Comments on: Importing DNG and Importing Light

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:13:27 +0000

Well.. Each to their own Maybe it’s something that I will look at again in the future.

I can certainly see the advantage of the tidiness aspect (not having side-car files).

By: Dave Wild

Dave Wild — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:54:00 +0000

Lots of things happened that made me adopt DNG. I bought a Ricoh camera that used DNG as it’s default RAW file output. Some geotagging software I had worked with DNG files and not any of the multitude of camera specific RAW files. The fact that the Lightroom metadata gets stored with the main image data inside a DNG file was a significant factor too – it makes the files more manageable. I ended up importing images from my other cameras as DNG as well – so they all look the same and I don’t have to treat them any differently later.

One bonus was that my modified infrared camera produced RAW files in a format that wasn’t compressed so they were huge – when importing and converying to DNG, they shrank (the other two cameras files ended up about the same size due to already being in compressed formats).

Now I just think of DNG as THE raw format for me.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:31:42 +0000

Gary – It’s not Adobe dropping support, but the Camera manufacturer or other software you use. The other advantage is that the DNG format includes a header that enables programs such as Lightroom or ACR to store information and develop presets in the header rather than in a separate XMP sidecar file.

By: Gary

Gary — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:04:12 +0000

New site looking good Nick. I still have to say that I don’t ‘get’ DNG. So many programs support the cameras native RAW format (may I hazard a guess at more than support DNG?) and since when did Adobe ever drop support to a camera once it had been added to Camera Raw? Just playing the Devils advocate!

By: Brandon Oelling

Brandon Oelling — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:45:09 +0000

Thanks for the plug Nick!

|Brandon Oelling
{x=}