Adobe Digital Negative

[Nick_Rains]

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html


This seems like a really good idea from Adobe, although I wonder if other 3rd party s/ware writers will take it up - especially C1, BreezeBrowser etc.

Any thoughts from other RAW shooters, particularly those hooked in with Adobe as Beta testers?

Nick Rains

[Nati_Harnik]

Well,
I've converted some Nikon NEF's to the DNG format, it shaved about 30% off file size, that's good.
Now problem is being able to work on these files, with PS 7, that is.....
I know the world marches forward, but was wondering if Adobe has plans, or will consent to offer a DNG plugin for PS7? That PS7 add-on Adobe raw converter is still seeing good use amongst some of us.
Many thanks, Nati

[Jan_Vasek]

While I welcome the move to a non-proprietary format/standard that is open source (at least I think its open if I read the info correctly) I ask myself why should I bother to create yet another conversion step in my workflow at the moment, I'm also uncertain if a Canon RAW file converted by whatever method to a DNG file really contains all the information and content of the original?

The DNG format will come into its own (IMO) if and when camera manufacturers output RAW data as DNG, until then this is just another step and conversion that needs to be made. If the various products currently used for conversion stop supporting direct conversion and only support DNG then obviously I'm forced to do this RAW > DNG step.

Until then I still need to archive my original RAW files, and I also need to keep all my conversion software available now also any DNG converters. When I upgrade my computer I need to consider re-conversion and re-archiving to ensure it all remains usable.

IMO, unless everybody Adobe,C1,Breeze etc. starts using DNG and most importantly the cameras create DNG at source then I don't see this taking off.

Jan

[AndrewRodney]

I don't know that you need to feel compelled to convert all your RAWs if that's really going to hose your workflow. To me, this is a safety net. I just finished converting a number of different RAW files dating back about 4-5 years. Worked like a charm. The goal now is to get all upcoming and future RAW files to conform to this new standard. The DNG converter is still useful, certainly a proof of concept but not something you should feel you have to rush out and use. The fact that the files are in some cases smaller is icing on the cake.

[Jan_Vasek]

Andrew

That's exactly my point - I'm not going to use this at the moment unless forced to - it would be very nice if the industry adopted a uniform open standard, who knows maybe it will happen. As you say its another safety net.

Jan

PS Is the reason for the smaller file the lack of embeded jpeg perhaps ?

[AndrewRodney]

-->PS Is the reason for the smaller file the lack of embeded jpeg perhaps ?

According to Thomas Knoll, because they are losslessly compressed.

http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/w...2068@.3bb61839

[RobertEdwards]

Well I believe it's step in the right direction. It will take time for software and hardware vendors to support yet another file format, I am especially thinking of asset management applications. At least we now have a format designed by a big player that is open source and archival. If it wasn't someone like Adobe who proposed it then I doubt it would be taken seriously. Look at how influential XMP has already been.

In time there will be no difference between converting all your raw files to 16 bit tiff for archiving, and DNG - except smaller files with much more information and flexibility!

-- Robert.