DNG files

Would like to know if this guy knows what he is talking about or is he just selling software?

http://petapixel.com …sing-the-dng-file-format/

I choose not to convert to DNG for two reasons.
1. I don't want to wait for it to convert.
2. I use Crashplan for online backup. Every slider movement, keyword addition, etc. would require the full DNG to be re-uploaded. By using CR2+XMP, Crashplan only needs to upload the tiny XMP files when changes are made.

I use DNG a lot but it's for compatibility, the adobe converter is free and fast so I see no downside to it.

I tried DNG a while back. For the life of me, I can find one single reason to use them.

Thanks for the info
Did I understand what the guy was saying, Lightroom can't process a RAW file the way a RAW needs to be processed?

DGStinner wrote in post #17862070
I choose not to convert to DNG for two reasons.
1. I don't want to wait for it to convert.
2. I use Crashplan for online backup. Every slider movement, keyword addition, etc. would require the full DNG to be re-uploaded. By using CR2+XMP, Crashplan only needs to upload the tiny XMP files when changes are made.

That isn't how Crashplan works. Only the changed blocks in the file would be uploaded, not the whole file. In real world terms there shouldn't be a difference between backing up the changed blocks in the dng vs. the xmp sidecar.

I quit reading after 5 glaring errors and other indications he does not know much about C1 or ACR. So, to answer your question, no, he does not know what he is talking about.

Redcrown wrote in post #17862316
I quit reading after 5 glaring errors and other indications he does not know much about C1 or ACR. So, to answer your question, no, he does not know what he is talking about.

+1.

TL - "I stopped doing something there was almost zero reason to be doing in the first place"

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17862413
TL - "I stopped doing something there was almost zero reason to be doing in the first place"

As colonel Bragg would say, "Quite!"

DigitalDon wrote in post #17862104
Thanks for the info
Did I understand what the guy was saying, Lightroom can't process a RAW file the way a RAW needs to be processed?

The guy is pushing Capture One, so he is dissing LR. There is no right or wrong way to process a Raw; only the way that gives you the results you are after, quickly and repeatably. C1 doesn't do well with dngs, not because it can't but because it chooses not to - after all the dng format is identified with the biggest (and nearly only) rival and Adobe does encode data in dngs that works well with its internal workflow, so although Adobe describes dng as a "neutral" format, it isn't entirely vanilla.

Some people are LR fans and some are C1 fans and some think being a fan is childish and use whatever gets them the results they want. I have C1 installed and use it occasionally, just as I only use PSCC only occasionally; 90% I am only LR, because after 8 years of using it LR is fast and intuitive for me and I think I know how to milk the best out of it. On my previous computer I used dngs because they can contain "Quick Loading Data" which replaces LR's need to pull up data from the CR Cache directory it has made on your computer and thus moves things along faster. Today I have a new and faster computer and I stopped using dng.

Yes there have always it seems been problems with using DNG files that have been converted from another format in non Adobe programs. At one time the Corel RAW converter would only open DNG files that were created in camera. I am a user of LR and do not use C1, simply because a licence is more than I can afford. If LR and C1 were the same price, and I had to upgrade then maybe I would look at changing, but I use a lot of the other features of LR, that I would have to also address in a change. Fortunately I like the way that PV2012 renders images, even with it's secret sauce under the hood hidden auto adjustments. The C1 licence is about £250 here in the UK last time I looked, that's as much as my last DSLR body purchase cost me for my main camera. Given my personal circumstances the Adobe CC Photographers bundle at £8.99/month is a manageable way to licence the programs, while large capital expenditures are difficult, and to me £250 is a large amount of money in one go. Even as an LR user I have never seen the need to routinely convert to DNG, and I would not save space as I would still have to archive the original CR2 file, I'm not that trusting of ANY companies future support of any format.

I do on occasion have to convert files to DNG, simply because I use the Magic Lantern DualISO function on my 50D when shooting airshows. That extra 3 stops of DR can be really useful with high contrast back lit subjects. When shooting DualISO it is necessary to preprocess the CR2 file to a DNG, to get the extra highlight detail from the data it has to be converted to a full resolution wide dynamic range full 16 bit format. If you open one of the DualISO DNG's in something like RAW Digger you can see that the data does indeed fill the full 16 bits. As far as I am aware C1 Pro is quite as happy ingesting the DNG files created by the CR2HDR program provided by ML as LR is.

If I were to borrow or rent a newer body that is not supported in my version of LR, 4.4, then I would probably also use the Adobe converter to give me access to those files without the need for updating my version of the software, but as I initially said, I would still archive the original RAW files as well as using the DNGs for processing.

Reading the article it looks like the guy really drank the Adobe Kool Aid when it came to image processing and the use of DNG, and now that he's made the mistake of not keeping the original files he feels somewhat cheated now that he is no longer partaking in the full Adobe experience.

Alan

Thank you guys
If he was right, for the price of the software, I would have stuck with Lightroom any way.
The reason I asked, In Lightroon's Camera Calibration 2003 2010 and current is 2012. I thought maybe something major might be missing form 2012 through 2015.
Thanks again
Don

DigitalDon wrote in post #17863668
Thank you guys
If he was right, for the price of the software, I would have stuck with Lightroom any way.
The reason I asked, In Lightroon's Camera Calibration 2003 2010 and current is 2012. I thought maybe something major might be missing form 2012 through 2015.
Thanks again
Don

2003, 2010 and 2012 aren't camera calibrations - those are the dates that the core RAW processing engine updates were released.
There have been lots of bug fixes, new features and Camera calibrations added to support new cameras since 2012.