# To DNG or not to DNG?



## mkilci

Hello all,

I have an opportunity to clean my whole photo library. I was considering converting all my RAW to DNG as I re-import.

What are your thoughts DNG vs leave it as RAW? If DNG, embed the RAW or no?

I read this article and now I have doubts...

https://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng

Thanks 

--
Murat


----------



## clee01l

I could have written that article. Everything in it matches my experience.  Other that a slight space savings, the article gives none of the benefits to DNG and there are some.  The CRC checksum being the advantage that most DNG apostles cite. 
I'll use DNG if the camera can create it but otherwise the proprietary RAW format is just as good.


----------



## tspear

Murat,

This comes up every few months. I convert to DNG on import. I also use the make second copy feature so I have the original raw file if needed and I keep this in the backups.
So at the end of the day, the built in checksum for DNG files (which has saved me twice) is worth it. 

If I drop Lr I will have to effectively redo all the edits. So I either find software that supports as many Adobe extensions as possible, or I go back to the raw files. I effectively starting over. The result is I am basically married to Adobe Lr for the remainder of my photographic life  However with that stated, there are software which can read some of the Adobe extensions and data, unlike with Apple Aperture. I therefor believe there is better hope by having an open format that some other vendor can step into Adobe's place then someone catching up and supporting all the legacy camera formats.

The majority of the comments/complaints listed in the article just do not apply to me. I tend to import at the end of the day or while doing other tasks. So I really do not care if it takes five minutes or five hours (slight exaggeration, but you get the idea). 

In terms of the last point, eventually I think Adobe will start dropping some older formats, Nikon and Canon both have for older cameras on the proprietary software. When will Adobe do so? I would guess within the next five or so years they will announce they are dropping support for a non-main stream early 2000s digital camera to test the waters. The reason I think this is, Adobe has been focused on performance, features and then stability for Lr in the past couple of releases. Eventually they will need to revisit the import aspects, specifically the ACR demosaic functionality. At this point, they will question the worth of supporting the legacy code bases and the value to continue supporting them.


----------



## Klaas

The reason, why I don't change my raws to dng anymore is, that it is not shure, that other software can read the dng-files. Some days ago I installed Cyberlink PhotoDirector 8. I was very astonished, when PD8 didn't show up my dng-files, I had converted wiht LR 6.7. Later I found out, that PD8 is only able to read the old dng-version 4.6, not the actual 7.1.

Adobe dng is not an generally accepted file format, it is an Adobe format only. This is the problem. So beware of dng. If it might be one day absolutely neccessary, to change my raws to another format, I'm shure I'd change to uncompressed tif.

Klaas


----------



## clee01l

Klaas said:


> Adobe dng is not an generally accepted file format, it is an Adobe format only. This is the problem. So beware of dng. If it might be one day absolutely neccessary, to change my raws to another format, I'm shure I'd change to uncompressed tif.


This is not a valid statement.
DNG is a published file format and generally accepted by most post processing apps.   TIFF is also an Adobe owned file format as are several others The DNG format is a derivative of the TIFF/EP6 standard. As is CR2 & NEF.   More than 6 camera manufacturers use DNG as their SOOC RAW file format.  Leica, Samsung, Ricoh (Pentax) and DJI (Drones) all use DNG from their cameras.  Any app that doesn't not support DNG won't support these cameras either.


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

I offer advice that applies to most such "should I switch to..." questions in technology.

"Only if it is solving a problem you have, not because someone just said it was a good idea."

Now evaluating how much of a problem something solves, is it a real problem or fake, ... well, that's an exercise left to the students.


----------



## rob211

That article has some rather suspect assertions. Like this canard: "most post-processing software packages out there either do not read DNG at all, or read it poorly, making DNG a lot less useful than it was designed to be in the first place." Huh? My Pentax uses DNG and so far I haven't found any Mac software that can't handle the DNG as well as any other format like Oly's or Panasonic's RAWs. Software that doesn't read DNG generally won't read any other RAW either. Makes me wonder if the blogger really knows that much. And then he goes on to seemingly confuse the data stored in the metadata format used in DNG with the data itself. Yes, manufacturers have proprietary non standard data generated by their cameras, but it's not the format's fault that that data isn't universally recognized. Sheesh.

OTOH, developers seem to be adapting to a world filled with too many RAW formats. If you perhaps have RAW generated by Billy Bob's Bait Shop and Camera company, and fear support for that RAW might disappear, then sure, convert. But if it's stuff that's commonly used now then it's as likely it will be viable in the future. The gains of converting seem kinda marginal. I convert for other reasons, since I sometimes need to share without the hassle of sidecars. YMMV.


----------



## Robert Reiser

mkilci said:


> I read this article and now I have doubts...
> 
> Why I No Longer Convert RAW Files to DNG



Thank you for sharing this Murat, it is an interesting article to read. To me, converting to DNG always felt like adding another layer of complexity and another step to the workflow. I know there are other opinions out there. But actually I do see a valid reason to convert RAW files to DNG: if you still process RAW files of a very old digital camera, you may find that the format is no longer supported. Knowing software companies, it is very likely that they will not forever provide support for older RAW formats. So think of DNG as a way to future-proof your (older, not current) digital assets.

Here is another article by Thom Hogan you might enjoy reading: Getting DNGed


----------



## tspear

Robert Reiser said:


> Thank you for sharing this Murat, it is an interesting article to read. To me, converting to DNG always felt like adding another layer of complexity and another step to the workflow. I know there are other opinions out there. But actually I do see a valid reason to convert RAW files to DNG: if you still process RAW files of a very old digital camera, you may find that the format is no longer supported. Knowing software companies, it is very likely that they will not forever provide support for older RAW formats. So think of DNG as a way to future-proof your (older, not current) digital assets.
> 
> Here is another article by Thom Hogan you might enjoy reading: Getting DNGed



Thom makes a few inaccurate statements. In order to use the raw file, Adobe has to reverse engineer the camera company's raw data regardless. At some point Adobe will normalize the data internally within Lr in order to process the image. Therefore raw/dng as a the image source is rather meaningless in terms of that specific argument. Next, he also stated that the raw file contains a JPEG image which can be utilized. This is incorrect as far as Lightroom goes, and is generally a small thumbnail image which is even more useless from a usability standpoint. 

Tim


----------



## Jim Wilde

tspear said:


> This is incorrect as far as Lightroom goes, and is generally a small thumbnail image which is even more useless from a usability standpoint.



Some (many? most?) cameras have an embedded jpeg which has the same pixel dimensions as the raw image, and which is what's used by the likes of PhotoMechanic, which in turn is used by many photo-journalists for their field triage work. Both of my Canon DSLRs have that full-size embedded jpeg, though my Panasonic only has a 1920x1280 jpeg.


----------



## tspear

Jim Wilde said:


> Some (many? most?) cameras have an embedded jpeg which has the same pixel dimensions as the raw image, and which is what's used by the likes of PhotoMechanic, which in turn is used by many photo-journalists for their field triage work. Both of my Canon DSLRs have that full-size embedded jpeg, though my Panasonic only has a 1920x1280 jpeg.



But it is of a much lower quality. 
That is why I consider it not "usable" for processing work.


----------



## Jim Wilde

It's plenty good enough quality for making culling decisions. Many pros that I know have been begging for the ability to use that embedded preview in Lightroom so they can get to work while waiting for regular previews to be built in the background.


----------



## tspear

Jim Wilde said:


> It's plenty good enough quality for making culling decisions. Many pros that I know have been begging for the ability to use that embedded preview in Lightroom so they can get to work while waiting for regular previews to be built in the background.



That makes sense. But not how Thom in the article states the jpeg is better as source data.


----------



## Jim Wilde

Again, it depends. If you have setup your camera to use its capabilities (picture styles, specific contrast, saturation levels, etc.) it would be entirely probable that the embedded jpeg would look initially far superior to the rather flat raw file immediately after import to Lightroom (because those settings only affect the jpeg, and are ignored by Lightroom during raw conversion). We continue to get forum posts from new raw shooters expressing frustration because "I just want my raw files to look as good as the picture that I saw on the back of the camera when I took it". So in that sense he's most certainly correct.

If, OTOH, you have the camera settings all at neutral (as I have) then the embedded jpeg would look pretty similar to the imported raw.


----------



## rob211

I think Jim's right; the embedded JPEG is probably what you'd get if you did just JPEG with whatever WB etc settings you were using in the camera. Like him, my in-camera settings are so neutral I forgot that.

So I see why Lr ignores them. When I'm using say PM and want to cull they are quite handy. If you use browsing type photo software it's kind of like having a JPEG+RAW workflow without the hassle of the extra files. With DNGs I always thought it would be nice if Lr imported with camera settings intact, using the embedded JPEG, since Lr would know how to undo those and go back to a standard RAW preview. But I guess DNG isn't smart enough yet for that, so to speak.

And BTW using FastRawViewer is a really cool way to compare a RAW preview with the embedded JPEG quickly; far quicker than Lr. It's what the importer in Lr shoulda been.


----------



## reidthaler

I teach Lightroom and I got tired of asking students who convert to DNG why they were doing so and never getting a good answer except they read to do somewhere.  I decided to put together my own  David Letterman (United States reference) Top Ten Reasons Not to Convert to DNG:

1.     *Precludes you from using OEM software*  You will _never_ be able to use your camera manufacture’s software again.  _Ever_.  Features that are specific to certain cameras (like Nikon’s Active D-Lighting and Picture Control) are not supported in the DNG format.  Do you _really_ think that Adobe knows everything that’s in _every_ proprietary RAW file format it supports?


2.     *Backing up images will take longer*  In Lightroom, many of the changes you make can be stored in small XMP sidecar files that accompany raw files, and are only a few kilobytes.  When you convert to DNG, changes are made directly to the file, so when you back up your images (hopefully daily) the whole file, typically 20 MB or more, needs to be backed up _instead_ of just the small XMP sidecar files.


*3.    Metadata can’t be read by other software*  XMP data, including keywords, stars, and metadata that you may have changed in Lightroom is not available if you want to use another program that can read XMP sidecar files but not DNG files.



4.     *Longer downloading times from your memory card*  If you convert images to DNG upon importing to Lightroom, processing times increase since Lightroom must import _and_ convert all the files to DNG.



5.     *File sizes*  One argument is that DNG file sizes are more efficient and are up to 20% smaller.  In 1956, the first IBM Model 350 hard drive weighed over a ton, cost $329,928 (in 2014 dollars) annually _to_ _lease, _and stored 3.75 MB of data.  It would have taken over 20 of them to hold a _single_ Nikon D810 (36 MP) 14-bit RAW image file.  Today, a 3 TB hard drive (formatted) holds the equivalent of 725,333 of the Model 350 hard drive and costs $100.  The equivalent storage capacity, using the IBM Model 350 hard drive, would cost $14.9 _billion_ to lease the same capacity (not to mention the 11.6 million square feet to store them, or the cost of electricity to run them.)  I’m not concerned about the size of native RAW files!


6.     *Load times* DNG files supposedly load faster in the Develop module.  With faster processors and Smart Previews, RAW files load very quickly in the Develop module even from an external drive USB 3.0 drive.


7.     *Ability to read RAW file in the future*.  One of the other main arguments in favor of converting to DNG files is that if a camera manufacturer stops producing software that can read their RAW files, then their RAW files would be unreadable.  I don’t think Nikon, Canon, or Sony are going away anytime soon, and even if they were, you could use their software to read their files.  Worst case, you could always convert them to DNG.


8.     *DNG is not an industry standard, it’s Adobe’s standard*.  As much as Adobe would love the DNG format to become the industry standard, it’s not.  It’s _Adobe’s_ standard.  While a few camera manufactures produce camera the shoot DNG file as their native RAW files, most do not.  _DNG requires a lifelong allegiance to Adobe._


9.     *Camera brand not easily identified*.  Converting all your files to DNG makes it harder to quickly identify the camera manufacturer when looking at the file name since the suffix will be a generic DNG, and not one associated with your camera.


10. *No obvious benefit*.  For all the reasons touting the DNG format, perhaps the biggest reason not to convert is that there is *no obvious benefit*.  DNG files don’t contain more information (maybe less), are negligibly smaller, don’t load appreciably faster, take longer to download because the must be converted, and ties you to Adobe _forever_!  They simply are, understandably, a greater benefit to Adobe than you, and have not been embraced as a standard format.


----------



## Richard Riebel

Greetings all. Newbie Richard here, from the USA, full of turkey.
There are many reasons not to convert all your files to DNG, which reasons have been
thoroughly presented above. I'll add one more: occasionally some RAW converters do a 
better job than LR on certain files. Many of my astrophotography files are very high
ISO images. DXO Optics Pro has a noise reduction engine that for many of these files
outperforms LR noise reduction.

DXO Optics Pro will only apply that noise reduction to the original OOC RAW file.
So I copy my RAW files to a drive before choosing which converter processes the RAW file.
I then export a TIFF to LR.

I use Sony gear, by the way, so the RAW files are "ARW" files.


----------



## rob211

Maybe the OEM issue is true for Nikon users. Dunno. But not for some other manufacturers who support DNG, like Pentax. And I'd rather go to the dentist than use most OEM software, but that's me.

I don't necessary write changes to DNG files, so I don't have the backup issue you mention. XMP sidecars can be handy, though, I agree. I wish that I had to use them optionally with DNG in Lr. I can with some other stuff.

Metadata can't be read by other software? I've yet to run across something on the Mac or PC that can't read DNGs, save that proprietary software like say Olympus's. But Oly can't read NEF, or ARW, or any other RAW format but Oly's. So I rather don't understand this objection. In fact, I think this is an area where non-DNG RAWs stink. Since the sidecars to say a NEF are where the keywords are, searching utilities find that XMP...NOT the image itself. One must manually associate the image to the XMP. Spotlight on the Mac, to just name one example, can find keywords IN DNGs so it finds the image itself when searching on the keyword. Just like with a JPEG. This is one reason why I use DNGs sometimes instead of other RAW file formats.

Lifetime allegiance? as opposed to say to Nikon? Even though DNG is an Adobe creation, it's certainly more open than NEFs or ORFs or whatever. I'm not too worried about it either way, since there are developers ranging from Adobe to Apple to Phase One to On1 etc etc who reverse engineer RAW all the time. And other Adobe formats like PSD have become defacto standards. And they offer a free converter. Sheesh, even Apple does DNG now with their phones. There are LOT more of those than Nikons out there.

I do agree that slavishly converting all RAW to DNG isn't necessarily useful. I don't think it hurts though; six of one. I do find it very useful when I need to send RAW to others who use Adobe or other products that can  use DNG well, like DxO or Mylio. Or where I want the customized features of DNG, especially the ability to info inside without using sidecars, but also rendered JPEG previews. I also like the ability to have a checksum, although that's mostly just to insure integrity in certain transferring situations.


----------



## Hoggy

rob211 said:


> Maybe the OEM issue is true for Nikon users. Dunno. But not for some other manufacturers who support DNG, like Pentax. And I'd rather go to the dentist than use most OEM software, but that's me.
> .....
> Lifetime allegiance? as opposed to say to Nikon? Even though DNG is an Adobe creation, it's certainly more open than NEFs or ORFs or whatever. I'm not too worried about it either way, since there are developers ranging from Adobe to Apple to Phase One to On1 etc etc who reverse engineer RAW all the time. And other Adobe formats like PSD have become defacto standards. And they offer a free converter. Sheesh, even Apple does DNG now with their phones. There are LOT more of those than Nikons out there.
> ......
> I also like the ability to have a checksum, although that's mostly just to insure integrity in certain transferring situations.



Yep, I'm personally never going to use any OEM software.  I don't have the inclination to learn each new camera's software.  I'd rather spend that time learning some of the ones that do ALL the cameras.

Lest not also forget that TIFF is an Adobe creation too..

And the checksum part is the single reason I even converted all my old JPEGs to DNG..  Not to mention that my Pentax cameras write DNG natively anyways.  That image-data checksum has saved me several times - even from plain 'ol bitrot.


Let's face it, it's pretty much a religion at this point..  ALL must bow down to the mighty DNG!  Let thy image be saved!


----------



## johnbeardy

I'll just pick off a couple, but TBH that list is a bit of a "project fear".



reidthaler said:


> 2. *Backing up images will take longer* In Lightroom, many of the changes you make can be stored in small XMP sidecar files that accompany raw files, and are only a few kilobytes. When you convert to DNG, changes are made directly to the file, so when you back up your images (hopefully daily) the whole file, typically 20 MB or more, needs to be backed up _instead_ of just the small XMP sidecar files.



That's just sloppy thinking, failing to fine tune the backup procedure for a different workflow.

With a DNG workflow, you backup your catalogue and you backup the DNGs when they are new - that gives you 100% coverage of your photos and the work done on them. You don't keep backing DNGs up whenever you happen to write to them - there's no need, you have 100% coverage. Remember too that those little xmp files don't contain all your Lightroom work - these sidecars designed for interchange with other apps, not backup.



reidthaler said:


> 8. *DNG is not an industry standard, it’s Adobe’s standard*. As much as Adobe would love the DNG format to become the industry standard, it’s not. It’s _Adobe’s_ standard. While a few camera manufactures produce camera the shoot DNG file as their native RAW files, most do not. _DNG requires a lifelong allegiance to Adobe._



Tell Apple and Google that. It is not Adobe's standard at all, but a non-proprietary standard created by Adobe. Big difference.



reidthaler said:


> 9. *Camera brand not easily identified*. Converting all your files to DNG makes it harder to quickly identify the camera manufacturer when looking at the file name since the suffix will be a generic DNG, and not one associated with your camera.



That's a joke, right? You figure out the camera manufacturer by looking at the file name? I hope you don't teach people that.

And remember, a raw file's proprietary information is retained in the DNG and in Lr, even if you don't see it displayed in Lr. If camera makers' secret sauce has any value, it can be extracted.

I actually like David Letterman. This list is more Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hanitty.

John


----------



## Johan Elzenga

johnbeardy said:


> That's a joke, right? You figure out the camera manufacturer by looking at the file name?



Not the file _name_, but the file _extension_, John.


----------



## johnbeardy

I'm sure you're right. It's still a joke. But hey, I'm going to change the file extension of all my JPEGs so I know which camera brand they came from - er, no.


----------



## Hoggy

...  And then the issue comes up, what happens if you have two different models of Nikon??

If one really wants to determine camera make/model from the filename, then add the metadata option "xx - camera model" in a LR-rename operation.  For myself, I actually make what many might likely call a ridiculously long filename ----  but I can determine all sorts of info by just hovering over the thumbnail in the filmstrip.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

johnbeardy said:


> I'm sure you're right. It's still a joke. But hey, I'm going to change the file extension of all my JPEGs so I know which camera brand they came from - er, no.



I don't understand the joke. Of course this doesn't apply to JPEG or TIFF, only to raw. DNG is an alternative for proprietary raw, so that's what we're talking about. The file extension of my Canon cameras is .CR2 and the file extension of my Sony A7R is .ARW, so I can indeed see which camera brand (not which particular model) I used by simply looking at the file extension (but no longer if I convert all raw files to DNG). No, not a big deal, but it's a valid point nevertheless.


----------



## clee01l

JohanElzenga said:


> I don't understand the joke. Of course this doesn't apply to JPEG or TIFF, only to raw. DNG is an alternative for proprietary raw, so that's what we're talking about. The file extension of my Canon cameras is .CR2 and the file extension of my Sony A7R is .ARW, so I can indeed see which camera brand (not which particular model) I used by simply looking at the file extension (but no longer if I convert all raw files to DNG). No, not a big deal, but it's a valid point nevertheless.


I agree with John. Once I import into LR, I don't use any other app to look at my images, I ignore the file name and the extension. I ignore the Folder panel in LR so that I am completely dependent upon the metadata carried in LR to filter my images.  If I want to separate the Sony from the Nikon, a single metadata filter will do that.  Most of my images are shot with a Nikon D800E & a D810.  A Metadata filter lets me know which were which.
I don't convert to DNG as it is a waste of my time and computer processing at import.  Still the original file name or extension is irrelevant.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Well, each his own. I do have the file extension shown as a badge on my thumbnails in grid view. I mainly do this to see whether the image is an original raw file or a derivative. I consider it a bonus however that I can also see right away whether the image was shot with my A7R or any of my Canon cameras. If you only use one brand of camera anyway (and I believe that applies to you, Cletus?), then obviously that is of no interest to you...


----------



## clee01l

JohanElzenga said:


> ..If you only use one brand of camera anyway (and I believe that applies to you, Cletus?),


It does not apply to me.  Currently I have two Nikon cameras. I also currently shoot with an iPhone.  In my catalog are images from three Pentax camera (RAW files were DNG), a couple of Canons and a Panasonic P&S.  If it ever ships, I'll soon have a DJI MavicPro drone. Those native RAW files will be... DNG.   Which camera is not important to me and I'm not sure why it should be for anyone.


----------



## rob211

The file extension thing is a bit silly...just needed to get to ten I think. But it does reveal sloppiness. Yes, it preserves the name of the camera manufacturer. I question how important that is, but even if so the only possible utility is outside of Lr. Lr was created in part to find stuff by much more important and stringent criteria, and it takes just as much effort to find by file extension IN Lr as by camera model, lens, etc etc etc.

Even in File Explorer or the Finder it's of very limited use. And BTW: the place where the metadata is stored for RAW in non-DNG files is in XMP sidecars...and their file extension is XMP, so there's NO way to identity which manufacturer that info is associated with, other than by matched up the filename and then looking at that filename's extension (or looking inside the XMP itself). Or just use Lr to add the manufacturer to the filename insted of the extension. If you share with others who don't know off the top of their heads what a ORF is that might be handy, like in a school situation.


----------



## Tony Jay

Although I am very pro the benefits and potential benefits of what the DNG format can and potentially will offer in the future I do not believe the case can be made to offer "mandatory" advice for photographers to convert their raw images to DNG just yet.
For those that have converted their images they have lost nothing, however.

Until the DNG format is fully standardised by the ISO, AFAIK this process is underway but I am not aware of a date when this process will be completed, I will keep my powder dry. (BTW I am full aware that any standardisation process is always a moving target since formats change.)

Once an ISO standard is approved then the ballgame changes. It becomes much easier for systems software producers to incorporate the DNG format, in the way that the TIFF and JPEG formats are, generally seamlessly, incorporated into the processes of large operating systems.
Likewise, application software producers will also incorporate the DNG standard into their applications.
A time will come when the DNG format is ubiquitous and accessible as the TIFF and JPEG formats are currently.

The real potential benefits of a standardised raw format are for the future.

Most of us believe our favourite camera manufacturer will always be with us.
However, even over the last twenty years many manufacturers of digital cameras have gone by the wayside and their raw digital file formats are no longer supported. It is still possible, barely, to rescue these images and convert them into either DNG or TIFF, but this will not continue indefinitely.
For those who are keeping their ears to the ground you may be aware of the fact that no less a company than Nikon are currently severely financially stressed and their viability as a camera manufacturer in the near future is increasingly in doubt. One would hope that, if Nikon itself is unable to continue making cameras, that, a white knight would at least buy out that division and keep it alive. Nonetheless, the lesson is clear - particularly in the digital era: nothing is forever!

Having the ability to convert proprietary raw images into a well-supported standardised raw format such as DNG (there are no other potential candidates BTW) if one has raw images that are now orphaned or will potentially be orphaned is gold.
This is not just crucial to professional photographers and image agencies that need to keep raw images alive but to everyone who uses a camera. The worth of images goes far beyond their ability to earn an income. All of us have images, prints or digital files, whose value can only be appreciated on an emotional level. Most of us have highly valued prints of long-dead relatives on our mantelpieces, usually rescued from the the homes of these individuals, often around the time of their deaths. Lucky for us the prints were there to find!
But what of the future?
Already billions of stored digital images have been lost forever. Some of the old raw formats are orphaned and cannot be opened. Most, however,  have died along with the media on which they were stored such as hard drives, floppy discs and DVD's, none of which last forever. Our children and grand-children however face a very real possibility that none of our digital images will survive our demise. How many of us bother to print any of our images? Once a digital file is lost - it is forever!

Having a standardised raw format available that allows one to convert a proprietary raw image into a format that could continue to be read and viewed into the foreseeable future (centuries) is a crucial cornerstone of a massive effort that will be required to prevent and minimise the current huge and tragic loss of digital images that continues unabated every day. Obviously, there is much more to the process of robust digital asset management than the availability of a standardised open-format raw format but it is a vital component nonetheless.

A much more immediate argument for a standardised raw format is the issues one has with new camera releases and third-party image-processing  software that cannot read the the new formats. There is a predictable delay of weeks to months while Adobe or OnOne reverse-engineers the new formats. Conceive of a scenario in the future where every camera manufacturer will use the same raw format for every model of camera produced. About half a dozen camera manufacturers have already taken the plunge and use DNG as their raw format. There are NO technical reasons precluding the use of a standardised format. This is particularly valid for the last few years where every new proprietary raw format is nothing more than a thinly disguised TIFF-EP. The TIFF-EP format is also the basis for the DNG format!

The insistence of most camera manufacturer's to continue with the pointless and meaningless proliferation of proprietary raw formats smacks of pride and stubbornness! There are no technical reasons for these companies to hide behind!
Once the ISO has completed the standardisation process the arguments will become even more lame.

The future of photography and the DNG format is probably indivisible.
Silly arguments that the DNG format is proprietary to Adobe need to be countered and refuted. Adobe invented it for sure, as they did several flavours of TIFF that are available. However, the DNG format has always been an open standard for anyone else to implement and use. TIFF is now a standardised format and it is inevitable that the DNG format will also be standardised.

When the day comes that the DNG format becomes an ISO standard I will need to re-evaluate my collection of proprietary raw images and consider converting them all to DNG!
The fact that the DNG format has the ability to verify its own integrity and completeness is welcome to be sure but the world of photography can benefit so much more from this format!

Tony Jay


----------



## rob211

Yeah, I wish I could understand why manufacturer's cling to their proprietary raw formats, especially considering that they are reverse engineered in short order. And that most of their consumers use the reverse-engineered renderings instead of the ones produced by the junk software the manufacturer provides. Why do they even bother? Give me DNG and a coupon for some real software. Add this behavior to the list of retrograde thoughts that have these companies losing ground to smartphones. I'd guess that the more sophisticated photographers that want RAW probably are a higher percentage of stand-alone camera users. Now that smartphones are also doing RAW (I think all use DNG) that's one less reason to use a "real" camera. Sigh.


----------



## tspear

rob211 said:


> Yeah, I wish I could understand why manufacturer's cling to their proprietary raw formats, especially considering that they are reverse engineered in short order. And that most of their consumers use the reverse-engineered renderings instead of the ones produced by the junk software the manufacturer provides. Why do they even bother? Give me DNG and a coupon for some real software. Add this behavior to the list of retrograde thoughts that have these companies losing ground to smartphones. I'd guess that the more sophisticated photographers that want RAW probably are a higher percentage of stand-alone camera users. Now that smartphones are also doing RAW (I think all use DNG) that's one less reason to use a "real" camera. Sigh.



The camera companies believe that the software and proprietary formats help with vendor lock in. Any small barrier that has minimal cost to the company is viewed as acceptable if it makes it harder for you to switch vendors. Companies that compete on features with planned obsolescence (e.g. Adobe) prefer open formats which can be extended to make it easier for people to switch under the belief that more will convert to them then away from them.


----------



## rob211

tspear said:


> The camera companies believe that the software and proprietary formats help with vendor lock in. Any small barrier that has minimal cost to the company is viewed as acceptable if it makes it harder for you to switch vendors. Companies that compete on features with planned obsolescence (e.g. Adobe) prefer open formats which can be extended to make it easier for people to switch under the belief that more will convert to them then away from them.



Seriously? some manufacturer thinks stuff like Olympus Viewer 3 or Pentax Digital Camera Utility or Canon's (forget the name) locks anyone in? No wonder they're in trouble. The only software that has given me pause for changing bodies is third party: say tethering or CHDK/Magic Lantern. Or DNG...it was one factor in switching to Pentax and now in choosing a phone model. Not to mention it's no barrier at all with a few weeks of camera release. Wow; worse than I thought.

I didn't understand the reference to planned obsolescence though. But I'd think an open format would attract more people over time. JPEG has worked pretty well....


----------



## Johan Elzenga

I'm always amazed that people who do not work in camera manufacturing themselves know exactly what 'manufacturers think'...


----------



## johnbeardy

Many business principles apply more widely than in one's own field, and intent can often be inferred from actions.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

johnbeardy said:


> Many business principles apply more widely than in one's own field, and intent can often be inferred from actions.



Well, Canon just introduced Dual Pixel Raw, so I'd say that may be a more logical reason why they do not use DNG. I don't think DNG supports this (yet).


----------



## johnbeardy

DNG saves all the original raw file's data. If an app wants to use dual pixel info, it can.


----------



## Johan Elzenga

OK, maybe so. But I believe that having the ability to change anything in their raw format without having to comply to Adobe dictated specs is a far more likely explanation than the naive idea that photographers would hesitate to change brands because of the raw format. I've been at most Japanese camera manifacturers and I can tell you one thing: these people are not the fools that some here suggest.


----------



## johnbeardy

No maybe about it. DNG was always designed to allow any proprietary, even encrypted data, and there's no technical reason why all camera makers can't use it. It's just a matter of not wanting to do so, and hiding behind a fog of excuses that amount to "not invented here". And it's because reviewers let them off the hook each time they release a new camera that fails to offer a DNG option.


----------



## Tony Jay

JohanElzenga said:


> OK, maybe so. But I believe that having the ability to change anything in their raw format without having to comply to Adobe dictated specs is a far more likely explanation than the naive idea that photographers would hesitate to change brands because of the raw format. I've been at most Japanese camera manifacturers and I can tell you one thing: these people are not the fools that some here suggest.



Johan there are no "Adobe dictated specs".
DNG is an open format.
It will soon be standardised by the ISO - nothing to do with Adobe.
Furthermore, both Nikon and Canon absolutely base their raw formats on the TIFF-EP format anyway - as I stated in my previous post those raw formats are just thinly disguised DNG's anyway.
John Beardsworth has already made reference to the fact that the DNG format allows proprietary data to be stored as part of the metadata. This data can be encrypted to allow only OEM software to read and act on that specific data.
So, in a funny kind of way these companies have already wholly endorsed the TIFF-EP format, and by extension the DNG format anyway.
That is why it is so silly and incomprehensible for these companies to pretend that every raw format that they produce is new and unique.

In another post someone stated that unique raw formats constitute a barrier to changing brands.
All I can say is that I am unaware, personally, of anyone who uses OEM raw converters.
None of the camera manufacturers have yet produced a piece of software that is worth using and even Nikon's offering, which one has to actually buy, is not worth $0.02.

Tony Jay


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Exactly my point. Unique raw formats do not constitute a barrier to changing brands at all, if only because very few people use the OEM software anyway. That's why I don't believe that camera manufacturers do think they can throw up a barrier this way. They are more intelligent than that.


----------



## clee01l

JohanElzenga said:


> Exactly my point. Unique raw formats do not constitute a barrier to changing brands at all, if only because very few people use the OEM software anyway. That's why I don't believe that camera manufacturers do think they can throw up a barrier this way. They are more intelligent than that.


Most OEM software coming from Japan is developed by this company: Silky Pix  and is a variation of their commercial software.


----------



## Tony Jay

But unique raw formats constitute a massive threat to the future of those images.
So many raw formats are already orphaned.
The future is not assured.

The digital imaging era has already shown how volatile it is from a business perspective.
Kodak, one of the largest companies in the world, and previously the undisputed giant of the photographic world, and, ironically, the inventors of the digital camera, did not survive the consequences of their own invention.
The future of Nikon, right now, today, is clouded.
Many other vendors occupy what is best described as niche positions in digital photography.

We have all been eye witnesses to the sudden demise of the point-and-shoot type camera with the rise of the smartphone.
This class of camera was always the cash cow for the various camera manufacturers. The high-end models that you and I like to use were never, and still are not, high revenue earners.
Sony is the only company that is favourably positioned in the smartphone era considering that (nearly) every smartphone carries a Sony sensor.

Dead companies do not continue to support their products, as Kodak did not - and the raw formats from their cameras are orphaned. So, the reality of the situation is that a progressively increasing number of orphaned proprietary raw formats will occur. A standardised raw format immediately solves this issue

Think ahead a century.
Can you really conceive of a situation where those remaining camera manufacturers still churn out new models of camera each with a unique proprietary raw format that needs to reverse-engineered to make it accessible to 3rd-party software?
Even more concerning, think of the billions (trillions) of images taken with early model cameras, that, even if they have survived the carnage of the volatile storage media on which they were stored, are now inaccessible because no contemporary software exists to read them! Digital asset management strategies for digital images would be markedly simplified, although significant challenges still exist, to preserve the work and memories of our and future generations, with a standardised raw format.

No! Clearly, the situation needs to change and has to change and an indisputable part of the solution is a standardised raw format.

Tony Jay


----------



## Johan Elzenga

Tony Jay said:


> Think ahead a century



I'm 62 so that does not really seem very realistic for me. But if I live that long, and if my Canon CR2-files have become unsupported in the year 2116, then the easy remedy is to convert them to DNG right before I upgrade to Lightroom 57.3 (the version that no longer supports it). For me there is no reason to do it now, but I get the feeling that this thread can go on for a century too, and people still will disagree.


----------



## Tony Jay

Johan, you may have no personal interest in your personal digital images surviving your own demise but that detracts not at all from the issue outlined above.

However, consider this: How many highly treasured photographic images sit in art collections and museums around the world today taken by apparent nobodies such as you and I who attached no particular worth to them and only came to notice long after the passing of their creators?
Consider this too: Would it not be nice for your grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and so on, to potentially have access to your photographic collection in fifty to one hundred years time?

The current situation in digital photography makes the two scenarios outlined above rather unlikely going forward unless a lot of radical changes occur.

Tony Jay


----------



## tspear

JohanElzenga said:


> Exactly my point. Unique raw formats do not constitute a barrier to changing brands at all, if only because very few people use the OEM software anyway. That's why I don't believe that camera manufacturers do think they can throw up a barrier this way. They are more intelligent than that.



I disagree, both of my brothers and my parents use the OEM software, and when switching from a point/shot (Canon) to a DSLR it was the crappy Canon software that was the final item on the pro/con list that swayed all of them. They, along with their families are likely more typical then those of us on these forums.


----------



## rob211

I'd agree with Johan that there is plenty of time to convert. Might be a PITA, but if you can convert it now you'll probably be able to in a couple of decades. Maybe. I kinda do it as needed for reasons other than long term compatibility.

Now that DNG is the defacto raw standard for the majority of cameras going forward (iOS and Android) the oddball raw formats will be even more marginalized. Maybe Apple will stop system support of RAWs for example. I'm not sure why they've continued with it since Aperture. Who knows.

And BTW you can do pixel shift DNG. Just shows it is keeping up with changing tech; there are actually four images in a Pentax one, and you can even pull them out, which can be handy for certain operations. Not sure if you can convert an Oly one.


----------



## Hoggy

JohanElzenga said:


> I'm 62 so that does not really seem very realistic for me. But if I live that long, and if my Canon CR2-files have become unsupported in the year 2116, then the easy remedy is to convert them to DNG right before I upgrade to Lightroom 57.3 (the version that no longer supports it).



As Tony mentions, it could be someone else that could value your pictures..  Say like your great-grandchildren that are keenly interested in family lineage - as there is someone in mine that likes to do just that.  Let's also say you weren't expecting your death - unlike with cancer for instance, or perhaps you were too sick from the cancer to convert them at that time...   and those [great]grandchildren found your collection before you had decided it was time to convert them to DNG..  And let's also say you had some early Kodak raw's, for instance.  If they go through your belongings and see a DVD titled "xx Pictures xx", they might not be able to view and/or archive them.  Whether or not they'd be interested in just your family pictures, or your professional pictures as well, is what could be debated.  (Think WWII pictures for instance - that you didn't see any posterity value in at the time.)



> For me there is no reason to do it now, but I get the feeling that this thread can go on for a century too, and people still will disagree.



Yep, and why I said it's almost a religion at this point.    I, however, am a big convert - even throwing away my original non-Pentax raws.    Although for me it's more because of the image-data hash.




rob211 said:


> And BTW you can do pixel shift DNG. Just shows it is keeping up with changing tech; there are actually four images in a Pentax one, and you can even pull them out, which can be handy for certain operations. Not sure if you can convert an Oly one.



It's the same with Pentax's raw-HDR - there are x number of individual raws within the DNG wrapper.
Now...  Finding software that _deals_ with either of these properly is another matter entirely.  That might be one of the few instances where one uses the crappy OEM SilkyPix version.


----------



## Replytoken

rob211 said:


> Seriously? some manufacturer thinks stuff like Olympus Viewer 3 or Pentax Digital Camera Utility or Canon's (forget the name) locks anyone in? No wonder they're in trouble. The only software that has given me pause for changing bodies is third party: say tethering or CHDK/Magic Lantern. Or DNG...it was one factor in switching to Pentax and now in choosing a phone model. Not to mention it's no barrier at all with a few weeks of camera release. Wow; worse than I thought.
> 
> I didn't understand the reference to planned obsolescence though. But I'd think an open format would attract more people over time. JPEG has worked pretty well....


There are a number of folks who swear by the results of OV3 and the likes.  They claim better results than LR, but it is never clear to me how well they have mastered LR, so I find their claims harder to believe.  But nonetheless, they are out there.  They are just not here at this forum.

--Ken


----------



## Replytoken

JohanElzenga said:


> OK, maybe so. But I believe that having the ability to change anything in their raw format without having to comply to Adobe dictated specs is a far more likely explanation than the naive idea that photographers would hesitate to change brands because of the raw format. I've been at most Japanese camera manifacturers and I can tell you one thing: these people are not the fools that some here suggest.


They may not be fools, but I do wonder if they realized how much smartphones killed a large stream of their revenue these past four years, as Tony Jay alluded to in his post.  One wonders if they are in some kind of strategic retreat, given that all we seem to see are iterations and incremental performance improvements.  I suspect that if a company like Apple (and note that I am no fanboy) could design some type of "wireless" camera with a larger sensor that was easy to operate and transmit images, then they could do to the camera market what they did to the flip phone market, tablet market and laptop market.  The most common image taking device right now is the iPhone.  And I suspect that the next game changer will not involve more megapixels or faster autofocus.  I love my cameras, but I do feel a bit old school when I see how many folks pull out their phones, happily take a photo, share it, and then move on all in the span of a minute or two.  For the vast majority of consumers, convenience beats out quality.  And it seems a lot easier to improve quality at the bottom than convenience at the top.  I wish the camera companies well.

--Ken


----------



## Johan Elzenga

All these points are valid, and I'm not saying that I would be against Canon changing to DNG. If they do that, I will happily use DNG from now on. It's just that I don't see the need to convert my CR2 files to DNG right now. 

The argument of the grandchildren is not very convincing to me (apart from the fact that I don't have children). The biggest problem won't be the file format of the images, but the media format. Even if I saved my pictures in an open standard file format like DNG, they probably won't be readable in 100 years because nobody can read the floppy disks, CD's or DVD's by then. 

Of course one can argue that you have to transfer your images to different media formats before it's too late, but that is the exact same argument that is used in this discussion _against_ not converting to DNG. If you think you will be able to transfer between media formats in time, then you can also convert to DNG in time. If you think not converting to DNG right now is a problem in the future, then you'll find that incompatible media formats will be a much bigger problem in that future. 

If you think your digital images might be worth something to future generations, then you should make prints of them with archival ink on archival paper.


----------



## Tony Jay

Yes, Johan you are slowly figuring out that there are lots of issues that need to be sorted.
I have not converted my images to DNG either.
But having a standardised open raw format that will be the DNG format will solve one issue out of many.
Digital asset management, especially when one looks decades to centuries ahead, is decidedly problematic.

BTW who is going to print their entire image collection on archival paper with archival inks in the hope that one or more of those images might in the future be deemed a significant image. I could not afford to do it - could you?
The whole point of needing to save as many digital images as possible into the future is that we currently do NOT know which are important and which are not. Only time will tell!
That importance may national or international but it may just be personal and limited to family members.

The photographic world (the word industry is far too limiting and formal for this context) will need all the help it can get in solving the problem of safeguarding digital images now and into the future. The DNG format will be a small but significant part of the solution.

Tony Jay


----------



## Johan Elzenga

I'm not 'slowly figuring this out', I have been aware of this for a long time, as I have been working with computers for more than 40 years now. Please refrain from personal remarks like that, they don't give your arguments more weight, only less. 

