DNG Confusion

I thought that DNG was straight in my mind but now I'm not sure. I
converted my RAW files to DNG and then modified one in Lightroom
(2.1rc). All looked OK so I printed the file and it looked like it was
darker than I thought it should be. Remembering the threads on the forum
about Lightroom printing dark, I printed the file using Qimage. Qimage
(latest version) couldn't see the changes that Lightroom had made. I
exported the DNG as a TIF and it worked as it should. The question is
raised in my mind that either Qimage can't read DNG files right, or my
thought that Lightroom stores the changes to the file in the DNG is
wrong. I went to DNG to get away from side car files. I like the idea
that all my changes are stored in one place and can't become separated
from my pictures. The question then, is my understanding that Lightroom
stores all changes to my DNG photos in the DNG incorrect? If it's not
then I see much less reason spend the time it takes to use DNG.
John Passaneau
By the way the file printed from Lightroom was slightly darker than the
Qimage print. It was very slight but noticeable.

John McWilliams - 7:30am Oct 17, 08 PST (#7 of 8)
I suspect Adobe/Epson/Canon/HP personnel have better things to do than get in a verbal challenge over an independent software company, who has a number of very vocal adherents.
I'm annoyed at Qimage for not letting us Mac guys test their software on our platforms, as well as spreading Gospel that doesn't hold up, esp. all the nonsense about there being one true and holy "optimal input resolution".
Hi John
As Steve has pointed out you can try out QIMAGE under Parallels.
LR is a "jack of all trades" program for raw converter, DAM, printing, web galleries, and slide shows, and as such has re-written the book for digital imaging processing. A bit like when wide range zooms (18-200mm) were introduced. They may not have the best optical performance but they are convenient.
At LR's core is the raw converter which is certainly a contender for class leader. The other modules are add ons for convenience. If their capabilities suit your requirements then that's great, if not people are free to use another program.
The other modules such as DAM are lightweight applications, compared to equivalent specialist programs. The capabilities of these other modules will improve over time. For example I hope LR will be able to at least recognise and download audio and video files from a memory card and provide minimal DAM capabilities. With cameras like the Canon 5DII shooting still and video this surely must come.
So, I use LR because it is a jack of all trades, that also happens to be one of the best raw converters, this is it's strength - but I don't think it is unreasonable to accept that the other modules don't match (yet) other dedicated programs.
Currently the only real contender to LR is Aperture, but I can't comment on that as I'm a Windows guy :-)
Enjoy the photography.

Similar Messages

  • LR3 JPEG/DNG Metadata Confusion

    Hi,
    I'm a little confused about XMP data and the LR3 catalog itself.
    First, I understand that DNG files can have embedded keywords and other metadata -- and 95% of my files are CR2 files that I bring into LR3 as DNGs and keep them as DNGs.  So I am NOT using raw files with sidecar files.
    But where I'm confused is the "automatically write changes into XMP" LR3 catalog option and how it relates to JPEG files.
    I was of the understanding that if I make changes in the develop module (eg. contrast)  to a JPEG file (not a DNG), then these changes will NOT be saved to the original JPEG file, but will be "recorded" in the LR3 catalog.
    But now If I allow LR3 to "automatically write changes into XMP"  -- will this WRITE these develop module changes (e.g. the contrast change)  to the original JPEG?  Or does the "automatically write changes into XMP" only refer to the keywords and other metadata in a JPEG file?
    Thanks for any help in clearing this up,
    R

    So just so I have this correct with JPEGs:
    1, If I make changes in LR3 to a JPEG (e.g. contrast), this contrast change is saved in the LR3 catalog.
    2. I can ADDITIONALLY save metadata (keywords, etc)  in XMP data into a JPEG if I have the "automatically write xmp." settings checked or if I save it manually to the file
    3. I can ADDITIONALLY save the develop settings (e.g. the contrast change I made in #1) by including the develop data in the JPEG in the same dialogue box.
    But now if I opened this keyword, added contrast-adjusted JPEG in another program,  only "XMP-aware" programs would allow me to see these keywords and contrast changes.  Is this a correct assessment?
    And lastly, if I do save the develop settings to the JPEG itself, doesn't that violate the "non-destructive" editing concept of LR3?
    Thanks again!

  • Just bought a Nikon d750 and confused about adobe LR4 and PS6 support for the RAW files. I have DNG 8.7 but wondering if LR and PS will import direct soon Thanks for any advice

    Just bought a Nikon d750 and confused about adobe LR4 and PS6 support for the RAW files. I have DNG 8.7 but wondering if LR and PS will import direct soon Thanks for any advice

    Support for the Nikon D750 was introduced in the latest version of LR 5.7 and ACR 8.7 on Novemder 18th 2014.
    Further updates to LR 4 were stopped when LR 5 was released on June 9th 2013. No further updates for bug fixes and new camera support.
    Nada, LR 4 will never support Nikon D750. The Nikon D750 was introduced into the market in September 2014 some 15 months after further development of LR 4 was discontinued.
    You can use the Adobe DNG program (free download for the package) to convert the Nef (raw) files from your Nikon D750 to the Adobe DNG format which will permit you to import those into LR 4. This is the crutch provided by Adobe to allow for the processing of raw files with outdated versions of LR and ACR.
    You can also update the ACR plugin for PS CS6 to version 8.7 which can also work with the raw files from the D750. For direct support in Lightroom you will need to upgrade (paid) to version 5.7.

  • Confused - DNG Converter RC for RAW files from d810 - doesn't work...

    hi everyone -
    sorry for the stupid question, but i've never had to do this before. i read somewhere here that if you download camera raw 8_6 and dng converter 8_6 you can convert raw files from d810. i just tried that with the dng converter and it says that the files are not recognized.
    what am i doing wrong? can someone help me figure this out?
    many thanks in advance.

    The first thing to point out is that the release candidate will not recognize the new small raw format. You'll have to shoot the full-sized raw images. The other thing to be aware of is that, in the DNG converter, when being prompted for the location of your raw images, it is asking for the FOLDER. Choose the folder, but don't open it. Then the DNG converter will convert the raw files contained within that folder.
    If you want to shoot TIF, you would probably have better image data to work with than you would with JPEG images. But it still wouldn't be as flexible, and you wouldn't have as many options as you would shooting raw. Try the DNG converter with my suggestions and see if it works for you.

  • When I import files (copy from jpeg or copy as DNG from raw, where is the full size original stored?

    I have the photos go here file, does LR5 put the untouched original there? Do I need my own file for originals and if so, how does LR5 know where to find the full size original? I have everything working but don't understand where my untouched originals go after import. Say I import off my card to My Pictures/Lightroom Catalog/ Photos go here ..... are my originals there? What if I erase my card now, do I only have partial size negatives basically? I don't understand why LR5 didnt put in an originals do here file that imports the full photo to a stock folder. I am so confused I am about ready to throw out LR5. I even bought your instructional DVD and it doesnt make where the original files location clear, it just repeats that LT5 does NOT import the original, just thumbnail and instructions, where is the program getting the photo when I double click to open it , or am I only seeing a lower resolution version of the photo and the full res is now gone because I formatted the card?

    When you import photos, you can choose "Copy" or "Move" or "Copy as DNG", and then select a destination folder on your hard disk. This happens on the right hand side of the Import dialog box. So your original files go to this destination folder.
    Alternatively, if your photos are already on your hard disk, you can import by choosing "Add" and the original photos remain in the existing location.
    If you're not sure where the photos are, open Lightroom, go to the Library Module, and on the right hand side is the Metadata Panel. Set the dropdown to "Default", and it will show you where your photos are stored. Alternatively, you can right-click on any photo and select "Show In Finder"/"Show in Explorer" and Lightroom will take you to the exact folder where the photo is located.
    So, bottom line, you are in total control of where the originals go, and if your forgot where you put them, or made a mistake, you can always find out where they are.
    What if I erase my card now, do I only have partial size negatives basically?
    If your import was successful, then the photos are now stored on your hard disk. So you have the full size original for Lightroom to work with.
    it just repeats that LT5 does NOT import the original, just thumbnail and instructions
    Lightroom does import the original, which means, in Lightroom jargon, that it records the location and metadata about the photo; in other words, Lightroom knows where the photo is, but Lightroom NEVER contains your photo, your photo is ALWAYS stored on the hard disk.
    Because Lightroom now knows where your photo is located, it is important that you not manage your photos (move, edit, rename, delete) outside of Lightroom. Photo managements tasks now must be done in Lightroom. (There are advanced methods that let you manage your photos outside of Lightroom, but these would be NOT RECOMMENDED for beginners)

  • Why are the DNG Thumbnails of my Sony DRC RX100 not shown in the File Finder of my Mac?

    When I first import the original RAWs from my Sony DRC RX100, I can see the thumbnails in the File Finder (so my Mac with OSX 10.9.1. is perfectly fine), but after reworking them with Lightroom and exporting them as DNG files, the pictures are not shown any more as thumbnails in the file finder, but as empty white boxes. The curious thing is that the RAW pictures shooted with my Nikon D5200 do not have any visualization problem after exporting them from Lightroom.  The problem is very disgusting, as I can not search for pictures in the file finder. And Adobe did just close my open request on this issue (case #0180632682) without my consent and without any solution! Who else has got this problem and knows if there is any help to this stupid phenomenon? Does anyone at Adobe take care at all?
    Thanks!
    Tinero

    I think that this is a Lightroom problem because the original Raw files from the camera card are shown as thumbnails in the file finder, but after importing them into Lightroom as dng, retouching them and exporting them with Lightroom, the files are not shown any more. Obviously my sony RX100 camera is not the problem, at least not for my Mac. As Lightroom always needs to work together with a windows PC or a Mac, Adobe should ensure the compatibility of the functions with the host system. I think that is what all consumers logically expect from Lightroom. And a photography SW should be able to show fotos and export visible foto files...
    The very same Dng files from my other camera (a Nikon d5200) do not have this problem at all, although I export them in the very same format as the pics from my Sony, which is not at all an exotic camera. This is very confusing.
    I export dng files because this is the Lightroom own raw format that keeps the original quality of my raws. TIFF files are too large, and jpegs sensibly reduce the quality. So there is no option. I need to stay in Raw. Do I have any other quality options?

  • Adobe DNG Converter can't recognize any files

    Hi All!
    I'm new here and would very  much appreciate help.
    I am running a Mac OS X 10.04.11 and would  like to open .CR2 files (native file from my Canon 500D) in PS4      / Bridge  CS4. My problem is that although I have downloaded the Adobe DNG Converter and Camera Raw 5.1  update as described  here: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4057,  the DNG Converter can't recognise any files at  all (they are greyed-out  when I go to select any folder). I also followed these steps from the aforementioned link (well at  least I hope I did it right, I found the reference to step 4 slightly  confusing):
    To install with Adobe Creative  Suite 4 or Photoshop CS4:
    Automated installation on Mac or Windows®:
    1. Select "Updates..." from the Help menu
    2. Follow the on-screen dialogs to download and  install the latest  available Camera Raw update  
    Manual installation on Mac:
    1. Exit Photoshop CS4 and Adobe Bridge.
    2. Open the Finder.   
    3. Navigate to the root of the local disk (not the user's home  folder).   
    4. Navigate to: (Please read directory carefully)
    Library/Application Support/Adobe/Plug-Ins/CS4/File Formats
    5. Move the existing plug-in to another location (for example, a new  folder on your desktop). Ensure you keep this version in case you need  to revert back.
    6. Copy the Camera Raw plug-in, Camera Raw, from the download  into the same folder as in Step 4.   
    7. Launch Photoshop CS4 or Adobe Bridge.   
    Is that version the right one for CS4?
    Only Finder and the Canon Software can preview my .CR2  files, Photoshop still gives the message: "Could   not complete  your request because Photoshop does not recognise this  type of file." and   Bridge only shows me a generic RAW thumbnail. This message also  appears in PS when I double-click on the  Camera-RAW.plugin. I also  restarted my computer,  but that didn't fix it.
    Can  anyone help me out please? I'd urgently need a solution.
    Thanks in advance!

    I now uninstalled the older 5.1 version and  instead installed the DNG Converter 6.3 separately and it works  perfectly.
    About the Camera Raw 5.6 update: I also downloaded the plug-in  (which I think should be the last version CS4 supports) and can now open  my .CR2 files in PS, Bridge previews them too. :-)
    Is it advisable to keep both, .CR2 as well as .DNG files? Why is it  that my .DNG files are lighter than the native .CR2?
    Thanks again!

  • Color space problem/confusion

    I posted the following message to another thread, but at the recommendation of a member I am starting a new thread here. For a couple of answers see the thread below.
    http://forums.adobe.com/message/3298911#3298911
    I will provide much more information hoping an Adobe support person will chime in. This is extremely odd.
    System: HP, AMD, Windows 7 64-Bit, Nvidia 9100, all updates to Windows, latest Nvidia 9100 driver
    Display: Samsung 226CW, Windows settings 32-bit color, correct resolution,
    Calibration: Done with ColorMunki, D65 target, done after monitor has been on for more than 30 minutes
    Personal:  (I am adding this information with some hesitation, please excuse it if  it sounds like I'm bragging; I am not). I have multiple posts on my  blog, have made many presentations on color managed workflow and am very  comfortable with the settings in Photoshop and Lightroom. Please take  this only as a baseline information, I am not bragging. In fact, I am  begging for information!
    Problem:
    Any, I mean ANY,  original JPEG image in sRGB space coming out of the camera with no  adjustments, any PSD file in sRGB space, any TIFF file in sRGB space  look significantly paler in Lightroom and in Photoshop CS5 than they  look in other Windows based image viewers like FastStone or XnView. This  should not need these applications to be color space aware, but the  situation is the same with or without their color managment turned on or  off. I have done the following:
    1. Totally uninstalled Lightroom 3 and reinstalled it
    2.  Recreated a brand new Lightroom catalog/library and reimported all the  images, converting all the RAW files to DNG (just in case!)
    3. Recalibrated the display
    When  I view a file, any file and I will use for the sake of simplicity a  JPEG file in sRGB color space, in Lightroom it looks pale. Since the  file is in sRGB color space, I have verified this, the rendering in  Lightroom should be the same as rendering in anything else. But it is  not. I took my monitor and connected it to this system with the same odd  behavior of rendering in Lightroom being much paler than outside. It  appears as if I am viewing an image in Adobe RGB in a windows viewer  that is not color managed.
    I further tried the following:
    1.  I copied various versions of one file, all in sRGB color space. One PSD  and two JPEG files from the folders of the above system and copied them  to my system, Intel, Windows 7 64-bit, display calibrated and profiled  with ColorMunki to the same standards as the problem system above.
    2. Imported them to Lightroom on my system
    3.  The rendering in Lightroom is identical to rendering outside Lightroom  for all the files and all are same as the rendering in FastStone on the  problem system. Outside rendering was done using FastStone as on the  problem system.
    My deduction is that something on the  problem system outlined in the opening of the message is interfering  with the Adobe rendering engine and I have no idea what it could be. I  WILL GREATLY APPRECIATE if an Adobe engineer could chime in and steer me  in the right direction. I am willing to try other things but I have run  out of ideas despite the fact that I have reduced much of the problem  to the lowest common denominator of sRGB and JPEG against a PSD in sRGB.
    Waiting anxiously of your help.
    Cemal

    Also, I know enough to calibrate a monitor when it is connected to a new computer. That said, even without calibration the behavior should have changed to display all the images in question the same but perhaps with somewhat off colors. Am I right? I am not arguing the point, I am rhetorically raising the question. If the 226CW is wide gamut and 244T is not, when I connect 244T on the same computer the wide gamut issue should be eliminated, should it not? I am not talking at this point about the "correct" color, but the same color in or out of Lightroom.
    Unfortunately when you connect another monitor to a computer and don't calibrate or manually change it, Windows will not change the monitor profile. Macs will autodetect and change the profile but this innovation has not reached windows yet. The behavior you observe is caused by managed apps using the monitor profile and unmanaged apps not. If the monitor profile is not changed, the behavior doesn't change.
    BTW, for a "cheap" software to be color space aware it does not need a quantum leap in technology I believe. It simply needs to know how to read the ICC profile and the LUT, is that correct?
    It's extremely simple to program color management into apps. Standard API libraries have been available in Windows for over a decade. The reason why this hasn't happened is related to the fact that Microsoft hasn't made IE color managed and the software makers do not want to confuse folks when images look different in their program vs IE. Considering that this still is the biggest issue people wrongly complain about in every color managed application (just check Photoshop fora) that is maybe not that strange.

  • Aperture 3 will not read LX3 .dng files

    I was a Lightroom user for the past several years, but have decided to give Aperture a try. I converted files from my Panasonic Lumix LX-3, Canon 5D Mark II, and Canon s90IS to .dng when they were imported into Lightroom. I no longer have the original RAW files.
    I have imported these .dng files into Aperture 3. The two sets of Canon files import properly and our easily edited. The .dng files from the Panasonic Lumix LX3 do not import properly. I get the "unsupported image format" message on the thumbnail.
    I have installed the latest Apple update that allows for support of the LX3.
    This has happened on both my Mac Pro and Macbook Pro.
    Is anyone else experiencing a similar issue?
    Thanks,
    Fred
    Message was edited by: Fred Campagna

    Hi Fred. Saw your post about this on dpreview, too. I'll repost my response here for other Apple folk.
    I'm seeing this with DNGs from my G1, too. The problem seems to be that Aperture 3 lacks support for lens corrections in DNG.
    It is probably not a problem with Linear DNGs -- though you'd have to check yours. Adobe forced Linear DNGs on G1 and LX3 users for only one version of DNG converter (5.4, if I remember right). After that, they figured out how to do lens correction inside regular raw DNGs -- the kind that Aperture supports.
    Except that the lens correction in those DNGs seems to confuse Aperture 3. It's odd because for the G1 and LX-3, Aperture supports those same corrections in the native RW2 format. Let's hope it's a bug that the same corrections don't work in DNG.
    In the meantime, there are a couple of options:
    1. Wait for RW2 support. For the GF1, this is your best choice. And save those RW2 files! Extract your original RW2 files from the DNGs or pull them from a backup (you did embed the the RW2, right?). If you've shot with Panasonic micro 4/3 lenses, this is your best option.
    2. If your DNGs were shot with legacy lenses, there is a good work-around. Only native Panasonic (and maybe Olympus) micro 4/3 lenses add the lens metadata. If you don't have that, the only thing keeping Aperture from recognizing your photos is the camera model name embedded in the DNGs. You can use something like exiftool to change it to one that doesn't do lens correction. Here's what I use to get my G1's legacy lens DNGs to work in Aperture 3. (This is not terribly dangerous, as exiftool can just as easily undo this change.)
    exiftool -Model=DMC-L10 blah.dng
    3. If your DNGs do have lens correction (as they must with the LX3) you could use a tool like DNGSanitize http://punainenkala.livejournal.com/588.html, which purports to strip the lens correction from the DNGs. This is a last-resort sort of thing to do, you will lose that lens correction data. You would probably also have to change the camera model name, as in option 2 (try DMC-FZ50 for the LX3). Keep backups. And, really, don't do this -- wait until the next release of Aperture when we'll find out if Apple intends to fix DNG support.
    Whatever you do, test this with your DNGs -- especially if you're trying option 2 or (especially) 3. Just because option 2 works for me, that doesn't mean it will for you. And I've not had to try option 3. And pray you don't have linear DNGs, as only Adobe can help you then.
    I can't believe that Apple would mess up DNG support this badly on purpose. In the meantime, please file a bug report to let Apple know that losing DNG support for these cameras is a big deal. You can do this from inside Aperture itself. Choose Aperture > Provide Aperture Feedback from the menu.
    Here are the gory details, with links to helpful resources -- http://elstudio.us/notes-on-aperture-3-and-panasonic-gf1-rw2-and
    Good luck! And let us know how it works out.

  • Canon 5d2 DNG +custom profiles = bad preview in Bridge?

    I'm using DNG Profile Editor (1.0.0.39 Beta 2) to make custom profiles for my new Canon 5D Mark II, and then using DNG Converter (5.2) plus Photoshop CS3 Bridge to process images. All on Windows XP.
    After my 5D2 custom profiles were in place I noticed that the image preview in Bridge CS3 was "bad." The Bridge preview is very blurry and does not update when changes are made to the DNG file via ACR. For example, if I change exposure in ACR and click "Done" or "Open in Photoshop, the change is saved OK in the DNG file but the Bridge preview remains the original blurry image.
    Took a long time to figure this out because I did not immediately associate the problem with the creation of custom profiles. Older 5D2 DNG files previewed OK in Bridge, as did DNG files from my other cameras. I even re-converted some old camera raw files to DNG and they previewed OK in Bridge. There are custom profiles in place for those older cameras.
    I spent a lot of time on the usual suspects - purging cache, reseting preferences. All to no avail. Then I removed all my custom profiles and deleted the index.dat file. Ran DNG converter again to make new DNG files from the 5D2 raw. Now the Bridge preview was OK. Then I restored my custom profiles and converted raw to DNG again, getting bad Bridge previews again. Yet the previous converted files would still preview OK in Bridge.
    My conclusion: The DNG converter is using camera profiles during the conversion, and in the case of 5D Mark II raw files is creating an error. I'm guessing it is putting an embedded jpeg in the DNG file that somehow confuses Bridge.
    I've repeated the tests many times now. I've changed the DNG Converter "jpeg preview" preference to none, medium and full. For the 5D2 files I get bad Bridge previews on all settings. But I get good Bridge previews on my Canon 20D and Canon 1Ds DNG files regardless of any settings. Regardless of the presence or absence of custom profiles, regardless of the jpeg preview size, regardless of the ACR default settings.
    So I'm hoping the Adobe team can take a look at this. Or anyone willing to confirm or deny my tests. I don't have an easy way to post a DNG file, but could email one of my "bad" ones to anyone willing to take a look.

