Is the DNG format really 'universal'?

I have just aquired a new camera - the Panasonic GX7. Unfortunately Aperture does not yet support its RAW files.
As a workaround I downloaded the Adobe DNG converter in the belief that the DNG format could be imported into Aperture. The converter lists a range of output options from Camera RAW 2.1 up to 7.1. None work with Aperture 3.4.5.
It would seem that DNG compatibility is very dependant on the original source file. DNGs from some cameras work in Aperture while others do not. I know some people blame Apple for this but surely the problem is that the DNG format is not standard. A standard PDF can be read by any PDF reader but it seems there is no such thing as a 'standard DNG'. Is this a reasonable assessment of the situation?
cheers
Bruce

I think, you got it right, Bruce.
The dng generated from a camera can be camera-specific and Aperture does not support them all: see the footnotes in this document.
Apple - Aperture - Technical Specifications - RAW Support
Aperture also lets you work with most DNG files.1
Aperture works with most DNG files generated from cameras that support this format and with DNG files generated by the Adobe DNG Converter with the “Convert to Linear Image” option turned off.
It appears to be random, if Adobe's dng converter will work. I used to be able to convert the raw from my camera to a dng that Aperture can import, but since the last update to dng-converter does that no longer work. The older dngs are fine.
Regards
Léonie

Similar Messages

Is the DNG format less useful now that LR is here?

Hi
I was wondering what other people's thoughts were on the continued usefulness of the DNG format now that we have LR.
Obviously the DNG is still useful if you want to export a RAW image file with all its development settings without using a sidecar file. But is there any reason to convert all your RAW files into DNG files if all of your adjustments (and preview images) are going to be stored in the LR database anyway?
I found that using DNG files in ACR was painful since the updated preview image had to be written back into the DNG file - which added a significant processing delay. I have not yet checked if this is an issue in LR.
Any comments?
Regards, Nigel

Hi Nigel,
You describe your "painful" experience with DNG caused by the preview update in ACR.
Please note that you can customize if ACR writes previews into the DNG file and I agree that if yiu use this option it slows down the update significantly.
But you don't have to. If you use Bridge for example, Bridge takes care of the Previews and you do not need a preview in the DNG
However LR never updates the DNG with previews because the previews are stored in the LR database which gives you nice small DNG files.
But all this has nothing to do with the usefullness of DNG. If you don't find it usefull just don't use it. I personally are very convinced that DNG streamlines my workflow and I admit that I delete my originals and stick totally with DNG and with 3 weeks of LR usage I am even more convinced by my decision

IPhoto and the .DNG format for RAW images...

Does anyone have any experience using the .DNG RAW format with iPhoto?
I'm considering converting my .CRW RAW images to .DNG (long story) and I'm wondering if I risk anything in doing so (especially when using iPhoto as it's my main photo management program).
Any advice would be appreciated!
Thanks,
Kristin.

Actually... I just noticed that Finder (in 10.4.11) had started to show previews of Panasonic FZ30-derived .DNG files. This camera is unsupported in Aperture and iPhoto. I'm not sure when this started, as I had already begun the process of picking a new camera, or moving to Lightroom.
Thinking, "That's funny, I wonder if..." and sure enough, iPhoto accepted a .DNG from the FZ30. Woot!
This is great! Now I can convert 16 MB RAW files to 8 MB dng's with Adobe DNG converter and stick with iPhoto for organisation. Just have to make sure DNG Converter doesn't convert the RAW to linear image.
I knew Apple wouldn't let me down. (Leave me twisting in the wind for awhile maybe)

Will edited Raw files retain the xmp edited information when converting to DNG format?

I have a bunch of old nikon and canon Raw files that was edited in Photoshop Camera Raw. The Raw files have corresponding xmp files. I want to convert these edited Raw files into DNG format. Using the Photoshop Camera Raw converter or using the free Adobe DNG Converter tool - will the edited information from the Raw files be automatically converted over to DNG? What would be the best method to convert an edited RAW file into a DNG file, and retain all the editing (xmp files)? Thanks for help!!!

