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.
Please comment briefly on your experience with raw formats.
- Log in or register to post comments
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.