Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
When using PhotoShop and Bridge are you saving the files as NEF or DNG and why?
NEF vs DNG
- Thread starter Don Kuykendall_RIP
- Start date
Fred Kingston
Senior Member
This pretty much explains the salient points and compares the two...
[url]http://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw
[/URL]
[url]http://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw
[/URL]
Phillydog1958
Senior Member
I also use Lightroom. DNG is Adobe's format of choice for Nikon.
Last edited:
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Ok, I used Bridge to import the files from the camera. Had them converted to DNG at that time. Now I have to figure out how to have it automatically open as Adobe Raw instead of having to use the button or drop down menu to do that. Also not happy with the choice of Date creation of the folder but may be able to figure out the code for the date the way I want it. example 07-13-2013 I had it set that way with ViewNX2 and liked it. Easier for these old eyes to skim the dates that way. The last problem is that Windows 7 64bit Explorer will not show the thumbnails. Downloaded the codecs but they did not work. Then found that either Adobe or Microsoft has not written one for the 64 bit yet. Only the 32 bit.
Beside the name I see no difference in the actual work flow in the raw processing so this is more for future proofing my files.
Beside the name I see no difference in the actual work flow in the raw processing so this is more for future proofing my files.
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Now it is showing up correctly in Explorer and clicking on a DNG file opens it in RAW. So two hiccups solved.
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Right now we have to many different versions of raw running around. Every camera manufacture has it's own version. Several of them have adopted the Adobe DNG version so that is a good start. I use Adobe exclusively for processing so it should be a pretty good choice for now.
Having been through vinyl records, 8 track, cassette, CD and then the MP3, WMV eetc, etc I know what it is like to see standards change. I just try to pick the leader and go with it.
Remember Beta vs VHS...I never owned a Beta.
Several but not any of consequence. Until one of the big ones- Canon, Nikon, Sony etc.-offers support the format will continue to be an afterthought. I also want DNG out of Adobe's hands and recognized as an International Standard. Until then, I'll keep my NEFs, TIFFs, and JPEGs.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Most of the cameras are not main stream but the two exceptions that surprised me were Hasselblad and Leica
Mycenius
Senior Member
Agreed! Currently DNG is just Adobe's proprietary format and there is no evidence yet it will be adopted as an industry standard... I'm sticking with NEF since its actually the camera manufacturer's supported format...
Sent from my iPad 2 using Tapatalk HD
(Mount Soapbox: ON)
This is an old debate - but a fun one too! Personally I keep my images as NEFs because they are the equivalent of a negative and record exactly what was captured in the purest form. Nikon, and all manufacturers, have a proprietary format and embed undocumented information in their files. Adobe, Apple and other software vendors interpret the data in their own proprietary manner.
IMHO if you translate a NEF into a DNG (or any other format) you potentially are losing access to the source of the image and the undocumented metadata. I don't mean to imply that interim, work-in-process or output formats are bad. Far from it as how would we be able to do any post processing without them?
Why do I believe in preserving the original file? Have you ever tried to go back and reprocess an old image after a significant update to your favorite software? As the software vendors improve their product and better understand the manufacturer's formats, you may be amazed at the difference an upgrade makes. This is an old thread, but here is an example of a comparison of the same image from LR2 and LR3.
Bottom line, until manufacturer's agree to use a single common documented file format - and DNG is certainly a great option - I prefer to save the native file format and utilize a non-destructive method of post processing. For me that means NEFs and Lightroom. Your mileage may vary.
(Mount Soapbox: OFF)
This is an old debate - but a fun one too! Personally I keep my images as NEFs because they are the equivalent of a negative and record exactly what was captured in the purest form. Nikon, and all manufacturers, have a proprietary format and embed undocumented information in their files. Adobe, Apple and other software vendors interpret the data in their own proprietary manner.
IMHO if you translate a NEF into a DNG (or any other format) you potentially are losing access to the source of the image and the undocumented metadata. I don't mean to imply that interim, work-in-process or output formats are bad. Far from it as how would we be able to do any post processing without them?
Why do I believe in preserving the original file? Have you ever tried to go back and reprocess an old image after a significant update to your favorite software? As the software vendors improve their product and better understand the manufacturer's formats, you may be amazed at the difference an upgrade makes. This is an old thread, but here is an example of a comparison of the same image from LR2 and LR3.
Bottom line, until manufacturer's agree to use a single common documented file format - and DNG is certainly a great option - I prefer to save the native file format and utilize a non-destructive method of post processing. For me that means NEFs and Lightroom. Your mileage may vary.
(Mount Soapbox: OFF)
Last edited:
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I am following this discussion with great interest and, at the same time, have been doing some of my own research into the DNG vs RAW question. In so doing I ran across the following and wanted to share it if for no other reason than the fact it contains a lengthy response directly from Adobe. Or, at least from Kevin Connor, Senior Director of Product Management *at* Adobe.
It starts with an opinion based article - which I found educational as well as informative - and there are several well composed responses. Mr. Connor's comment is about 2/3 of the way down the page in the linked-to article below and has the header, "A Response From Adobe". The article itself is authored by Stuart Nixon, someone I know nothing about but I pass the reading along for anyone who, like me, might be struggling with the idea of adopting the DNG format for the long haul.
Mr. Nixon's full article is available here: Notes on the Future of Open RAW and a Look at DNG
It starts with an opinion based article - which I found educational as well as informative - and there are several well composed responses. Mr. Connor's comment is about 2/3 of the way down the page in the linked-to article below and has the header, "A Response From Adobe". The article itself is authored by Stuart Nixon, someone I know nothing about but I pass the reading along for anyone who, like me, might be struggling with the idea of adopting the DNG format for the long haul.
Mr. Nixon's full article is available here: Notes on the Future of Open RAW and a Look at DNG
DNG is based on the TIFF 6.0 standard, also written by Adobe. TIFF 6.0 has a lot of features that have not been implemented by most software packages, including the ability to store multiple images in one file. Almost 20 years ago my wife ran into that problem with a Microscope camera that placed all of the images from a session into the same file, but the software packages used to process the files could not handle it. My "Honey-Do" list was to write software to convert TIFF 6.0 multi-image file to a set of TIFF 6.0 single image files. Easy- because the documentation was published.
DNG is a published specification. I can use my new cameras with software that came out years ago, before the camera was introduced BECAUSE the file format is written to a standard. With NEF- you have to wait for the software publishers to get the new file format under a developer's agreement with Nikon and update the software. Means always running back to get an upgrade, and most often- pay for a new version. Or write your own software and be good at parsing through files that don't have a published spec. Sometimes you get lucky. Hacking Df files to be processed by LR4 took 20 minutes. You can usually find enough info once it's in DCRAW. Until he gets tired of updating it.
DNG is a published specification. I can use my new cameras with software that came out years ago, before the camera was introduced BECAUSE the file format is written to a standard. With NEF- you have to wait for the software publishers to get the new file format under a developer's agreement with Nikon and update the software. Means always running back to get an upgrade, and most often- pay for a new version. Or write your own software and be good at parsing through files that don't have a published spec. Sometimes you get lucky. Hacking Df files to be processed by LR4 took 20 minutes. You can usually find enough info once it's in DCRAW. Until he gets tired of updating it.
All the DNG lovers like to claim that in the future the native raw formats can sometime in the future be no longer supported. Seriously?
You mean if Nikon closed it's doors today, my copies of Capture and View will suddenly fail? Overnight, all my NEF files will be nothing more than a bunch of useless 1s and 0s on my hard drives?
To that, they respond that if Nikon closes shop, then no other software will be available that can 'read' NEF files. Really? How did Adobe do it then? And Raw Therapee? And Picasa? And Picturenaut? And IrfanView? Will my copies of all these other softwares suddenly quit working? If decoding NEF files is such a well-kept corporate secret, then Nikon utterly failed with internal security!!!
When I ask, "Well, who's to say DNG will last forever?" Their response, "'Cuz it's Adobe!" So? Ever hear of a company called Kodak?
Fact of the matter is, no one can predict what file formats will still be viable, readable and usable in the future. NO ONE.
As for me, I'll stick to NEF. If, on the outside chance that in my lifetime, Nikon goes belly-up, THEN I will worry about converting them. Yes, my computer will still turn on, boot up, and clicking on the NX2 icon will still launch Capture or View.
You mean if Nikon closed it's doors today, my copies of Capture and View will suddenly fail? Overnight, all my NEF files will be nothing more than a bunch of useless 1s and 0s on my hard drives?
To that, they respond that if Nikon closes shop, then no other software will be available that can 'read' NEF files. Really? How did Adobe do it then? And Raw Therapee? And Picasa? And Picturenaut? And IrfanView? Will my copies of all these other softwares suddenly quit working? If decoding NEF files is such a well-kept corporate secret, then Nikon utterly failed with internal security!!!
When I ask, "Well, who's to say DNG will last forever?" Their response, "'Cuz it's Adobe!" So? Ever hear of a company called Kodak?
Fact of the matter is, no one can predict what file formats will still be viable, readable and usable in the future. NO ONE.
As for me, I'll stick to NEF. If, on the outside chance that in my lifetime, Nikon goes belly-up, THEN I will worry about converting them. Yes, my computer will still turn on, boot up, and clicking on the NX2 icon will still launch Capture or View.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I convert. It has more to do with not having to worry about converting if I send it off to someone (like my brother) who may not be on a version of software that supports the just released version of the NEF file on the new Nikon model. It's a conscious choice I made in the beginning and I've stuck with it. Until I hear that you lose information I'll stay consistent. If you're only ever shooting for yourself it's just noise.
The only thing I'd point out is that while file sizes are fairly consistent with my D600 images, I have noticed that there occasions where my already big D800 files get even bigger when converted to DNG files. If there is a concern for me it's that. Arguments about the future of the format are moot. If NEF's go belly up then you have a conversion task ahead of you, but you'll lose nothing. Until then, don't lose sleep.
The only thing I'd point out is that while file sizes are fairly consistent with my D600 images, I have noticed that there occasions where my already big D800 files get even bigger when converted to DNG files. If there is a concern for me it's that. Arguments about the future of the format are moot. If NEF's go belly up then you have a conversion task ahead of you, but you'll lose nothing. Until then, don't lose sleep.
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
I did drop converting to the DNG format for the simple reason that I saw no benefit to me now to do so. I don't share RAW files with anyone and it was just an extra step right now.