Library module Revisiting DNG Pros and Cons

Status
Not open for further replies.

NJHeart2Heart

Active Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
447
Location
Northern NJ, USA
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Operating System: Mac OSX Yosemite
Exact Lightroom Version (Help menu > System Info): Lightroom 5

I'm indecisive at this point about what to do regarding the push to subscription services. That got me thinking of the relative non-transferability of LRs xmp files, especially if they get separated, and considering a recent scare of losing my catalog altogether.

Any recent threads on DNGs? Who has made that switch? If you did, what are your user needs and criteria that helped you make that decision?

At this point I am creating as many jpg files as I am raw files since the camera I carry most with me is my phone. If my standard has "dropped" with the advent of so many phone pics anyway, and considering I do only very basic editing of my raw photos (I will likely never take advantage of all it's capabilities, and thus sort of wasting the space they take up), I figure it might be worth looking at translating my raw files into the more transferable DNGs.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
2,502
Location
Fort Myers, FL
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
I personally do not understand people's worry over the severability of XMP from raw files. Maybe it is that I use a computer a lot, but under what circumstances would one lose the XMP? (assuming you want it at all, you can set LR to keep it updated in parallel with the catalog).

I also don't get the connection in the last paragraph - going to DNG is not dropping your standards, it's just a different step and a different container. Converting raw to JPG is a serious step down, but converting raw to DNG need not be. It's about technology and container, not about quality.

Here's my take on it: Don't ask "do you use it and why", ask "what problem do I have that DNG will solve?".

BTW, more and more cell cameras are supporting raw, which is usually DNG ironically enough. I did some testing of my Pixel 2 with Lightroom, worked fine.
 

NJHeart2Heart

Active Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
447
Location
Northern NJ, USA
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Hi Fergusen,
Fair enough. I probably could have expressed the question better :)

Here's my problem as two parts:
I recently attempted to upgrade my Mac and through ignorance almost lost my catalog. I have since reverted back and have my catalog again, but it made me more afraid of losing data...not so much my edits (though I probably underestimate amount edit work I do), but my keywords. I also write to xmp file inconsistently so I was not sure if those edits would be saved even to the sidecar file.

As mentioned, I'm not liking the whole subscription thing with Adobe, (I'm still on LR5 and happy with it right now), and am considering alternatives (not decided yet though- may go with it but save a copy of my last perpetual LR version download in case I want to revert back - oh.. but that might not even be possible if catalog gets upgraded!! errrggghh). I need to preserve the edits I have done to my photo collection, and it seems the only approach that's most straightforward is to do a massive export of my collection (maybe a year at a time!), with DNG conversion.

I mentioned taking a backward step w/ DNG because my understanding is that unless you bake the raw file into the DNG which makes it explosively larger file size, the conversion DOES take some data away - but again, since my edits have never been extensive, I suppose there's not much of an argument for me in my particular usage case.

Maybe I just need encouragement that it's OK to do so? I haven't heard a lot about DNG lately, but perhaps I just haven't hung around the forums recently :)
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
2,502
Location
Fort Myers, FL
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
Let me take some of these one at a time, Dawn...

First, if you set the preference item to write XMP automatically, Lightroom will keep the XMP files up to date for you, and you do not have to remember. In theory this makes LR a bit slower, in practice I can't tell the difference. You would want to select all images and write-metadata once, then just turn that on, and it will ensure XMP is always updated. If you want that.

DNG not including RAW does remove the raw file itself; there is some data conversion, but the raw sensor data is stored in the DNG so there should be no loss of quality. There is a read/write/repackage that is done, so in theory there is risk that the software could make a mistake and you would lose data. In practice I am unaware of that ever happening. If you are a bit paranoid (I'm really paranoid with data) this conversion is a risk, but most people ignore it.

DNG and XMP have exactly the same mechanics for updating them with edits, meaning DNG is not updated more frequently or better in some fashion than XMP. So both preserve the edits. Some people feel that the separate-ness of the XMP file is itself a risk, though I do not understand that. It's not like files are things you pick up by hand and juggle while filing and might drop some -- most people move whole folders at a time with all their contain. But ... the mechanics are the same (auto-write, or need a manual request to save). The develop and metadata settings stored inside the XMP and the DNG are identical.

MANY other programs support XMP. I have not tried to survey which programs do XMP, which do DNG, so I cannot tell you if more do DNG than XMP. Most of the common ones do both to the extent they do it at all. Metadata is widely supported, e.g. keywords. Develop settings are widely NOT supported; a few will support things like crops/straighten, maybe things like exposure, but none that I know do anywhere near a complete job of reading LR's edits, whether DNG or XMP. I suspect you will find if anyone ever does support edits, they will support DNG and XMP equally.

But... all this aside, if your concern is converting eventually -- there's no upside of converting today versus 2 years from now. It's not like there is an expiration date on your images and after March you can no longer convert. And... if 2 years from now (or whatever) you convert to product X -- THEN you would know if you needed DNG, or if XMP was OK.

FWIW.

There are other considerations (the above link, while Adobe-leaning, has a pretty good summary).
 

PhilBurton

Lightroom enthusiast (but still learning)
Premium Classic Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
2,703
Location
California, USA
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Classic
I personally do not understand people's worry over the severability of XMP from raw files. Maybe it is that I use a computer a lot, but under what circumstances would one lose the XMP? (assuming you want it at all, you can set LR to keep it updated in parallel with the catalog).

I also don't get the connection in the last paragraph - going to DNG is not dropping your standards, it's just a different step and a different container. Converting raw to JPG is a serious step down, but converting raw to DNG need not be. It's about technology and container, not about quality.

Here's my take on it: Don't ask "do you use it and why", ask "what problem do I have that DNG will solve?".

BTW, more and more cell cameras are supporting raw, which is usually DNG ironically enough. I did some testing of my Pixel 2 with Lightroom, worked fine.
Freguson is right on so many points, to which I would add: If you plan to use editing software other than Lightroom, make sure that DNG is supported.

We have been down this path several times. One disadvantage for DNG. Every time you do an edit or change any other metadata, the entire DNG changes, forcing a backup. If you use NEF or CR2, you back that up only once, and back up the XMP file any number of times. XMP files can range from 1 to 20 (?) KB, as opposed to a multi-MB DNG. And the fears of Adobe dropping support for NEF or CR2 completely exaggerated. The installed base for Canon and Nikon is much too large for that. Other proprietary formats, maybe.

Phil
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
1,904
Location
Waltham MA
Lightroom Experience
Beginner
Lightroom Version
Freguson is right on so many points, to which I would add: If you plan to use editing software other than Lightroom, make sure that DNG is supported.

We have been down this path several times. One disadvantage for DNG. Every time you do an edit or change any other metadata, the entire DNG changes, forcing a backup. If you use NEF or CR2, you back that up only once, and back up the XMP file any number of times. XMP files can range from 1 to 20 (?) KB, as opposed to a multi-MB DNG. And the fears of Adobe dropping support for NEF or CR2 completely exaggerated. The installed base for Canon and Nikon is much too large for that. Other proprietary formats, maybe.

Phil

CR2 and NEF have both gone through many versions. Currently this is abstracted aware and not visible to the user.
It really is a question of time before this happens. Is it anytime soon? Probably not for a while, Adobe likely does not want anymore marketing egg on their face. So I expect some other companies to drop support first.
Further, I think you will get plenty of warning.

With that said, I still convert to DNG and keep the RAW around as a backup. The reason I convert, is the build in hashtag. Bit Rot is a long term issue, and this can help detect and repair problems earlier. Every once in a while I debate about trying to find a better solution for bit rot; but have not really spent any effort.

Tim
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
2,502
Location
Fort Myers, FL
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
Further, I think you will get plenty of warning.
Yep. Unless there's also a nuclear war raging, it will be all over the internet when people start dropping old cameras.

But I really wonder if they will bother. I would think this stuff is all layered, so that internally there's a routine that turns sensor data into a common internal format. There's very little overhead in keeping those routines around, especially when most are probably just parameter changes.

But you'll get plenty of notice.

The reason I convert, is the build in hashtag. Bit Rot is a long term issue, and this can help detect and repair problems earlier. Every once in a while I debate about trying to find a better solution for bit rot; but have not really spent any effort.

Yep, to me that's the strongest argument. I wrote a program to do checksums of the whole file (not just the image data) so I feel I have it covered another way, but bit rot in big archives is a real concern for people who are otherwise careful about backups, etc.
 

PhilBurton

Lightroom enthusiast (but still learning)
Premium Classic Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
2,703
Location
California, USA
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Classic
Yep. Unless there's also a nuclear war raging, it will be all over the internet when people start dropping old cameras.
More likely is dropping proprietary RAW files from companies with very little, and I mean very little installed base.

But I really wonder if they will bother. I would think this stuff is all layered, so that internally there's a routine that turns sensor data into a common internal format. There's very little overhead in keeping those routines around, especially when most are probably just parameter changes.
And also there are probably automated test procedures for RAW convertors.
But you'll get plenty of notice.
For sure.
Yep, to me that's the strongest argument. I wrote a program to do checksums of the whole file (not just the image data) so I feel I have it covered another way, but bit rot in big archives is a real concern for people who are otherwise careful about backups, etc.
And it's not just hypothetical. Move enough bits between CPU/memory and disk, and you will get bit rot. When a drive gets old enough, you get bit rot (if not complete failure).

Phil
 

NJHeart2Heart

Active Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
447
Location
Northern NJ, USA
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Thanks Fergusen,

The most interesting paragraph here regarding something I didn't know, is:
Metadata is widely supported, e.g. keywords. Develop settings are widely NOT supported; a few will support things like crops/straighten, maybe things like exposure, but none that I know do anywhere near a complete job of reading LR's edits, whether DNG or XMP. I suspect you will find if anyone ever does support edits, they will support DNG and XMP equally.

Wow.. I did NOT know that.. So for my purposes, if things like exposure, contrast, and brightness (cold vs. warm hue) do NOT get interpreted by other programs then DNG has largely lost it's appeal to me. That is a misunderstanding I've had for a long time, although I shouldn't be surprised considering it just makes plain sense that edits are tied to a particular program's capabilities/interpretation.

So, basically, if I want ALL the photo data which is currently in my collection to be interpreted consistently (keywords, AND develop edits), it sounds like the only way is to export as JPGS while keeping everything else in my system the same - raw + sidecars for future processing? From my reading I do understand that the jpg exports are only as good as the moment in time they were "snapshotted", so thus the "keep the files for future possibilities just in case".

You do have a good point - until I'm ready to pull the trigger on changing software (not there yet), seems I don't have to decide whether to do dng or not.
 

LRList001

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2012
Messages
419
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
6.x
Thanks Fergusen,

The most interesting paragraph here regarding something I didn't know, is:
Metadata is widely supported, e.g. keywords. Develop settings are widely NOT supported; a few will support things like crops/straighten, maybe things like exposure, but none that I know do anywhere near a complete job of reading LR's edits, whether DNG or XMP. I suspect you will find if anyone ever does support edits, they will support DNG and XMP equally.

Wow.. I did NOT know that.. So for my purposes, if things like exposure, contrast, and brightness (cold vs. warm hue) do NOT get interpreted by other programs then DNG has largely lost it's appeal to me. That is a misunderstanding I've had for a long time, although I shouldn't be surprised considering it just makes plain sense that edits are tied to a particular program's capabilities/interpretation.

So, basically, if I want ALL the photo data which is currently in my collection to be interpreted consistently (keywords, AND develop edits), it sounds like the only way is to export as JPGS while keeping everything else in my system the same - raw + sidecars for future processing? From my reading I do understand that the jpg exports are only as good as the moment in time they were "snapshotted", so thus the "keep the files for future possibilities just in case".

You do have a good point - until I'm ready to pull the trigger on changing software (not there yet), seems I don't have to decide whether to do dng or not.

It isn't feasible for different develop engines to 'do the same as another manufacturer's algorithms'. Even Adobe don't do that within the same software, hence the processing version. The adjustment algorithms are propriety to each manufacturer and are thus (slightly at best) different. Even if they are doing the same thing (like exposure) some might have a scale -100 to +100, another might be -255 to +255, another might be -1000 to +1000. If one manufacturer was going to use another manufacturer's metadata they would have to know what scale was being used, unless they write a dedicate plug-in it seems a bit far fetched to me.

Instead of jpeg, if you want to bake in edits, you could consider tiff. Tiff is a high precision file format, unlike jpeg which has special lossy compression algorithms. High resolution tiff files are big though.

To answer one question, to have consistent edits you need raw + sidecar + develop engine (at a given version, which in LR is called the process version).
 

