![]() The other reason I don’t use DNG as a matter of workflow is personal in that I want to be able to have the original raw file for provenance so I can always say, “here’s the original untouched raw file”… Ironically, the Nikon Z7 raw is 90 MBs so the DNG file is better compressed than the Nikon raw. You might think this isn’t a big deal but I’ve gotten use to large digital captures and while DNG is an efficient format an 45MP capture is still about 50 MBs when converted to DNG. If I use a proprietary raw file and side car file then any changes only cause the tiny. First, I use Lightroom and Camera Raw so if I convert to DNG and make a small parameter change in the file, the entire DNG file needs to be backed up on a files changed criteria. With regards to DNG, I personally don’t use it in my normal workflow for several practical reasons. Moreover, that developer community already exists! We only need to turn them loose. If I’m right, then the photographic community is missing out on a plethora of innovative software that an independent developer community could provide. Photographers could have substantially better software if this industry would adopt open standards. (As I pointed out, Sony used to do that, but they stopped – apparently to protect their in-house software.) I beg you to consider my comparison to the open developer networks supported by Apple and Android. The other issue I mentioned is that manufacturers don’t publish their WiFi, BT and even USB APIs (Application Programming Interface) is even worse. ![]() Proprietary RAW formats is one tool that this industry uses to stifle independent software development. My basic gripe, however, was not addressed in any of the responses. They have withstood the test of time, as has DNG. There has been no reason to revise those standards because they got these fundamentals right. The basic JPEG compression standard (T.81) was also published in 1992. However, note also that the current TIFF standard is 6.0 published in 1992, and I’ve noted that TIFF is still a popular image file format. ![]() I’d be happy to debate the technical aspects of those statements – but not here. Moreover, the fact that there are such fundamental principles of image storage (and this is my turf) indicates that there is no need for proprietary RAW formats. The fact that there have only really been two versions indicates that this format deals with features of data storage that are so fundamental they really don’t change with time – otherwise, Adobe would have addressed that. In fact, DNG has only had to two widely adopted versions: 1.2 in 2008 and 1.4 in 2012. He did say this in his book: “I need to point out that the DNG file format is advancing (currently at DNG spec version 1.4).” Actually, today the current version is still 1.4, which was published in 2012. I’m not saying he was promoting DNG back then (although I thought he did, but regardless, he may have changed his opinion). I read his book The Digital Negative some years ago – it was very influential. I am definitely interested in hearing Jeff Schewe‘s opinions. ![]() It an issue that should be addressed in PhotoPXL forums, and elsewhere. I claim that there is nothing that proprietary RAW files can do that you can’t do with DNG. I beg you to consider that the (independent) engineer’s point of view is also important here. That’s why I read your article and watch your videos. Kevin, I really appreciate your experience – both technical and artistic. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |