Using RAW or DNG?

I have a Canon 50D. I just installed the Camera Raw update, and it works great with the PSE7 organizer and stuff. I also briefly used the DNG converter, which seems very easy to use, and even includes a way to embed the original RAW file in case it's ever needed. I like the way formats from different cameras can go to the same DNG format, though I'm not sure how well it really works in practice. I only have one SLR and don't expect to have another any time soon.
Question: DNG seems like a great idea, but does anyone know of any pitfalls with DNG? The only two things I can think of are as follows: a) If some project requires the original RAW file for whatever reason (I certainly don't have this need, and I don't know if pro photographers ever do, but it seems like one simple reason why DNG would not be helpful). ...and b) Something goes wrong with DNG, or I want to do something using a tool that does not use DNG, but does use my 50D RAW files (i.e., the Canon tools). Both 'a' and 'b' seem somewhat similar, but 'b' also includes if DNG were buggy or something (i.e., after some number of months or years, someone realizes DNG has been messing up with conversions in some subtle area which had previously gone unnoticed).
I'm curious to hear what others say about DNG versus raw for an amateur 50d user. I'm afraid to convert to DNG and trash raw for fear of losing something, yet I also want to avoid the bloat of having both formats if I can avoid it, yet I'd splurge and keep both if there was a definite advantage. It seems like the only advantage is if one had lots of shots coming from different cameras over years, or if one needs to work with vendors only accepting DNG. Other than that, I'm guesing native raw is fine. It would be great to also know if there's a widespread adoption/acceptance of DNG or not.
Thanks in advance for any insight,
Tom

Despite the embed feature, I would hang on to your original raw files too. While Adobe has been widely touting DNG, camera makers have not shown any inclination to adopt it on a large scale. Personally, I always think about JPEG 2000, another great idea that never got off the ground and that adobe seems to be pulling back from.
So yeah, for now do DNG if you want, but twenty years from now I'm not sure those files are going to be any more compatible than your .cr2 files.

Similar Messages

Raw and DNG

Have been successfully using RAW and DNG conversion with Canon 20D in CS3. New Canon 5D Mark II. No longer able to covert to DNG or open RAW files. Have downloaded updates RAW 4.6 and corresponding DNG converter that are supposed to work in CS3. Still not able to open or convert. Any siggestions?

I can understand being angry when you find out your camera isn't supported by Adobe, as I remember I was, too, just not being angry enough to find JPG or DPP adequate instead of spending $200 on an upgrade. Adobe needs to pay their employees and not waste our money by hiring more people to keep all their old versions up-to-date, so once I got over being angry, I was ok with their policy. I suppose it's possible you'd need to upgrade your computer, again, to run CS4 or CS5, and that would be more than $200. My old computer will barely run CS4 and I don't have a 5D.2 so you're one step ahead of me.
Anyway, to summarize what the alternatives would be if you weren't avoiding them out of protest:
1) Upgrade Photoshop to a version that supports your camera, which would be CS4 or CS5 next spring. This would cost $200 unless you had to upgrade your computer again.
2) Manually copy your files from your CF card to your hard drive, then use the DNG Converter 5.5 to convert them to DNGs, then Bridge and ACR can work with them. This is free.
Another alternative I will mention, because this is what I do, is to use Lightroom, and then edit things in Photoshop if your processing requires it. Mine rarely does, anymore.
I used to shoot JPG and use Paintshop Pro to adjust my images and that worked until I found myself in a situation where I needed to correct white-balance more than worked well with JPGs, so I converted to shooting RAW, with a temporary phase of RAW+JPG because I wasn't sure.
Once I was doing RAW, it only took me a day or two to reject using DPP as very annoying. So I started using Bridge/ACR/Photoshop to process everything. At one point an independent company had a program call RAW Shooter, where they gave away the "lite" version for free, and it did a reasonable job. Of course Adobe bought them out, and then released a wonderful program called Lightroom based on the idea and some of the technology. Lightroom costs $300 for the initial version, $100 for major upgrades that mirror the Photoshop major upgrades, and has free minor updates for new cameras that correspond to the free interim ACR updates.
If Photoshop, itself, does what you want, and it's only ACR that you want to update whenever you get a new camera, then Lightroom is a cheaper alternative to updating Photoshop just to get a new ACR version.
As I said, I love Lightroom, and would hate to go back to use Bridge/ACR as my main processing model, again, let along use DPP or shoot JPGs.
The next version of Lightroom, LR3, which improves the detail rendering and color-noise-reduction (so far) is available for beta testing until April 2010, from http://labs.abobe.com/ It doesn't have luminance noise-reduction enabled because that is apparently still a work-in-progress after Adobe has fundamentally changed their RAW rendering algorithm and luminance NR is the quite difficult to accomplish, but Adobe wanted user-feedback on their new rendering and color NR without waiting to perfect the luminance NR.
I am enjoying using the beta although I have to go to Photoshop to use the Noise Ninja plug-in for higher ISO images.

Using RAW+JPEG stacking script, but can't get JPEG as default thumbnail for stack. Help!

I am currently using this script I found elsewhere on Adobe forums. However, doing this function only will stack everything with the raw files on top. I am using a 5D MKIII now and Bridge CS4 can't generate the CR2 previews, so I need JPEGs to see what a file is for general editing. How do I get this stack script to put the JPEGS on top instead of the raw files?
(script originally posted by Paul Riggot in another forum)
#target bridge
   if( BridgeTalk.appName == "bridge" ) {
AutoStack = MenuElement.create("command", "Auto Stack", "at the beginning of submenu/Stack", "zx1");
AutoStack.onSelect = function () {
   stackEm();
function stackEm(){
app.document.sorts = [{ name:"name",type:"string", reverse:false}];
var jpgs = Folder(app.document.presentationPath).getFiles ("*.jpg");
app.document.deselectAll();
for(var a in jpgs){
var Name = decodeURI(jpgs[a].name).replace(/\.[^\.]+$/, '');
var stacks = Folder(app.document.presentationPath).getFiles(Name+".*");
if(stacks.length < 2) continue;
for(var z in stacks){ app.document.select(new Thumbnail(stacks[z]));}
StackFiles();
app.document.deselectAll();
function StackFiles(){
app.document.chooseMenuItem('submenu/Stack');
app.document.chooseMenuItem('StackGroup');

I wonder if you have time if you could test this script for me please?
What it does (tries to do) is to create JPGs from the raw files in the same folder as the CR2 (raw) files.
N.B. IT WILL OVERWRITE ANY JPGS IN THE SAME FOLDER IF THE NAMES MATCH!
So please try it on a folder with raw files only.
The idea being it might be quicker to generate jpegs from the embedded thumbnail rather than shoot both raw/jpg?
T.I.A.
#target bridge
if( BridgeTalk.appName == "bridge" ) {
AutoStackJpgs = MenuElement.create("command", "Create Stack JPGs", "at the beginning of submenu/Stack", "sj1");
AutoStackJpgs .onSelect = function () {
app.document.deselectAll();
var items = app.document.getSelection("crw,cr2,tiff,raw,rw2,dng,nef,orf,erf,mos,dcr,raf,srf,pef,x3f");
for (var a =0; a<items.length;a++){
var JPEG = new File(items[a].path.substr(0,items[a].path.lastIndexOf ('.'))+".jpg");
tempFile=new File(items[a].path);
var fileString='';
tempFile.open('r');
tempFile.encoding = 'BINARY';
fileString=tempFile.read();
tempFile.close();
for(var w =0;w<6;w++){
var startJpg=fileString.search(/\xFF\xD8\xFF/);
if(startJpg != -1){
if(testJPG()){
var endJpg = fileString.search(/\xFF\xD9/);
fileString = fileString.substr(0,endJpg+2);
JPEG.open('w');
JPEG.encoding = 'BINARY';
JPEG.write(fileString);
JPEG.close();
var newThumb = new Thumbnail(JPEG);
newThumb.rotation = items[a].rotation;
break;
}else{
fileString = fileString.substr(20);
continue;
function testJPG(){
var result=false;
fileString = fileString.substr(startJpg);
var endTest = fileString.search(/\xFF\xD9/);
if(endTest > 204800 ? result= true : result= false);
return result;