Using either the dng converter or camera raw though PS and Bridge will convert your RAW files to dng and keep the edited info from your xmp files, which will be add into the dng format. If you have a lot of files to convert, it might be faster to use the dng converter. Next choice would be to select them all in Bridge, right click and select "Open in Camera Raw."

Does converting RAW CR2 + XMP convert both of those into the DNG file, or does it just convert the CR2?

This is a stupid question that somehow, after hours of searching, I can't find a definitive answer for:
I have an existing catalog of photos that are stored in .CR2 (Canon RAW) format, plus accompanying XMP sidecar files on the photos I've edited. If I decide to convert those to DNG, does the conversion process automatically pick up the edits I've done from the XMP files and write those edits into the resulting DNG? Or does the conversion process just convert the CR2 --> DNG only, ignoring the XMP sidecar file?
Stupid question, but a really important one!
Bonus question:
Does the conversion process leave the CR2 and XMP files in the folder as they are, and just add the DNG in addition to those? Or does it delete the source CR2 and XMP files, REPLACING those with the DNG?

PenaltyShot wrote:
Have you run into any really important / crucial ones to your workflow that don't support DNG?
really important / crucial?, to me? - never.
Don't get me wrong: some people *love* the feeling they get when deleting the original proprietary raws - like they're standing up for a cause or something. If you are such a person, then by all means: knock yourself out, and enjoy - nothing terrible is likely to happen (unless Adobe goes under and/or DNG format falls flat..).
I have discovered a surprisingly large number of cases where some (Adobe-converted) DNGs were not readable, e.g.
* Bibble
* CaptureOne
* DxO
(note: original proprietary raws were fine).
All of which purport support for DNG (and likely read out-of-camera DNGs from supported models just fine).
And if you search the forums you can discover more..
(in case Adobe responds (rare): "it's not our fault - programmers must not have read the spec closely enough..". On the other hand, Adobe is sometimes a year or so tardy when it comes to releasing the new spec - hmm.. - I guess turn-about is fair play (Nikon is sometimes tardy with NEF documentation which supports new cameras, forcing Adobe to work without (reverse-engineer) for the mean time..).
Two other software's that don't support DNG:
* Canon's DPP (and other Canon software).
* Nikon's NX2 (and other Nikon software).
If you want to display focus points, proprietary raw is required, period.
Me? If I were to bother to convert raw files to DNG, I would do the opposite of what most people do - instead of archiving the originals and using the DNGs, I'd archive the DNGs and use the originals. That way, I can open my photos in any software I choose, and/or see focus points if I feel like it, but if I get cryogenically frozen for a few decades whilst DNG wins the format war, I'll have the DNGs to use.
To each their own, just realize: DNG is not a standard, yet, and may never be, so you are playing the odds (burning bridges) if you discard originals. Adobe really wants it to be a standard, because it gives them an edge over their competitors (since Adobe controls the spec, and when it's released..), so if you want to help ensure Adobe success in the format war, then by all means: delete your originals.
To be clear: I personally support the DNG format, completely. I just don't convert my existing raws to DNG yet, and generally recommend to others who convert: keep your originals.
Rob

Apple's support of DNG format is fallacious

on the Aperture brag page http://www.apple.com/aperture/ it purports "It also supports the Adobe DNG format."
I went to Bridge/ACR, grabbed five tweaked nikon NEFS and saved them as DNG files.
I imported this new folder of these five tweaked DNG files into Aperture. It did open the DNG files, but none of the adjustments to the image where evident and the display was the unaltered RAW file.
Sorry Appleture, that does not constitute SUPPORT of the DNG format. DNG is not just another RAW format, it is a RAW format with the adjustments included.
This is the last straw for me. Time to cut my losses.
I am going to eBay my Academic copy of Aperture for $200. I am a huge fan of Apple products, but not Aperture. IF this was an intro price of $49 then I would not complain.
This is nothing more than a improvement to iPhoto, but not enough to be called "iPhoto Pro".

