# DNG or RAW?



## joshua_ (Jan 17, 2013)

I'm trying to figure out what will be best, DNG or RAW?



I would imagine DNG would make sense if I was going to do more with the photo in another program besides Lightroom 4, but can't think of another reason to import as DNG.


For now I  don't think I'll be doing much of anything besides Lightroom, but I realize that may change in the future.  I don't have Photoshop right now.  So far the only other program I would even use is Gimp.

I may, in the future run a program specific to do some HDR stuff for fun, but I'm not even sure about that for now.

Advice?


Thanks


----------



## KmH (Jan 17, 2013)

I never saw sufficient reason to convert my image files to  DNG.

DNG is a Raw image format. DNG is a non-proprietary, sort of universal Raw image format.

In fact, the DNG format is owned by Adobe, though Adobe offers it as an open source format.
Digital Negative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why NOT to use DNG
To DNG or Not to DNG? « Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Killer Tips Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Killer Tips
Why use DNG? - Bing


----------



## joshua_ (Jan 17, 2013)

Thank you KmH


----------



## dbvirago (Jan 17, 2013)

I've just been skeptical of the, 'it's' non-proprietary so you can still read those files 50 years from now' argument. Doesn't matter if it's non-proprietary (hope I don't have to type that again), you still need software that can read and understand the file format. If DNG doesn't catch on sufficiently, 50 years from now, you may have to use 50 year old software to open them.


----------



## Garbz (Jan 19, 2013)

Yes and no. DNG is an open format with a published specification. 50 years from now someone can simply grab a technical manual and write the software, or pay someone to do such a trivial task. Being an open format also increases it's chance of being natively supported in more programs. 

I actually think the "Why NOT DNG" post is incredibly naive. As someone who has just spent the best part of a week attempting to get and old dos copy up and running at work to talk to some old hardware we have laying around I can say for certain he's definitely over simplifying.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 19, 2013)

DNG, while 'open source', may still end up the BetaMax of the photography world.


----------



## joshua_ (Jan 19, 2013)

Yall really did help me decide, thanks.

I was really looking to see if there was much benefit in moving to DNG, things that I might not understand yet due to how new I am at this.  I believe that was answered for me, personally.

Thanks again


----------



## usayit (Jan 19, 2013)

480sparky said:
			
		

> DNG, while 'open source', may still end up the BetaMax of the photography world.



Terrible anaology.   As already mentioned, DNG and its published materials Opens the door for future use which the same cannot be said for Betamax.   Sony also had an alterior motive behind its push for Betamax into the market.  There are many file formats in use today, decades after thier introduction.... simply because their standards are well established and published,   

If anything, the DNG format will probably survive much longer than the media they are stored on.


----------



## sekhar (Jan 19, 2013)

I used to use original RAW too, but switched to DNG recently after discovering some key advantages. First, it compresses and produces smaller files, which translates to something like 3 MB less per my 6D image. This add adds up big time.

Next, I have CS6, but don't usually use Photoshop but do almost all processing with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). With the original RAW files, ACR adds the changes in a separate metadata XML file - i.e., there will be two files: foo.cr2 and foo.xmp. With DNG, ACR puts the edits on the same file, so it's cleaner (i.e., there's just one foo.dng). This matters even if you make minor non-destructive edits in ACR and end up using Photoshop, etc.

Browsing with preview on my Windows machine is easier with DNG. I tend to use the Windows codecs and other tools for previewing files in the standard file explorer window. These tools don't keep up with the latest RAW formats. E.g., they don't currently support my 6D files. Once I convert to DNG, they are ready to go.

This is minor, but converting to DNG also gives more accurate EXIF info. At least for the bit depth: the original CR2 files show the RAW image depth as 16 bits, whereas the DNG files correctly show it as 14 bits for my 6D.

