Raw or DNG

[Davey-T]

Have used 450d and Photoshop CS4 , happily for several years and opened Canon raw files in Photoshop ,however now it seems Adobe no longer feels the need to support propriety raw formats and wants us all to use PNG files.

My question is are images produced the same as the file size appears to be smaller for PNG, also read on some forums that after converting from RAW to PNG it

introduces more noise in the image ?

Also does anyone know if the latest version of PS supports the latest version of Canon RAW or would I still have to convert the files to PNG ?

Dave

[Steep]

Your thread title says DNG so as you're comparing to RAW I'll assume you mean that, both formats are raw files, DNG is Adobes own proprietary format and I think it's likely to be the standard in years to come. My own Pentax uses it as do other makes and I reckon CaNikon will fall into line as well as long as Adobe don't get silly over licensing fees.

Short answer, use DNG if your camera supports it, other raw formats will eventually fade away.

[Davey-T]

Don't think DNG is Adobe propriety format , I think it's an open format that Adobe would like to all camera makers would adopt it so that they wouldn't have to write plug ins.

Dave

[JG777]

Your thread title says DNG so as you're comparing to RAW I'll assume you mean that, both formats are raw files, DNG is Adobes own proprietary format and I think it's likely to be the standard in years to come. My own Pentax uses it as do other makes and I reckon CaNikon will fall into line as well as long as Adobe don't get silly over licensing fees.

Short answer, use DNG if your camera supports it, other raw formats will eventually fade away.

I highly doubt that other raw formats will fade away. DNG will live side by side by the camera makers native raw files. You have to consider that Adobe may not be around for ever and that DNG may not be supported in the future. It is unlikely that all camera makers will adopt one standard as they like their own cameras specs to harmonise with their own specific proprietary format. One thing for sure is that Nikon will not relinquish the NEF to anybody and in my own tests with the NX2 software the NEF is cleaner than a NEF converted to DNG. I think it is different for a CR2 Canon file as they have released the full engineering of it to software developers. DNG is good and a good way to get your images into later software but as the OP highlights, older copies of photoshop with earlier versions of camera raw are not compatible with newer cameras. That forces you to use DNG or pay Adobe more money for new software.

It might be a nice idea having one standard but the practicality is not one not favoured by many.

[Davey-T]

Not sure if it's different with Canon Raw. Iv'e only done a quick eyeball comparison and the pics look different after converting to DNG.

Anyone done any meaningfull measured comparisons ?

Dave

[billhinge]

Couldn't you download one of the free programs based on dcraw and export to a photoshop supported format eg tiff? e.g. http://rawtherapee.com . If you don't mind command line then you could just dcraw to output a tiff

There are also paid for apps other than PS that support raw files for terrestrial photography and also astrophotography so I don't see why adobe would be an industry constraint (I have CS3 but hardly ever use it, also have silkypix 5, lightroom, aperture and Pixinsight)

[JG777]

Not sure if it's different with Canon Raw. Iv'e only done a quick eyeball comparison and the pics look different after converting to DNG.

Anyone done any meaningfull measured comparisons ?

Dave

I cannot comment for Canon files but it is likely they do a similar thing as Nikon do. That is different specs of the raw file, so along the lines of 12 or 14 bit , compressed to certain degrees etc essentially giving the user different options and different results that will tie in with the cameras usage. So for example a 14 bit NEF would be useful for a landscape shot. You may not find a meaningful comparison, most togs can't be bothered to report it, but the fact is they are working with the native files the camera produces. That means they will not entertain DNG as there is some doubt whether the transition to DNG is complete.

[JG777]

Couldn't you download one of the free programs based on dcraw and export to a photoshop supported format eg tiff? e.g. http://rawtherapee.com . If you don't mind command line then you could just dcraw to output a tiff

There are also paid for apps other than PS that support raw files for terrestrial photography and also astrophotography so I don't see why adobe would be an industry constraint (I have CS3 but hardly ever use it, also have silkypix 5, lightroom, aperture and Pixinsight)

He is better off converting to DNG and then another format if need be. dcraw is pretty crude and best avoided, I would rather pay Adobe for camera raw than have a workflow with dcraw. Thing is there is a choice!

[Naemeth]

This advice, though I'm not sure if it's helpful, is usually used in most editing software where music / images / video is used, is always use the highest quality (and usually therefore the largest file) until you've finished editing it, then compress if you need to. It's pointless converting, say, an MP3 to WAV, you won't gain anything. WAV to MP3 is done merely to save space, and you lose a lot of quality.

HTH

[Steep]

I wouldn't suggest converting from one raw format to another just to get a file that's compatible with PS, I'd think that any conversion is going to lose data to some extent. I use dng because that's what my Pentax uses but back in my Canon days it was crw and then cr2 (which required a cameraraw update). One reason why an open format for raw files would be good would be to avoid these update cycles and incompatibilities.

[JG777]

Well those update cycles and incompatibilities you mention are built into camera raw by Adobe. Them and only them are responsible for that but that is what you get when one company dominates a specific area virtually unchallenged. There is not even an argument for being unable to update camera raw as they do it between cycles, so there is no technical reason for this built in redundancy. They want you to buy the later product and give you DNG as an escape exit if you want out.

That reason alone is why DNG has not taken off and will not replace native files.

[Davey-T]

Does anyone know if the latest version of Photoshop supports the latest version of Canon RAW ?

If it does then I guess I'll have to upgrade, a drop in the ocean compared to my overall astro spend

Dave

[JG777]

This list shows you the software packages and the last version number of camera raw they would run

http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/global/camera-raw-compatible-applications.html

And here is the camera list with their respective camera raw versions that were supported.

http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

Whatever type of adobe software you have it makes sense to have the most recent version of camera raw installed, or indeed whatever the final version was.

[Davey-T]

Thanks John, looks like I'll have to up to CS6.

Dave

[Davey-T]

Been doing some more research into this and read that the Canon software can convert Canon CR2 files to 16bit Tiffs which in theory are better things

to import into PS having seperate RGB planes rather than a Bayer Matrix cludge, mind you they're a lot larger files, does bigger mean better ?

Haven't tried it yet.

Dave

Oh look just need one more post to be proto star

[JG777]

TIFFS are fine, but as you say they are huge in comparison to everything else. Say hello to some new hard drives!

[Steep]

Been doing some more research into this and read that the Canon software can convert Canon CR2 files to 16bit Tiffs which in theory are better things

to import into PS having seperate RGB planes rather than a Bayer Matrix cludge, mind you they're a lot larger files, does bigger mean better ?

Haven't tried it yet.

Dave

Oh look just need one more post to be proto star

The joy of the RAW file format is that you can create any type of image file that you want to from it and use what suits you best at the time (.jpg for web use etc.). Tiffs are bigger partly because they contain more info and partly because they are usually uncompressed though you can create compressed tiff images.