DNG and MESZ timestamp / sony A100 RAW conversion

Hello,
i have a question regarding the timestamp within the EXIF metadata after the RAW to DNG conversion for my A100 pictures. Today I have seen that the timestamp betwen the RAW original file and the converted DNG file differs about 3 hours. I can't explain me this difference by myself. Has someone here an idea for this difference? I use the Mac Version of the actual free DNG converter. My timezone is MESZ/CEST what also means UTC+2 at the moment if I'm right. So 2 hours difference I could imagine because of such a time zone missmatch, but not 3 hours. But if i look at the RAW files the timestamp addition also shows MESZ like in the DNG after conversion. The main reason why I want to use DNG format is the linkage with my GPS logger data. But if the timestamps will convert wrong, this would be a no go for me.
Thanks for your help.
Greetings,
Tschubi

I think what you are seeing is a longstanding mis-match between how Exif and XMP record date-time values, and--possibly--a failure on the part of some of your software to understand how to use date-times read from XMP for the Exif date-time properties. When reading an Exif date-time from XMP, the UTC offset should always be ignored when interpeting the date-time--it has no meaning.
Three date-time metadata properties are involved in this issue, in XMP they are stored as the following properties:
exif:DateTimeDigitized
exif:DateTimeOrigional
xmp:ModifyDate
When Adobe software reads Exif metadata from files, it maps the values in the Exif tag(s) to XMP properties. The XMP is stored inside the file when the software saves or updates a file (or sidecar .xmp file for RAW files).
For exmaple, the exif:DateTimeDigitized the value is taken from two Exif tags, 0x9003 ("DateTimeDigized") and 0x9291 ("SubSecTimeDigizied"). See Part 2 of the XMP Specification for more details about how Exif is mapped to XMP.
The Exif specification defines no way to record a time zone or UTC offset for its date-time values. If you are trying to figure out what time the picture was taken reading Exif, it's impossible to know what time zone is correct. If cameras are recording the time zone, they are storing it in propritary metadata in the file, and not in a standard Exif tag.
Unfortunetly until recently the XMP Specification defined a date-time string format that requires a UTC offset. That's the mismatch. So, what's the software do when it's supposed to write a UTC offset, but doesn't have one to go with the time? Traditionally Adobe software uses whatever time zone your computer's clock has at the time the XMP property is created (that is, when the Exif is read).
So, if your camera's clock was set to record 2009:08:28 11:26:07 in the Exif, and you convert your raw file to a DNG with a computer in Europe, you're probably going to get something like 2009-08-28T11:26:07+02:00 in the XMP. But if I convert the same RAW file to a DNG here in Seattle, I'm going to get 2009-08-28T11:26:07-07:00.
Of course the right thing to do would be to just write 2009-08-28T11:26:07 in the XMP, leaving out the time zone designator (TZD). Expect that in the future. The XMP Specification now says that the TZD is optional and that "software should not assume anything about the missing time zone," but even the most recent release of the DNG Converter (5.5 as I write this) has not yet caught up with this update to the XMP Specification, and it still writes the bogus TZD. Also, any XMP written by older Adobe software will have the TZDs.
What Adobe software like Bridge and Lightroom have done tradtionally is to ignore the TZD in the XMP when using these dates. You'll notice that browsing DNGs with the dates 2009-08-28T11:26:07+02:00 and 2009-08-28T11:26:07-07:00, and running Bridge anywhere in the world (that is regardless of the the clock's Time Zone setting on your computer), the metadata panel will still show you that you took the picture at 11:26 am on August 28, 2009. If other software is trying to shift dates to local times based on the UTC offsets recorded in XMP for these dates, that's a bug.
Note that unlike other date-time values in Exif, the Exif specification says that the GPSTimeStamp is UTC, so this problem does not affect GPS metadata.
I mentioned the XMP specification a few times, you can download it here:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp/
-David

Similar Messages

Sony A100 RAW File processing - How?