I also do video, and DNG sequences are pretty common. E.g., one workflow from Adobe Premiere Pro to Adobe Speedgrade uses a DNG sequence. Some new cameras, like the Black Magic Cinema are delivering their RAW footage as DNG sequences, though I'm not sure this is necessarily going to catch on. Still, my point is that DNG is gaining in video as well.

Also IMO you're much safer to convert to DNG in terms of future-proofing than leaving in an old format. E.g., 10 years from now, chances are you won't be able to open your RAW images from an obscure Olympus camera. That might happen with DNG too, but with DNG, you'll have a big heads up if it's going to disappear, giving you enough time to migrate your stuff if necessary. I.e., one thing to monitor and worry about.


----------



## usayit (Jan 19, 2013)

I use DNG as well.... two cameras I have spit them out natively.   Havent had a problem importing the  into LR3.  I recently purchased an olympus OMD recently only to discover that Adobe LR3 doesnt support its files.  Adobe wants me to update to LR4.   Short term solution, convert to DNG prior to importing into LR3.


----------



## KmH (Jan 19, 2013)

Some camera makes use DNG for their Raw files rather than a proprietary format.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 19, 2013)

usayit said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You missed the point.  There's no guarantee that DNG will even be a viable format in the future.  Something else may come along and blow it out of the water.  No no can predict the future, not even Adobe.


----------



## usayit (Jan 19, 2013)

480sparky said:
			
		

> There's no guarantee that DNG will even be a viable format in the future.  Something else may come along and blow it out of the water.



Nothing is guaranteed duh...   

But you still missed my point.   I have series of bits on media I assume I can read.  Assuming i have the specifications and proper documentation, i can easily write software that can make some use of that series of bits.  It doesnt matter if something better comes along... Heck i can translate it to the new format if necessary.   Its really not that difficult (i make a living in software).   

The concern here is which format has a better chance of surviving.  If i have a series of bits and no specs nor documentation,  my only choice is to reverse engineer.... Not easy and often next to impossible.   

Betamax is a terrible analogy simply because its roots lie with Sony and their hardware which is always difficult to reverse engineer.


In summary... Let me make it really simple.   An existing file is always viable as long as you can retrieve he bits and there is someone able to do something with those bits.. Chances are far greater with a bits of a known open standard.


----------



## usayit (Jan 19, 2013)

KmH said:
			
		

> Some camera makes use DNG for their Raw files rather than a proprietary format.



Yup... Leica M8, M9 and if i recall correctly my old pentax K10d has the option for PEF or DNG.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Jan 19, 2013)

If I am not mistaken, DNG does not need a sidecar file to save all of your edit settings on LR.  If you use RAW, you need the xmp file with the raw file if you want to see the edit on another computer.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 19, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> If I am not mistaken, DNG does not need a sidecar file to save all of your edit settings on LR.  If you use RAW, you need the xmp file with the raw file if you want to see the edit on another computer.



Not always.  Editing a Nikon NEF file with Nikon software imbeds the editing steps right back into the file.... no sidecar file is needed.  I think Picasa does this as well.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 19, 2013)

usayit said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yet how many proprietary raw formats out there today _aren't _RE'd?


----------



## sekhar (Jan 19, 2013)

Guys, the point is that you're going to have a heads up. It's not like one rainy day in the future DNG is suddenly gone and all your files are unreadable. If it dies, it's going to die over many years, and we'll have plenty of time to move to another format. If on the other hand you have original RAW files from a bunch of cameras, you'll need to keep track of each of their lives and maintain copies of software that can read them. If you convert them all to DNG, it's the only thing you'll need to keep track of.


----------



## usayit (Jan 19, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Yet how many proprietary raw formats out there today _aren't _RE'd?



You still don't get it..... Just because I won't name one (you really expect me to cross reference all legacy formats with current raw processesors?  Got search it yourself) , doesn't mean it won't happen.  Proprietary formats are all guaranteed to end life at some point in time.  A proprietary format that disappears leaves me practically zero chance of reading it in the future.  This is not true with open standards.  We are arguing the FUTURE and best case scenarios... and you expect me to prove it with a case in TODAY's time frame.  