Like you said, there are many things to consider, and to me DNG is one of the least important issues. If I want future generations to see my images, and I don't want to print them all, then here's the next question. Do I want them to see unedited raw files, or do I want them to see my final edits? My answer to that question is that I want them to see my final edits. They are an integral part of my photography. An original Ansel Adams photo is the print, not the negative (regardless of the value of that negative).

If future generations find my DNG files, they would also need 'ACR/Lightroom compatible' software to see my images the way I intended. If not, all they can see are virgin raw files. ACR/Lightroom edits are not open standard however, so it's not certain that they will be able to get that software in say 100 years from now. So if I believe I have something to share with future generations, and I can't afford to print it all, I would render it and save it as TIFF, not convert to DNG and hope they'll have Lightroom CC2116.


----------



## johnbeardy

No, future generations wouldn't need Lightroom/ACR, and it's irrelevant that those programs' edits are not standard - that defect applies to adjustments to raw files, not DNG. DNG is designed as an archival standard. With DNG, they just need some sort of browser which can see the DNG's embedded preview which reflects the edits made in Lightroom/ACR.


----------



## Tony Jay

I apologise if you see my posts as personal.
It is clear that you are taking a very personal position with your arguments about DNG.
I accept that you personally may not see a place for DNG in your photographic universe.

However I am taking a much broader approach.
There is nothing unique in the points that I am advocating - any expert in digital asset management i there already!
My goal in contributing to this thread is to highlight very real issues facing photography.
There are lots of misconceptions about the DNG format - some of which you have raised.
The significance of the DNG format cannot be appreciated apart from the larger digital asset management issue facing photography.

Tony Jay


----------



## Hoggy

Tony Jay said:


> BTW who is going to print their entire image collection on archival paper with archival inks in the hope that one or more of those images might in the future be deemed a significant image. I could not afford to do it - could you?
> The whole point of needing to save as many digital images as possible into the future is that we currently do NOT know which are important and which are not. Only time will tell!
> That importance may national or international but it may just be personal and limited to family members.



Well, Johan doesn't feel it's worth it, for him..  And that's perfectly fine, too.

...  But I thought even archival inks&paper degrade no matter what, even if only slightly..??
A digital file, itself, will never degrade.  Yes, _media such as DVD's or BD-r's _might/will - but most hobbyist & pros are likely to keep at least 2 sets anyway.  The issue then becomes how does one know which backup set retains it's image-data integrity, without opening each and every one to check - or going through hoops like par2 sets and whatnot.

However, _this_ aspect is what's sort-of lacking for the time being - the ability to validate DNG without importing into LR first.  I think there is a utility for it somwhere, but I think it's rather obscure..  So it would be nice if Adobe, et al, made an _easy and KNOWN_ way of doing that.  For LR users, maybe a 'validate external DNG' menu item.

Anyhoo, at least for those that might be halfway interested in preservation - even if simply for their own sake & sanity.  Of which Johan is definitely not one of them (preservationist, that is - sanity remains unknown though  ).

(I doubt I'll ever have kids either, so that part is lost on me too - and I've already given the familial archivist my known-family pictures I've made through the years (and in this case, it was minus any [pre-digital] prints, which prove too problematic for me to deal with).  So the DNG validation is mainly for my own sanity - so I don't feel the need to have dozens of duplicate BD-r's building up.)

EDIT:  Let's also not forget that DNG can hold as many rendered versions as one wants it to contain..  And I'm not just talking about instruction-snapshots - but actual renderings, here (they can even be 16-bit lossless renderings).   (As John alluded to.)


----------



## Johan Elzenga

johnbeardy said:


> No, future generations wouldn't need Lightroom/ACR, and it's irrelevant that those programs' edits are not standard - that defect applies to adjustments to raw files, not DNG. DNG is designed as an archival standard. With DNG, they just need some sort of browser which can see the DNG's embedded preview which reflects the edits made in Lightroom/ACR.



I think you misunderstand my point. Raw files are intermediate files. My images are what I produced using my raw files as basis. Without the edits, my raw files do not represent my work correctly. That is why I don't give my clients raw files today, and that is why I don't have a desire to let future generations have my raw files either. If they are interested in my images, they should get the rendered results, not the raw files. If all they get from DNG is a jpeg preview, then why shouldn't I give them that jpeg (or tiff) right away? And that jpeg preview is only up-to-date if I write metadata to files. If not and my grandchildren find a Lightroom catalog and DNG originals, they do need something that can read that catalog, or the DNG will be virgin.

Anyway, I made my point and I believe we are just going around in circles if we continue this conversation. None of us can make Canon or Nikon change to DNG.


----------



## tspear

JohanElzenga said:


> Of course one can argue that you have to transfer your images to different media formats before it's too late, but that is the exact same argument that is used in this discussion _against_ not converting to DNG. If you think you will be able to transfer between media formats in time, then you can also convert to DNG in time. If you think not converting to DNG right now is a problem in the future, then you'll find that incompatible media formats will be a much bigger problem in that future.
> 
> If you think your digital images might be worth something to future generations, then you should make prints of them with archival ink on archival paper.



Family cloud storage and backup, already done with both my parents, kids and brothers. We "share" the key login data between us for exactly this case. If my parents pass away while on their latest travel (Based on FB pictures a river cruise in Europe, man I want to retire like them!), both my brothers and I have access to all critical information, images... 
People (or at least those with some IT background) are realizing the value of digital estates and planning for it.


----------



## johnbeardy

There are two distinct issues around DNG. One is whether it's worth converting one's own files to DNG, which is a 50-50 thing, the other is whether camera companies should escape criticism for failing to save our images in a non-proprietary archival format, which is inexcusable.

DNGs have the clear advantage of preserving both originals and rendered versions of one's images in a single file and in an archival format. Raws just don't, so future-proofing involves rendering out JPEGs/TIFs/prints. Is your point much better than "I can't be bothered"?


----------



## tspear

Hoggy said:


> However, _this_ aspect is what's sort-of lacking for the time being - the ability to validate DNG without importing into LR first.  I think there is a utility for it somwhere, but I think it's rather obscure..  So it would be nice if Adobe, et al, made an _easy and KNOWN_ way of doing that.  For LR users, maybe a 'validate external DNG' menu item.



I have not seen anything from Adobe about a stand alone checksum tool for DNG; however I have seen somewhere an application which does exactly that. It was part of some Lr competitor when i was looking to leave Aperture back around 2014.


----------



## tspear

johnbeardy said:


> There are two distinct issues around DNG. One is whether it's worth converting one's own files to DNG, which is a 50-50 thing, the other is whether camera companies should escape criticism for failing to save our images in a non-proprietary archival format, which is inexcusable.
> 
> DNGs have the clear advantage of preserving both originals and rendered versions of one's images in a single file and in an archival format. Raws just don't, so future-proofing involves rendering out JPEGs/TIFs/prints. Is your point much better than "I can't be bothered"?



Ouch, a little harsh at the end, but a succinct way to put it. The reality is, how much time is the computer sitting idle? How long does it take to convert the images? The reality is anyone can kick off the convert to DNG at the end of their process flow or at night when they want to call it a day and they will never know the difference. Neither will the computer. For me, since I do not start editing immediately on import, that is when I convert to DNG.


----------



## MrSteveVee

This question always raises lively debates as it needs to cover so many angles. I raised a similar question a while back and I am still undecided but I am starting to lean towards DNG at an ever increasing angle. My reasons are to cover three main requirements. 

(1) Standardise, I have a variety of formats collected over 40+ years encompassing some 56000 images.
(2) Ease of quick display on my TV ( A high amount of these images revolve around my family who are now mid 30's so  TV is the best place to display and enjoy) 
(3) Longevity, What happens in the future and also when I am dust

(1) Standardise. I would convert everything to DNG. NEF,RAF,BMP,JPG,TIFF, the lot and I would not limbed the original.

Now the first argument that if I convert I will lose the ability to use the manufacturers software. Well that has already happened. I have some NEF files from a Nikon scanner that Nikon no longer support. If you try and open them in Nikon NX2 or NX-D it states "no longer supported, please use original software", But as the original software is so old it will not run on Windows anymore I cannot. Fortunately the Adobe DNG utility converted them to DNG so that I now can display and some limited editing available, otherwise they would have been lost forever. So much for Nikon being backward compatible!

The second point is, that If I am going to do editing within Lightroom, I will have no desire to swap to a manufacturers software to try and get a slightly better image. I only want a good image to display or to print and hang on the wall. I doubt that anyone would ever be able to tell the difference between the edits and I have no desire to spend hours trying to get a tiny bit of detail out of a blown highlight, I would either re-take or dump it (I shot interiors professionally for a few years and always followed that philosophy)  

(2) Ease of display. Now as mentioned I have my PC connected to the TV to use a a giant monitor (its great, I can lounge on my settee and edit to my hearts content until the wife wins the battle for the remote!) I have been considering how my workflow should be built to enable me to take an original Image, edit it of required and put it into a similar tree structure as the source but as a compressed JPEG that would display fast for browsing and can be sent to others as required.

Now as mentioned I have a lot of images, and there is no way that I will edit them all , or even most. Therefore part of the workflow pllan was to perform a once off convert (probably using a plugin to mimic the tree structure) and create a second image set of compressed Jpegs. Not Ideal but workable. However, I just found an option in Lightroom that states "Update DNG preview and Metadata" I just tried it and Wohoo, Windows can instantly see the changes I made to the DNG file. This means that I can convert everything to DNG in the current structure and Windows can see all of the edits I have made already and its all in pne place. Excellent, win win already!

Whats the downside, well apart from a long time to convert them all ! , I must remember to update the DNG's after each edits, but thats a minor problem and there may be a clever way of setting up a smart view to do this Unfortunatly the files will be bigger, but I have them all on one drive and my backups are complete copies of drive to drive running overnight so thats not a problem either

(3) Longevity. Well I am sure that DNG will last my lifetime so thats not a problem, but what happens when I am dust. Well the family will look at the images on the PC (I hope!) pick out what they want and dump the rest. As the DNG will display on the PC plus on their phones, they will have no problem picking what they want. If they could not display them (ie say a RAF file) they would just ignore it and it will die when the PC and drives do. So at least this way some of my images will survive for at least the next generation

Therefore from my perspective, DNG appears to offer a lot more flexibility than keeping to the RAW manufacturers will do.

Steve V


----------



## tspear

Steve,

For number 2, I used Jeff Friedl's Folder Publisher plugin. Allows me to generate a folder structure with published jpeg images.


----------



## MrSteveVee

Thanks for th e pointer Tim. I am still undecided as I have found a small glitch in part of my potential workflow scenarios where lightroom and the DNG conversion do not seem to be 100% the same and cause a 3rd party software issue. I have mentioned it here in the Adobe feedback:
Lightroom 6 DNG  "update preview and metadata" not consistent with DNG convert utility | Photoshop Family Customer Community

Steve V


----------



## tspear

Steve,

I forget the utility, but there is one to read the version information and metadata on DNG files. If I had to guess, I would assume there is a version incompatibility. Back with version Lr 5 something I found the stand alone DNG tools from Adobe could read new file formats, however defaulted to an older version of DNG when outputting the files. Lr always seemed to output to the latest version which caused a problem for the digital picture frame I had. So before I found Jeffery's tools I had scripted a bash shell to convert the DNG from a new release to an older one. 

Good luck,


----------



## MrSteveVee

Thats a very interesting observation Tim, if the same is happening now with the later releases, then that could well account for the problems I am having as they are almost identical to what you experienced with your digital picture frame.  
Thanks for the pointer
Steve V


----------



## Hoggy

tspear said:


> Back with version Lr 5 something I found the stand alone DNG tools from Adobe could read new file formats, however defaulted to an older version of DNG when outputting the files. Lr always seemed to output to the latest version which caused a problem for the digital picture frame I had.



Do note that both the 'Update DNG Previews and Metadata', as well the convert to DNG on import both take their cues from the options set under Preferences/File Handling tab.  Though I'm not sure how how the compatibility settings translate to actual DNG version numbers.  I'm also not sure if when using 'Update DNG Previews and Metadata', that the DNG version would itself change - I do know for sure that the Preview Size and Fastload Data settings are affected here.

Of course there's always the 'Convert to DNG' menu item under the library menu, which even asks what settings you want to change them to.  And it IS possible to 'convert' an already existing DNG using that menu item, as many times as one wants.


----------



## tspear

Hoggy said:


> Do note that both the 'Update DNG Previews and Metadata', as well the convert to DNG on import both take their cues from the options set under Preferences/File Handling tab.  Though I'm not sure how how the compatibility settings translate to actual DNG version numbers.  I'm also not sure if when using 'Update DNG Previews and Metadata', that the DNG version would itself change - I do know for sure that the Preview Size and Fastload Data settings are affected here.
> 
> Of course there's always the 'Convert to DNG' menu item under the library menu, which even asks what settings you want to change them to.  And it IS possible to 'convert' an already existing DNG using that menu item, as many times as one wants.



That is actually how I first "debugged" the issue. But then I scripted it, just because I can. 
Eventually I switched to the folder based publish because I could reduce the JPEG quality size and put more images on a card; you really do not need a 20mb DNG file to display on a 4x6 digital frame.


----------



## MrSteveVee

Tim, Hoggy, your help has been invaluable and using your pointers and suggestions I have run a series of tests and found the problem. It appears that the Universal Media Server (UMS) has a problem with the image file if the "Embed Fast Load Data" is set during the Lightroom operations. Now interestingly, this  does not fail in all scenarios as the UMS  works with an untouched image that has been convert to DNG even when the option is set, but after that, any other scenario including re-running a new convert with delete original , causes UMS to fail. However, of I switch "Embed Fast Load Data" to off then the UMS appears to work in all scenarios of convert, import and convert, edit and upload preview and also re-convert with delete original. Excellent, I can live with the slightly longer delay in loading if it cures the UMS server problem

Thanks again chaps, 

Steve V


----------

