Contarama
Well-known
I have recently been studying the various digital image formats and RAW in particular and have come across Adobe's DNG. I was wondering how many of you folks use this format in your digital workflow, does it have any significant advantages over other file formats, and do you think that it will one day become the industry standard?
gavinlg
Veteran
No. I went through the DNG phase converted all the photos from canon raw (cr2) files to DNG files from a Japan trip in 09. Since then there's been many updates to ACR/lightroom and usually with each update they improve the raw conversion quality - high iso noise gets better, colors get better etc. All files got better except the DNGs, which for some reason stayed the same - as if they've already been converted. It's a ****ty format that has no real advantages over any other - think about how many millions or hundreds of millions of canons and nikons have been produced over the last 10 years - their files aren't just going to disappear.
matt_mcg2
Established
Traditionally, at least in my experience, long-term digital image archives use TIFFs. Although lossless jpeg2000 (and some other less common formats) are in use in some institutions. I'm talking about institutional archives here. Museums, galleries, libraries, etc.*
It depends what you mean by archiving, though? Do you just mean personal files that you want to come back to some day in the not to distant future? Or images you want to be able to read in a couple of decades?
Matt
* this is my job. So I know about this. But I don't know much about what individual pro photographers do.
It depends what you mean by archiving, though? Do you just mean personal files that you want to come back to some day in the not to distant future? Or images you want to be able to read in a couple of decades?
Matt
* this is my job. So I know about this. But I don't know much about what individual pro photographers do.
ShinX414
camera geek
i don't thinking it is the "best" format to use since our software can handle a wide varity of raw files but it is the most flexible in my opinion since we can use them even if our software is not up to date. That's sth you won't be able to do for other raw files. I remember how frustrated i was when the Fuji X raw files couldn't be opened in PS5 and they didn't plan to update the raw converters for this version.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It certainly is not as future proof as ISO standards like TIFF or JPEG.
DNG is Adobe proprietary, and will presumably be dead once Adobe abandon it or evaporate - and going by the usual survival rates in the software industry it is rather unlikely that Adobe will still be around (at least in their current form) in two decades. Kodak PhotoCD (the first big RAW format, with similar licensing) did not make it past Kodak's decline either.
DNG is Adobe proprietary, and will presumably be dead once Adobe abandon it or evaporate - and going by the usual survival rates in the software industry it is rather unlikely that Adobe will still be around (at least in their current form) in two decades. Kodak PhotoCD (the first big RAW format, with similar licensing) did not make it past Kodak's decline either.
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
DNG may be an Adobe created file format but it is an open standard. Fortunately the camera brands I shoot creates the DNG raw file in camera. So I don't have to worry about the conversion.
willie_901
Veteran
While Adobe has many serious shortcomings. There are some thinga about Adobe I intensely dislike.
But the facts are the facts... DNG is not proprietary. The US Library of Congress recommends DNG for archiving digital images.
dNG is based on the TIFF/EP standards. The open-source, royalty-free aspects of the format are the reasons why it is a good choose for long-term storage.
What are the speculative liabilities of using DNG?
Adobe goes bankrupt:
someone will realize they can make money selling software that translates DNG into the new formats
Adobe reverses their open source policy:
stop using DNG and convert DNGs to something else.
DNG has several advantages over TIFF if you use Adobe's products. It has no disadvantages. Every update of ACR has positively affected the rendering of my existing DNG files.
Stephen G
Well-known
Personally, I keep all shots in RAW format of the camera maker.
The 'best' get exported to JPEG as well.
Both of these file versions are backed up via multiple methods to multiple drives/blurays/etc.
Further, the best of the best worth sharing are printed & posted online.
Was at a wake/funeral, and something that really stuck out to me is the ability of physical prints to last generations.
Photos that were 30,50,70 years old.. all looked fine.
And these were all kept in simple albums/shoeboxes/whatever non-archival/not-acid-free storage that would drive a photographer crazy.
For a serious photographer, its easy enough to archive/backup to infinite copies with digital.
But the average consumer really has no idea what to do, and is a hard drive failure away from photo memory oblivion.
I think the burden of photo management that digital places upon the average consumer is going to lead to a lot of lost memories.
Two recent personal examples..
My father keeps all his photos on SD cards in a drawer. He has upwards of a dozen cards going back years. I tried to tell him that SD cards lose data, and that he needs to get them onto a PC...
Recent conversation with friends basically boiled down to - they take so many digital photos, never sit down to filter/edit/post/print because it's too overwhelming and they don't want to delete anything.