You are now arguing for arguing sake.

I already stated one case in the reverse.  OMD E-M5 RAW file are not supported in Lightroom 3.   But OMD E-M5 files converted to DNG are perfectly fine.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 19, 2013)

usayit said:


> You are now arguing for arguing sake........



No, just pointing out that comparing trying to reverse engineer Betamax is a poor comparison to trying to RE a file format..... claiming Betamax is exceedingly difficult to RE, as are file format.  Yet the vast majority of raw formats have been easily REd.  If they were so hard, then open-source software like RawTherapee and Irfanview would quickly die.

Fact is, even a manufacturer's raw format is not universal across their camera line.  There's differences between the files of one body to the next. So when a given camera body is discontinued, does that variant of raw file disappear?

Everyone is trying to 'future-proof' their digital files, fearing some major disaster such as Nikon or Canon following Kodak into the dustbin of history.  But even in such an event, that doesn't mean all the existing software out there on those millions of computers _will suddenly stop working_!  Heck, I still have a Windows 3.11 machine I fire up on occasion, and W3.11 'disappeared' years ago.  Should any major manufacturer suddenly go belly-up, the laws of supply and demand will fill the need to create software that will fill the void.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 19, 2013)

My theory that the self-importance that Adobe assigns itself will probably keep DNG from dying in the near future.

I mean, they're Adobe. How could they acknowledge the defeat of their own file format? Heh...


----------



## usayit (Jan 19, 2013)

480sparky said:


> comparing trying to reverse engineer Betamax is a poor comparison to trying to RE a file format..... claiming Betamax is exceedingly difficult to RE, as are file format.



That is exactly what I am saying.   I'm telling you that given well defined document describing the order and significance of each bit in a file, I can do something with that data.  You give my a byte offset-length and what it means, I can do something with it.  Rearrange it, Translate it, modify it, move it, etc...  I do this everyday... this is what I do for a living.  I don't have to invest a significant effort guessing (reverse engineer) what each of those bits mean.  Why don't you tell me how you would do the same for Betamax rather than just speculating?   All of the basis for your responses are based on inferences from what you see NOW.   Its all weak foundation for making the argument that an open source or well documented format is somehow less viable or as viable as a proprietary one... in the FUTURE..

You asked me to name one proprietary file format that can no longer be read.... It doesn't matter.  It proves nothing.  We are discussing viability in future.

You then stated that if RawTherepee can do it then its viable... for every format?  was it easy?  how much investment to accomplish it?  One person can do it now... ow about in the future?  Again... it doesn't matter.  

This is all basic 101 argument for open source software.... you should read up on it first before talking.


Oh since you bring up RawTherepee which relies on dcraw whose author's motivation is reflected in the openRAW initiative.  DCRAW IS OPEN SOURCE.  You should read about about their motivation.  Dcraw relies on open source nature in order to preserve the viability of proprietary formats.   In essence, it brings the internals of what the author has discovered about proprietary formats and makes them available to the open public there by re-enforcing the argument that these proprietary formats NEED to be widely open in order to preserve them for future use.  DNG avoids this by simply being open itself...  no unnecessary effort required for preservation.



http://www.openraw.org/info/index.html

From that website:

"The goal of OpenRAW is to encourage image preservation and give creative choice of how images are processed to the creators of the images. To this end, we advocate open documentation of information about the how the raw data is stored and the camera settings selected by the photographer.

If the current practice of hiding data and dropping support for older models of cameras continue countless images will be unreadable with no software to decode them. Only openly documented RAW formats will make it possible to decode RAW files in the future.

