ANYONE USING DNG?
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:42 am
"dng" is Adobe's purported open architecture digital raw format. In the digital world, there has been a call by some for a "standard" format (much like jpeg or tiff) that would be embraced by all the camera manufacturers (Ironically, I believe the "tif" file format is now owned by Adobe). Just Google this topic to see that there has been a fairly robust debate over this -- whether there even should be a standard format and whether Adobe's offered format is truly open and non-proprietary. I don't really want to get into that debate. While perhaps interesting, it is not, IMO, useful and pragmatic.
One of the many books I read over the years made a pretty good case for .dng and I decided it worked well for me. I use virtually all Adobe processing products or products that interface with Adobe Photoshop. I don't see me changing that in the near future. So, to me, having my files in a format that Adobe "owns" is not threatening. There are some that say I should save a copy of the native .nef file as an archive somewhere. I don't. The dng converter from Adobe offers the ability to save an imbedded copy (compressed) of the .nef file within the dng file. I do that. Bigger files, but memory is cheap. The process of retrieving the file works -- I have tried it a couple times. So, in my mind, as long as I have at least the last copy of the dng converter software, I have the best of both worlds.
Why dng? For me it was pretty simple. First, I like the way the dng file works and looks in Bridge. Second, file management. The native files I am aware of (Nikon nef, Canon crw, Olympus -- I think its orw or something) all keep their "edits" in a separate file from the actual digital image file (called a "sidecar" file). When ever you move files, you have to be aware of this behavior and be sure the sidecar files stay with the original file, or any edits you make to metadata, raw adjustments, etc. will stay with the side car file. It always seemed clunky to me. Adobe designed their dng file to include all that stuff in one file. I like that, too.
I have been accused of being an apologist for the dng format. I'm not. It works for me. You may like it, you may not. I am always interested in the discussion, and open to persuasion that I am doing something really wrong. Thoughts?
One of the many books I read over the years made a pretty good case for .dng and I decided it worked well for me. I use virtually all Adobe processing products or products that interface with Adobe Photoshop. I don't see me changing that in the near future. So, to me, having my files in a format that Adobe "owns" is not threatening. There are some that say I should save a copy of the native .nef file as an archive somewhere. I don't. The dng converter from Adobe offers the ability to save an imbedded copy (compressed) of the .nef file within the dng file. I do that. Bigger files, but memory is cheap. The process of retrieving the file works -- I have tried it a couple times. So, in my mind, as long as I have at least the last copy of the dng converter software, I have the best of both worlds.
Why dng? For me it was pretty simple. First, I like the way the dng file works and looks in Bridge. Second, file management. The native files I am aware of (Nikon nef, Canon crw, Olympus -- I think its orw or something) all keep their "edits" in a separate file from the actual digital image file (called a "sidecar" file). When ever you move files, you have to be aware of this behavior and be sure the sidecar files stay with the original file, or any edits you make to metadata, raw adjustments, etc. will stay with the side car file. It always seemed clunky to me. Adobe designed their dng file to include all that stuff in one file. I like that, too.
I have been accused of being an apologist for the dng format. I'm not. It works for me. You may like it, you may not. I am always interested in the discussion, and open to persuasion that I am doing something really wrong. Thoughts?