NJHeart2Heart

Active Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
447
Location
Northern NJ, USA
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
LRList001

1st paragraph: Yep. Got that, after thinking about it for a moment :) It's also called market competition ;)
2nd: TIFF - I'm familiar with it insofar as all of my heritage photo scans are in high resolution TIFFS, and you're right, it does serve the same "non-lossy" purposes. They can be big though - I am curious how they compare to a DNG in terms of typical size.
3rd. Ah, yes, excellent point, consistent with the conversation thread :) Thanks for the reminder!

Thanks all for the good discussion.
Dawn
 

Roelof Moorlag

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
1,450
Location
Netherlands
Lightroom Experience
Power User
Lightroom Version
Classic
In my opinion DNG has some benefits compared to native RAW when you are using Lightroom:
The main reason why i use DNG (just as Tim i keep my NEFs around as extra backup) is the Validation option in Lightroom. I'm using it for every backup i make, at least once a week. Once i discovered some corrupt photo's with this opion (that is very easy to use). Because of the early discovery i was able to take appropriate measures on time.
 
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
3,664
Location
Canada
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
DNGs are going to be within 10% or so of the size of the raw files they're created from (probably a little smaller). TIFFs will be much bigger than that, even the 8-bit ones with no layers.
 

NJHeart2Heart

Active Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
447
Location
Northern NJ, USA
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
DNGs are going to be within 10% or so of the size of the raw files they're created from (probably a little smaller). TIFFs will be much bigger than that, even the 8-bit ones with no layers.
Huh, interesting. I thought they'd save a bit more., maybe 25%.. Wow! didn't know TIFFS were THAT large relative to DNG!
Thanks for the info.
 
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
3,664
Location
Canada
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
Lossy-compressed DNGs will be about the size of a fine-quality JPEG and give much more editing latitude. Personally, I can't see the difference between a JPEG made from the original raw and one made from a lossy DNG (and I've tried hard).
 

Ian.B

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
985
Location
Mildura, NW Victoria, Australia
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
I have never had a problem with dng files -- best thing is they can be read by windows which is a great help for someone like me with some dyslexia dramas . File names and numbers can be a problem at times; as is typing
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
1,904
Location
Waltham MA
Lightroom Experience
Beginner
Lightroom Version
Lossy-compressed DNGs will be about the size of a fine-quality JPEG and give much more editing latitude. Personally, I can't see the difference between a JPEG made from the original raw and one made from a lossy DNG (and I've tried hard).

i doubt you would ever see a difference in Lr.
When you look at some of the spec, there are features in lossy DNG which JPEG really has not capability to emulate. For example, DNG actually supports in the structure the ability for layers.

Tim
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
2,502
Location
Fort Myers, FL
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
Huh, interesting. I thought they'd save a bit more., maybe 25%.. Wow! didn't know TIFFS were THAT large relative to DNG!
Thanks for the info.

I think it's worth clarifying a couple of concepts as they are being mixed.

First, there's raw vs. not raw. Raw means that the image has not been converted from the (usually) green-blue-red-green bayer mosaic to the RGB pixels. Conversion from raw bakes in the white balance and color space, which while it can be edited later, you never have quite the leverage you do at the time of conversion. A non-destructive raw editor like Lightroom does the conversion every time, so you always preserve that so long as you (only) use non-destructive edits.

Then there's the container. A container is a file structure, so for example NEF and CR2 can hold raw data, but so can a DNG. A DNG could also hold non-raw, already converted data. A JPG and TIFF will hold already converted data (ok, I suspect TIFF in particular COULD hold raw data, but I am not aware of any programs that do so; the actual NEF (etc.) formats are a lot like TIFF's in structure, but from a practical standpoint when you see TIFF you are seeing an image already converted.

Conversion is also sometimes called de-mosaic'ing.

The edits that the OP was trying to preserve are non-destructive edits. These can occur on both converted and non-converted images, but in LR most of the time we are talking about non-destructive edits over top of a raw image. Not always, many of us do non-destructive edits over a converted TIFF for example.

Then there is bit depth. Raw has a baked in bit depth (usually 12 or 14), and when de-mosaiced is usually converted to 8, 16 or occasionally (e.g. if doing multiple images as HDR) 32 bits. The more bits the less likely you lose image quality purely from editing actions, so 16 bits is a good way to preserve the ability to keep editing, 8 bits is not. JPG can only do 8 bits, hence once reason it is not good for editing. And somewhere in here is compression: two kinds you need to know - lossless and lossy.

Then there is color space. Raw images do not have color space, period. They may have stored with them an intent to use a color space (e.g. Nikon you can set that), but it is just that -- a hint, not a color space. The color space is attached during raw conversion to some other format. sRGB holds less color breath than AdobeRGB (etc.), but not less colors (i.e. sRGB has the same NUMBER of colors, but it goes less far toward the edges of visible colors, so it is more precise in the center than AdobeRGB, but AdobeRGB can show colors sRGB can not).

Similar to color space, white balance is "baked in" when you do the conversion. in a 16 bit format you still have lots of ability to adjust this after conversion, but you just do not quite have the same leverage you do from raw (or maybe it is that the tools are more accurate?).

So doing editing without conversion from raw maintains a lot of flexibility, but REQUIRES non-destructive editing to preserve the ability to affect the raw conversion. And non-destructive editing is what is different between vendors.

So if you convert to 16 bit wide gamut TIFF you preserve a huge amount of ability to edit, but are never quite as flexible if you didn't convert. However, by converting you remove any dependency on Lightroom and the proprietary non-destructive edits.

DNG spans all of this as it can hold both raw and converted data (and more than that, original "pure" raw and slightly processed raw), and also converted (de-mosaiced and baked in) non-raw.

So you can preserve your ability to edit by using more bit depth and lossless compression (e.g. TIFF), as a substitute for using non-destructive edits on raw, but it is not quite the same.

In ALL of these formats you can save your metadata. There are slight variations but generally speaking all formats can house all (standard) metadata, like titles, keywords, captions, etc.

In ALL of these formats in lightroom you can save develop settings (in some inside, in some in side cars).

In NONE of these formats can you exchange substantive non-destructive edits between vendors. There are minor exceptions (e.g. Lightroom and PhotoMechanic can share crop/straighten data, as well as most metadata), but edits are pretty uniformly proprietary so long as non-destructive.

And in ALL of these formats that support them, destructive edits are baked in and can be shared, but are "done" and cannot be backed out.

Sorry for the long ramble, and apologies to all those for whom this is obvious.
 

PhilBurton

Lightroom enthusiast (but still learning)
Premium Classic Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
2,703
Location
California, USA
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Classic
I think it's worth clarifying a couple of concepts as they are being mixed.

First, there's raw vs. not raw. Raw means that the image has not been converted from the (usually) green-blue-red-green bayer mosaic to the RGB pixels. Conversion from raw bakes in the white balance and color space, which while it can be edited later, you never have quite the leverage you do at the time of conversion. A non-destructive raw editor like Lightroom does the conversion every time, so you always preserve that so long as you (only) use non-destructive edits.

Then there's the container. A container is a file structure, so for example NEF and CR2 can hold raw data, but so can a DNG. A DNG could also hold non-raw, already converted data. A JPG and TIFF will hold already converted data (ok, I suspect TIFF in particular COULD hold raw data, but I am not aware of any programs that do so; the actual NEF (etc.) formats are a lot like TIFF's in structure, but from a practical standpoint when you see TIFF you are seeing an image already converted.

Conversion is also sometimes called de-mosaic'ing.

The edits that the OP was trying to preserve are non-destructive edits. These can occur on both converted and non-converted images, but in LR most of the time we are talking about non-destructive edits over top of a raw image. Not always, many of us do non-destructive edits over a converted TIFF for example.

Then there is bit depth. Raw has a baked in bit depth (usually 12 or 14), and when de-mosaiced is usually converted to 8, 16 or occasionally (e.g. if doing multiple images as HDR) 32 bits. The more bits the less likely you lose image quality purely from editing actions, so 16 bits is a good way to preserve the ability to keep editing, 8 bits is not. JPG can only do 8 bits, hence once reason it is not good for editing. And somewhere in here is compression: two kinds you need to know - lossless and lossy.

Then there is color space. Raw images do not have color space, period. They may have stored with them an intent to use a color space (e.g. Nikon you can set that), but it is just that -- a hint, not a color space. The color space is attached during raw conversion to some other format. sRGB holds less color breath than AdobeRGB (etc.), but not less colors (i.e. sRGB has the same NUMBER of colors, but it goes less far toward the edges of visible colors, so it is more precise in the center than AdobeRGB, but AdobeRGB can show colors sRGB can not).

Similar to color space, white balance is "baked in" when you do the conversion. in a 16 bit format you still have lots of ability to adjust this after conversion, but you just do not quite have the same leverage you do from raw (or maybe it is that the tools are more accurate?).

So doing editing without conversion from raw maintains a lot of flexibility, but REQUIRES non-destructive editing to preserve the ability to affect the raw conversion. And non-destructive editing is what is different between vendors.

So if you convert to 16 bit wide gamut TIFF you preserve a huge amount of ability to edit, but are never quite as flexible if you didn't convert. However, by converting you remove any dependency on Lightroom and the proprietary non-destructive edits.

DNG spans all of this as it can hold both raw and converted data (and more than that, original "pure" raw and slightly processed raw), and also converted (de-mosaiced and baked in) non-raw.

So you can preserve your ability to edit by using more bit depth and lossless compression (e.g. TIFF), as a substitute for using non-destructive edits on raw, but it is not quite the same.

In ALL of these formats you can save your metadata. There are slight variations but generally speaking all formats can house all (standard) metadata, like titles, keywords, captions, etc.

In ALL of these formats in lightroom you can save develop settings (in some inside, in some in side cars).

In NONE of these formats can you exchange substantive non-destructive edits between vendors. There are minor exceptions (e.g. Lightroom and PhotoMechanic can share crop/straighten data, as well as most metadata), but edits are pretty uniformly proprietary so long as non-destructive.

And in ALL of these formats that support them, destructive edits are baked in and can be shared, but are "done" and cannot be backed out.

Sorry for the long ramble, and apologies to all those for whom this is obvious.
Great post.

Star ratings and color labels (but not the label text) can be shared between Lightroom and Photo Supreme.

Fast Raw Viewer can set a number of Lightroom parameters, including Star Rating, Color Label, Exposure Compensation, White Balance. I use FRV as a "pre-processor" for LR to cull the obvious duds.
 

NJHeart2Heart

Active Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
447
Location
Northern NJ, USA
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Very instructive, thanks Fergusen! I'll read it again at a later time to absorb more of that densely packed information :)
 

Ian.B

Active Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
985
Location
Mildura, NW Victoria, Australia
Lightroom Experience
Intermediate
Lightroom Version
Then there is color space. Raw images do not have color space, period. They may have stored with them an intent to use a color space (e.g. Nikon you can set that), but it is just that -- a hint, not a color space. The color space is attached during raw conversion to some other format. sRGB holds less color breath than AdobeRGB (etc.), but not less colors (i.e. sRGB has the same NUMBER of colors, but it goes less far toward the edges of visible colors, so it is more precise in the center than AdobeRGB, but AdobeRGB can show colors sRGB can not).

Similar to color space, white balance is "baked in" when you do the conversion. in a 16 bit format you still have lots of ability to adjust this after conversion, but you just do not quite have the same leverage you do from raw (or maybe it is that the tools are more accurate?).
Now that's something I was not totally aware of! But it does explains some 'dramas' I have with the little Lumix Fz300 files when converted to dng

So; I would be better to do the first raw edit in something On1 raw or even the old but reliable Pse12? Lr5 does not read the Lumix Fz300 files

Well that's given me a 'project' the work with --- so I need some new raw files ---- not going to happen today with air temperature nudging 45c today
Many thanks for the easy to follow explanation Ferguson :thumbsup:
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
2,502
Location
Fort Myers, FL
Lightroom Experience
Advanced
Lightroom Version
Classic
Now that's something I was not totally aware of! But it does explains some 'dramas' I have with the little Lumix Fz300 files when converted to dng

So; I would be better to do the first raw edit in something On1 raw or even the old but reliable Pse12? Lr5 does not read the Lumix Fz300 files

Well that's given me a 'project' the work with --- so I need some new raw files ---- not going to happen today with air temperature nudging 45c today
Many thanks for the easy to follow explanation Ferguson :thumbsup:

I know nothing about Lumix, but as a general case raw gives you more leverage.

Raw does not work (directly) in PSE, it is like Photoshop a bitmap editor and does its thing after conversion.

PSE and Photoshop both use Adobe Camera Raw as a front end. I've never used PSE so I do not know how accessible its settings are, my understanding is you can get to more of ACR in PS than PSE.

Lightroom (until you do a edit-in photoshop) is all pure Adobe Camera Raw.

So to get that leverage you need to use the ACR front end, not wait until it gets inside.

DNG in this context could be raw or could be post-conversion, I do not know what you get in the Lumix world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top