    The lack of response to this post forced me to keep testing. Now I've more closely pinpointed the problem and found an easy work around. First some background.
    ACR camera profiles are stored in two places. The Adobe supplied profiles are in:
    C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles
    and your custom profiles are in:
    C:\Documents and Settings\yourusername\Application Data\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles
    Adobe Camera Raw, and it turns out the DNG Converter, both build an Index.dat file in this last folder. Apparently this index is built by scanning both camera profile directory trees and building a list of all the profiles it finds. It then sorts that list alphabetically by the profile name that is embedded in the file, not the Windows file name.
    The "Adobe Standard" profile for a camera has a file name like "Canon EOS 5D Mark II Adobe Standard.dcp", but embedded in that file is the profile name of just "Adobe Standard". That's why only "Adobe Standard" shows up in the drop down list of profiles in ACR. And that's why "Adobe Standard" appears before "Camera Faithful", which appears before "Camera Landscape". It's alphabetical order.
    Now, when you create a custom profile with the DNG Profile Editor, the "Export" function puts "Canon EOS 5D Mark II" on the front of the name. If you are an idiot, like me, you type over all that with something simple like "5D2 Bouce Flash" for the profile name. But wait, "5D2 Bounce Flash" sorts alphabetically before "Adobe Standard" and appears first in the ACR drop down menu. Sounds OK so far.
    But then the magic occurs. The DNG converter uses the camera profiles. It actually accesses that Index.dat file, and if it does not exist, the DNG converter will rebuild it, just like ACR. Why it does that I can't imagine. Seems to me that the DNG converter should be simply converting raw to DNG and passing the EXIF and embedded camera jpeg along as is. What need does it have for camera profiles?
    Anyhow, if that 5D2 profile is first in the list due to its alpahbetical name, the resulting DNG file will confuse Bridge. Bridge will display a fuzzy preview and will never update that preview, or the thumbnail, when you make adjustments in ACR.
    But if you name the 5D2 custom profile such that it sorts alphabetically after "Adobe Standard", then all is OK. The DNG files can be previewed and thumbed OK by Bridge. So I named my custom profile "My 5D2 Bounce Flash", a simple workaround.
    Now I can move on to more important things. Like generating a good custom profile for the 5D2. So far the Adobe Standard profile beats anything I've generated. Especailly if I remove that curious Point Curve which can sometimes muck up the shadows.
    And now that Bridge previews are "OK" I can work on the mystery of why Bridge Previews of 5D2 DNG files do not match the previews of their equivalent TIF or PSD files. If you're curious you can see samples and read more about that here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=30748423

  • Is it possible to send a DNG to from LR4 to PS6 as a TIFF? of so how do I do it?

    When I use Topaz plug-ins in LR4, the image comes back with only 10% of  the pixels remaining. It has been suggested by Topaz Help to transfer images to PS6 from LR4 without LR4 adjustments and see if it still happens. Unfortunately my DNG files cannot be sent to PS6 without adjustments. Is it possible to convert DNG files to TIFF so the option becomes available to send it to PS6 without adjustments?

    I am not certain what you mean by "pixels of 1.7 by 1.1" but if you mean 1700x1100 pixels, that is indeed 1.87 Megapixels. I personally think the straight pixel dimensions are a better (cetainly a more usual) way to express this kind of thing.
    A 1.87 Megapixel  image (of these dimensions) opened into Photoshop reports its theoretical document size on the status bar, if set for that: when I tried this just now, it reported "5.35M".
    It is important to note: this is a notional saving filesize without compression, in Megabytes, and does not refer to Megapixels (really they should make this clearer, by putting "Mp" or "Mb" explicitly, instead of the more confusing "M").
    I don't see how you would have reached 9 Megabytes with such a picture unless there are additional layers present, and/or, resampled pixel numbers.
    If you have somehow reached 9 Megapixels from those starting dimensions, the picture must have been resampled somehow along the line, to give it more pixels (often, this comes of altering resolution while preserving print size - either in "image size", or in Crop).
    Another display option for the same document status bar, shows pixel dimensions - which will confirm this for sure.
    Depending on your printing process, I would suggest you take 180ppi as more or less the coarsest acceptable for printing on paper, and perhaps 90ppi for printing on canvas. These figures accept some crudeness in return for maximum size, but still most likely look OK for general purposes.
    1700px wide at 180ppi is 9.44 inches wide (paper) and at 90ppi is 18.88 inches wide (canvas). The other dimension correspondingly smaller. Many may feel this is pushing things a bit, but if you can make a real sample you may be pleasantly surprised - to some extent it depends on the nature of the image, and on what it is being printed for.
    If feeling more picky, you might instead compromise on say 240 ppi (still in a context where you don't have a lot of pixels available) which gives you a paper printing size of  7 inches wide in, typically, good quality.
    So that tells you the printing size range your image will support. The image can be upsampled to a specific higher PPI (and correspondingly larger pixel dimensions) for printing purposes, at that size - but this does not add further to the enlargeability of the picture detail it contains - only present that at its technical best, and allow you to tweak that further with sharpening, for the physical size selected.