Many have suggested a common, open file format for RAW image files for all camera makers to use as a solution to the RAW problem. A common, openly documented RAW format would fulfill many of the goals of OpenRAW, but is likely to face significant resistance from manufacturers who feel their "creativity" and ability to innovate would be constrained. Open documentation of all RAW file formats by manufacturers is the quickest and most satisfactory way for OpenRAW's goals to be reached."




PS>


> But even in such an event, that doesn't mean all the existing software out there on those millions of computers _will suddenly stop working_!  Heck, I still have a Windows 3.11 machine I fire up on occasion, and W3.11 'disappeared' years ago.  Should any major manufacturer suddenly go belly-up, the laws of supply and demand will fill the need to create software that will fill the void.



So how come we lost the ability to translate lost languages and text.through the ages.?


----------



## usayit (Jan 19, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> My theory that the self-importance that Adobe assigns itself will probably keep DNG from dying in the near future.
> 
> I mean, they're Adobe. How could they acknowledge the defeat of their own file format? Heh...



We said the same thing about Kodak....


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 19, 2013)

usayit said:
			
		

> We said the same thing about Kodak....



I still can't compare Kodak to the sheer pride that Adobe exudes to the point of just being jerks because they know that they have a monopoly on the market (pretty much).

I just found out today that if I am ever going to use the original RAW files I am going to have to upgrade to CS6 because Adobe is not going to give the direct download link to the new ACR version. Instead you can only get it through CS6 update

Or buy LR4, which I'm probably going to end up doing anyways


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 19, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sure they're still supported by dcraw.  It ain't CS6 or LR4, but there are a lot of open source options out there.  Have a look at Darktable.  I haven't used it much, but it's billed to be the open source alternative to Lightroom.  Supports damn near everything.

I'm sure it's not as 'feature rich' as Lightroom, but at least it's something...


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 19, 2013)

O|||||||O said:
			
		

> I'm sure they're still supported by dcraw.  It ain't CS6 or LR4, but there are a lot of open source options out there.  Have a look at Darktable.  I haven't used it much, but it's billed to be the open source alternative to Lightroom.  Supports damn near everything.
> 
> I'm sure it's not as 'feature rich' as Lightroom, but at least it's something...



Thanks for the suggestion. I guess it's between open source images and just converting my RAW   file to DNG. 

I do have a question for people who use DNG. Do most raw editors view DNG files with a consistent "look" to the images since it's proprietary. Or will the images still look different like just like if I was editing from an NEF or CR2


----------



## Garbz (Jan 20, 2013)

480sparky said:


> You missed the point.  There's no guarantee that DNG will even be a viable format in the future.  Something else may come along and blow it out of the water.



No one is talking about future formats, we're talking about formats now. 



480sparky said:


> Not always.  Editing a Nikon NEF file with Nikon software imbeds the editing steps right back into the file.... no sidecar file is needed.



A proprietary file not needing a sidecar file to edit a proprietary format really doesn't matter in the current discussion which is based on the premise that the proprietary format and software may not be usable in the future.



480sparky said:


> Yet the vast majority of raw formats have been easily REd.



No the vast majority of file formats have been reverse engineered with great difficulty by a few experts. The fact that the very similar file formats of new cameras take many weeks to months to gain support in software is a perfectly clear example of this. The reason it works well is because people HAVE these cameras. Take for instance raw support for TouCam webcams. Took about 2 years for someone with experience to reverse engineer that one due to lack of demand. If it weren't for one genius programmer in the astro-photography crowd we may still not have that support.

Reverse engineering is frigging hard compared to programming from a written spec and you need some serious motivation to do it. 

As for the rest of your argument future proofing is exactly what we do because while support won't die overnight it will die in the ages. Windows 3.11 was less than 20 years ago. We have negatives dating back more than 100. You know what happened to my copy of Windows 3.11? Neither do I. If I did find it then it would probably be on a floppy disk which I don't have a drive for. But let's go back further. You know how well 16bit software runs on modern operating systems? It doesn't. You know what any computer you buy now has on the motherboard? UEFI with an unmaintained legacy module which 2 manufacturers have already dropped. You won't be able to install windows 3.11 on those computers. But there's always virtualisation right? Certainly there's no problem virtualising direct hardware access from old systems like Windows 3.11, oh wait that's a problem too. 

