Anyone using DNG as their digital 'negative' ?

[Paul Shields]

There seems to be a bit of a split between those advocating an openraw solution and Adobe's offering of the DNG format. I won't go into the details (as I'd probably confuse myself as much as anyone else) but, to me, the DNG initiative looks like it has a lot of promise. It looks like the 'least worst option' to get to somewhere that's interoperable across a range of editors and converters. I've heard it is going to be native in Windows Vista, and it is also supported at the system level on Apple machines.

It may not be as open as those in the 'Open RAW' initiative would like, but it's a big step up from the mass of RAW types that are out there, and seems to be flexible enough to incoprorate other RAW tags in the future as the camera makers are forced to open up their 'secrets' (which they may have to if DNG takes off as it appears it will). I'm all for open standards, but sometimes you need the door to be pushed open a little bit and I think Adobe have done the right thing so far on this.

[Mr. Pickles]

I like the DNG idea too, as well as ONE standardized RAW file of course. But I don't understand much about what I can do with it now. I mean if the camera splits out a CRW, NEF, whatever, am I suppose to save it as a DNG too? If so, you better send me an extra 300gb

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pickles

I like the DNG idea too, as well as ONE standardized RAW file of course. But I don't understand much about what I can do with it now. I mean if the camera splits out a CRW, NEF, whatever, am I suppose to save it as a DNG too? If so, you better send me an extra 300gb

I think that's the current conundrum. You can get your RAW files into a DNG aware process (such as Adobe offers) and save the file as DNG, but there are currently very few cameras that create DNG files 'in camera'. They tend to be those who don't have any previous investment in their own proprietary RAW formats - Leica, Hasselblad, etc.

[Max@Home]

Paul, Mr. Pickles,

Breezebrowser's DownLoaderPro has the ability to create DNG files from you RAW's during the download-process with the Adobe DNG converter.

I briefly experimented with this, but found you a) need that extra 300Gb disk, and b) need a LOT of patience )

Furthermore, the DNG files so created are either smaller than the Canon RAW's ?? so what's this, compression??
or you can opt to 'embed the original RAW'... OUCH! then you need another 300Gb disk extra )

So for now I stick to RAW!

YMMV, *my* €0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[ascending Phoenix]

Not an avid RAW shooter.That said.The main premeses of DNG is that we can ARCHIVE another cd/dvd of DNG.So as technoligy changes at least we will have a consistatnd Standard in PS to re edit even 30 yrs from now.I agree its great logic.We went from FLOPPY to CD to DVD in almosta heartbeat.At least we have safe way to Archive.Then as storage Formats change we can transfer Archives to the new medium of Archiving.To me personally.Seems like a great idea

[Mr. Pickles]

Unless Adobe decides to kill the DNG standard after, say, 10 years.

[TeeJayCee]

I certainly agree with that comment Mr. Pickles. Adobe seems to want us to accept this solution as being gospel yet that would give them full control over what mediums/formats survive and what don't. They certainly have done right by the users with the PDF so I don't think we have anything to fear yet I believe that an open standard RAW that everyone agrees on is the way to go.

What I worry about is what if another company introduces a similar product to Adobe's DNG? We could potentially be in another technology war, much like what is happening with HD DVD & Blu Ray and the Beta/VHS wars before that.

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by TeeJayCee

I certainly agree with that comment Mr. Pickles. Adobe seems to want us to accept this solution as being gospel yet that would give them full control over what mediums/formats survive and what don't. They certainly have done right by the users with the PDF so I don't think we have anything to fear yet I believe that an open standard RAW that everyone agrees on is the way to go.

True for PDF, but does anyone remember how intrusive and unreasonable the licensing requirements for PostScript were? Not to mention Adobe's absolute refusal to release the full spec on its Type 1 fonts? Adobe's behavior was so bad that even Apple had gotten enough and went to someone else as soon as it was technically feasible to do so. It has been at least a decade since that has happened, but I still don't trust Adobe not to pull a stunt like that again.

More recently, consider the case of the legal flap over the LZW compression scheme behind the JPEG format, as well as the proprietary nature of GIF and the efforts of its patent holder to reassert its licensing rights over the format. The JPEG format appears to be safe for the moment, but the popularity of GIF has taken a hit and may become obsolete because of the cloud hanging over it. PDF has become something of a de facto standard, as has the Photoshop native format. I would hope that Adobe wouldn't go proprietary on us again, or even worse, do what Microsoft has tried to do a couple of times with its Word native format - abandon support for an older version in favor of a new one - but I still don't want to be forced into betting the farm on the continued good behavior of Adobe.

[Blinky]

Originally Posted by scoundrel1728

True for PDF, but does anyone remember how intrusive and unreasonable the licensing requirements for PostScript were? Not to mention Adobe's absolute refusal to release the full spec on its Type 1 fonts? Adobe's behavior was so bad that even Apple had gotten enough and went to someone else as soon as it was technically feasible to do so. It has been at least a decade since that has happened, but I still don't trust Adobe not to pull a stunt like that again.
...

That's all true but that was the nature of Adobe's business model... they licensed technology... at one point, they were the most efficient company on the planet, earning over a million dollars in revenue per employee. Photoshop was a toy at that point and Illustrator was their only serious software application. PostScript and Type 1 were their bread and butter and never intended to be open standards... that saved a lot of great type foundries from failure because they licensed Type 1 to their competitors just like anybody else.. Apple became the graphics and publishing standard because of PostScript and Type 1. Pagemaker and WYSIWYG would have never been possible without them. Warnock made the right decision with Apple based on Steve Jobs' less than ethical behavior regarding Xerox PARC and Windowed/Moused interfaces.

I think Adobe has been far more customer freindly in terms of technology licensing than Apple, Microsoft. Novell, Cisco, etc. I hate their copy protection technology because it eats too many cycles but I'll wager they iron it out over time. Apple got in bed with Microsoft on Truetype to save money and jilted Adobe... but Apple would have never been the publishing powerhouse it became without Adobe. PostScript and Type 1 live on because they're great technology.

I trust Adobe regarding DNG. PDF has been a major boon to anyone using the internet and now anyone submitting pages for commercial printing. I don't use DNG yet but I anticipate that I will one day. It makes more sense than Nikon buying into Canon or PhaseOne or vice versa. Adobe's on the ball, their software is really tight compared to most developers.

I wish Adobe was paying me to say that but they aren't. As developers go, I've got more trust for Adobe than any of the other majors... Ever tried to deal with Quark? :P

That's my take on it anyway.

Chip

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by B

That's all true but that was the nature of Adobe's business model... they licensed technology... at one point, they were the most efficient company on the planet, earning over a million dollars in revenue per employee. Photoshop was a toy at that point and Illustrator was their only serious software application. [snip] Pagemaker and WYSIWYG would have never been possible without them.

I am no great fan of either Apple or Microsoft. At that time I was using PostScript with a Commodore Amiga. Not that the top management at Commodore was ethical in their conduct either. They ended up destroying the company for their own personal gain. It isn't necessarily my point that Adobe is particularly bad, but at one point they were a monopoly and acted like one. It is my guess that Apple would not have been so eager to look for an alternative if Adobe hadn't been so "efficient," i.e., had charged less for their licensing fees and effectively offered less of an incentive to jump ship.

Originally Posted by B

I think Adobe has been far more customer freindly in terms of technology licensing than Apple, Microsoft. Novell, Cisco, etc.

Some of the terms in Adobe's licensing agreement for the PostScript fonts still leave a bad taste in my mouth, such as its reserving the right to inspect the equipment and its fonts. This seemed (and still seems) unduly intrusive for someone in a private residence. Not that Adobe was likely to actually do such a thing; still, it raised a big red privacy flag for me.

I still have a PostScript printer but I don't think the provisions are quite so extreme now.

Originally Posted by B

I trust Adobe regarding DNG. PDF has been a major boon to anyone using the internet and now anyone submitting pages for commercial printing. I don't use DNG yet but I anticipate that I will one day. It makes more sense than Nikon buying into Canon or PhaseOne or vice versa. Adobe's on the ball, their software is really tight compared to most developers.

Adobe's technical prowess really isn't the issue and it has shown itself a more able software developer than, say, Nikon or Canon. The real question is Adobe's trustworthiness and long-term commitment to their existing customer base and their data. There is reason to believe that Adobe is better than Microsoft in this respect, but that isn't saying much. I would much rather see such a standard in the hands of some entity other than a single corporation.