What is the current thinking re: DNG?

Never been a fan of DNG. Especially after reading this:

http://www.openraw.org/node/1482

Edit: Oh shoot, didn’t notice you started this thread, being the one for whom my posts are annoyances, way beneath the sky high standards of the pro photo community. Had I noticed who posted the question, I’d have kept my stupid mouth shut.

I do not see the point in converting to DNG right now – if ever, and there’s a very simple reason. DNG works because Adobe keeps updating the RAW converter every time a RAW format is released. Old formats are not purged from the RAW converter – so even if (insert your favorite camera manufacturer here) drops a format sometime in the future, it will still be supported by the DNG raw converter.

What this means is if for some reason you want to move to DNG sometime in the future, you’ll ALWAYS be able to do so because the DNG converter will convert the files at any time. This means there’s no real reason to convert NOW and use up all that extra disc space and lose proprietary tags in the process – or have to do the goofy embed raw option.

If you use photoshop for editing, the built-in RAW converter is the same converter used in tne DNG converter (they get updates at the same time). Again same logic – if you ever want to open up your RAW files in photoshop, you’ll be able to do so because they always keep the RAW converter current.

At some point this MIGHT change. I could see Adobe dropping camera raw from Photoshop and having it only support DNG for RAW files. But they would get huge pushback for that, and would draw even more criticism for heavy handing DNG.

Although hyped as an “open” standard, DNG is far from open. Adobe administers it, they control the standard, they promote the hell out of their own software on the site. They even have photoshop specific tags in the standard. There is no brand-neutral board of overseers for the DNG format. Adobe has the final say in what gets put into it. This is one of the primary reasons Canon and Nikon do not support it natively. Supporting DNG only helps Adobe…it’s not a level playing field.

If DNG was spun out of Adobe as a true open source project (like OpenRAW is trying to do), it might gain some traction. But I currently see no benefit in moving to DNG for the reasons stated above.

I agree with David’s reasons (and not just because he’s right down the road from me). And as an IT guy, I can’t help but think that because the RAW formats are proprietary, the OEMs have an advantage when it comes to the tools to process their own RAW files (in my case, Canon’s DPP). But that’s just a hunch, and also I don’t process large amounts of files, so workflow efficiency isn’t necessarily a driving factor for me….

Anybody who thinks that the developers of the particular “RAW” standards won’t do just about anything to protect it are living in fantasy land. If Adobe could force the conversion by Nikon and Canon to DNG, they would…in a second. And then they would manage the format as a proprietary standard of Adobe.

Frankly I cannot see any need to change from, in my case, NEF. When I convert a file it is to a format that is easier handled, and DNG is not that. TIFF and JPG, yes, but not DNG.

Whoa! there Stupid, I’m just asking about DNGs. I have nothing against you—I’m just curious to know who you are.

Oh, so it’s water under the bridge then? Cool, in that case I won’t pull up the post in which you had “issues” with me.

I’m Stupid, what more do you need to know?

Please do bring up the post. What did I say? Also, what’s the ‘pro photo community’ according to you exactly? I don’t consider myself a professional photographer. . .

Just googled it and see you deleted it, so let’s keep it that way and forget I ever stupidly said anything off topic about it. Between you and me, the post used to reside on this thread: http://www.lightstalkers.org/new-agency

Gregory,

I just meant that if you want to have back-ups you end up with 2 copies of your, say, CR2 files, and 2 copies of the converted DNGs. Then on top of that you would have derivative output files.

From that openraw.org thread:

A Response from Adobe:

This has definitely been an interesting discussion thread, and it’s helpful to see the range of views on the topic. Hopefully, you’ll all find it helpful to get the Adobe perspective directly.

Fundamentally, DNG is a pragmatic solution to a thorny problem. It seems that Stuart Nixon’s biggest problem with the DNG format is that it allows for the continuing use of MakerNotes. I can understand his desire to stick to the ideal of a fully transparent file format, but I believe that his proposed ideal is unlikely to ever win support from camera manufacturers, and the additional benefits it might bring are open to debate.

In order to be successful, camera manufacturers need to differentiate their cameras in the market. Each aspect of the camera that is “locked down” via standardization represents one less degree of freedom in differentiation.

MakerNotes provide a way for manufacturers to use a standard, compliant format, yet still add extra features for the purpose of differentiation. The presence of MakerNotes hasn’t been a problem for JPEG files. Despite the presence of undocumented MakerNotes, JPEG files from any camera are still universally acceptable. The content of the MakerNotes is not critical to the understanding of the files, and they are simply ignored by most software other than what’s provided by the camera manufacturer. It’s true that it could be helpful to have all of the additional information in MakerNotes publicly documented, but that doesn’t stand in the way of reading the files.

The goal of OpenRaw—and, presumably, of Stuart Nixon—is to have all raw formats fully and publicly documented. This is seen as being more important than having a single, common raw format. In contrast, we at Adobe believe that having a common raw format is the most important goal. As long as there is a baseline of publicly documented information present in the file to allow any software or hardware to process a high quality image, we think it’s acceptable—though not necessarily desirable—to have additional information within the file that’s not publicly documented.

Others in this thread have already pointed out the flaws with allowing for a plethora of different file formats, regardless of whether they’re publicly documented or not. Today, well over 100 cameras are supported by Adobe Camera Raw, and each of those has to be maintained. How long will it be before there are 1000 different formats supported? How long will it take to maintain all of those?

A common format is the only solution to this problem. It ensures that all cameras—even niche models—can be supported, now and in the future.

Clearly, Adobe is motivated to see that a common format takes hold, but not for any of the nefarious reasons Stuart Nixon implies. Having a common format makes it easier and less expensive for us to develop software that keeps our customers happy, and keeping our customers happy is what keeps us in business.

Adobe is not a camera company, so we can’t use our own hardware as a method of getting the format into the market. We need to make it as easy as possible for camera manufacturers to support it. That’s why we’ve based it on TIFF/EP, which is a format many of them already use as the basis for their proprietary formats. That’s why we support MakerNotes, so they can extend the format as necessary. And that’s why we publish the specification freely.

More importantly, we fully expect that, as momentum builds behind DNG and more manufacturers decide to support it, we will get requests for more changes to the format. That’s why we’ve built a versioning system into the format, to allow it to evolve while retaining backwards compatibility. We’ve certainly done our best to create a versatile format that can serve multiple camera manufacturers, but they know their needs more than we do.

We are also very open to the idea of releasing DNG to a standards body. This did not appear to us to be a good way to kick off the format, because there simply wasn’t enough interest within the standards bodies to pursue the issue at that time. We believed we could generate more momentum by releasing something to the public, where the pain of the problem was being felt most acutely. If the public enthusiasm leads to greater interest within a standards body, we’re happy to work with them.

We’re even open to accepting an alternative to DNG as a common raw format. Of course, we’ve put a stake in the ground and told customers that they can archive in DNG, so that means we’re committed to supporting it for the long term, or at the very least providing a smooth transition to a new as-yet-unknown standard. Nevertheless, we still think DNG is a good solution, and until someone can point to a concrete alternative, I think it would be much more constructive to publish articles that suggest modifications to DNG than to publish ones that proclaim that “DNG is not the answer.”

Kevin Connor
Senior Director of Product Management
Adobe Systems Incorporated

Fascinating. Since you’re in touch with the boss, my first stupid question to him would be:

Given it’s been around for 3.5 years, “as momentum builds behind DNG,” [tussis (a term for “cough” whose momentum is building faster than DNG’s)] why hasn’t Nikon and Canon jumped on the DNG bandwagon, nor do they seemingly plan to jump on it, ever?

Oh, and while you have him by the ear, please pass along my thanks for that lovely Camera Raw 4.4 Update recall which was ever so much fun: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2008/03/important_lightroom_14_and_cam.html