Converting to DNG

CB
Posted By
Colonel Blip
Mar 29, 2007
Views
880
Replies
18
Status
Closed
Hello, All!

Looking for advice from experienced RAW photo-folks. I am now taking photos in Olympus RAW and was wondering if I should make my workflow process include a step to convert all of these to DNG and delete the ORF RAW files? What is the preferred process here?

Thanks,
Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

BP
Barry Pearson
Mar 29, 2007
On Mar 29, 10:51 am, "Colonel Blip"
wrote:
Hello, All!

Looking for advice from experienced RAW photo-folks. I am now taking photos in Olympus RAW and was wondering if I should make my workflow process include a step to convert all of these to DNG and delete the ORF RAW files? What is the preferred process here?

This varies so much from one person to another that all we can do is give you the facts, leaving you to make an informed decision. (For information, I use Pentax not Olympus, I’ve used DNG for nearly two and a half years, and except for the first 8 months I’ve converted to DNG from the memory card or portable storage device and deleted my PEFs).

There is LOTS of information about DNG here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/

Some raw converters don’t (yet) support DNG – nothing from Olympus does:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/not_yet.htm

There have been problems with loss of some metadata when converting ORF files, but I don’t know what this data is, nor whether the problem still occurs. It doesn’t make any difference if you use Adobe products to handle you DNGs, because they don’t need that metadata. http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/safety.htm#comple teness

These are the potential benefits from using DNG. Not all people get all benefits, which is one reason things vary so much.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm

Some thoughts about workflow considerations here, including suggestions for ensuring you are resilient to a single point of failure.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/safety.htm#workfl ow


Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
K
KatWoman
Mar 29, 2007
wrote in message
On Mar 29, 10:51 am, "Colonel Blip"
wrote:
Hello, All!

Looking for advice from experienced RAW photo-folks. I am now taking photos
in Olympus RAW and was wondering if I should make my workflow process include a step to convert all of these to DNG and delete the ORF RAW files?
What is the preferred process here?

This varies so much from one person to another that all we can do is give you the facts, leaving you to make an informed decision. (For information, I use Pentax not Olympus, I’ve used DNG for nearly two and a half years, and except for the first 8 months I’ve converted to DNG from the memory card or portable storage device and deleted my PEFs).

There is LOTS of information about DNG here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/

Some raw converters don’t (yet) support DNG – nothing from Olympus does:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/not_yet.htm

There have been problems with loss of some metadata when converting ORF files, but I don’t know what this data is, nor whether the problem still occurs. It doesn’t make any difference if you use Adobe products to handle you DNGs, because they don’t need that metadata. http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/safety.htm#comple teness
These are the potential benefits from using DNG. Not all people get all benefits, which is one reason things vary so much.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm

Some thoughts about workflow considerations here, including suggestions for ensuring you are resilient to a single point of failure.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/safety.htm#workfl ow

Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

well I was going to tell the OP that this NG user named Barry Pearson is big fan and recommends it frequently
HEHE
S
Skinner1
Mar 29, 2007
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:51:12 -0500, "Colonel Blip" wrote:

Hello, All!

Looking for advice from experienced RAW photo-folks. I am now taking photos in Olympus RAW and was wondering if I should make my workflow process include a step to convert all of these to DNG and delete the ORF RAW files? What is the preferred process here?

Thanks,
Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

I just purchased LightRoom and getting ready to spend my second evening using it. I have yet to convert anything to DNG and am watching this thread closely to judge the group reactions and to try to learn something.

I use a Canon XTi which I have also recently purchased. The CR2 format not being supported by my PS CS version makes me really want to learn about the DNG.
H
Herb
Mar 30, 2007
Hi,

Shooting in RAW with my Olympus E-500 camera, the reduction in size from the ORF file to the DNG file makes it worth converting. ORFs are about 14 megs while the converted DNGs are about 7 megs. That’s a 50% saving of space so I always convert to DNG (and delete the ORF) before bringing it into Lightroom and Photoshop.

Herb

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:51:12 -0500, "Colonel Blip" wrote:

Hello, All!

Looking for advice from experienced RAW photo-folks. I am now taking photos in Olympus RAW and was wondering if I should make my workflow process include a step to convert all of these to DNG and delete the ORF RAW files? What is the preferred process here?

