I finally started shooting in DNG. WOW!

This was my reaction when I first started shooting my Nikon DSLR in RAW mode. There is just so much more information that images are naturally better. As for my M8, I have never shot it in JPG mode. The reports of poor quality JPG images put me off and I took it as a necessity that with this camera saving in DNG is the only way to go.
 
raid said:
Sylvester said that DNG is shooting in RAW.
Click to expand...

That's correct - .DNG is a "generic" RAW file that software packages can process.

I shoot a Sony NEX6 - the RAW output is Sony's proprietary .ARW file.

If I had the latest version of Photoshop, I could open the .ARW file using Adobe Camera Raw. However, since I am only on Photoshop CS v5.1, I have to convert the .ARW file to a .DNG file (using Adobe DNG converter), then open the resulting DNG file in Photoshop.
 
I think you should get Lightroom as soon as possible; other than editing your photos, LR also has functions to sort and backup your images. The sooner you get your "library" up and running, the less work it'll be.

Besides, it's a really nice software for processing raw images :)
 
Raid, in the M9 (not sure about the M8) you have an option to shoot either uncompressed DNG or compressed DNG (smaller files). I believe the uncompressed DNG saves in full 14-bit format, and might give just that little extra bit of information to make a great shot the best it can be. Memory (SD cards) is cheap, so I use the uncompressed DNG file, just in case! :)
 
I find that where it makes the most obvious difference is when you have extremes - blown highlights or shadows. The extra information hidden in those 12 or 14 bit files makes a difference to the image quality. Of course I do not think it makes a difference to image quality whether files are in DNG or some other RAW format (if you have a system that uses a proprietary form of RAW). What counts are all those lovely extra bits of information.
 
peterm1 said:
I find that where it makes the most obvious difference is when you have extremes - blown highlights or shadows. The extra information hidden in those 12 or 14 bit files makes a difference to the image quality. Of course I do not think it makes a difference to image quality whether files are in DNG or some other RAW format (if you have a system that uses a proprietary form of RAW). What counts are all those lovely extra bits of information.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Plus another matter : sharpness.

Only properly processed RAW files will do justice to your $$$ prime lenses.

High-end digital cameras (Leica M and other full-frame DSLRs) are all designed to be used in RAW image quality.

There, not all RAW-engine softwares are equal ; some will pull the most off the RAW data, some won't.

With the M9 files, Capture One is said to be the best software.
 
raid said:
Thank you for the tip, Sylvester. So the TIFF version keeps the adjustments while the DNG file keeps the raw information saved.
Click to expand...

When working on a DNG/RAW file you're basically assigning instructions to the file that are rendered when the image is exported as TIFF/PSD/JPEG ext copy.

When working on a TIFF/PSD file you're editing/changing the actual pixels of the image. Which is why its a good idea to use layers, often referred to as none destructive editing, when working on Photoshop.
 
Hello raid,
once you get the hang of it (processing in LR), you will feel you have wasted quite a bit of IQ shooting jpg. Honestly in my book jpg is for point 'n shoot or phones in order to post online instantly.

The in-camera processing might do a descend job but in no way it is able to squeeze out the maximum possible IQ out of the original raw files.

I hope you have a decent desktop and calibrated monitor though, otherwise this is the next what you might need besides the editing software...
 
Hi,

my 2 ct:

strange to see that the topic opener has more then 20.000 posts here and now finally discovers that RAW files are better to edit then JPG's......:rolleyes:
J
 
But if you run LR, there is no need for the TIFF, surely? You can just retain the DNG (Backed up of course) with your catalogue (also backed up). This alone means you can output the finished image in any format or size you need at a later date.

The TIFF is presumably only useful if you end up without LR or a vehicle that can interpret the LR adjustments?
 
icebear said:
. . . .
I hope you have a decent desktop and calibrated monitor though, otherwise this is the next what you might need besides the editing software...
Click to expand...

A good printer also, and calibrated (is that the correct term ? ) to your
monitor. I think the step up to shooting RAW needs all these things to benefit your
printed pictures. If ultimately your objective is JPG's for the web or other
peoples' monitors, I am skeptical how much better RAW will make your pictures appear on the screen,
esp if you don't have the hardware (as above) to support it.

If I am very wrong, I am ready to be corrected, but please read what I typed before your torch my opinion.
 
Turtle said:
But if you run LR, there is no need for the TIFF, surely? You can just retain the DNG (Backed up of course) with your catalogue (also backed up). This alone means you can output the finished image in any format or size you need at a later date.

The TIFF is presumably only useful if you end up without LR or a vehicle that can interpret the LR adjustments?
Click to expand...

This is a long-debated subject on some of the Lightroom forums. Consider it this way:

Lightroom interprets the raw data into an RGB component representation and then displays that for you. It stores all the edits you make ... IPTC annotation, adjustments to cropping, color, tonal space, selective area edits, and so forth ... as parametric instructions in its database. Each time you click on a file to view it, LR applies those instructions to the raw data to render the image into a viewable form (or quickly retrieves the image from its preview catalog if nothing has changed since the last time it loaded it).

You never have to export the finished form of your raw image into a TIFF, JPEG, or PSD file until you need to use it in some application outside of Lightroom. HOWEVER, the finished rendering of the image with all your adjustments is 100% dependent upon a specific version of the Lightroom raw conversion and instruction processor. If Lightroom is updated and you reopen a finished image in the new update, there is no guarantee that it will look the same as it did before you updated because the instructions are interpreted, a dynamic thing. Small changes can have largish effects on the rendering.

JPEGs, TIFFs, PSDs, PNGs ... these are all RGB component format files. Lightroom does not have to interpret any rendering instructions to display them, it simply has to read the format and display them according to the standard algorithm. (Note that if you START with any of these formats and do any adjustments in Lightroom to them, you have to treat them the same way as you treat raw files..)

My recommendation is to always export your finished work into one of the RGB formats when it is finished, and then archive and catalog that separately from the raw files. Whether you want to build your archives around the maximum expression of the work (16bit per component TIFF at full size) or use some more economical on-disk format to save space it up to you, but at least this way if a Lightroom update changes the raw rendering interpreter in any substantive way, you know that all your hard work in tuning your image files has not been lost.

G
 
I am not familiar with LR, but have you experienced this issue?

I still seldom shoot anything but Jpgs, I hate "darkrooms" of any kind, but just lived with the decisions of Kodak engineers and chemists, and now Japanese Jpg engines.

I suspect that there are many like me, i like taking the photos, but I was used to Kodak (and my printer Duggal) doing the rest.
Click to expand...

I have seen this with Lightroom, Camera Raw, Iridient Raw Developer, Capture One, and Aperture in recent memory. If they didn't change the rendering at some point or another as the raw converter algorithms are developed further, there would be no difference between any of them, or between any versions of any of them, and no reason to choose one over the other.

We differ in another respect. I always hated sending my films off to Kodak or whomever to process and print. Doing that is, in fact, just as inconsistent and they rarely get what I have in my mind's eye, particularly with B&W work. That becomes immediately evident when I scan 200+ slides, and a thousand negatives, taken over a thirty+ year period of time...

A digital camera's in-camera JPEG engine is at least a couple of orders of magnitude more consistent, and you have at least some crude control of it, so I have run "JPEGs only" at various times in the past decade with digital cameras and some and gotten some excellent results out of it.

But doing that, for me, really requires that I learn not only the essentials of timing, exposure, and focus when I'm shooting. I have to also know what setups for the camera's image processing to use. I don't like to think about that so much when I'm shooting, I'd rather think about it afterwards by picking developer, making my rendering customizations, etc.

There are a lot of different ways to go about doing photography. I like to make exposures, I like to render them into what I had in mind when I made them later on. I don't expect any machinery or other people to do it for me in an automated fashion.

Heck, I can't even let my Polaroid cameras do the job without scanning and editing its output. :)

G
 
I hope my explanation helps to demystify some of the comments and answers in this post. Please forgive me if others have done a better job explaining or you already know all this.

in a rathersimple nutshell, what happens when lightroom or any other raw processor converts a rawfile to another fomat, it writes what is known as a sidecar file and attches it to the raw file. this is kind of like a word document of all the things that the raw processor (eg lightroom) did to the file and includes things like cropping color correction,sharpening, to name a few. The next time lightroom opens the same file it usese this side car file as a starting point so you dont have to reinvent the wheel each time.
Now to your question.
Lets say the last time you opened a particular raw/dng file you were using a version of lightroom that is a few versions old. your new version of lightroom will recognize that and ask you if you want to open the file with the parameters established form the last version. if you answer yes, your opened file will look the same as it did when you last opened it. if you say that you want lightroom to use its current set of tools to reinterpret your old instructions then your file will look different. its important to note that even if you choose this option you have a choice of viewing a before and after version of your reinterpreted file before accepting it.
i hope this helps.

Best regards,
Kwesi
 
Godfrey said:
I have seen this with Lightroom, Camera Raw, Iridient Raw Developer, Capture One, and Aperture in recent memory. If they didn't change the rendering at some point or another as the raw converter algorithms are developed further, there would be no difference between any of them, or between any versions of any of them, and no reason to choose one over the other.
Click to expand...

With Camera Raw for PS CS6 there is an option to "update to current process" or open it as it was processed in the previous iteration of Camera Raw. Once the update button is pressed there is no going back. (sorta like crossing - never mind)

The image I just double-checked with had sliders maxed out in the new version of Camera Raw, and I don't recall well enough how the sliders differ anymore.
 
Exactly! The added bonus of shooting raw is that you can "develop" your film once or you can keep redeveloping your film whenever a better developer hits the market or your own developing skills improve. you cant overwrite a raw file.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom