![]() Any big advances in your camera manufacturer's software can then be taken advantage of, and the DNG is there if the manufacturer gives up on photography or it otherwise becomes impossible to get good raw conversions. If you feel like hedging your bets this seems like a smart option. One interesting thing about DNG is that it can contain embedded NEFs (and probably CR2s), though file size obviously increases accordingly. Adobe has expressed strong long-term support for the format (though of course they'd have to do that to have a chance of widespread acceptance). The specs are published and it's being standardised by the ISO committee, so it looks like a decent bet for long-term storage (better than CR2 or NEF anyway). I don't know the answers to your questions, but I'm considering DNG as a long-term archival format (when I eventually get a new Mac). You'd still deal with potentially losing some of the original RAW format's data in the process, but that could be mitigated over time. The right thing to do would be for third parties (such as Apple, the Gimp team, etc.) to create their own standard, encouraging open discussion, and publishing a format that is extensible, future-proof and most of all, free of patents and free of controls by a single vendor (or a small group of vendors). While TIFF/EP is an ISO standard, TIFF itself is owned and controlled by Adobe.Īll kinda messy. It is currently looking like a choice that is superior to vendor-specific camera formats, but that's not even definite, nor is it saying much.ĭNG is also on top of TIFF/EP, which in turn is based on TIFF. So, no, I don't feel DNG is the end-all-be-all format to archiving raw photography data. Not exactly as "open" as one might be inclined to believe. And while they "grant a license" (how noble), they have patented virtually all of the format, and the license can be revoked arbitrarily at Adobe's whim (thus kicking competitors out if they feel like it). On the other hand, they don't allow third parties any input (or at least not any meaningful influence) on the future direction. One nice thing is that Adobe has made the specification public. Adobe's DNG is generally the right idea, but with several obvious flaws. I'm not much of a photography person to really delve into this topic, in any case. Though, you have the option with the DNG converter to include your original file. ![]() Should I need additional "negatives", the DNGs are always there. After all editing is finished.I trash the RAWs. For prints I save to JPEG (10) or TIFF and upload for printing. I still edit using the original RAW files and then output the post processed to JPEG (7) which I keep on a local HD for email and web. I convert to DNG and then backup to the archives and forget they are there until I need them. It is definitely worth it to incorporate DNG converter into your workflow IMHO. So in 5-10 years when I pull a backup DVD out of my archive I will have the highest probability of being able to open and edit a file in DNG format rather than the proprietary RAW format my antiquated digital camera produced back in the day. Both produce different RAW files but only with Adobe DNG can I covert to a common format.Īs the OP said, I feel DNG is a "universal" format. Right now I am shooting with a Canon XT and a Panny LX2. Similar to others opinions, I feel as though DNG is much more future proof than my current camera's RAW files. In other words, should I build it into my workflow now while I'm still creating one. ![]() I'm a relatively new photographer so I don't want to find myself stuck down the road with a format (CR2) that is obsolete and no means to read the data. From there I will either modify in Aperture or PS CS2 (CS3 once I can afford it). All my photos are imported via CF readers to iPhoto and Aperture. I think I might have installed them on my system, but I'm not sure about that. But the distance side says what if I leave Canon in favor of a new brand? What if Canon no longer supports CR2? In my short sighted side of my mind, I'll never need a version like DNG because Canon will always support CR2. CR2 then I would always be able to access them. If I create archive of DNG's rather than my. I guess for me the thought is, as the cameras evolve so will the formats. I'd say unless you want to work in many applications, all of which support DNG but only some of which support your camera's RAW format, then it's not really that useful. I don't really see the point at the moment. I thought it was a good and cunning idea when I first found out about Adobe DNG, but there aren't really enough reasons to justify converting my RAW files from their original format. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |