up and your edits are in limbo. Big danger. Unless of course you 'write changes to xmp' while you work and this adds an extra layer of safety in case of catalog problems/corruption. It applies to dng as well as the xmp is inside the dng.</p>

<p><strong>"Nevertheless, I like the idea of storing edits and metadata inside the image file so I wish DNG would catch on."</strong></p>

<p>We all do, Dave. How wonderful it would be if the manufactures pumped out one format and raw was like a jpg and opened in any viewer.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Examples of opinions without facts (although Eric is free to post proof of concept) :</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Waste of time and it increase your hard drive space <strong>as you'll keep</strong> your originals and then double your files with dng.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or you'll not keep both. Again, the argument is bogus when he uses the inexpensive cost of storage.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Every wise person</strong> will tell you to keep your originals and not throw them away after converting to dng.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you don't follow Eric's opinion, you're not wise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, and most importantly for me, according to Andrew Rodney <strong>dng has the problem of “baking in” some of the changes to the raw file made during the conversion process and hence does remove some flexibility to re-edit your files.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>NOTHING is removed that <strong>any converter other than the manufacturer's</strong>, (which don't read DNG anyway), <strong>could access</strong>. That is proprietary data. We went over this in the past, I still think you need to look up what proprietary is and where it's used. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'd rethink that. <strong>It's a standard process</strong>, Simon, to keep your raws when converting to dng.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Standards based on what body?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Adobe themselves don't even bother doing this now and also over the years, their marketing efforts of dng has also ground to a halt.<br>

DxO Labs is pretty huge and has a massive amount of weight and respect out there.<br>

DNG has lost it's allure and completely slipped in popularity in the professional world.</p>

</blockquote>

[EricM]

<p>Simon, best of luck. Please do as Dave does, and keep your originals though :) </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>An xmp file is made the second you open a raw in PS, it is required, Dave. And your edits are not always stored in the catalog</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave is correct, you're again confused or just being confusing. I wrote how ACR/Photoshop (with SO's) and LR handle this data already. <br>

There is NO catalog in PS (ACR), you must have XMP sidecar files. Lightroom has a catalog, that data IS as Dave points out, stored there. As an option, Dave can save the XMP so ACR can access that data (outside the catalog). <br>

In LR: you don't have to save XMP sidecars. <br>

In ACR: you do have to save them. </p>

[travismcgee]

<p><em>An xmp file is made the second you open a raw in PS, it is required, Dave. And your edits are not always stored in the catalog. Only your backed-up catalog has your stored edits. Many of us just quit LR without backing-up and your edits are in limbo. Big danger. Unless of course you 'write changes to xmp' while you work and this adds an extra layer of safety in case of catalog problems/corruption. It applies to dng as well as the xmp is inside the dng.</em></p>

<p>That was new to me, so I tried it. Yep, Photoshop created an xmp file when I opened a CR2. Interesting. I always go to Photoshop from Lightroom, so I never saw that before.</p>

<p>Not so sure about the other part. I don't have a single xmp file on my machine (I just deleted the one Ps created) so all my edits must be in the Lightroom catalog since I'm not using DNG (yet). I've never had edits disappear when I re-opened Lightroom, although I've had a few "My God! What was I thinking?" moments.</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Yep, Photoshop created an xmp file when I opened a CR2. Interesting. I always go to Photoshop from Lightroom, so I never saw that before.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ACR built that XMP because you opened the raw from there. But when you ask LR to render (<em>Edit in</em> command), ACR is handed off that data and renders the image. So if you only work with ACR, you'll get a sidecar file, if you only work with LR, you will not (unless you set the preferences to do so). And none are required using DNG, that nice data is stored inside the container. </p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Yup.</p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"Not so sure about the other part. I don't have a single xmp file on my machine (I just deleted the one Ps created) so all my edits must be in the Lightroom catalog since I'm not using DNG (yet). I've never had edits disappear when I re-opened Lightroom, although I've had a few "My God! What was I thinking?" moments."</strong><br /> <br /> Your edits are stored in memory/cache until you chose to back-up your catalog and then they are writtten/saved to the catalog. You can try this by closing and backing up your catalog, then re-opening LR, making adjustments and edits to some files, then close LR <strong>without</strong> backing up, and then moving your catalog to another computer. When you open on the second computer, you will not see your recent edits that were done since your last back-up. Unless of course you 'write changes to xmp'. This applies to dng as the xmp is inside the dng, if not aware. Anyways, if you work on a desktop and a laptop like many of us do, you have to back-up before moving</p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"There is NO catalog in PS (ACR), you must have XMP sidecar files."</strong><br>

<br>

No one said there was, Andrew. You're not reading the thread or following along. You're just skimming and cherry-picking out elements of it in order to argue. Again. It's silly and I wont participate...anymore. Simon's quest has been solved, thread over for me. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"There is NO catalog in PS (ACR), you must have XMP sidecar files."</strong><br /><br />No one said there was, Andrew.<br /> Eric wrote:<br /> <em>An xmp file is made the second you open a raw in PS, it is required, Dave. And your edits are not always stored in the catalog.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, you cleared up my statement above:<em> you're again confused or <strong>just being confusing.</strong></em><br>

<em>An xmp file is made the second you open a raw in PS, it is required, Dave. And your edits are not always stored in the catalog.</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your edits are stored in memory/cache until you chose to back-up your catalog and then they are writtten/saved to the catalog</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not on this end (do you ever test your hypnosis?)<br>