  • DNG conv. 8.2 /Panasonic DMC-GX 7/RW 2 files ?

    Ver. 8.2 do not recognize RW 2 files from GX7. ( I use Elements 11 and Windows 7 )

    Thank you for your answer, but I am even more confused!
    I develop Raw files in Elements 11.
    The DNG converter is located under  : program files(x86)/ Adobe (where also Elements 11 is stored )
    With my former camera ( Panasonic DMC-GX 1 ) the development of Raw-files was performing without problems in Elements editing program.
    The download of ver.8.2 is o.k. and was placed automatically in the same place as the former version. ( I re-downloaded a couple of times to be sure)
    But  the converter do not read the files !
    Fra: JimHess [email protected]
    Sendt: 4. desember 2013 17:54
    Til: ilangmoe
    Emne: DNG conv. 8.2 /Panasonic DMC-GX 7/RW 2 files ?
    Re: DNG conv. 8.2 /Panasonic DMC-GX 7/RW 2 files ?
    created by JimHess <http://forums.adobe.com/people/JimHess>  in Digital Negative (DNG) - View the full discussion <http://forums.adobe.com/message/5899943#5899943

  • How do I preserve date/time when converting to DNG?

    When I convert a file to DNG format in Lightroom, it changes the capture time in the metadata to the current date and time, rather than copying the source data.  Is there a way in which I can tell it to leave my dates alone?

    You wrote: “I noticed my mistake. It seems that what the conversion process was changing was the ‘Metadata Date’ and ‘Date Time’ fields, but ‘Date Time ‘" and ‘Date Time Digitized’ were remaining the proper, original date. The cause of my confusion was that my Metadata panel view was hiding all but the ‘Date Time’ field, so it appeared as though it had overwritten my prior date information.”
    Date/times in photo metadata can be very confusing.  There are all these fields with confusing names imposed by legacy industry standards -- I challenge anyone except a metadata nerd like me to remember the meanings and differences of Date/Time, Date/Time Original, Date/Time Digitized, Capture Time, Metadata Date, Modify Date, ....  The worst are the two XMP fields Date Created and Create Date, which have two very different meanings!  And every app and operating system makes a half-hearted attempt to "simplify" it for the user by choosing different names.   
    LR makes no serious attempt to make this easy for the user, and over the first several versions, it's handling of date/times was pretty sloppy. (It still has outstanding bugs that don't crop up that often in practice.)  You would think that at least LR would provide roll-over tool tips on the field names in the Metadata panel explaining each field.

  • Canon 5D Mk II Raw files not selectable by Adobe DNG 5.5

    Well  to be more clear then the thread header, I am not able to select my old Nikon 5700 Coolpix files either. In other words the files are grey but the Adobe DNG browser is working when looking for file to select. I dropped the first download in the trash and downloaded again but same result.
    I  have CS4 and all software is listed as compatible with Canon 5D mkII files. A friend of my was able open my 5D files from Adobe DNG 5.5 that were on his Windows platform.
    i did not see any special instructions, and seems intuitive enough, but it must be some kind of Adobe 101 question. Any ideas out there. Thanks.

    Well sorry for any confusion here. I don't think my question is vary misleading though.
    I have a MAC using OS 10.4.11. G4 Dual 1000 Gig (2002) processors, 1.5 Gb SDRAM (maxed), Dedicated 80 Gb Scratch Disk for Photoshop, 500 Gb Internal Drive.
    All operations are done using the MAC OS.
    All files are grey when viewed through the  "Adobe DNG Converter 5.5" application browser. If you are familiar when you open Adobe DNG Converter the vary first step in the process is to ( 1. "Select Folder" ). Pressing this button opens a FINDER then if you will , (many applications refer this as using a their browser to locate files for opening).
    I am referring to RAW files, and as stated earlier those from the 5D mk II and those from the  Nikon coolpix 5700 are not available for selection, or opening by Adobe DNG Converter 5.5, yet they are listed as being current with DNG Converter 5.5.   "All files are grey", So none of the image files have black text suggesting you may select those.
    My  understanding is this converter was made for RAW files, not  "jpeg",  in hopes are creating a last RAW file format Standard that would be a usable archival format across mulitple platforms and through time   . The RAW files are Full 21 megapixel files, not the smaller files sizes  of RAW available on the 5D (ie: sRAW1, or sRAW2). The DNG converter should open all 5D mk II RAW files regardless of megapixel size unless otherwise stated.
    My files can not be an issue , because also  stated  was that my files were opened by a DNG converter loaded on a Windows platform.
    Procedure performed as follows:
         - Open DNG Converter 5.5 on my Power MAC
         - Press " Select Folder " step number list as "#1"
         - DNG Finder or Browser opens allowing one to find the folder said RAW files are contained within for purpose of selecting full 21 megapixel RAW Format CR2 files for Conversion processing to a DNG file format.
         - Oops, can't select, files have grey text appearance. There are no image files at all with Black Text of any format available for selection, so can't select.
    Adobe Photoshop CS4, Adobe CS4 Bridge, Adobe Camera RAW, Canon Utility package for the 5D mk II all these applications see the files, and function with them, no crashes, not hang ups, a little slower then the world turns now days but they do what they were meant to do.
    Thanks again.

  • RAW to DNG just some simple advice please

    I would like some advice on converting RAW to DNG. I have read on line that it is a good practice to convert all my RAW images to DNG after uploading them. I am using Adobe Lightroom 2.2. When I use "Convert to Linear Image", my files double in size. Should I be using "Preserve RAW Image" ? What is best practice and why? Should I be "embedding original RAW image"? Should I leave it as the one Panasonic/Lumix RAW format?
    I am really confused and would appreciate any advice?
    I have tried reading all the threads on this site and they are just too technical and confusing for me at this stage. I just want to know that I am following good practice and treating my images in the best possible way. I have much to learn about using Lightroom but would just like to get past what formats to actually use.
    Should I be doing all my edits on the jpeg instead and not even bother with the RAW?

    Ann,
    >I have just tried the time-honoured Photoshop "Difference" Test.
    Not disputing the possible veracity of
    your conclusion, but
    the time-honoured Photoshop "Difference" Test should be reviewed.
    Even Bruce Fraser didn't adhere to that test.
    If there should be a very small difference in a given pixel, the otherwise 255,255,255 pixel would then appear as 255,254,255 or 254,255,255 or something similar, which you would still
    see as black on your monitor, regardless of magnification.
    Two better, more definitive testing methods would be (a) one suggested by Bruce Fraser himself (I'll post it if and when I find the exact text), and (b) a new (to me) method suggested by someone in the Color Managament and Photoshop Windows forums, which follows:
    (NOTE: only the methodology is of interest and pertinent, not the questionable context in which it has brought up and used.)
    * 1) Open the two images to be compared in Photoshop
    * 2) Move one image as a layer over the other one
    * 3) select "Difference" as blending mode in the layers palette
    * 4) now the whole image should appear seemingly black on the monitor
    [So far this is the traditional,
    "time honored" method.]
    * 5) select the magic wand tool with these settings:
    Tolerance: 0/
    Anti-alias: no/
    Contiguous: no/
    Sample All Layers: yes
    * 6) click somewhere into the formerly gray area
    Explanation: you just selected all completely black pixels (0,0,0) i.e. all pixels that are identical in both layers.
    * 7) you should see "marching ants" forming rectangular patterns
    * 8_) invert the selection (Shift Command I)
    Explanation: the selection now covers all the other pixels, i.e. all pixels which are different between both layers.
    * 9) create a new empty layer and select it in the layers palette
    * 10) set the foreground color to white
    * 11) fill the selection with white (Alt+backspace on Windows, accordingly on Mac)
    * 12) set the blending modes of all layers back to normal
    Explanation: you now see all identical pixels in their respective color
    and all different pixels in white.
    This method is a lot more sensitive than the traditional one which stops at step #4 above.

Maybe you are looking for