Please comment briefly on your experience with raw formats.

Please comment briefly on your experience with raw formats.
Yes, I think it is a good idea.
69% (142 votes)
No , I am sticking with the proprietary formats.
12% (24 votes)
I don
20% (41 votes)
Total votes: 207
Share | |
COMMENTS
Dan Forzano's picture

Given the number of camera developers that have merged with others, or ceased making cameras altogether in the last few years I'm really concerned about using proprietary formats. Not to mention that these change seemingly with each new camera. This causes endless problems with the applications I CHOOSE to use in my workflow, vs. the apps they provide. DNG is a great idea - an open format that can be expanded and easily supported by camera developers and application developers alike.

Donald Garland's picture

Adobe DNG provides photographers with a convenient Raw file conversion option for those of us who may prefer to work exclusively in Adobe photo post production software. If you are comfortable working with the camera manufacturers software, fine, use it. It's just nice to have a choice.

Fred Huff's picture

I have no experience with RAW formats. However, it makes perfect sense that a univesal RAW format such as DNG would really benefit photographers. The problem is it will NEVER be embraced by all camera makers, no matter what benefits it may offer consumers. As a parallel, just look at the development and impending demise of DVD-A and SACD in the audio hobby. Those high-rez audio formats offered sound much improved over the CD, but industry infighting left them both withering on the vine. And for what? PURE GREED. Likewise, I would never trust the photo industry to adopt anything really worthwhile that was "not invented here." My response? LONG LIVE FILM AND JPG!!

DeWaun Simmons's picture

I think it's a great idea. There's only one form of "portable document format" which is now globally used and accepted. DNG should be that format -- you still get RAW manipulation upon opening in Photoshop, which is one of the most important reasons to adopt a RAW workflow.

Bob's picture

Any standard that is fully backward compatible would be a step in the right direction. However, the format regardless of what it turns out to be, must be rich, lossless and compact. A tall order I'm afraid.

Aaron Lemchen's picture

If proprietary formats are such a good idea, why don't the manufacturers who develop the proprietary formats offer plugins for imaging software, or make the code publicly available to be incorporated into third party software solution? This last option would also allow more public scrutiny of their claimed superiority of their RAW file format.

Ray Redd's picture

It's probably unnecessary. As I've found using a Linux computer, open source software is available to handle most of the proprietary formats that exist.

Douglas Kiser's picture

Standardization across the board by the diferent camera manufacturers will help the digital work process when working with a standardized format.

Bill Waltner's picture

I'm tired of manufacturers using proprietory software AND hardware that limit the accessibility of consumers.

Diana's picture

Using DNG, will this lock the user into only using the Adobe software?

Dave Hargus's picture

I would like to see one standard for RAW. I use Adobe's DNG converter with my RAW files produced by my Canon 5D and am happy with the results. DNG opens in Photoshop CS where I convert it over to a Photoshop file for post processing. May sound like a lot of steps but I find it reasonably fast and preserves the original RAW image in DNG for future use.

Dan Roberts's picture

I'd like to know the technical reasons why manufacturers have not moved to DNG.

Alan Burns's picture

Another option is always nice. Why don't the manufacturers just make their proprietary software also available as a plug in for Photoshop or Corel so the user can get the benefits of the proprietary decoding and the familiar workflows? That would seem to offer the greatest advantages to the users.

Steve Warren's picture

Because with DNG formats, you would be forced to purchase Adobe at their inflated prices. You only have one camera and therefore, only the need for one program supplied by the camera manufacturer.

Dan Wells's picture

I shoot 100% RAW and as long as the programs are available for conversion, there isn't much need for DNG. At least not that I can see.

Shawn Stone's picture

I'd much rather see an open standard for RAW to which all camera makers (who want to be competitive) adhere. That being said, even 35mm film had its deviations from the norm, as I remember all too well from my brief stint in a processing lab, where I inadvertantly ran some professional 35mm through our machine before I realized that.

Geoff Butler's picture

I am an Adobe fan and I am sure as they have done with all of there products produce a program for Raww file that will benifit digital photography.

Peter Dunner, M.D.'s picture

I am worried about so many formats and perhaps obsolescence of some and software/back up problems. One format is the way to go for safety and the future.

Joe Dlhopolsky's picture

It's a good idea in a limited sense. I would not like to see it replace better quality proprietary raw. However, in my experience, raw quality is better than jpeg. I could see DNG become a standard for submission for publication.

JD James's picture

I shoot exclusively NEF and have been happy with results...both CS2 workflow and final product. If DNG is qualitatively comparable, I would support it.

William Losasso's picture

Excellent results using CS2 Camera Raw.

Joe Fane's picture

Anytime a standard is embraced by the manufacures it makes our life easier.

Chris Pflum's picture

I prefer a univeral DNG format, proposed by Adobe, and applaud the camera manufactures who have adopted it. Although I am generally pleased with Nikon's NEF format, I prefer Adobe's raw processing software to Nikon's. Unfortunately, Nikon will not reveal the NEF profile forcing me to calibrate the color. Nikon makes great cameras, but their photo editing software is no match for Adobe.

Robert J Moore's picture

Lets maintain a standard and not reinvent the wheel.

Gary Christensen's picture

I have used Canon's CRW format since buying a Canon Digital SLR in 2005 and feel DGN is too much of a compromise. I learned to make adjustments to my images without training or text books and feel the Raw image adjustments give considerable control over picture quality.

Linford Richardson's picture

One universal raw standard should be an included option replacing in-camera tiff. Camera manufacturers may also include proprietary raw.

George Klein's picture

I always shoot in RAW format, then after downloading the images to my HD I immediately convert them into DNG format I use to make most of the adjustments.

Don Dement's picture

Best or not for now, we need a format that will outlive frailties of the marketplace that often causes change for change's sake. If DNG isn't it, what is? Lets get one.

Reuben L.  Hann's picture

I assume "compromise," as expressed by some manufacturers, means "we didn't invent it." DNG is definitely the way to go.

Bob Burke's picture

The only thing propriatary formats benefit are the manufacturers. This is not all bad for the manufacturer and the buyer.

Pages

X
Enter your Shutterbug username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
Loading