And I say this as a 90% digital guy only recently re-engaged in a fling with film.
So anyway, in summary, I'd add - PRINT stuff, to whatever digital methods you do choose.
The 'best' get exported to JPEG as well.
Both of these file versions are backed up via multiple methods to multiple drives/blurays/etc.
Further, the best of the best worth sharing are printed & posted online.
Was at a wake/funeral, and something that really stuck out to me is the ability of physical prints to last generations.
Photos that were 30,50,70 years old.. all looked fine.
And these were all kept in simple albums/shoeboxes/whatever non-archival/not-acid-free storage that would drive a photographer crazy.
For a serious photographer, its easy enough to archive/backup to infinite copies with digital.
But the average consumer really has no idea what to do, and is a hard drive failure away from photo memory oblivion.
I think the burden of photo management that digital places upon the average consumer is going to lead to a lot of lost memories.
Two recent personal examples..
My father keeps all his photos on SD cards in a drawer. He has upwards of a dozen cards going back years. I tried to tell him that SD cards lose data, and that he needs to get them onto a PC...
Recent conversation with friends basically boiled down to - they take so many digital photos, never sit down to filter/edit/post/print because it's too overwhelming and they don't want to delete anything.
And I say this as a 90% digital guy only recently re-engaged in a fling with film.
So anyway, in summary, I'd add - PRINT stuff, to whatever digital methods you do choose.
Pioneer
Veteran
I archive in DNG and TIFF.
Shac
Well-known
My feelings exactly Dave - never understood the search for photographic immortality but that's just me
+1 on that!
I can assure you that no one in my own family will give a rat's about my hard drive(s) and what is on them. It will be a miracle if they keep any negatives, sides and/or prints that interest them but much more likely than keeping a bunch of electronic gizmos that either won't work, batteries are obsolete, or that have been sent to the landfill ages before.
Ronald M
Veteran
Keep the original raw format, dup into DNG if you must to use older ACR .
Nikon and Canon will always support their raw format.
Nikon and Canon will always support their raw format.
Ranchu
Veteran
Absolutely not. DNG is a market share scam by Adobe to make users dependent on them and their substandard conversions. Note you have to have a macbeth chart in the shot to use the crap, neither Nikon or Canon requires this. Avoid. (Aside from Leica, which I understand use DNG format for their raws?)
Sam N
Well-known
I'm amazed how much bad information is in this thread.
First of all, DNG does not lock you into the ACR that was around at the time you converted your files, so the premise behind post #2 in this thread is wrong.
DNG does NOT lock you into ACR conversion because Capture One supports DNG (and anyone can make a DNG interpreter). The only things it locks you out of are 1st party apps like DPP, Capture NX, Sigma Photo Pro, etc.
As for archiving, DNG offers MD5 hashes built in. This means you can check to see if your files are corrupt. With Lightroom 5 you can check all DNGs in your catalog with one click.
TIFF and DNG aren't really comparable because one is for storage of rasterized image data and the other is a RAW file format.
Read this article by Peter Krogh for more information: http://dpbestflow.org/DNG
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't use DNG, but just be aware of the facts.
First of all, DNG does not lock you into the ACR that was around at the time you converted your files, so the premise behind post #2 in this thread is wrong.
DNG does NOT lock you into ACR conversion because Capture One supports DNG (and anyone can make a DNG interpreter). The only things it locks you out of are 1st party apps like DPP, Capture NX, Sigma Photo Pro, etc.
As for archiving, DNG offers MD5 hashes built in. This means you can check to see if your files are corrupt. With Lightroom 5 you can check all DNGs in your catalog with one click.
TIFF and DNG aren't really comparable because one is for storage of rasterized image data and the other is a RAW file format.
Read this article by Peter Krogh for more information: http://dpbestflow.org/DNG
I'm not saying you should or shouldn't use DNG, but just be aware of the facts.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I agree. This thread demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about digital archiving and DNG format by most of the participants.
First question in digital archiving you should be thinking about: Are you interested to archive your finished work or your raw data. DNG files are raw data files, they are not finished work.
Raw files are always subject to the interpretation of a raw processing application.
If you are looking to archive your finished work, it needs to be in a different format, one which can encapsulate in a fixed manner the work you've put into the image rendering.
If you are looking to archive your raw data, DNG is a good, solid raw format, the only one with a publicly distributed format specification.
