DNG

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Are you confusing "back up" with "save"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LR is always saving (on the fly) to the catalog. So yup, he's confused and/or confusing. <br>

Saving to data files (XMP sidecars, DNG, TIFF etc) <strong>isn't</strong> auto <strong>unless</strong> the preferences are so set. Which is a really good idea. <br>

Make a Virtual Copy, boom, you've updated the catalog and you don't have to save anything. It's all done automatically. <br>

The idea that having auto save XMP off, updating some images, then backing up the catalog somehow saves data with this function isn't something I can make work. Until Eric reads what we write carefully (and repeatedly), then writes clearly with steps anyone can follow, I'm going to have to suggest he's way off base. I don't see how backing up a catalog does anything but back up the catalog (and optionally check integrity and optimize). FWIW, I tried the Backup and Optimize and nope, no XMP files were saved following that action.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Saving to data files (XMP sidecars, DNG, TIFF etc) <strong>isn't</strong> auto <strong>unless</strong> the preferences are so set. Which is a really good idea. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually saving to a rendered image <em>should</em> auto update, I have to check. Adobe will not write into a proprietary raw, hence the XMP sidecar files. But TIFF and JPEG, no issue, so there should be no XMP data to save off <strong>from</strong> the file itself in this case. It would make no sense that ACR not write the data into the document but LR may write it into the catalog too. Considering we can easily pass a TIFF or JPEG from LR to ACR and back, leads me to believe that the edits are always stored in that document but one may have to force the issue (Command/Control S). </p>

<p>Frankly it's all moot again if the Auto write XMP is on. Now maybe we can digress back to the topic, how useful (or damaging) DNG's are. Because this XMP rabbit hole we were directed into isn't really a necessary topic. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Anyone catch that last bit of the Stephen Shankland CNET article Andrew linked to about storing xmp sidecar edits in the DNG converted file...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Its chief benefit is a way to store the original image data. But through nondestructive editing tools such as Lightroom, editing changes can be stored as just more metadata. That lets the DNG file store not just the original, but the processed version, too. If you edit your photos with Lightroom, though, <strong>you'll need Adobe's DNG decoder</strong> <strong>to see the changes, since those editing instructions aren't part of the specification."</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now who's being proprietary? I guess it depends on who defines it.</p>

<p>We're photographers, dammit! Not technologists. It's our work, not Adobe's. Reduce the complexity!</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Now who's being proprietary? I guess it depends on who defines it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well since that data by it's nature is proprietary to the ACR engine, doesn't seem like a big deal. Where else would you use instructions that are unique to this raw engine? <br /> The same is true when you edit a rendered image (TIFF, JPEG) in ACR or LR. The instructions can't be used outside those products. And you have to use those instructions and that proprietary engine to build the new iteration you just tried to produce. This isn't like editing a JPEG in say Photoshop, then Graphic Converter where the pixels are altered by those app's and as you pass the TIFF around, everyone see's those edits. The parametric edits are processor tired (down to the version, PV2012 in a TIFF but opened in ACR 6 isn't going to fly).<br>

<br /> Another 'issue' are people who edit this way, then pass the TIFF or JPEG off to someone else who opens that document in something other than LR/ACR. The edits, proprietary or not, are inside the document but have yet to be rendered. So one see's something differently in say Graphic Converter, or Preview which can open that TIFF than what another user saw in ACR.</p>

<p>You can have a raw, DNG, TIFF or otherwise with metadata that says +25 Vibrance. You can hand that off to raw converter A and see it, hand it off to raw converter B and it makes no sense and is ignored. EVEN if raw converter B had a slider named Vibrance. I don't see this data in anyway being an issue where I'd require the DNG decoder.</p>

<p>It's like Eric's silliness about proprietary metadata being removed from a DNG. It's only useful data if you are working with the manufacturer's product that wrote the proprietary data itself. No other product has a clue what to do with this data. Proprietary data is only useful to those who coded it as proprietary and useless to anyone else.</p>

[marc_rochkind]

<p>What a strange thread! I never knew there was so much mythology about DNG, Lightroom, ACR, sidecars, etc.</p>

<p>Anyway, to clarify what I said about no longer using DNGs because I use Lightroom: If I ever sync'd changes back to my images, I probably would use DNG. But, I never do that. I'm totally comfortable with them existing only in the LR database. I think of my raws as being inside LR, not just affiliated with it.</p>

<p>Of course, any work product that comes out of LR via export, printing, etc., does contain my LR edits.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Andrew, I meant that comment as a statement about the "Big Picture" broader view on why adopting DNG format seems to get mixed opinions as witnessed in this thread. Are there accurate stats on how many are converting to this format? What's the percentages? This format's been around for some time and we keep getting into the same debates over it with even more and newer updates to this technology and folks still not using it.</p>

<p>It feels like photographer's images are being held ransom by creating a fear their images are going to be unreadable decades down the road due to the complexities created by competing technologies that don't seem to act truly in the photographer's best interests.</p>

<p>A photographer's already wearing many hats from buying equipment, setting up shoots, archiving, organizing and editing thousands of images that any added worries over technology is just going to discourage them into not deciding and just taking the easiest route.</p>

<p>I'm getting the impression most are kinda' waiting to see how and what DNG evolves into before jumping in seeing Adobe's the only company that's adding and updating features and improvements to the DNG converter that aren't in the DNG specs but just so happens to integrate with Adobe only image editing apps as if it's "their proprietary baby" software. Why aren't other major companies besides Adobe getting active in this. It's a well known format by now.</p>

<p>The more Adobe keeps sweetening the DNG pot FOR FREE I think makes some photographers a bit suspicious and apprehensive converting thousands of their images based primarily on a fear if they don't, they won't be able to edit or view them decades down the road due to software obsolescence while at the same time seeing the level of power and control through complexity by software engineers who basically are perceived as being able to place a combination lock on photographer's hard work and blame it on advances in technology.</p>

<p>BTW, Andrew, did you ever find out in the linked Eric Chan discussion below what Sandy was alluding to about embedded matrices that determine the "untagged" native RGB primaries ASSIGNED in a Raw converter to generate normalized previews from the linear data in a Lossy DNG spec? It's right after Eric's post 27 in this discussion I got off the Shankland article...</p>

<p>http://forums.adobe.com/message/4132283#4132283</p>

[jeff_schewe]

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew, I meant that comment as a statement about the "Big Picture" broader view on why adopting DNG format seems to get mixed opinions as witnessed in this thread. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Mixed reviews based on ignorance? DNG has a lot of options and benefits...it stores the .xmp metadata <em>IN</em> the file, not as sidecars...</p>

<p>DNG allows for lossless (or lossy if you choose) compression...</p>

<p>You can decide to create DNGs that are downsampled and thus a <em>LOT </em>smaller than the original raw files which is useful if you understand the implications, you might want to read: <a href="http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/dng-file-format-and-dng-converter.html">DNG File Format & DNG Converter</a> that's in the March/April edition of Digital Photo Pro magazine...and, yes...I admit to being responsible for writing that–it's an excerpt from my book.</p>

<p>As for your questions regarding Eric responding to those messages, what don't you understand about what Eric wrote? I might be able to fill in the blanks, otherwise I'll ask Eric to do so...it's not really rocket science...DNG is a lot easier to grasp if you know what you are talking about.</p>

<p> </p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>it stores the .xmp metadata <em>IN</em> the file</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Which is, of course, what some people perversely categorise as "un-Rawing" the file.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Which is, of course, what some people perversely categorise as "un-Rawing" the file</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which of course isn't true. But what some people perversely believe is sometimes wrong. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>It feels like photographer's images are being held ransom by creating a fear their images are going to be unreadable decades down the road due to the complexities created by competing technologies that don't seem to act truly in the photographer's best interests.</p>

</blockquote>

I feel that fear only due to experiencing this issue over the years.

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Which of course isn't true. But what some people perversely believe is sometimes wrong.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, that's my point, Andrew - and it drives such a lot of the nonsense in this and <em>every other</em> similar discussion on the subject of DNG.</p>

<p>It never fails to amaze me how much effort and - <em>ahem! - </em>"creativity" people are prepared to invest in discrediting an entirely optional, utterly benign, possibly very advantageous, alternative file format...</p>

[sekhar_ravinutala]

<p>I think the pushback comes from either not liking Adobe or being uncomfortable with change in general. So it comes to rationalizing/justifying the decision you made (for whatever reason) to not adopt DNG. Kind of like what happens when you mention "guns" on a forum.</p>

<p>I was a long-term Canon RAW user until a recent thread (on another forum) that degenerated into similar slug-fest, but after seeing cogent arguments like what Andrew posted here I got convinced to take a closer look at DNG. And I ended up switching to DNG (and am converting all my old raw images into DNG). So, these threads do help even if they look hopeless.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I think the pushback comes from either not liking Adobe or being uncomfortable with change in general.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. There's so much misinformation out on the web. People don't check the facts or have any clue about peer review. <br>

Just in the last 48 hours, I saw a post elsewhere when someone said "<em>Why should I buy a wide gamut display when <strong>all printers print in sRGB</strong></em><strong>?</strong>" That urban rumor never dies. Then I read someone who stated that "Everything on <em>the web is always 72dpi</em>" despite numerous posters trying to explain that's not true. We even tried to teach him how to measure his display and use simple math to determine the exact resolution of his display. No good, they guy just would not accept this fact. </p>