Camera Raw and DNG Converter 4.4 Now Available

Details here: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2008/03/lightroom_14_and_camera_raw_44.html
Regards,
Tom

Hmmm... I got the DNG Converter and ACR from the page I listed.
If you go to the DNG page at http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/ and click on Downloads (in the light gray box on the upper right) for Mac or Windows (I'll use the Windows example here because I'm on a PC right now, but it also worked from my Mac) you will go to http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3894 and then you have to click on Proceed to download and it should say filename DNG_Camera)Raw_4_4.zip and be 5.4 meg in size (If you follow the Macintosh link the filename is DNG_Camera_Raw_4_4.dmg and is 12.5MB).
However, if you go to the Camera Raw page at http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html and click on the download links under the main gray box you will only get the Camera Raw file (filename is Camera_Raw_4_4.zip at 3.3MB or Camera_Raw_4_4.DMG at 7.8MB).
Both download places list the Product name as Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter. But the filenames are different and indicate which one you are downloading.
JOhn

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.

How can one convert a PSD file into a RAW or DNG file?

Lightroom does not assemble panoramas. One must use an external editor,eg, Photoshop Elements, to construct a panorama. Lightroom prepares the selected images by converting them to PSD files before sending them to the Elements Editor. When the panorama is achieved, it cannot be saved as a RAW nor DNG file even if either of those formats were the original data format type in Lightroom. Thus when the panorama is imported back into Lightroom it is brought back as the PSD or something of your choosing; but you cannot choose a RAW nor DNG format. The result is a folder in Lightroom with a hodge-podge of formats.
Question: How can the PSD file panorama be converted into a RAW or DNG file in this transfer from an outside editor to Lightroom?

That simply cannot be done. The conversion has to take place in order for Photoshop to create the panorama. Photoshop, by itself, without Camera Raw, cannot edit raw image data. By the time an image is opened in Photoshop is no longer raw image data. Photoshop is not capable of saving raw image data. The best thing to do is perform is much of the work as possible using using Lightroom. When I do a panorama image, I highlight all of the images and use the menu option to match total exposures. Then I do as much as possible on those images in Lightroom. Once the images leave Lightroom the raw editing is finished. Anything from that point onward that is done in Photoshop must be saved to a different file format.

Poor stitching using RAW in photomerge

Hi all,
I shoot with an a900 and would like to stitch the ARW RAW files it produces.
Unfortunately the results are pretty awful. No matter how I import the shots (through bridge, LR or PS4 itself) or the type of RAW (DNG or ARW, even TIFFs) the wizard will align but not stitch the photos together. Plenty of examples can be found in this flickr set:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35398335@N00/sets/72157613267634565/
Selecting layers -> merge layers also has no effect - it simply flattens the layers without merging them.
However, I have no problems whatsoever if I first convert to JPG and then stitch. Here's an example of that:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35398335@N00/3252828606/in/set-72157613267634565/
Converting to JPGs isn't a satisfactory solution because I lose so much headroom in PP after the stitch.
Does anyone have any ideas how I can make PS4 produce good stitches when using RAWs?
All ideas much appreciated.

Chris,
I've sent you a link to the 3 RAWs that I managed to stitch correctly as JPGs but incorrectly as RAWs by the email in your profile. They're uploading as I type this - please give me a shout if you don't get it within a few mins.
To the other participants - thanks very much for your suggestions as to exposures etc. I am ONLY having difficulty stitching RAW files. JPG files created from the RAWs with no changes stitch just fine, as can be seen in the example linked to in the first post.
I am unable to work out why PS4 works just fine with JPGs, but refuses to merge files in RAW.
I have tried flattening the document, again it flattens with the seams still visisble.

Camera RAW and DNG version 8.2

I have a Canon 70D. How do I find out what version of camera raw and dng that I have installed?

Unfortunately, photoshop elements 11 can only use up to camera raw 7.4 for the camera raw plugin.
(in the photoshop elements 11 editor; Adobe Photoshop Elements Editor>About Plug-In and click on the words Camera Raw to find the version you have)
(Help>Updates in the pse 11 editor to check for updates)
You can use the DNG converter 8.6 to convert your canon 70d files to dng copies, which pse 11 should then open.
If you have mac os x 10.6.8 snow leopard then you would need to use dng converter 8.3
dng converter 8.6:
Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Macintosh : Adobe DNG Converter 8.6
dng converter 8.3:
Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Macintosh : Adobe DNG Converter 8.3
How to use the dng converter:
Camera Raw: How to use Adobe DNG Converter - YouTube
You could also upgrade to photoshop elements 12 or look at adobe lightroom 5.6 to avoid using the dng converter

Lightroom mysteriously deleted files after trying to convert RAW to DNG

Running Lightroom 1.3 on the MacPro 10.4.8
Strange thing happened. I had a catlogue of 11,824 photos yesterday.
The catalog was a mix of RAW and dngs and I wanted to convert the remaining RAWs to DNGS.
All photos were in place, no ? marks before I used "Convert photo to DNG" command. In the Convert photo to DNG I had the boxes for Only Convert RAW files, and Delete originals after successful conversion CHECKED.
I realize I may have been asking way too much for the computer to do, and wasn't surprised when nothing happened for about 5 minutes. Finally I got the message that it couldn't convert because the original file could not be found.
After that 2,268 files were missing. And as the day goes on today, and use the program that number is increasing, even when not asking to convert.
I don't think it's a hardware issue. Ran disk utility and all checks out with that. And the deleted files are on 2 different drives.
Any suggestions? Thanks!

First step I'd check and find the actual images, make note of their file paths. I'd be surprised if any file was truly missing; just that LR has lost the path for whatever reason.
Second, I'd do the conversion on a much smaller scale- in my case, my workflow is such that I choose to convert to DNG when most or all of my work on a folder is done. So I do it pretty much by folder, which generally don't exceed a few hundred images.

Converting RAW to DNG! What are the advantages / disadvantages?

I have Canon cameras and shoot RAW, but the question itself is surely also valid for Nikon, Sony or other brand-shooters.
When importing my pictures to Lightroom, I could convert them to DNG but didn't do this up to now, because I do not know what I loose. I suppose that I loose the ability to process my files with DPP, but I will not do that anyhow. I can appreciate the advantage of having the file in an open documented format, where even I could easily write a reader for it. So the answer should not be what I can easily find in the Adobe introduction into DNG. I have also the DNG specification in front of me, and I can read it, because I once wrote a program to read TIFF files. I understand that I could add the original RAW image stream, but I do not want using up the space wasted for this. I know, that all development parameters used for the specific RAW image can be written with the image file instead of having those stored in a database or a side-car-file.
But what I did not find until now a technical explanation about what happens during the convert. Who can enlighten me? Where do I find the missing technical explanations?
Thanks in advance!
Lucien.