<br /> I opened LR, turned <strong>off</strong> Auto Write XMP.<br /> Imported three proprietary raws. <br /> I applied Quick Develop settings on them. LR correctly shows a badge that <strong>XMP isn't updated</strong>. <br /> I did a backup and quit. I opened original catalog after restarting LR. XMP badge still shows it <strong>isn't</strong> updated. <br /> Result: A Catalog backup <strong>doesn't</strong> force XMP to be saved to the catalog. What does force this is the Auto Save XMP which unless you're working with a really old, slow machine, probably should be on. Or Command/Control S.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>It's silly and I wont participate...anymore.<br /></strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>What a relief considering the unsubstantiated text you've provided thus far.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p><em>Your edits are stored in memory/cache until you chose to back-up your catalog and then they are writtten/saved to the catalog. You can try this by closing and backing up your catalog, then re-opening LR, making adjustments and edits to some files, then close LR <strong>without</strong> backing up, and then moving your catalog to another computer. When you open on the second computer, you will not see your recent edits that were done since your last back-up. Unless of course you 'write changes to xmp'. This applies to dng as the xmp is inside the dng, if not aware. Anyways, if you work on a desktop and a laptop like many of us do, you have to back-up before moving</em></p>

<p>Not true at all. I only backup my catalog once a week or so and I never lose edits by just closing the program and re-opening it without backing up. I also copy the catalog and all my images to my laptop when I hit the road and all the edits are there in the laptop when I fire it up.</p>

<p> </p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"Not true at all."</strong></p>

<p>Believe me, if I was incorrect, Andrew would have gladly jumped all over it.</p>

<p><strong>"I only backup my catalog once a week or so and I never lose edits by just closing the program and re-opening it without backing up."</strong><br /> <br /> And you shouldn't. And it's not what I said. If you were listening, your edits are there in between the opening and closing of LR because your edits are temporarily held in cache, in memory. Your edits are not written to the database until you chose to back up. There's plenty of horror stories over this were people have not backed up and lost months worth of work when something happens to the .lrcat file.</p>

<p>I 'write changes to xmp' as i work. It doesn't matter what happens to the database, my work is viewable in any Adobe product without worrying about catalog files</p>

<p> </p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Believe me, if I was incorrect, Andrew would have gladly jumped all over it.</p>

It is incorrect.

<blockquote>

If you were listening, your edits are there in between the opening and closing of LR because your edits are temporarily held in cache, in memory.

</blockquote>

Not on this end! The badge clearly indicates that the metadata isn't up to date. The app was opened, then closed. Heck, you can restart the machine. Upon opening LR again, with or without a back up (doesn't matter), the metadata isn't up to date.

 

 

<blockquote>

Your edits are not written to the database until you chose to back up.

 

</blockquote>

Not on this end. Backing up provides no difference in behavior than not backing up.

 

 

Now clearly, one <strong>can</strong> update that data. Where is it stored? Not in the catalog according to the badge which is telling us it wants the data updated. After which it IS in the catalog. Badge disappears.

 

But it's all moot, just leave Auto XMP on.

 

[travismcgee]

<p><em>And you shouldn't. And it's not what I said. If you were listening, your edits are there in between the opening and closing of LR because your edits are temporarily held in cache, in memory. Your edits are not written to the database until you chose to back up. There's plenty of horror stories over this were people have not backed up and lost months worth of work when something happens to the .lrcat file.</em></p>

<p>Sorry, Eric, but you're a bit confused about all this. You're talking about two different things. I'm thinkin' it's probably a really good idea that you write to xmp as you work. Take care.</p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"It is incorrect."</strong></p>

<p>What is? Please cite my words.</p>

<p>You've just told us, we can work like Dave C does, that being we can back up our catalogs today, then work for months without backing it up, and we wont lose our work, our edits/metadata if something happens to the .lrcat file? And furthermore, that if we move this old catalog file to our laptops, we'll see our current work as we recently left it? </p>

[EricM]

<p>Dave, your database, the .lrcat file., is your edits, your <strong>saved</strong> work in LR. It is good as gold, the thing about LR we value most. The only way to alter and update that file is to back up your catalog. Is that confusing? In between your back ups, when you open and close LR, your edits/metadata are stored temporarily.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>Are you confusing "back up" with "save"? When I exit Lightroom my edits are saved to the catalog file. They will still be in that file the next time I open Lightroom and I can continue where I left off. They aren't stored in memory or in a temporary cache somewhere; they're stored in a file on my hard drive. I can even copy that catalog file and my images to my laptop and keep working. Life is good -- unless that catalog file gets damaged, deleted or lost. If that happens, I'm in big trouble unless I backed up my catalog file to another location. The backup is just a copy of the catalog file somewhere else on a hard drive. If my primary catalog file is corrupted, I can just replace it with my backup file and life is good again. Hope that helps. Cheers.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>What is? Please cite my words.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is incorrect (you'd know that if you actually read what I wrote above):</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Your edits are stored in memory/cache <strong>until you chose to back-up your catalog</strong> and <strong>then they are writtten/saved to the catalog.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Backing up a catalog plays no role in writing the edits as I outlined above. Now maybe you have specific steps you'd like to describe along with the OS and version of LR you're using or any pertinent info that would allow us to test your theory. That be a first! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only way to <strong>alter</strong> and update that file is to back up your catalog. Is that confusing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly confusing and probably wrong until you clearly express your point. <br>

You alter your catalog all the time without having to back it up. If your statement is supposed to read:<br>

<em>The only way backup that file is to back up your catalog</em> would be correct and a rather silly statement (but it's par for the course). </p>