Archival quality prints might be the best overall way to archive your finished work for the ages, or at least for your kids and friends, but that does not obviate the need to archive and maintain your digital data as well. Even if you personally are the only person who will ever benefit from digital archiving of your work, you sure don't want to lose all the raw AND finished digital photographs you've made while you're still alive. After you pass away, what happens to all of that is up to your descendants and is no longer your concern, same as for your prints.
G
Ranchu
Veteran
Yeah, huh?
. That means you throw away any accuracy at the raw converter level and scrape the picture back together so it looks OK. Sorry, but the only people who know the sensors and the only people who build LUT profiles into their raw converters are the camera manufacturers (except C1), exactly who Adobe is trying to cut out. Adobe builds ****, and makes up for it with shills and marketing.
Good job helping them.
No. The first question is, "Am I preserving accurate color information?", and with ACR/Lightroom you can't.
. That means you throw away any accuracy at the raw converter level and scrape the picture back together so it looks OK. Sorry, but the only people who know the sensors and the only people who build LUT profiles into their raw converters are the camera manufacturers (except C1), exactly who Adobe is trying to cut out. Adobe builds ****, and makes up for it with shills and marketing.
Good job helping them.
No. The first question is, "Am I preserving accurate color information?", and with ACR/Lightroom you can't.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Enough of the insults, Ranchu. I'll be watching you. Consider this a public warning.
That's incorrect. DNG is a raw image data file format, subject to interpretation at the time that a raw converter processes the file. There is no "accurate color information" in a raw file, only a set of metadata tables and calibration curves that need to be interpreted. If the raw converter changes, the interpretation of the raw data changes as well.
If you want to preserve the accurate color information of a processed image file, you want to save it in an RGB component format (TIFF, JPEG, PSD, whatever), not as a raw file. This is a basic fact of raw data processing, and it is true whether you use Adobe raw converters or anyone else's as well, with either DNG or native raw formats.
G
That's incorrect. DNG is a raw image data file format, subject to interpretation at the time that a raw converter processes the file. There is no "accurate color information" in a raw file, only a set of metadata tables and calibration curves that need to be interpreted. If the raw converter changes, the interpretation of the raw data changes as well.
If you want to preserve the accurate color information of a processed image file, you want to save it in an RGB component format (TIFF, JPEG, PSD, whatever), not as a raw file. This is a basic fact of raw data processing, and it is true whether you use Adobe raw converters or anyone else's as well, with either DNG or native raw formats.
G
Ranchu
Veteran
Read and learn.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=22471
"<<Does a raw file have a color space?>>
Fundamentally, absolutely YES, but we may not know what that color space is. The image was recorded through a set of camera spectral sensitivities which defines the intrinsic colorimetric characteristics of the image. An simplistic way to think of this (while not purely accurate) is that the image was recorded through a set of "primaries" and these primaries define the color space of the image.
Practically, it makes little difference unless you are interested in accurate scene-referred data. In the context you described, a simple transform is applied to convert from the camera primaries to a new set of primaries (eg CIE or working space) that have more desirable characteristics than the RAW primaries."
Godfrey
somewhat colored
That's interesting but completely beside the point. Whatever characteristic tables and calibration curves are a part of a camera's capture, they must be stored in the raw file metadata and interpreted by a raw processor, in conjunction with a camera profile. Whether a camera writes good color calibration information into its raw files metadata doesn't matter whether the camera creates native or DNG raw data files. And whether a raw converter has a good camera profile and treats the color information per a good algorithm with a good camera profile is another matter entirely.
Remember that many top notch cameras output native DNG files too. All but two of mine do.
A DNG format translation on a native raw data file takes whatever metadata and sensor data the camera injects into the raw file and puts it into a publicly accessible standards based format. That's all. No matter what spite you want to throw at Adobe, for whatever reason, that is the DNG transformation of a file and it is publicly disclosed and accessible in perpetuum.
Raw data remains raw and subject to interpretation by a raw processor regardless of what file format it is stored in.
G
Ranchu
Veteran
It's not beside the point of whether you're archiving accurate color information. DNG is only a container, yes, but ACR doesn't have or use accurate information about the sensor - an accurate profile. So if you convert your NEFs to DNGs like Adobe wants, that accurate color information is gone forever. Unless you still have the NEFs, in which case what's the point? Making conversions in which color accuracy is not important?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
There you are simply wrong. Adobe gets the camera color information from the manufacturers to develop their camera profiles for raw processing. Whatever the camera wrote into native raw data files, whether proprietary or DNG, remains there for interpretation.
Not only Adobe can process DNG or proprietary raw files, you know, aside from camera manufacturers..