Thanks,
Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-
JM
John McWilliams
Mar 30, 2007
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:51:12 -0500, "Colonel Blip" wrote:

Hello, All!

Looking for advice from experienced RAW photo-folks. I am now taking photos in Olympus RAW and was wondering if I should make my workflow process include a step to convert all of these to DNG and delete the ORF RAW files? What is the preferred process here

I just purchased LightRoom and getting ready to spend my second evening using it. I have yet to convert anything to DNG and am watching this thread closely to judge the group reactions and to try to learn something.

I use a Canon XTi which I have also recently purchased. The CR2 format not being supported by my PS CS version makes me really want to learn about the DNG.

DNG does have some real advantages using Lightroom. After I am through editing the photo, I usually convert it to DNG, which with the Canon RAW files saves a bit over 20%, and also lets me know that I’ve done the work on a particular file.

Of course, if you’re sending it directly to PS, you might simply choose Edit in PS and it’ll then be linked to your LR library.


John McWilliams
CB
Colonel Blip
Mar 30, 2007
Hello, !
You wrote on 29 Mar 2007 07:37:07 -0700:

Indeed. Thanks.

Thanks,

Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

n> On Mar 29, 10:51 am, "Colonel Blip"
n> wrote:
??>> Hello, All!
n> This varies so much from one person to another that all we can do is n> give you the facts, leaving you to make an informed decision. (For n> information, I use Pentax not Olympus, I’ve used DNG for nearly two n> and a half years, and except for the first 8 months I’ve converted to n> DNG from the memory card or portable storage device and deleted my n> PEFs).

n> There is LOTS of information about DNG here:
n> http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/

n> Some raw converters don’t (yet) support DNG – nothing from Olympus n> does:
n> http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/not_yet.htm

n> There have been problems with loss of some metadata when converting n> ORF files, but I don’t know what this data is, nor whether the problem n> still occurs. It doesn’t make any difference if you use Adobe products n> to handle you DNGs, because they don’t need that metadata. n> http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/safety.htm#comple teness

n> These are the potential benefits from using DNG. Not all people get n> all benefits, which is one reason things vary so much. n> http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm

n> Some thoughts about workflow considerations here, including n> suggestions for ensuring you are resilient to a single point of n> failure.
n> http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/safety.htm#workfl ow

—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-
CB
Colonel Blip
Mar 30, 2007
Hello, Herb!
You wrote on Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:04:57 -0400:

No Lightroom here. After reading Barry’s site info I am now ‘contemplating the proverbial navel’.

Thanks,

Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

H> Hi,

H> Shooting in RAW with my Olympus E-500 camera, the reduction in size from H> the ORF file to the DNG file makes it worth converting. ORFs are about H> 14 megs while the converted DNGs are about 7 megs. That’s a 50% saving H> of space so I always convert to DNG (and delete the ORF) before bringing H> it into Lightroom and Photoshop.

H> Herb

H> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:51:12 -0500, "Colonel Blip" H> wrote:

—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-
S
Skinner1
Mar 31, 2007
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:04:57 -0400, Herb wrote:

Hi,

Shooting in RAW with my Olympus E-500 camera, the reduction in size from the ORF file to the DNG file makes it worth converting. ORFs are about 14 megs while the converted DNGs are about 7 megs. That’s a 50% saving of space so I always convert to DNG (and delete the ORF) before bringing it into Lightroom and Photoshop.

Herb
<SNIP>

What data is it throwing away? That’s a HUGE reduction!
S
Skinner1
Mar 31, 2007
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:38:11 -0500, "Colonel Blip" wrote:

Hello, Herb!
You wrote on Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:04:57 -0400:

No Lightroom here. After reading Barry’s site info I am now ‘contemplating the proverbial navel’.

Thanks,

Colonel Blip.
<SNIP>

I like it so far. But I am still in my second evening of use.

Could you post a link to this site info you mentioned?
S
Skinner1
Mar 31, 2007
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:20:04 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 04:51:12 -0500, "Colonel Blip" wrote:

Hello, All!