I have a Sony A100 and cannot open my RAW files in elements, I have elements 4.0 on Mac.
I am a novice to both dSLR and elements so please forgive me if this is a stupid question ... I have a couple of ARW photos, I tried to open them in elements but the files are greyed out so I cannot select them.
So I then did a bit of research and downloaded a plugin for elements (I believe its for elements and apparently supports A100) thinking that this would allow me to open and process the files - however I get a message from elements saying it does not recognise the file. Any clues as to what I am doing wrong would be very much appreciated.
I am clueless about trying to get these files into elements to process.
thanks!!

Marina,
Did you download Adobe Camera Raw version 3.7 or 4.0? Did you unzip the
file and place the unzipped version in the correct folder? The instructions
are here:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3611
Juergen

10.4.10 and Canon 1D Mark III RAW Conversion in Aperture

I'm noticing bright reds are not being converted properly at all. Overall, most images look excellent; however, images with a large amount of red look terrible. I've tried converted the .CR2 files via DNG and then in LightRoom, and the red looks good.
Has anyone else noticed this? I'll try and get some crops and place on Flickr tonight.
PowerMac G5 Dual 2GHz Mac OS X (10.4.9) 4 Gigs RAM, CalDigit S2VR Duo 1TB

I haven't seen those problems. Did you post the samples on Flickr? How can I find them?

DNG and Olympus XZ-2 ORF raw files

Not sure why this is not working. Using the stand alone DNG converter I select the folder with the ORF files (Olympus raw files) but DNG is not seeing them. It's like they are not there. I know they are there. I am using DNG 8.3. Is it possible this version is not yet supporting these files? Help!!! Thank you. My Olympus camera is a Stylus XZ-2

I am using DNG 8.3. Is it possible this version is not yet supporting these files?
Correct.
Refer to the following tables to see which cameras are supported. If a camera is not listed then it's not supported.
http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html
https://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2014/02/camera-raw-8-4-rc-and-dng-converter-8-4-r c-now-available.html
Both indicate that the Olympus XZ-2 is not yet supported in Camera Raw up to and including the pre-release version 8.4.

I think LR 5.7 broke the Sony A6000 raw conversion

i installed LR 5.7 yesterday and today i was out shooting with my Sony A6000.
back at home i noticed that the sky looked very ugly (like jpg compression, strange blocky artifacts).
i was shooting with ISO 100 and did not see this before.
so i opened older files from my A6000 and i see the same strange artifacts i did not notice before with LR 5.6.

ssprengel schrieb:
I’m sure you can make the Camera Standard one as ugly as the Adobe Standard one is you crank up the Clarity on the Camera Standard one.
nope tried that.
camera standard looks still much better.
but i found what causes it.
i use the BLUE and AQUAMARIN luminance sliders to darken the sky a bit.
when i let them at 0, both adobe standard and camera standard look nearly identical from the noise pattern.
like i would expect.
but when i darken the sky with both luminance sliders and i then switch between "camera standard" and "adobe standard" the later gets worse.
i just never noticed this before because with LR 5.6 and before i set the default profile to "camera standard".
and you won´t notice any differnece as long as you don´t use the luminance sliders to darken the sky.
i just checked with my nikon cameras and they behave the same.

Awful canon raw conversion for photos with dramatic (i.e. underwater) non-standard white balance

I'm shooting underwater (and white balancing as I shoot using a white disc) with a canon s90, and have noticed that the raw conversions done by aperture are way worse than those from jpegs when I shoot in raw+jpeg and those done by raw processing using the canon digital photo professional software. In particular, reds are pretty much lost. It may be a false lead, but I notice that in aperture, the rgb histogram shows a dramatic spike of the red channel on the far right (possibly clipping?) that doesn't show up in the rgb histogram in the canon software.
I'm not sure whether this is related to the plethora of threads about canon raw processing and overly green output. Has anyone else experienced this or have any ideas? I could batch convert to tiff in the canon software but I'd really rather not do that... For one thing the 16bit tiff files are so much bigger than the raws and it is an annoying extra step. Also, note that I can't just batch fix the white balance because (a) I'm having a hard time getting aperture to do it properly (possibly b/c the red channel is clipped as far as the aperture UI is concerned?) and (b) The white-balance changes from picture to picture as I change depth, which is the whole reason I white-balance as I'm shooting in the first place..
I've attached two versions of a picture, one of which I processed the raw in aperture and one of which I processed the raw (and converted to TIFF to give to aperture) in the canon software. I then exported both as small jpegs from aperture.
Canon Digital Photo Professional (correct):
Aperture RAW processing (very wrong):

>Is MS Picture Viewer a colour managed application? I don't know, but don't think so. Lightroom is however which might be the cause of your problems.
Not in XP. In vista it is color managed. From the sound of it, the problem is a bad monitor profile but you might also have a corrupt Lightroom database. You need to recalibrate the monitor and NEVER use canned profiles from the monitor manufacturer. They are almost always corrupt. As a very last resort, you can use sRGB as the monitor profile (delete any profile found in the windows display properties) but only to hold you over until you can really calibrate it. The other problems with weird errors are pretty worrisome though. Do you also get them when you start a fresh catalog?

Aperture RAW conversion colour noise with Canon 1D Mark II

I'm using Aperture 2.1 and am wondering if anyone here is having this problem - basically highlights end up with false colour with this camera/RAW conversion combination. The problems appears to have been introduced with the 1.1 RAW converter as 1.0 conversions don't seem to have the problem. I'm not sure if this is camera specific, or whether there is some tuning which can be done to the RAW converter to minimise the effect - attempts have so far failed with this approach.
The best subject to produce the effect is strong reflections from water - i've attached a crop of an image which shows this problem, and I can supply a RAW with this problem.
Conversion using RAW 1.0 (less or no colour pixelation):
http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%201.0.jpg
Conversion using RAW 2.0 (colour pixelation):
http://www.loftsoft.co.uk/pictures/KC7U5116%20-%20RAW%202.0.jpg
Any suggestions as to what to do? Is this simply a RAW conversion problem which can be addressed or am I using the tool wrong?
Many thanks,
Cesare

Hmm. I can see some color effects in the 1.0 conversion as well.
Those are some touch photos... you have lots of specular highlights with the sun reflecting off the water and the railing.
Aperture 2.x and 1.x handle the RAW conversion differently. I would suggest you try playing with the RAW Fine Tuning brick, specifically with the Moire and Radius sliders, and try fiddling with the Auto Noise Compensation checkbox.
I don't know whether you'll be able to make the problem go away completely or not.
With my ~30,000 1D Mark II files I've seen something similar to this (though much less extreme) on a couple of them. Always with specular highlights though -- off water or metal objects.
Still, you may wish to submit Aperture feedback and include the RAW file.

LR raw conversion

Just wondering how and when LR applies a RAW conversion? Is there a way to modify what LR does when converting the RAW image? Is it possible to have Nikon Capture process the RAW file and then import into LR?
Kevin

No...Camera Raw is the raw processing pipeline for Lightroom.

I'm considering buying CC LR/PS package. My camera is Sony a7 - raw ARW. I've been editing using PSE10 and ver 8.7 of the external Adobe DNG converter. Will I be able to open the DNG files in LR with the edits preserved? Will I be able to open the PSD fil

I'm considering buying CC LR/PS package. My camera is Sony a7 - raw ARW. I've been editing using PSE10 and ver 8.7 of the external Adobe DNG converter. Will I be able to open the DNG files in LR with the edits preserved? Will I be able to open the PSD files in LR with the edits preserved? Any import/catalog etc issues between PSE10 and LR?

Lightroom has no problem reading DNG files. Whether the edits you have done to the DNGs you have originally edited in Photoshop Elements 10 I'm not sure. ACR edits made to DNGs are saved in the DNG file itself, as apposed to a XMP sidecar file, so LR should see those edits. At the worst you will get an exclamation mark in the upper right hand corner of the imported DNGs and clicking on that exclamation mark you will get a dialog box asking you to either import settings from disk or overwrite settings. you would select import settings from disk.

Sony A100 Will Not Import Raw Files on MacBook Pro

I have Just got a Sony A100 and when I plug it into my Mac Book Pro 17 running 10.4.8 it will import the JPG images in OK but not the RAW images.
But if I plug the same Camera into my Dual G5 running 10.4.8 or the Intel Mac Mini also running 10.4.8 both the JPG's and the RAW files are imported OK.
On the bases that this is not a hardware fault the only software differance I can see from the MB Pro 17 and the other computers is that the MB Pro shippend with 10.4.8 and the other two Mac's where upgraded to 10.4.8 from 10.4.7.
So the Question is how can I update the camera import functions on the MB Pro to import the RAW format file like the other two nice Mac's?
Regards

Sony RX2 is supported in ACR7.2 and higher whereas PSE10 can go as high as ACR6.3
Thus you wont be able to open your raw files directly into ACR. You might want to download DNG convertor(version 7.2 or higher) and use it to convert your raw files to a different raw format (.dng) which is supported by all ACR versions.
Windows download click here DNG Converter 7.2
Mac download click here DNG Converter 7.2
You Tube click here for DNG Converter tutorial
Curtsey of 99jon

I have an A77 and see that DxO RAW conversions look different

Several RAW conversion comparisons on the web amongst A77 users are pointing to markedly better conversions and noise handling currently within new DxO 7 eg. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=39970661
I know that Sony's RAW have historically taken a while to arrive at optimal conversions from previous experinece with my A350. When Lightroom 3 came along it was like getting new cameras for most Sony Alpha users with from RAW performance at last matching Nikon from effectively the same sensors.
Can you let me know the likely time lag till ACR and Lightroom will have an update to this initial default to really match the DxO performance. Otherwise, to be honest, despite being a Lightroom user since the original Beta stages and a passionate supporter and advocate, I may have to consider jumping ship. Working exclusively in RAW I do need to be using the very best conversions possible to make the best out of my investment in my camera equipment.
I don't know if this lag with ARW conversions is because Sony don't co-operate with Adobe early enough or whether because Sony is only number three in DSLR share it gets less priority within Adobe than Canon and Nikon, but some timeline on a revised version of Lightroom to address this for the new Sony Alphas would be great.
Many thanks from a long time advocate who really hopes I can stick with Lightroom,
Cheers,
Paul

Hi Hal,
Many thanks...I’ll give it a try. Not trying to cause trouble as I genuinely am a fan of LR, but if they always lag on getting to grips with Sony RAWs it’s a major drawback for Sony users.
Cheers,
Paul

Sony RX100 raw files converted with DNG converter not recognizable

Since installing Maverick 10.9.4 on the Mac, Sony RX100 raw files converted with DNG converter are no more recognizable.
Somebody else the same problem?

I know my DNG files themselves and the info they contain are fine. But they're not properly supported in Mavericks 10.9.4 and I don't plan on switching to Windows. A file that I converted to a DNG using Adobe software is now listed as an unrecognized file in OSX. No thumbnails, no iPhoto, no Aperture. Essentially, no support. And this is a problem. A quick search will show you people with various Sony cameras (A7, RX100 mkI and mkIII, at least) having the same problem.
No matter where the blame falls, the simple fact is that if you shoot with various Sony cameras, use Adobe software to convert the file to DNG and happen to be an OSX user, you're files are no longer compatible with OSX or Apple's photo software. They will only open in Adobe software. You literally get a warning message from OSX saying, this is an unsupported file type when you try and open it.
Like I said previously, I've had a managed iPhoto library for about 5 years now, numerous hours of tagging and organzing, and every DNG file converted from a Sony ARW RAW is currently unsupported. Original ARW files work just fine. It's nuts. Maybe it's Adobe's fault. Maybe it's Apple's fault. It really doesn't matter. If DNG is not a reliable standard format under certain edge cases (Sony ARW, DNG converter, OSX Mavericks), it's not a reliable standard format at all. I just hope that Apple or Adobe figures this out, so that I can get those photos back.
In the mean time, certain users such as myself just can't rely on DNG. End of story.

