Is anything lost converting to DNG?

[Avotius]

So as cameras come along the raw formats they shoot might not be happy with whatever program you like. I was curious as this has just started to happen to me, before I always was fine with my Canon raw files.

So if I convert raw files shot in whatever camera to DNG using Adobe DNG Converter, is there anything that is being lost in the process?


Thanks

~C

 

[kxl]

Proprietary metadata are not included in DNG - one example off the top of my head is NEF Active D lighting -- included in .NEF files, but not in DNG.

Other than proprietary metadata, DNG is lossless encoding.

 

[Godfrey]

Proprietary metadata are not included in DNG - one example off the top of my head is NEF Active D lighting -- included in .NEF files, but not in DNG.

Other than proprietary metadata, DNG is lossless encoding.

Actually, the private data is transferred into the DNG files as private makernotes, it's just not used by anything that reads DNG format. For instance, the NEF Active D lighting is only processed from NEF files in Nikon's proprietary software, and their software does not recognize DNG format.

G

 

[Ranchu]

Lol. Yes, you lose the ability to use the camera manufacturer's raw converter, which makes superior conversions, and gain nothing. DNG is a scam to gain market share for adobe. Come on now.

 

[c.poulton]

Ranchu, that's interesting - I always thought that DNG was an open source RAW file format - is it owned by Adobe?

 

[Ranchu]

They created it and named it 'an open source raw format'. However if you want to use it as you buy cameras, you'll have to pay for upgrades to ACR/Lightroom as you do so, and I guess you'll have to rent access to your files by the month soon, if you aren't already. So you tell me?

 

[gavinlg]

Don't do it! I thought it would be a great idea to convert all the files from my 5d mk1 in the year 2011 to DNG as an experiment. Looking back 5 years down the track, adobe has made significant strides with their raw conversion of 5d files of which all the CR2 raw files can utilize, but the DNG files can not - meaning they are stuck with the 2011 method of conversion while the CR2 files of around the same time have less noise, better sharpness, and use the much improved parameters of adjustment.

DNG is the biggest load of garbage around. Standardised my ass. There's also two types of DNG file and each of them has different parameters and functions. It's just a stupid format.

 

[willie_901]

• No image information is lost during DNG conversion.
• Proprietary parameters are unavailable.
• The DNG license is free and does not expire. The license includes all the information required to convert DNG to other raw formats. No one does this because it's pointless (see below). If DNG conversion ever becomes useful/necessary, it will be both legal and straightforward to implement.
• DNG is only useful if you use Adobe products. Other image rendering software may accommodate DNG, but the main motivation is for those who use Adobe's software. In this case DNG does have advantages.
• Given the low cost of data storage and the data transfer speeds common today, it is trivial to store the out-of-camera raw files (and a back ups) as well as use DNG.

When a camera brand, such as Leica, uses DNG as their in-camera raw format, they save a great deal of time and money.

 

[Ranchu]

None of that is any reason to use it over the original files. Canon and Nikon aren't trying to charge me monthly rent on my IP, as adobe currently is. Also, their raw converters are free and produce superior results. I'm sure Adobe is well aware of that, hence this DNG scam. Luckily, like gavinlg, I only made the DNG mistake once.

 

[Avotius]

Wow I never knew there was so many anti DNG feelings. I guess I better find a different way to figure stuff out then.

 

[Ranchu]

I for one am very glad the Adobe period of my existence is long over.

😛

 

[jarski]

my whole raw library since 2007 or so, has been converted to DNG. often it was automatic step when I was pulling files from card to computer. I continue with current project am having, but then stop conversion. Reason is same as mentioned above few times.

When a camera brand, such as Leica, uses DNG as their in-camera raw format, they save a great deal of time and money.

there are DNG files and DNG files. these in-camera DNG's can be opened editors like Capture One without problems. but if you try to use converted DNG, only Adobe's own software continue to work as intended. Converted files basically lock user into Adobe's realm, and their future paying schemes.

 

[Godfrey]

I haven't read so much misinformation in quite a while. You folks sure are a bitter lot.

G

 

[jarski]

I haven't read so much misinformation ...

if you're referring to my comment. it wont take long google to find out problems with non-Adobe raw editors, and files from Adobe DNG Converter.

 

[nikkor-watching]

I haven't read so much misinformation in quite a while. You folks sure are a bitter lot.

G

Well, that was informative! Still, postcount+1, eh?

 

[Godfrey]

if you're referring to my comment. it wont take long google to find out problems with non-Adobe raw editors, and files from Adobe DNG Converter.

Well, that was informative! Still, postcount+1, eh?

Nikkor: I rarely see the point of debating such dogmatic statements. But yes, as jarski says, it's easy to verify the false information in these negative posts.

I have raw files from eighteen different high end cameras in my libraries, accumulated over the past fifteen years or so. Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Sony, Hasselblad, Pentax, in several different models. I have all the native and DNG files from them, the makers' image processing software, and about eight third party processing apps all of which read DNG files in addition to the native formats. They all work just fine.

G

 

[mfogiel]

This is off topic, but I'd like to point you to this:https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:UBCx+China300.1x+3T2015/info
- very smart lecturer and a good summary about life in general

 

[Godfrey]

This is off topic, but I'd like to point you to this:https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:UBCx+China300.1x+3T2015/info
- very smart lecturer and a good summary about life in general

Not a very useful link. There's no information there other than a course name, unless you're a registered user and sign in.

G

 

[willie_901]

None of that is any reason to use it over the original files.
...

We weren't discussing the advantages of DNG if one enjoys using Adobe products. There was no attempt to convince people they should use DNG or Adobe products.

Adobe deserves criticism for several reasons. DNG isn't one of them. Attacking DNG based on misinformation gives Adobe a pass on areas of their business they could improve.

 

[Ranchu]

So you're just dismissing gavinlg and jarski's experience as 'misinformation'? I'm sorry, that's not really how it works, just calling them liars doesn't refute what they're saying.

This DNG scam and their **** raw converter, as well as their creepy pricing schemes are all excellent reasons to criticize Adobe, imo, so I'll keep right on doing it.