I absolutely agree, never did argue the point that Aperture did not pick up the DNG info. Just said that Bridge embeds info into the DNG. I also agree that this is a very large sticking point I have with Aperture. I just hope they offer the option of embedding informaition into the exported files as well as the ability to change the name of the file after importing. I understand their desire not to touch the files, but given that I would bet 99.9% of photographers would want to edit down first and then change the names on the keepers I think the developers need to change their paradigm on not touching the original files, after all, that was the idea behind DNG.
Imagine 2 workflows.
The current Aperture:
Open Aperture
Import 500 files
Cull out 200 files.
Keep 300 files
Don't bother correcting because of the need to export and all the metadata will be lost.
Export the keepers.
Delete the remaining 300 files in Aperture
Open Bridge
Open the just exported files.
Wait for them to load.
Rename the files to what you want because Aperture forces a space in the name and you do not want that space.
Enter all the file shoot info so if you export from Aperture, the metadata info that was imported within Aperture stays with the file and only that info.
Close Bridge
Reimport 300 renamed files back into Aperture
Done, I think.....
A new Aperture (Hopefully)
Open Aperture
Import 500 Files color correcting on the fly to see if they are keepers.
Cull 200 Files
Rename the remaining 300 files.
Enter all file shoot info.
Done
The new Aperture now writes all the info back to the original file including filename, metadata etc. Everytime you export or open in Photoshop, Aperture passes the filename and metadata info along. Life is good.
Granted they currently do not want to write into the file, but most of us would prefer it so when we send something to a client we do not have to keep reentering it. Furthermore, all of us would be doing it anyway, just in a different app., so whats the difference? I am very very hopeful they will correct this quickly in a future version, if not, it is a deal breaker for me, not to mention the other deal breakers it currently has.

DNG Format incompatible to Photoshop CS2 ?

Hello, I'm using since several years Lightroom beginng from the Version 1.0 to the actual Version 5.7.
Now I have a big problem with the DNG-Format. I export my photo files after developping as DNG.
Importing these DNG-Files to Photoshop (CS2 with ACR 3.7) was never a big problem.
Now several very important corrections are lost in Photoshop. For example the exposure correction.
What has happened?
Thanks a lot for any helping answers
Geo

Did you double check that you have the DNG export backwards compatible to ACR 3.7 (2.4 and later)?
Benjamin

JPEG to DNG in Lightroom: can't open the DNGs

Hello,
I've been importing images into Lightroom, and have had good success saving DNGs from my Nikon D2x's NEF files, and opening them back up in CS2 to verify their ability to open and become a good archival file (upon learning of the glory of DNG for archival purposes from Seth Resnick and Jamie Spritzer at this month's D-65 workshop in Denver).
My problem: A good portion of my earlier work (shot on D100, D70 and D2X cameras) was captured as JPEG. I have imported some of these into Lightroom and likewise attempted to make DNGs from them in order to optimize them for long-term archiving. However, when I try opening these DNGs in CS2, the dialog "Could not complete your request because Photoshop does not recognize this type of file" appears, and they will not open.
I will be shooting all RAW from this point on, and so the problem isn't with my NEF files from here on out. But will I always be unable to make a readable DNG from these older JPEG files, and thus should I archive them as TIFFs instead? I tried using the Adobe DNG converter, but it still didn't create a readable DNG file out of a JPEG, and I'm not sure that anything will.
I do not wish to rely on these JPEGs to stand the test of time (after seeing many become corrupt through the years), so I'm looking to change them to something else. Any suggestions for a good alternative archival file format for JPEGs, or methods of making them into readable DNGs?
Thanks,
Greg Latza
Sioux Falls, SD
http://www.peoplescapes.com

Jeff, Fred and John,
Thanks for the input...I did update to the proper ACR and was able to open the DNGs; I had forgotten that I'd updated it on my laptop but not this desktop G5. So now it works, and thank you for the tip.
I do agree that JPEGs are going to be very relevant for a long time, but it seems like I see a lot more corrupt JPEG files over time than other file formats; I'm trying to find a format that will be more reliable over the long haul, and less apt to have problems (lines through the file, blocks, etc). Would the DNG format be more reliable in this way?
Since I'm importing these older JPEGs into Lightroom from an archival standpoint, catching myself up to the present with my image database, I'm also trying to makes DNG folders of these files at the same time in order to archive them, and thus not have to return to the files again for this purpose (tip from the D-65 workshop).
Thanks again!
Greg

Can we trust the Adobe's promise of making the Folio format Open Source by 2014.Q1?