Feierwoon wrote:
That wasn't the question... .
Based on the title of the thread and your initial post, it seems like your question had a lot of
"What are the advantages / disadvantages?"
in it, and only a little
"What happens at a technical level when converting"
But if you want more detailed info about conversion, and you have the aptitude to understand, I recommend doing what Lr5user-pt recommended:
Download the DNG SDK and dig in - all your questions will be answered (and if not, you can also ask DNG-specific technical questions in the DNG forum).
As far as my "sources" regarding the technical summary I presented, they are many and varied, none of which are the DNG SDK. In other words, my knowledge is based more on experience over the years - I don't know all the details under the hood..
Some experiments to consider doing:
* exiftool (-X) a proprietary raw file, then convert to DNG and repeat.
* open a proprietary raw in a DNG-supporting software of your choice and inspect metadata, then open the converted DNG in the same software and re-evaluate. Compare to proprietary raw opened in manufacturer's software, and what you see via exiftool.
Tom Hogarty (Lightroom project manager) and others who know have said: "DNG converter discards no metadata", and I believe them, but haven't verified for myself. Yet once proprietary metadata is in the DNG, most (all?) software will no longer decode it. A prime example is focus points - presumably they're there, but once converted, focus point feature is no longer supported. The amount of work required to support converted focus point data is unknown (to me), but as far as I know, no software has ventured to do it. If you want focus points, don't convert.
If you want the truth, I think for most people it's "not wise" to convert to DNG. Why? because unless you already know why you are converting (and need to convert to satisfy your goals), or you already know why you must NOT convert (e.g. so you can open the files in mfr.software, and see focus points..) the pros and cons are likely to be a wash, and now you have twice the number of raw files, unless you discard your originals, which would be REALLY "not wise", in my opinion. If you find the notion of "openly documented format" sufficiently compelling, then, ya know, more power to ya (I don't judge..), but there is no guarantee that DNG will outlast NEF (or..), and if it does, there will be ample opportunity to convert before you're left in the cold, unless you're stuck in a cave for a few decades, or are kryogenically frozen.. True, if all companies die, you may be able to write your own DNG converter (/reader), given the DNG documentation, but FWIW, NEF is also thoroughly documented (document is in freely downloadable SDK), and reverse engineerable (that's what Adobe and Phil Harvey does), so you could also write your own NEF converter, so not really a very compelling argument, not this year anyway - ask me again in a few decades..
If filesize is a main draw, then be sure NOT to save the hi-rez previews in your DNGs, otherwise you've just lost most or all of the filesize advantage. Also, you can strip previews from some proprietary raws (e.g. NEFs), to reduce filesize.
Personally, if DNG supported sidecars, I would be more likely to convert, because file-management/backup is only an issue if you "forget" about xmp sidecars (and I do not forget), and I'd rather have my xmp in separate ready-to-read xml text files, rather than embedded in binary files, but hey, that's me..
PS - I always use/encourage-others-to-use DNG when distributing raws to others for use in Adobe software, so xmp is not separate and can not get lost.
PPS - proprietary raws and dngs are both just glorified tiff files - raw data, previews, and metadata..
Don't get me wrong: I am NOT anti-DNG, and in fact - just the opposite: I am PRO dng, it's just that I wouldn't (don't) convert my own raws to DNG at this point. If you find the reasons to convert now are sufficiently compelling, you have my complete support and cooperation, fwiw..
Cheers,
Rob

Nikon D600 NEF/RAW files/DNG 8.4 still cannot read

Hi all, I just tried installing several versions of the DNG plug in for CS6 and it still cannot read the Nikon D600 NEF/RAW files on a 2014 MacBook Pro. Any suggestions? I have searched previous questions, but cannot find one on this very topic. Cheers, Paul.

What version of Photoshop do you have installed. If you have CS6 make sure you use CS6 menu Help>Updates. To make sure you have the latest updates. If you have CS6 preternatural you should see version 13.0.6 when you use menu Help>About Photoshop if you hace a Creative cloud subscription you should see version 13.1.2 using menu Help>About Photoshop.
If ACR 8.6 is installed correctly it installs in a common place that is used by both Bridge CS6 and Photoshop CS6.
When you open a RAW file in Phoroshop or in ACR from the Bridge the ACR dialog should open and in its title bar you should see version 8.6. You should not need to create DNG RAW file for your NEF RAW files just to used ACR. You only need to do that if your using an older Photoshop version and an older ACR. version that does not support your Nikon Camera NEF RAW format.
If you have CS6 and the ACR title bar does not show 8.6 you do not have all the CS6 updates installed. If menu Help>Updates doe not install ACR 8.6 try downloading it manually from the CC updates site and see if the manual update works All the Adobe CC Updates: The Direct Download Links for Mac OS | ProDesignTools
or Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Macintosh
Version 8.6
Name
Size
Date
Adobe DNG Converter 8.6
210.7MB
7/30/2014

Using Raw in Adobe

I have one major problem. I have Adobe Photoshop 7.0 and Adobe Elements 7.0. I usually use Elements because I find it more user friendly.
I cannot open any .raw or .dng files in Photoshop for some reason.
Is there an update I need or a different program?

DCPress wrote:
If you can't edit raw in Photoshop, what program is the preferred for professionals?
You can't edit raw in Photoshop 7, but Photoshop CS, CS2, CS3 and the currently shipping Photoshop CS4 can open captured raw and DNG files no problem.
It's completely unclear what it is you are doing...
In Elements 7, does Camera Raw open when you open a raw file? If so, simply open the image into Elements (past Camera Raw) and save your image as a TIFF, PSD or JPEG. If you open the image as a 16 bit/channel image you won't be able to save as a JPEG until you reduce the bit depth to 8 bits/channel.

Applescript raw to dng

Can someone provide a link to an automated raw to dng script?
Have downloaded all of Brett's scripts but can't seem to find it there.
Thanks,
Ross

I have a script that I use with images from my Powershot S50:
<http://brettgrossphotography.com/2008/02/24/aperture-2-applescript-reimport-as- dng-v3>

"Edit In" Photoshop CC not working for RAW or DNG files after applying LR 5.3 and Camera Raw 8.3

I just applied the Lightroom 5.3 and Camera Raw 8.3 updates and now am no longer able to open RAW or DNG files into Photoshop CC. When I select a file and choose "Edit In" Photoshop, photoshop will launch, then nothing will happen. After 2 to 5 minutes, an error will popup in Lightroom saying "The file could not be edited because Adobe Photoshop CC could not be launched." An error I've never seen before. When I click "Ok", Lightroom will show that it's "preparing a file for editing" in the upper left, it will create and save a psd to disk and in the catalog (another new behavior), then it will open in photoshop. All other file types (jpgs, tiff, psd) seem to work/open fine between applications. No difference if I open photoshop prior to selecting "Edit In". Selecting "Edit In" other applications, like Viveza, work fine.
I tried first deleting preference files in both applications. No luck. Ditto for plugins. Notta. Eventually I completely uninstalled and fresh installed Photoshop, Lightroom, and Bridge from the cloud. Same deal...can't open raw/dng files into Photoshop.
I'm at a complete loss, dead in the water, with a mountain of editing work piling on top of me. Kicking myself for applying the upgrades, which I had been delaying for some time to avoid just such a cluster%#$. Ugh.
I'm on a PC running Windows 7 64bit.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

In the normal situation, LR needs to see a PS installed for it to detect the Edit In PS option is possible, so if you uninstall both, then install PS, first, then LR. Of course with this release there may be some hiccup that requires installing either one or the other, again, but if you've uninstalled both and are reinstalling both, then install PS, first.

10g RAC - should I use RAW, OCFS and/or ASM ?

I am about to install 10G RAC on RHAS3. Options for sharing disk partitions are raw, OCFS and ASM. The OCR and voting files must be raw or OCFS, I would tend to go for OCFS in this case. For the Oracle datafiles, again, I would tend to go for OCFS simply for ease of management since ASM seems to add another layer of complexity, and raw lacks flexibility. OCFS however is also new technology and may still have some stability issues. I'm not yet sure of our disk configuration, but there will be HBA cards in each machine with one or two SAN partitions, so I don't expect some of the ASM features such as mirroring etc. will be required as this will be done in the hardware. Does anyone have any recommendations or experiences(good or bad) in which way to go ?
Philip

We're using raw partitions for some years now, (since oracle 8i, then 9i and now 10g). It is quite flexible, but you shouldn't use physical partitions but LVM. It's very stable.
Now on 10g we're using ASM on some sites where mirroring is needed. It works, but not so stable as raw. we discover some bugs as well.
We've never used OCFS. I don't like it. To much limits. I belive that special utilities are needed for managing files. I don't like linux system software produced by oracle.

Using RAW or DNG?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for