<p>Some people just can't accept facts. If you provide such facts, it's fine if someone disagrees and illustrates why and how the text is mistaken. That give and take adds useful data points to all. But then there are those folks who only believe in what can only be described as a religious belief system on the topic of imaging and no amount of facts or peer review will convince them otherwise. Their usual tactic is avoiding direct questions as to how they developed their understandings, or they funnel the discussion away from their obvious misunderstandings. There's no helping such people, their minds are closed to learning, testing, educating themselves but boy, their opinions are strong and unbending. Examples are found in just this set of posts. The discussion will die away only to reappear weeks later. The same poster's will regurgitate their silly ideas once again. The people who suffer are those like the OP here who asks a legitimate question and has no idea that some of the nonsense then posted is, well nonsense. </p>

 

[travismcgee]

<p>Can anyone comment on my two concerns?</p>

<p>How true is it that some competitions require a camera-created RAW file to prove originality? I'm still waiting for the right time to submit my Bigfoot photo and I'd hate to convert it and be disqualified.</p>

<p>What third-party software programs won't process a DNG file and are there alternatives? I'm afraid that the day after I convert everything someone will come out with a program that guarantees the cover of <em>National Geographic,</em> but it won't process DNGs. That would be a serious bummer.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

[sekhar_ravinutala]

<p>Yes, this is actually a pretty interesting human behavior trait. Check out the <a href="http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2010/10/why-people-dont-change-their-minds-even-when-faced-facts">experiment</a> conducted on this. Money quote from that article:</p>

<p>“In all three cases, Gal and Zucker found that doubt turns people into stronger advocates,” writes Yong. “More subtly, their study shows that this effect is stronger if someone’s identity is threatened, if the belief is important to them, and if they think that others will listen. It all fits with a pattern of behaviour where people evangelise to strengthen their own faltering beliefs.”</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>How true is it that some competitions require a camera-created RAW file to prove originality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you referring to those who are examining the image for legal reasons or those who don't have a clue and are referring to a photo contest whereby sending them any raw files is ridiculous and unnecessary? Any photo competition that would:<br>

A. Ask for your raw instead of the image as you've processed it or<br>

B. Would not accept a DNG because it's not A above.<br>

Should be ignored big time. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>What third-party software programs won't process a DNG file and are there alternatives?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most of the big 2 camera manufacturers don't accept DNG. As for other raw converters, you'd have to look at each possible solution and see if they do support the format (and if not, ask if they would). The later might help get what you wish, doing nothing, or bitching about DNG certainly will not help. <br>

<br>

Some companies are VERY respective. Case in point is Raw Developer (now called Iridient Developer). It has some support for DNG but not full support for DNG profiles. I wrote to the owner asking about this. About a week later, he updated his software which now supports what I asked for. You don't ask, you don't get. Hence my push to having those who don't like to use DNG at least accept some of us do, and negative pushback gains nothing for either group. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm afraid that the day after I convert everything someone will come out with a program that guarantees the cover of <em>National Geographic,</em> but it won't process DNGs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why would you expect NG would process your DNG or raw? It's like expecting to send them your negatives. You'd send them a good print (either one you print or one a good lab prints). I'd never, repeat never send a client my raws or DNG's. </p>

[travismcgee]

<p><strong><em>I'm afraid that the day after I convert everything someone will come out with a program that guarantees the cover of National Geographic, but it won't process DNGs.</em></strong><br>

<em>Why would you expect NG would process your DNG or raw? It's like expecting to send them your negatives. You'd send them a good print (either one you print or one a good lab prints). I'd never, repeat never send a client my raws or DNG's.</em></p>

<p>You missed the point on that one. No matter.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>“<em>In all three cases, Gal and Zucker found that doubt turns people into stronger advocates,” writes Yong. “More subtly, their study shows that this effect is stronger if someone’s identity is threatened, if the belief is important to them, and if they think that others will listen. It all fits with a pattern of behaviour where people evangelise to strengthen their own faltering beliefs.”</em></p>

<p>John D. MacDonald said that very well in the 1960s in one of his Travis McGee novels:</p>

<p>"There is a wholly mistaken zeal in politics, as well as religion. By convincing others, we convince ourselves."</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>"There is a wholly mistaken zeal in politics, as well as religion. By convincing others, we convince ourselves."</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

 