You have a very simplified view of what it takes to keep old data live, but if you are in fact as good as you think then there's jobs going at NASA, the library of congress, and many other institutions around the world who have a very serious daily struggle with archiving. NASA is actually quite bad at this. Their last great footage restoration was done by some fanatical hobbyists who spent years attempting to rebuild a machine and then decode some ancient tapes. 

Fact is, even a manufacturer's raw format is not universal across their camera line.  There's differences between the files of one body to the next. So when a given camera body is discontinued, does that variant of raw file disappear?

Everyone is trying to 'future-proof' their digital files, fearing some major disaster such as Nikon or Canon following Kodak into the dustbin of history.  But even in such an event, that doesn't mean all the existing software out there on those millions of computers _will suddenly stop working_!  Heck, I still have a Windows 3.11 machine I fire up on occasion, and W3.11 'disappeared' years ago.  Should any major manufacturer suddenly go belly-up, the laws of supply and demand will fill the need to create software that will fill the void.[/QUOTE]


----------



## TheFantasticG (Jan 20, 2013)

I can tell ya if I ever upgrade to a new camera that LR3.6 can't read I will move all my files to DNG.... Maybe sooner.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2013)

Garbz said:


> .......
> No one is talking about future formats, we're talking about formats now. ..........



Fine.  Let's take todays' formats.

Now..... what, exactly, is going to happen to them?

Are we ALL going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly find our computers won't read NEFs and CR2s?

Is there not software available TODAY that can read and convert raw files to DNG?  Will all _that_ suddenly stop working tomorrow?

You all make it out to be another Y2K doomsday scenario.

Use some common sense here.  If I can be convinced that sometime in the _foreseeable_ future I will not be able to work with my NEF files, I'll be happy to start converting them to DNG (or whatever the Format Of The Year is by then).  Technology doesn't die overnight.  There will be handwriting on the wall, I'm sure.  Until then, I'm more than content working with a file _format_ that 100% perfectly usable and viable _today_.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 20, 2013)

TheFantasticG said:
			
		

> I can tell ya if I ever upgrade to a new camera that LR3.6 can't read I will move all my files to DNG.... Maybe sooner.



I don't think it supports the new Nikon D600 or Canon 6D.

It's pretty dumb.


----------



## sekhar (Jan 20, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Or devious...I guess they think these guys spent a few bucks on a FF, they're going to shell out more for an LR upgrade.


----------



## JDFlood (Jan 20, 2013)

I will just keep using RAW until I need to use a tool that does not support RAW. Then I will use Lightroom (or whatever I use then) to convert all to a newer format or the one that looks like it will be around the longest. There are billions of digital pictures out there... RAW is unlikely to go extinct Shan you are not looking. JD


----------



## usayit (Jan 20, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Are we ALL going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly find our computers won't read NEFs and CR2s?



No one said tomorrow...  Can you or anyone guarantee it won't happen... NO.

Garbz is correct.. you obviously working off a very simplified view of the problem and a very simplified view of the solution.   Without the willingness to learn the details and rely only on your assumptions speculations this is now pointless.   We've tried to respond with solid reasons and all we get back are more speculations, guesses, and assumptions.

You claim it will never happen.. but you won't accept evidence of ancient things we cannot explain or ancient texts of old languages that we cannot translate.   This is the same problem.

After all this,  you probably think reverse engineering proprietary formats is easy, reverse engineering Betamax tapes is easy, and specific technologies will never disappear from being decades obsolete.    Notions not rooted in reality.



I have an old data tape from a company that went defunct 20+ years ago written in a proprietary format via a proprietary interface.  Care to give it a shot?  First part of the problem is already solved.... its based on a data quality VHS tape.


----------



## sekhar (Jan 20, 2013)

usayit said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Are we ALL going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly find our computers won't read NEFs and CR2s?
> ...


This is actually a pretty fascinating behavior trait (refusing to accept facts that don't conform to what you already believe), check out this article on cognitive dissonance that talks of an experiment on this.


----------



## dbvirago (Jan 20, 2013)

I don't believe in cognitive dissonance


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2013)

usayit said:


> ........You claim it will never happen.. ......



Really?  Where?

You're just assuming WAY TOO MUCH!


Let me restate my position:  I can work with proprietary NEF files today.  I have no doubt that some day, far into the future, I MAY not be able to.  _May_ is the key word here.

But should that even happen.... _*IT WILL NOT HAPPEN SUDDENLY*_.  What part of that do you not understand?

If I can convert my NEFs to DNG *TODAY*, what even is going to happen in the future that will *SUDDENLY* make that impossible for me?

If Nikon and Adobe close their doors today, will the software I have just.... quit... working?

And in that far-fetched scenario, do you honestly think I'll wait until my computer and software no longer function before I act to save my work?  Seriously?!?!?!


----------



## usayit (Jan 20, 2013)

pointless.

We started discussing which is more viable in long term....  Since you can't win there, you now want to discuss the notion that it may or may not happen and how quickly.  A discussion that is so rooted in conjecture and guess work its not worth debating.  Just like insurance, you always assume it will happen... worst case scenario.   

Just like all of the subjective statements you present as so called proof... none of it matters.

In the end, it doesn't matter if/when/how quickly it doesn't change the fact that proprietary formats is more viable in long term preservation.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 20, 2013)

usayit said:


> .....
> 
> You now want to discuss the notion that it may or may not happen and how quickly........




Again.... where did I claim it will not happen?

Never mind.  You're right.  It's pointless.  Can't have a meaningful discussion when words are put in my mouth.


----------



## usayit (Jan 20, 2013)

Here again.. a distraction


Let's say I change it to 

"You now want to discuses how quickly or slowly it happen".


You still ignore the fact that how quickly or slowly it happens doesn't change the fact that open source/well documented formats are STILL more viable than proprietary formats.

Care to prove other wise? or are you going back to your previous statement that reverse engineering is "easy".


----------



## BrianV (Jan 20, 2013)

Nikon attempted to prevent Adobe and other software manufacturers from working with NEF format files in 2005. Nikon encrypts the white-balance data in their files, starting with the D2x. Firmware updates for existing cameras implemented the new feature. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act makes it illegal for companies to reverse engineer the file format to bust the encryption scheme. Adobe stopped supporting NEF until some weasel-word agreement was reached with Nikon. Nikon can back out of this agreement at anytime. They are weasels.

http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/17/nikon-d2x-white-balance-encryption/

Note the asterisk next to Nikon for supported raw formats.

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.html

and with the asterisk, comes the weasels.

http://www.adobe.com/special/products/photoshop/nikonraw.html

Exactly how does encrypting portions of the file that they use to store your images benefit you? 

I can read the DNG format and implement my own software, if desired. It is based on the TIFF 6.0 spec of 1993.It has been around for a long time, and is not hard to get at the image data. My wife had image files from a digital microscope camera that made use of the multi-image per file option of TIFF, and I had to write software to read the file and write new files with 1 image per file. This was over 15 years ago. I don't think that many software packages support the multi-image file option.Three of my cameras produce DNG files directly. No doubt in my mind that i could write my own FORTRAN code to unpack it.

Trying to reverse engineer proprietary compression schemes from the file alone is non-trivial. IF the compression scheme is implemented in an ASIC, good luck with that. I would rather have a format that is open and documented. A company that hides my images behind the DMCA: forget them.


----------