Hi!
We have been following the Adobe Digital Publishing blogs and we got pretty excited about the posibility of having the Folio format as a Open Source standard, specially if this release comes with a .folio viewer we could use in mobile apps.
There are a couple of links that claim that Adobe will release the Folio format really soon:
http://blogs.adobe.com/digitalpublishing/2013/12/readership-metrics-open-folio-format.html
http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20131210005400/en
The question is, can we trust the Adobe's promise and get more and more excited about this release? Is this for real?

You should really be posting this in the Digital Publishing Suite forum here (where the folks who care are hanging out):
http://forums.adobe.com/community/dps

I can't save my picture to .jpeg in CameraRaw, the only format available is .dng. Why??

I want to save my pictures to .jpeg in CameraRaw, but the only format available is .dng. I have to open the picture in Elements 12 just to save as .jpeg. Why??

Because the ACR module is meant to convert the raw data into an image format that the editor can read. From the editor (or the organizer) you can save your raw files to image files formats like jpeg, tiff or psd. Simply click the 'Open in editor' button.
For batch conversion to jpeg, either use the 'process multiple files' option in the file menu of the editor, or select several raws in the organizer and export to a new location in the desired format.
The option to 'save' as DNG may be used if you want to convert to the raw DNG format. You don't need to use that feature.
I highly recommend you take the time to read the help file (Help button in the camera raw dialog).

I am on windows 8 platform, i used adobe elements to work on my image - the output is in dng format, how do i convert this to jpg format?

i am on windows 8 platform, i used adobe elements to work on my image - the output is in dng format, how do i convert this to jpg format?

When you make a DNG that's like making another raw file, so you will need to convert the DNG file just like your original raw. Don't use the Save button in the raw converter. That's just a link to the DNG converter. Normally you would click Open instead and then save in the editor as a jpg or other image format of your choice.

I need help! when I am importing my NEF files from my D3300 camera into lightroom 5 and try to use the "copy as DNG" button I always get an error message saying that "saying the file is not recognized by the raw format support"

I need help! when I am importing my NEF Raw files from my D3300 camera into lightroom 5 and try to use the "copy as DNG" button I always get an error message saying that "saying the file is not recognized by the raw format support". The whole purpose of that button is so that the file can be recognized... How can I make the "copy as DNG" button work as it is supposed too?? Thank you

Thank you for responding. So I essentially will never be able to use that button in lightroom 5? do I need to get LR 6? Will there ever be an update for LR 5 that will enable me to use it?
Does DNG Converter work within LR or do I have to upload pictures to my computer and then make a second copy in DNG format. and then go into LR and use them?
Thank you @dj_paige

Ever since I downloaded the latest version of firefox..is running slower, I am not really liking the new format, is there anyway to go back to the old one?

Ever since I downloaded the latest version of firefox..is running slower, I am not really liking the new format, is there anyway to go back to the old one?

A possible cause is security software (firewall) that blocks or restricts Firefox or the plugin-container process without informing you, possibly after detecting changes (update) to the Firefox program.
Remove all rules for Firefox from the permissions list in the firewall and let your firewall ask again for permission to get full unrestricted access to internet for Firefox and the plugin-container process and the updater process.
See:
*https://support.mozilla.com/kb/Server+not+found
*https://support.mozilla.com/kb/Firewalls
Start Firefox in <u>[[Safe Mode]]</u> to check if one of the extensions or if hardware acceleration is causing the problem (switch to the DEFAULT theme: Firefox (Tools) > Add-ons > Appearance/Themes).
*Don't make any changes on the Safe mode start window.
*https://support.mozilla.com/kb/Safe+Mode
See also:
*https://support.mozilla.com/kb/common-questions-after-upgrading-firefox-36
*https://support.mozilla.com/kb/how-do-i-get-firefox-button
*https://support.mozilla.com/kb/why-are-tabs-top

D750 Nikon are the camera raw or DNG file ready to work in the Raw format in Lightroom?

D750 Nikon are the camera raw or DNG file ready to work in the Raw format in Lightroom?

Crazy idea - do a site search for "D750"...

What is the best format to use on an external hard drive so I can both back up my Macbook Pro and also put movies on it from another hard drive (PC)?

I am looking for a solution to whether if it is best to get two hard drives or one that can do two things that I want.
I am looking for a hard drive format that can both back up my 500GB Macbook Pro but I was also wondering if I could also put movies on it from another hard drive that is PC based. Would partitioning the hard drive work for this? I don't know what are the best formats to use.
If this is too hard it might just be easier having a separate 500GB hard drive for back up of my Mac and another bigger hard drive for the movies etc (the files are probably bigger than 4GB). Any help would be greatly appreciated as I need to make a decision soon!

Csound1 wrote:
Microsoft has not released the official exFAT file system specification, and a restrictive license from Microsoft is required in order to make and distribute exFAT implementations. Microsoft also asserts patents on exFAT which make it impossible to re-implement its functionality in a compatible way without violating a large percentage of them.[13] This renders the implementation, distribution, and use of exFAT as a part of free or open-source operating systems or of commercial software, for which the vendors could not obtain a license from Microsoft, not only technically difficult, but legally impossible in countries that recognize United States software patents.
Can't help with that, if one is using a Windows machine then they are subjected to their rules and control.
Limited support outside Windows and Mac OS X operating systems as of 2012, when most consumer electronic devices could only handleFAT12/FAT16/FAT32, rendering exFAT (and flash memory formats using it) impractical as a universal exchange format.
The OP said they plan to store movies on the external drive.
Many movies today are well over 4GB in size, thus exFAT has to be used and formatted on the PC, which the Mac can then read.
Older Windows NT versions up to Windows Vista without Service Pack 1 do not support exFAT.
Irrelevant, Microsoft provides a free download of exFAT for Windows XP, and Vista shouldn't be running on pre SP1 anyway.
Some distributions of Linux have begun to include support for exFAT. It is however, only available as a file system in user space, as it's not supported by the kernel.
Irrelevant, OP is using Windows and OS X, not Linux and if they did Linux can read the files at least and transfer, which is all they care about really.
Windows Vista is unable to use exFAT drives for ReadyBoost. Windows 7 removes this limitation, enabling ReadyBoost caches larger than 4 GiB.[14]
Irrelevant, the OP's is intending to use it as transfer drive between Mac's and Windows for movies.
The standard exFAT implementation only uses a single file allocation table and free space map. FAT file systems instead used alternating tables, as this allowed recovery of the file system if the media was ejected during a write (which occurs frequently in practice with removable media). The optional TexFAT component adds support for additional backup tables and maps, but may not be supported.
Some relevancy, but only exFAT can handle 4GB+ files between Mac's and PC's, so the need outweighs the possible problem.
The OP needs to follow the standard Windows practice of "safely removing hardware" before physically disconnecting the external drive. If a write is occurring, it won't allow disconnecting until the write is finished.
Support for up to 2,796,202 files per subdirectory only.[1][nb 3] Microsoft documents a limit of 65,534 files per sub-directory for their FAT32 implementation, but other operating systems have no special limit for the number of files in a FAT32 directory. FAT32 implementations in other operating systems allow an unlimited number of files up to the number of available clusters (that is, up to 268,304,373 files on volumes without long filenames).[nb 4]
Not a issue, only in extreme cases of a lot of small files. The OP plans to use it for movies which are usually large and take up a lot of space on the drive.
IMMO It looks like you just ran off and copied something to argue your point when all the points are basically irrelevant.
There is only one format that can easily share 4GB sized files between Mac's and PC's without further complications.
It's ALSO possible to install MacDrive on the PC and format the drive on the Mac HFS+, but I didn't recommend that because I know it's a hassle just like third party NTFS writing software is a hassle on Mac's.
If you so anti-Microsoft format, then you must know Paragon has to pay a license fee to Microsoft for using the NTFS format.
At least with exFAT there is no fee to Redmond, at least not yet.

Is the DNG format really 'universal'?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for