<p>That's an issue with both politics and religion, neither puts much credence in the scientific methods. For some, carbon dating doesn't prove the Earth isn't 6000 years old. Evolution is a theory, so it's half baked. Little point in trying to have a conversation in those terms, you either believe or you don't despite any actual facts. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Mixed reviews based on ignorance?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The DNG format has been around at least 5 years now and there are still quite a few who remain ignorant, Jeff, so I'ld say it's an epic fail on the part of the DNG evangelists who are too ignorant to understand most folks who create content (pro's, amateurs and family snap shooter archivists) expect the industry as a whole they supported with their hard earned cash to do the work (not the customer) in making sure the customer's content is at least viewable decades from now.</p>

<p>Maybe it's going to take an act of Congress to write and enact a Bill that will force the digital imaging industry which includes ALL software and hardware vendors to act in the best interests of the customers in making this stuff less complex and cumbersome that doesn't require an upgrade just so the customer's content is viable years down the road. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>The DNG format has been around at least 5 years now and there are still quite a few who remain ignorant...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can substitute DNG Format in that sentence with a lot of other items (the DPI of the web, the bit about sRGB, that bit depth provides more d-range, that a wider gamut means more colors etc). I guess what I'm saying is, there are some rather clueless users out there! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'ld say it's an epic fail on the part of the DNG evangelists who are too ignorant to understand most folks who create content (pro's, amateurs and family snap shooter archivists) expect the industry as a whole they supported with their hard earned cash to do the work (not the customer) in making sure the customer's content is at least viewable decades from now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At least a few of the so called DNG evangelists have their facts and understating of the issues correct. All '<em>we</em>' can do is attempt to educate others then let them go do what they feel is best. Just look at the admission of one DNG non-evangelist: <em><strong>I've gone through the ringer</strong>, from native raws, to years of dng, and back to native raws. </em><br>

Some folks need help...<br>

</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>...it stores the .xmp metadata <em>IN</em> the file, not as sidecars...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I already know that, Jeff, but what does the point made by Shankland mean by having to use the Adobe Decoder to access the edits embedded in the DNG...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Its chief benefit is a way to store the original image data. But through nondestructive editing tools such as Lightroom, editing changes can be stored as just more metadata. That lets the DNG file store not just the original, but the processed version, too. If you edit your photos with Lightroom, though, <strong>you'll need Adobe's DNG decoder</strong><strong>to see the changes, since those editing instructions aren't part of the specification."</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Why can't the edits be read by other "nondestructive editing" tools that aren't made by Adobe? Why not make all edits applied be readable by all Raw converters who adopt and read DNG format? It makes Adobe the author of the edits that were applied by their customer who paid Adobe for using Adobe's software, thus it creates a combination lock that pretty much makes Adobe the owner of the edits, not their customer by adopting a standardized format that's owned and shared by all and open source.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Why can't the edits be read by other "nondestructive editing" tools that aren't made by Adobe?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Cause it's proprietary? Did you see my Vibrance analogy? <br>

You can easily open and view the XMP metadata of a sidecar. Might be far more difficult to extract that from the DNG. But what good is having a text file that reads "Vibrance +25" when only the ACR engine that expects that text can use it? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why not make all edits applied be readable by all Raw converters who adopt and read DNG format?<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the same reason we here are writing in English and not Korean. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Here's an idea. How about Adobe include the capability to embed a full rez uncompressed Tiff or Jpeg reflecting the user's edits applied by Adobe editing software so it can be extracted by the end user decades later. That way there's no need to keep the original Raw and the user can access the edited image later on without having to keep up to date with DNG specs and Adobe editing software updates/upgrades.</p>

<p>This would alleviate customer's fears who don't want to feel they have to keep upgrading through Adobe just to view and edit their images.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>How about Adobe include the capability to embed a full rez uncompressed Tiff or Jpeg reflecting the user's edits applied by Adobe editing software so it can be extracted by the end user decades later.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One can do that today with DNG (somewhat). You can control the size of an embedded JPEG that has the current rendering inside the DNG container. Been that way for years. Peter Krogh, author of The DAM Book showed me larger (11x14) prints from such data he extracted from a DNG and they looked great. I can't recall what he used to get out the JPEG but it wasn't anything exotic. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>That way there's no need to keep the original Raw<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That be a bad idea unless you're 100% certain you're done processing. That's a huge advantage of raw un-rendered data. Prefect example is taking raws you've edited with PV2010, then updating to PV2012. </p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>This would alleviate customer's fears who don't want to feel they have to keep upgrading through Adobe just to view and edit their images.</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>Doubt it since the fears are mostly unfounded. You don't hear people fearful of saving a PSD do you? What's the difference in terms of fear of Adobe? IF they are so fearful, you'd think they would scream for MORE DNG support from others, not the opposite. But photographers are often their own worst enemy .</p>