Is there any reason to Archive both a DNG and DNG with raw embedded?

In Real World Camera Raw, which suggests using DNG, they seem to be advocating making an archive of both the Camera Raw edited and Bridge rated conversions to DNG files, and another set of the raw files converted to DNG with raws embedded. If you take the raw files from Camera Raw and make one save to DNG with raws embedded, it seems that you could use this set both for a working copy and also archive it. Any reason to make a second DNG set just to have a set without Camera Raw edits and ratings?

That is a good question and one no one can answer not even Adobe. If
management or whatever should change at Adobe in the future they could
decide to remove support for old cameras. Cameras like those that are 5 or
10 years old (we are talking in the future here). I would imagine that...
A) Adobe would warn user's ahead of time.
B) You could keep an older copy of DNG Converter that does support those.
With that the only time limiting factor is the operating system a time may
come where the program simply won't run.
So nothing is guaranteed. However, I think for the foreseeable future
support for even the oldest of cameras that are currently supported is
pretty safe. Nothing is forever however.

Poor raw conversion from Fujifilm X100 .raf format in Lightroom 3 and 4

I'm seeing very poor results when doing raw conversion from Fujifilm X100 .raf format. Who can I contact about this? Is there anything I can do?
See below for what is supposed to be a white curtain, lit by stage lighting. It results in a blown out blue channel, serious loss of detail, and very ugly gradient.
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on LEFT --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on RIGHT)
And for more detail:
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on TOP --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on BOTTOM)
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on LEFT --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on RIGHT)

The blue light is so intense that it is, or almost is, saturating the sensor.
The camera’s built-in raw conversion handles this by shifting the color to cyan—clipping the blue and allowing the green to contribute more. I doubt there was cyan lighting in the scene, only blue.
Adobe does not shift the hue, but this makes the blue seem over saturated. Adobe’s conversion may be more colorimetrically correct, but less pleasing in this case of intense lighting that the sensor cannot accurately record.
It is a difference in camera profile used between the camera and Adobe. Since Adobe does not supply camera-match profiles for much more than Nikon and Canon cameras, you’re not going to be able to fix things other than managing the over-saturation using HSL or WB or other things like lower-vibrance, higher saturation.
You could try making your own camera profile using an X-Rite Color-Checker Passport or the color-checker and the Adobe DNG Profile Editor:
http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1257

Import RAW images from Sony A100 DSLR?

iPhoto 6 does not import RAW images taken with my Sony A100 DSLR. I can view the images with preview, so apparently Mac OS X knows how to handle them. But, iPhoto just says there are no pictures to import.
I installed the Aperture trial, and it handled the RAW images, as does the Adobe Lightroom beta4. But, not iPhoto6.
I am running all the latest patches, with 10.4.8 on a MacBook Pro.
Does RAW work for anyone else with this camera? Any suggestions for workarounds?

I messed around with this a bit more and found that if I manually import the RAW images, it works fine. But, iPhoto still does not recognize new pictures and import them automatically.
I can also see them in Finder and Preview, so I know the OS support is up to date. Also, I tried it on my Mac Mini, and the mini recognized the raw pictures and imported them as I would expect.
The RAW updater only mentions Canon, Nikon, and Pentax as being addressed. I did install it, but it may not be necessary.
This article on Apple's site: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303554
says you need 10.4.8 to support Sony RAW pictures.

DNG and MESZ timestamp / sony A100 RAW conversion

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for