Looking for advice from experienced RAW photo-folks. I am now taking photos in Olympus RAW and was wondering if I should make my workflow process include a step to convert all of these to DNG and delete the ORF RAW files? What is the preferred process here

I just purchased LightRoom and getting ready to spend my second evening using it. I have yet to convert anything to DNG and am watching this thread closely to judge the group reactions and to try to learn something.

I use a Canon XTi which I have also recently purchased. The CR2 format not being supported by my PS CS version makes me really want to learn about the DNG.

DNG does have some real advantages using Lightroom. After I am through editing the photo, I usually convert it to DNG, which with the Canon RAW files saves a bit over 20%, and also lets me know that I’ve done the work on a particular file.

Of course, if you’re sending it directly to PS, you might simply choose Edit in PS and it’ll then be linked to your LR library.

I am still working out a lot of my work flow. Now just as I was getting comfortable with batch processing ih PS CS I add Lightroom to the mix. :/
CB
Colonel Blip
Mar 31, 2007
Hello, !
You wrote on Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:06:57 -0500:

There is LOTS of information about DNG here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/
<<

Thanks,

Colonel Blip.
E-mail:

S> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:38:11 -0500, "Colonel Blip" S> wrote:

S> <SNIP>

S> I like it so far. But I am still in my second evening of use.

S> Could you post a link to this site info you mentioned?

—-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-
JM
John McWilliams
Apr 2, 2007
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:04:57 -0400, Herb wrote:

Hi,

Shooting in RAW with my Olympus E-500 camera, the reduction in size from the ORF file to the DNG file makes it worth converting. ORFs are about 14 megs while the converted DNGs are about 7 megs. That’s a 50% saving of space so I always convert to DNG (and delete the ORF) before bringing it into Lightroom and Photoshop.

Herb
<SNIP>

What data is it throwing away? That’s a HUGE reduction!

Yes, could you please double check, Herb?


john mcwilliams
H
Herb
Apr 2, 2007
John,

I assume by double-check you mean that I should check that the size reduction is 50%. Well, I have been converting from ORF to DNG for quite a while now and the reduction has consistently been in the 50% range. On the other hand, if you’re asking me for a technical description of the reduction, I am simply not qualified to answer that. I simply don’t know how it does its conversion. Frankly, after a conversion, I am unable to see any difference between the original ORF and the converted DNG even when viewed at actual pixels.

I assume others will chip in with more technical information about this.

Herb

John McWilliams wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:04:57 -0400, Herb wrote:

Hi,

Shooting in RAW with my Olympus E-500 camera, the reduction in size from the ORF file to the DNG file makes it worth converting. ORFs are about 14 megs while the converted DNGs are about 7 megs. That’s a 50% saving of space so I always convert to DNG (and delete the ORF) before bringing it into Lightroom and Photoshop.

Herb
<SNIP>

What data is it throwing away? That’s a HUGE reduction!

Yes, could you please double check, Herb?
JU
jclarke.usenet
Apr 2, 2007
Herb wrote:
John,

I assume by double-check you mean that I should check that the size reduction is 50%. Well, I have been converting from ORF to DNG for quite a while now and the reduction has consistently been in the 50% range. On the other hand, if you’re asking me for a technical description of the reduction, I am simply not qualified to answer that. I simply don’t know how it does its conversion. Frankly, after a conversion, I am unable to see any difference between the original ORF and the converted DNG even when viewed at actual pixels.
I assume others will chip in with more technical information about this.

Is the ORF compressed at all? Just for hohos you might want to try ZIPping a few of them and see what kind of reduction you get.

Herb

John McWilliams wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 21:04:57 -0400, Herb wrote:

Hi,

Shooting in RAW with my Olympus E-500 camera, the reduction in size from the ORF file to the DNG file makes it worth converting. ORFs are about 14 megs while the converted DNGs are about 7 megs. That’s a 50% saving of space so I always convert to DNG (and delete the ORF) before bringing it into Lightroom and Photoshop.
Herb
<SNIP>

What data is it throwing away? That’s a HUGE reduction!

Yes, could you please double check, Herb?



–John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
R
Roberto
Apr 3, 2007
What those at Adobe have said (this had been talked about a lot in the past) is anything that the camera company encrypts isn’t copied. Now as far as I know that is few and far between. One brand that was brought up was Nikon and white balance. From what I gathered either they do with new cameras or they did with older ones encrypt the white balance information.

From what has been said this would mean you would need to set the white balance yourself in ACR or any of Adobe’s products. Since ACR, Lightroom, etc. can’t use the encrypted data either I don’t see this loss as a big deal. It isn’t like this trashes your image, Adobe’s ACR, Lightroom, etc. just figures the white balance information their own way forgetting about how Nikon does it. At worst this means that if you load the same image in to ACR or Lightroom and you load it in to Nikon’s software the white balance will be different. Since it is fully editable in the Adobe’ products as I said I don’t see this as a problem.

As for the 50% reduction, I see this too when I convert my Pentax K10Ds DNG files (it is one of the few that supports DNG as a RAW option) to DNG using Adobe’s DNG converter the new files are half the size. Why? Because Pentax writes uncompressed DNG files (it compresses their own PEF Raw format files, but not DNG) and DNG Converter I tell it to compress them. This is why I run DNG files through DNG converter and that is to make them smaller. It is important to note that this compression is 100% lossless so it isn’t an issue.

So for the ORF files I would guess that either they are not compressed at all or that Olympus doesn’t do a very good job of compression. As for any lost data in coverting to DNG it is minor and I doubt strongly that it will ever make a difference.

The question I have to ask is why convert any companies RAW format to DNG. At this time I don’t feel that DNG is any more or less supported or any more or less likely to be around in 5 years. The only reason that I can see to use DNG (if you camera doesn’t support it as a RAW option) is for the lossless compression and if you can get smaller files going to DNG then that for me would be a good enough reason. This is why I shoot DNG and convert them to DNG with compression using Adobe DNG Converter. The PEF files from the K10D are compressed but are still larger than most of my compressed DNG files.

I don’t mind large files, but I see no reason to have them any larger than is needed. Why waste space. However, I do not convert or use DNG because I think it is a safer or more archival format that the PEF’s my K10D will also write.

My 5 Cents on the subject.

=(8)
BP
Barry Pearson
Apr 3, 2007
On Apr 3, 3:39 am, "=\(8\)" wrote:
What those at Adobe have said (this had been talked about a lot in the past) is anything that the camera company encrypts isn’t copied.

I don’t believe Adobe have said that. In fact, they copy Makernotes without knowing whether or not they are encrypted.

[snip]
From what has been said this would mean you would need to set the white balance yourself in ACR or any of Adobe’s products. Since ACR, Lightroom, etc. can’t use the encrypted data either I don’t see this loss as a big deal. It isn’t like this trashes your image, Adobe’s ACR, Lightroom, etc. just figures the white balance information their own way forgetting about how Nikon does it. At worst this means that if you load the same image in to ACR or Lightroom and you load it in to Nikon’s software the white balance will be different. Since it is fully editable in the Adobe’ products as I said I don’t see this as a problem.
[snip]

Nikon supply a mini-SDK that enables Adobe software to understand the white balance information.


Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
R
Roberto
Apr 3, 2007
I can only tell you what Thomas Knoll, Chris Cox, etc. have said on the Adobe forums over the last year or so. A lot of people and a lot of talk has went on about what you loose if anything when converting to DNG and it has been made clear by both Chris and Thomas that not everything makes it over. If Adobe can’t figure out how to break the encryption they can’t do anything with the data. It is also a well known fact and has been discussed to death that Nikon was and may still be encrypting at least the white balance information in their camera RAW files. Why? Simple they want you to buy their extra Raw processing software and to make that more appealing they have to make it so that you get a benefit from their software over someone elses.

As for the SDK it isn’t a complete SDK they are still keeping things hidden and that means that if Adobe can’t figure it out in a reasonable amount of time then it won’t get transferred. Thomas Knoll does most of the reverse engineering for the RAW files and he is but one man. He can’t spend months trying to figure out how a camera make did this or that. And while Nikon may no longer encrypt their WB information that still does not change the following facts…

1. If something in a RAW file is encrypted it won’t get transfered.
2. Adobe doesn’t list the camera models that have RAW files with information
that doesn’t get transfered.
3. Because of 1 and 2 above we have no idea if all of the data in our cameras native raw files are getting transfered over when we convert them to DNG. Without Adobe telling us that this camera doesn’t have this transfered becuase it is encrypted we will never know and Adobe doesn’t seem to want to do that.
4. Is 1, 2, or 3 above likely to present a large problem is the grand scheme of things? Probably not, but until 3 above happens we have no way of knowing for sure. So unless you have a very drastic need for DNG I wouldn’t convert. Since my K10D will do DNG nativily I don’t have anything to worry about.
5. Even if something is encrypted like white balance Adobe still allows you
to adjust it to what you like. The differences is that when the RAW file is loaded and shown on screen it probably won’t look the same (have the same WB) as it would in Nikon’s or whoevers software. In my book this is not a big deal and both LR and ACR make white balance adjustments very easy.

Robert

Robert
BP
Barry Pearson
Apr 4, 2007
On Apr 3, 6:42 pm, "=\(8\)" wrote:
I can only tell you what Thomas Knoll, Chris Cox, etc. have said on the Adobe forums over the last year or so. A lot of people and a lot of talk has went on about what you loose if anything when converting to DNG and it has been made clear by both Chris and Thomas that not everything makes it over. If Adobe can’t figure out how to break the encryption they can’t do anything with the data.

There are two different things being mixed up there. "Can the DNG Converter copy the data from the original raw file to the DNG file?" And "can Adobe products make use of the data?"

The DNG Converter copies across a lot of metadata (typically in Makernotes) that it doesn’t understand and that Adobe software doesn’t use. It does so in case other products know what to do with it. I have been tracking what Adobe people have been saying in forums over the last year or two, at:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/safety.htm#comple teness

The format it uses to store it in the DNG file is as follows: http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/specification.htm #dngprivatedata

[snip]
As for the SDK it isn’t a complete SDK they are still keeping things hidden and that means that if Adobe can’t figure it out in a reasonable amount of time then it won’t get transferred.

Data in the Makernote will get transferred to the DNG file if the Makernote is well-formed, because Adobe has the information needed to transfer it without needing to understand its content. It is only if there are complications such as references from the Makernote to data outside the Makernote string that the DNG Converter is likely to miss it. This happened (perhaps still does) with some ORF data, but for Canon, Nikon, PEF, etc, Adobe believe they copy the whole of the Makernote and related data.

[snip]
1. If something in a RAW file is encrypted it won’t get transfered.

It can and will get transfered if it is simply part of the Makernote string. Since Adobe doesn’t understand much of the Makernote data that is copied across to the DNG file, it doesn’t even know whether much of it is encrypted.

2. Adobe doesn’t list the camera models that have RAW files with information that doesn’t get transfered.

They have mentioned them in forums and elsewhere. See the link above to my page. For example, after the statement that Canon and Nikon Makernotes were copied across, I asked Thomas Knoll in an Adobe forum about PEFs, and he said the PEF Makernote is copied across: http://adobe.groupbrowser.com/t12649.html

3. Because of 1 and 2 above we have no idea if all of the data in our cameras native raw files are getting transfered over when we convert them to DNG. Without Adobe telling us that this camera doesn’t have this transfered becuase it is encrypted we will never know and Adobe doesn’t seem to want to do that.

I want Adobe to document those things. But they have documented much of it, although in a fragmented way. That is why I maintain references to the fragments in my link above.

4. Is 1, 2, or 3 above likely to present a large problem is the grand scheme of things? Probably not, but until 3 above happens we have no way of knowing for sure. So unless you have a very drastic need for DNG I wouldn’t convert.

[snip]

What do you think is being lost? Something that make you pictures into prize-winners? In fact, for all cases I’ve tried (which is lots), if you use Adobe software for raw conversion, it makes no difference whatsoever to the final image whether you go via DNG or not. The test I use for this is documented at the following, and anyone with concerns can do the test for their choice of raw converter: http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/safety.htm#softwa re

It isn’t a matter of "drastic need". It is up to people to decide whether the benefits are sufficient to balance any perceived disadvantages. For me they are, (and in fact I don’t really see disadvantages), and I have been using DNG for years.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm


Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections