DNG Format or RAW
I am fairly new to Photoshop and bought Scott Kelby's book. As I was going thru the book, I found that he recommends converting to the DNG format as you import from the camera or memory card. At least so far, I am only 1/3 of the way thru. I have always copied my RAW files, tweeked them, and when ready converted to JPG. How many of you go to the DNG fomat?
TIA,
Brandon Driscoll
Brandon, I have read similar things about tiff etc. If one is using PS why wouldn't one use PSD?
Hi - IMHO - the main reason many use TIF is it is a open format, it can be read by every program and operating system out there.
The same cannot be said about PSD and DNG - Primary Adobe formats that requires you to have a Adobe program to open and view the files.
Thanks for the replies Roy and Lance. I keep the RAW and two JPG variants, one for print and one for web. I do use PSD but don't always keep those after I convert to JPG. I figure I could always go back to the RAW and recreate if I had to.
Thanks again,
Brandon
Lance,
I do believe Adobe has published DNG as an open standard. I wish camera manufacturers would adopt it and make their raw output dng. Proprietary raw files are not the way to go. One wants to be sure one can read the raw files well into the future. I archives versions of dcraw (free source code from Dave Coffin) to be sure I can access my raw files anytime in the future.
I agree that tiff is a wide standard, and that is what I save my files in. PSD is also readable by many programs, not just those by adobe, so it should be OK too. I keep files with layers and text in psd format, but also flatten and save as a tiff (I know tiff can do layers, but the files seem bloated).
TIFF is the standard format for delivering files to editors. The big advantage of DNG at the moment is that if you are using cataloging software, your catalog will reflect the exposure and color corrections you've made to your RAW files, whereas if you stick with your proprietary RAW format(s), your catalog will show the RAW files just as they came from the camera--i.e., at less than their best. Longer term, with luck, DNG will become as standard as TIFF, whereas decades down the road support for your proprietary RAW files may no longer exist (i.e., you may not be able to open them). As cheap as hard-drives are now, possibly the best stretegy is to convert to DNG with the proprietary RAW file embedded; this doubles file size, but keeps all options open. Peter Krogh discusses all of this and more in The DAM Book, now out in an updated and expanded second edition, which might be subtitled, "How Not to Lose your Digital Files".
Brandon If you convert to DNG and enter a contest which requires a raw file if you make the finals .... they don't accept DNG !!!
I like Cliffs idea of doing both !!!!
I've not heard of any contest that requires RAW files, though several say they will want them "if available."
Too many people (for some reason, that I have yet to comprehend) still shoot JPG only.
I believe the BBC wants RAW files Jim !!!
You could very well be correct.
Roger, Cliff, Alfred & Jim,
Thank you for your input. I do shoot RAW only. I just wasn't sure after reading Kelby's book if I should keep the Camera RAW or convert to DNG. I do like Cliff's recommendation to keep both. I am not worried too much about disk space, just keeping up with all the files. I didn't know you have the option of embedding the Camera RAW in the DNG. I think I will try that.
Thanks again,
Brandon
Hi Brandon When you do the converting in LR the option is given !!!
I use Lightroom to manage and do most of my editing. As such, I usually convert to DNG on import, though at the moment I'm not. I find I save a little on file sizes and don't end up having XMP files that I have to manage as well if I do something outside of Lightroom.
I have to agree with Richard Clark, I really wish the camera companies realized that their file format isn't a competitive edge worth trying to protect about and adopted open standards. It would save them a lot of time and money not having to keep developing mediocre RAW software that they could spend on improving the cameras and lenses. Publish the standards, provide a reference implementation or something similar, and let the companies who write software as their primary business do the heavy lifting.
So far, Leica and Pentax have. DNG is the only RAW format for Leica M series, and Pentax offers an in camera option of PEF or DNG. But neither of them are big enough to really push the standard forward.
I wouldn't be too quick to advocate that. Increasing storage requirements opens all kinds of new problems that I’m not convinced most photographers are equipped or prepared to deal with.Originally Posted by Cliff Beittel
Simply put, I wouldn’t advocate increasing storage demands unless there was a good reason to do so. In this case, I don’t agree that doubling your storage requirements for the sake of having a file that can carry edits with it is worth it. If you don’t intend to use the camera company specific RAW software, the choice is really a mater of preference. If you are concerned about long-term viability of camera specific RAW files, keep an archived copy of one of the DNG/RAW converters and deal with it when it becomes a problem.
I think in the long run though, you’re far more likely to loose images due to hardware failures, bit rot, failed or improperly designed backup routines or PEBKAC errors than your camera’s specific raw format suddenly and with out some form of warning no longer being supported by any software.
Guess your SOL if you use a Leica M8 then.
Brandon,
I would not recommend embedding the raw file in a dng file. Keep them separate. Less chance of damage.
The raw file is like the negative. Keep it safe and don't mess it up.
For us newbies -
1. Shoot in RAW. Lots of junk and some keepers (10%). Download from camera to LR preserving RAW. First review in LR and delete 90% from disc. (I have previously made two backups prior to this review).
2. Copy the 10% to the two external drives and delete the original 100%. Why save junk any longer than necessary?
3. PP the RAW file in LR or convert to DNG and PP in LR?
Cliff can you expand this statement? By cataloging software are you referencing programs like LR? If I process a CR2 RAW file in LR it preserves all of the adjustments. When I finish with a group of files, I export the group as a catalog and save it in an archive folder.The big advantage of DNG at the moment is that if you are using cataloging software, your catalog will reflect the exposure and color corrections you've made to your RAW files, whereas if you stick with your proprietary RAW format(s), your catalog will show the RAW files just as they came from the camera--i.e., at less than their best.
Once I have done adjustments to that remaining 10% and now reduced the 10% to 5%, if I export that 5% as a catalog to an archive folder, my understanding is that the catalog contains the original RAW file and all of the adjustments. At this point I should be able to delete the original remaining 10% of unadjusted files and maintain my double backup of the LR catalog, shouldn't I?
If instead I had converted the 10% in LR to DNG and then did the PP and exported what remained as a catalog, I would have forever lost the original RAW file. In this instance if I wanted to save the "original negative" I would have to save both the catalog which contains the DNG and all adjustments, and the RAW files as well. Correct?
What have I gained by not converting to DNG other than I now have to maintain two sets of backups if I converted to DNG?
4. A file is sent for further editing to PS either as a RAW or as a DNG, and after PP in PS, it is time to save the file: TIFF or PSD? This thread started pertaining to RAW/DNG; however, since TIFF/PSD has been referenced, Brandon please excuse the somewhat highjack :o :). I have asked about this before and I have not yet understood the positives and negatives of saving in one format or the other.
I do understand the difference between open source and proprietary, and Roger has suggested that DNG is now an open source standard. There is a "somewhat" interesting discussion regarding CR2 and DNG on the Adobe Forums: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/311902
As an aside, regarding LR, since it is an option to create an XMP sidecar file, why do so if you are only working in LR and PS? If you do not choose the option to create an XMP file, all adjustments are saved in the LR Catalog.
Back to PSD/TIFF: What I know is that a TIFF file is much larger than a PSD; what about quality? Is there ANY difference in quality saving an image in either format? If you want to go back and further work on the image in PS, is there any difference in the image that is reopened from a TIFF or from a PSD?
In my BreezeBrower thread Al, you said the following:
When you say "the few files you have saved with layers" are you indicating that - and I may say this wrong since I am in fetus in PS - that you flatten the images (remove the layers?) for most of your images before saving as TIFF? Does than mean that having flattened the image you cannot later go back and, in a sense, step back in time through the "history" and rework the image? Having flattened the image do you have to start with either the saved file or start from scratch with the original RAW file?The Tiff and PSD are the same. Some versions back if you wanted to save layers you needed to save in PSD. The few files I have saved with layers I use the PSD to distinguish.
Roger, are you saying the same thing? I read what you have said that you save all of your images in both formats: the working image is saved in PSD and the flattened image is saved in TIFF.I agree that tiff is a wide standard, and that is what I save my files in. PSD is also readable by many programs, not just those by adobe, so it should be OK too. I keep files with layers and text in psd format, but also flatten and save as a tiff (I know tiff can do layers, but the files seem bloated).
I hesitate to touch on printing, however I will ;) .
Is there any difference either in quality or procedure to print from either a PSD or a TIFF?
As always, thanks for all of your assistance and teaching. Cheers,
I use the KISS principle - archive the original RAW files - Save the layered TIF files - which can easily be adjusted - converted to JPG for web use.
Raw and Tifs - go to the Drobo.
Jay,
I have no experience with LR. If you are using LR as your cataloging software and it shows your images with your adjustments, than you are set. With IviewMedia Pro and (I take it) Expressions Media, the cataloged images do not reflect adjustments. It is disconcerting to look at a catalog of undersaturated, exposed-to-the-right images!
On the question of preserving RAWS, Peter Krogh likens a DNG file to a wrapper. Putting your CR2 in a DNG wrapper shouldn't affect the CR2 file (though archiving RAW files is fine too). Krogh, by the way, does not embed or archive his RAWs; he converts to DNG, archives those, discards the RAWs.
You may of heard of Thomas Kroll who invented the Photoshop we use and also DNG.
When asked in a Michigan Seminar if he would recomend deleteing the raw files after converting to DNG's his answer was " not at the moment would I delete the files but I would keep them in a seperate folder from the DNG's and also back up seperately.
He went on to further state that any Back Engineered format such as what you are doing when you convert to a DNG is not always 100 percent of the original. so He would not delete as of now because yopu never know if there is a future issue which may enhance your raw's better safe than sorry
John
Hi John, as an aside his name is Thomas Knoll - thank you Google for the correction! Were you at the seminar or is there a link to what he said?
The issue of RAW/DNG caused me to dig a little further - as you now know I am prone to do. For those using LR, this is probably the most informative article on Saving and Reading Metadata in LR: http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1324269
My “new” understanding would be that after the first review of images in LR to identify the first round of keepers – and during this process you should be writing to an XMP file because you might make some adjustments before deciding it is a keeper, what is left constitutes your new “originals” and these files+xmp should be backed up. Then to make things more efficient and eliminate the xmp, convert the working remainder to DNG.
If you convert to DNG and then work in PS and save as either PSD or TIFF, what happens when you want to all you did in PS when you want to work the image again in LR?
I hope this is of interest to someone other than me! :o
Cheers, Jay
sorry for thr typo,
Yes there was a group of us from MA at the seminar which is held every year. Jeff Schewe was talking about the workflow and Thomas was sitting in the back when the question arose about converting all of your files to DNG and deleteing the raws that is when Thomas mentioned that as of this time he would not recommend deleting your Raw files beacause of the back engineering to replicate the camera raw files from some manufactures. as far as being able to go back into lr and rework a tiff or psd remember that it is a cooked file and you would either have to go back to the original DNG or Raw or I would open the image in PS and rework from there .
That is one of the reasons i work from a duplicated image from LR into PS so my LR file remains at its pre PS state
John
PS
remember that back in 2005 it was thought that the major camera makers would climb aboard an open RAW format like DNG
but as of yet none of the MAjor players IE CANON AND NIKON have made the leap and with Nikon going with Capture NX2 I do not believe that you will see it shortly so until then I prefer to be safe and save a copy of both and not embed the raw with the DNG
Last edited by john crookes; 06-08-2009 at 05:25 PM.
Hi John and thanks for playing the game!
You said: "i work from a duplicated image from LR into PS so my LR file remains at its pre PS state"
When you right click on a file and opt to edit in PS and the image opens in PS and you do your edits, when you save the edited file as either TIFF or PSD in PS, haven't you saved the LR file in its pre PS state because you have worked and saved the image in PS? Can't you go back to the pre PS state just by opening the original image in LR which still contains the LR adjustments? Does LR change its metadata based upon the changes made in PS and saved as a TIFF? If the LR image does get changed, how do you send a "duplicate" to PS?
Cheers, Jay
Save the RAW and XMP side cars. I do wonder why you are not saving your processed images as TIFF? You can always convert to jpeg as needed. If you save the layered TIFF you can make future changes as your skills improve. You will also have the option of saving as 16 bit so as printing technology improves you can get better prints. BTW, I believe that printing a 16 bit TIFF gives a better print than an 8 bit jpeg with today's printers.
Sorry for the ramble I wrote it as I thought it.
Some comments. I'm skeptical/fearful that a proprietary program may not exist in 10 or 20 or 30+ years. I would be concerned that my kids and grand kids would have access to family photos (e.g. I have family photos dating back to the US civil war, 145 years old). Will your images be viewable in 145 years?
So my strategy is to keep images in non proprietary format with no need for any special processing. And I archive dcraw source code to decode raw files.
The lightroom strategy (I believe) is to log changes and create the image on the fly. Good idea when disk space was an issue 10+ years ago. But will anyone have lightroom to process your images to view them in 100+ years? In 10 years? For example, changes in software may orphan a process so that the desired result no longer works. I've seen this happen in a number of programs.
Tiff versus psd: Tiff is a widely used standard, as is jpeg. Pretty much all image software can read these. Tiff is lossless. PSD can be read by many programs but Adobe could change it at any time. if so, then with
more time, other programs may evolve to read the new PSD format and forget about the old. Then you are stuck. With tiff, there is plenty of software and free source code to ensure the images can always be read.
RAW versus DNG. If the DNG conversion is a move the bytes with no interpolation, then I think this is a very good idea. Except if the standard does not catch on all could be lost. So I will wait.
For reference, on word processing documents, I save my files in .doc, .rtf and .txt. I know I will always be able to read the text files. The rtf should be good and maintain most formatting. The .doc I have little confidence in; already early versions are getting difficult to read.
Ed, RAMBLE is good - nothing to be sorry about or for!!
To answer your question with a ramble - I am not saving my files - in a sense - at all! Up until I decided to go from a jpeg person to a RAW person - of course, everything was jpeg. Thus far I have been a LR RAW person which means everything stays as either CR2 or DNG as I experiment. When I want to either print, post or email I either print through LR or export from LF as a jpeg.
Now, I am growing up and moving to PS! See, I too can ramble - ramble is good!
Moving to PS raises issues of RAW/DNG and TIFF/PSD. There are pros and cons on both sides and I am trying to understand and choose the best way to create my personal workflow.
There is Lance's KISS method: RAW - TIFF and apparently it doesn't matter how large/bloated the TIFF file becomes, it is a universal standard. Perhaps the KISS method is the best and easiest. Ed, that is what you too seem to be suggesting.
It seems that lots are distinguishing between the final final - I am never going to change them again and if I do I will start with the original RAW file - flatened files by saving them in TIFF. And, if there is a present possibilty of future change it is not flattened and is saved as a PSD.
I have grown to really appreciate and admire Roger; however, nothing I am creating needs to outlive me. ;)
Cheers, Jay
For preservation you save everything of importance in multiple formats? You must have tera-tera byte hard drives!
Thank you for taking the time to describe what you do so succinctly!
I've just seen the value of a CR2 file. On my last two major shoots, I've had strange halos around the heads of birds photographed against water or sky. It had happened with at least two lenses, so I was thinking it might be a sensor fault of some kind. I sent some samples to John Dimauro at Canon's Jamesburg facility, and John forwarded them to Rudy Winston at Canon's New York headquarters. Rudy's suggestion was to try converting the images in Canon's DPP software instead of Adobe Camera RAW. Incredibly, that completely solved the problem! How ACR, which I've previously viewed as great software, can create things in an image that aren't there is beyond me. I was not applying Shadow/Highlight or similar adjustments in ACR that might account for the artifacts.
Cliff, I think you mean to say you see the value of DPP and you are raising the question whether you MUST use DPP as conversion program because there are hidden problems in 100% compatibility between CR2 and all of the other programs. It would be interesting if you have access to LR or Breeze Browser/Downloader Pro or any of the other programs whether the halos still appear. If they still appear, then perhaps it is program software oriented; if they do not appear then perhaps it is those images/you camera in this instance that there is a problem. You haven't reported the problem in the past, have you?
Cheers, Jay
Jay,
I don't have LR, but just checked the image with Breezebrowser, and indeed with Breezebrowser there is no halo. Seems to be an ACR issue.
Update: The halos I was getting with ACR are the result of using the Clarity slider. Clarity was developed to make landscape images look snappier, but even 10 points of Clarity (sometimes given as a suggested starting point) will cause halos with a white bird against a neutral background. While it's great to know ACR per se wasn't causing my problem, I will continue to keep my CR2 files, either stored in the DNG wrapper or archived separately.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote