Please comment briefly on your experience with raw formats.

By Editor • Posted: Aug 15, 2006

Raw file format offers many advantages over shooting JPEG or TIFF, but needs a specific program to allow it to even be seen. DNG format. as proposed by Adobe, offers a more universal type Raw file format, and some new digital cameras from various makers have now adopted this format. Do you think DNG is a good idea or do you, like some camera manufacturers who have opted not to adopt it, consider it too much of a compromise?

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

Comments

Submitted by Tony Lazarecki on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

Consistency is essential in the industry. Although we had our choice of film types to use, development of those types were performed with little variation. That, I think, helps the photographer to benchmark how to shoot a particular subject and what we can anticipate as a result. DNG would offer the same benchmark for all digital RAW imaging.

Submitted by Jerry Bengtson on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

I think it is a great idea. I convert all of my Raw images to DNG. In the future I will have no problem going back to them, even if I change camera models.

Submitted by Frank Jr. on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

Lets not start this beta vs vhs can of worms again. We need an archival friendly format and DNG seems to fit the bill. A generic format woid create a win/win result.

Submitted by MM Camera on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

This would stop camera makers from charging any money for software, to open the HI resolution mode. When you pay over a $1000, you should be able to use all the cameras features with out paying more money.

Submitted by Phil Nee on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

I am always worried that RAW files made on older cameras will be obsolete as support for them ends.

Submitted by Brian Martin on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

Proprietary RAW is now one of the few remaining obstacles to bringing high quality digital "negatives" to the widest possible audience.

Submitted by Steven M. Jenkins on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

I have tried Canon's raw. The files it creates and the software they provide are very user-UNfriendly. I tried the add-on with Photoshop CS, and I was not impressed. What would be given up with the new DNG format? What I want is something as easy to use as a JPEG, that I can load into Photoshop and adjust there, not as I am loading the file onto the computer.

Submitted by John P. Dillon on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

It flows well with Photoshop, and gives one seamless source file. The manufacturers want to make more cash by selling their converters.

Submitted by Gus Gil on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

I've been reading and listening a lot of opposites opinion, which is true?

Submitted by Larry on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

A universal system is much needed, however I don't think it will happen due to marketing forces.

Submitted by Daniel Perez on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

It should be a standard system. Can you imagine if each film manufactures film had to be processed in propietary developers (chemicals?

Submitted by Stephan Mokrzecki on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

A universal raw file format is indeed a good idea and there need not be compromises in adopting it. Film afterall is processed in a common set of chemicals!

Submitted by Mick on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm.

So far, what I have seen in the output of DNG files leads me to conclude that they are one letter short of the proper name: "dung", the resolution was terrible.