Do you convert your NEF files to DNG?

[Visual Reality]

Poll.

Also it would help if you stated your reasoning for why or why not.

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_(file_format)

The following digital cameras support DNG, as of July 2007:
-Hasselblad supports DNG, as an output format via software on their V96C digital back for the 503CW camera body and in the Hasselblad H-2D one; also the CF and CFH.
-Leica's Digital Modul R for the Leica R8 or Leica R9, as well as the Leica M8 and the Leica Digilux 3 natively support the DNG format.
-MegaVision E Series Monochrome back.
-NuCoreTech PEK reference platform.
-Pentax supports DNG in their K10D DSLR camera.
-Ricoh supports DNG in the Ricoh Digital GR, considered a professional compact, and the Ricoh Caplio GX.
-Samsung supports DNG in their Samsung Pro815 "prosumer" camera and Samsung GX-10 DSLR camera.
-Sea&Sea DX‐1G underwater camera.
-Seitz Roundshot D3 digital back, used in cameras such as the 6×17.
-Silicon Imaging Silicon Imaging Digital Cinema SI-1920HDVR.

Besides Adobe Photoshop, several other software programs provide read and sometimes write support for DNG files including: FuturixImager, The GIMP, ImageMagick, ACDSee Photo Manager, ExifTool, Aperture.

[T06]

NO. I've got an iMac with NX & Aperture 2 so I don't need to.

[Visual Reality]

One advantage:

http://photoshopnews.com/stories/images/DNG-workflow/15-folders.jpg
http://photoshopnews.com/stories/images/DNG-workflow/15-folders.jpg

[Rooz]

nope cos i have no idea what dng does, nor do i care. :)

[Visual Reality]

Digital Negative. Adobe's "standardized" Raw format. It gives you the option when you load them into Bridge.

[Rooz]

i dont use bridge, i just use nikon transfer and view. isnt any RAW file considered a digital negative aswell ?

[XaiLo]

Rooz, it's the ole Windows vs Linux story. Adobe is attempting to standardize raw. There are some good reasons for doing so. ;) The flexibility it gives you with meta data is pretty neat. I haven't commited to DNG but most likely will do so in the near future.

[T06]

BAH!!!!! Apple does it on the auto.:D:D:D:D:D:D:eek:

[T06]

One advantage:

http://photoshopnews.com/stories/images/DNG-workflow/15-folders.jpg
http://photoshopnews.com/stories/images/DNG-workflow/15-folders.jpg

Not very reputable, their site has crashed, & by the cached view, well, jury is out there.:eek:

[K1W1]

No.
Can't see any advantage or point for me.

[Rooz]

i still dont really understand the advantage. so its standardised...so what ? i'm not being a smartass, i just dont understand what the point is ?

[tim11]

Space saving is the only advantage?

[K1W1]

i still dont really understand the advantage. so its standardised...so what ? i'm not being a smartass, i just dont understand what the point is ?


Actually it standardised into an Adobe standardised format not an open format AFAIK.
Adobe would rank a close second to Microsoft in wanting the entire computing world to revolve around their standards.

[T06]

..bingo......:confused::mad:

[Tony_V]

I don't convert to DNG because my work flow starts with CaptureNX. You only get 3 choices with CaptureNX, NEF, TIFF and JPG. I do base adjustments with CaptureNX and then convert to 16 bit TIFF. I import those into Lightroom. I like the quality I get this way.

Tony

[Visual Reality]

Actually it standardised into an Adobe standardised format not an open format AFAIK.
Adobe would rank a close second to Microsoft in wanting the entire computing world to revolve around their standards.
Actually its the other way around. DNG is the openly documented raw format, as opposed to Canon and Nikon who use their own proprietary formats. Adobe hopes that they follow suit and release cameras in the future which create DNG files standard...this does away with XMP files and also saves some space. You would get more RAW shots on a memory card.

I have compared quality back to back (Ctrl+Tab) in Photoshop and there is no change to the image after conversion, the original NEF and the DNG are identical with only a file size difference.

I haven't committed to either one...let's see some more replies :cool:

[erichlund]

Actually its the other way around. DNG is the openly documented raw format, as opposed to Canon and Nikon who use their own proprietary formats. Adobe hopes that they follow suit and release cameras in the future which create DNG files standard...this does away with XMP files and also saves some space. You would get more RAW shots on a memory card.

I have compared quality back to back (Ctrl+Tab) in Photoshop and there is no change to the image after conversion, the original NEF and the DNG are identical with only a file size difference.

I haven't committed to either one...let's see some more replies :cool:

Openly documented and CONTROLLED by Adobe. Since many of us don't use Adobe's overpriced applications, we don't see any need for it. Adobe would love if it became a real standard, but it won't as long as Canon and Nikon have proprietary formats.

Personally, I think a common RAW format is still a long time coming. DNG probably will not be the basis. Only when there's enough push from the pro photography industry will there be a chance. I would expect it to be a consortium of leading hardware manufacturers, software providers and photographers that will come up with the actual final standard.

[Visual Reality]

Updated original post.

[erichlund]

Besides Adobe Photoshop, several other software programs provide read and sometimes write support for DNG files including: FuturixImager, The GIMP, ImageMagick, ACDSee Photo Manager, ExifTool, Aperture.

FuturixImager - Free Software Image Viewer: You would kind of expect this.
GIMP - Free...again...expected.
ImageMagick - Free... I'm sensing a trend here. People who write free software typically are standards fanatics. Don't get too excited.
ACDSee - Along with 99+ other formats. This is the everything to everybody choice.
ExifTool - Oops, back to free again.
Aperture - Mac only, and a direct competitor to Adobe products. Also, in the price range of Adobe software.

I'm not saying it's not a good idea. I'm not saying it's not around (please, I've seen enough samples, I'll stipulate that there are more). I'm saying it's not a standard, because a standard is accepted across the industry, and you won't have that until the majority of cameras support it, directly. That won't happen until you get Nikon and Canon on board, and that won't happen unless the pro photographers force the issue.

[cvicisso]

I'm certainly no expert, but I'm pretty sure that you lose 'something' when you convert from NEF to DNG (hence the smaller file size). Whether or not that 'something' matters depends on your style I guess. For example, I think the data that Capture NX uses for its U-Point voodoo probably gets flushed in the conversion. Once you convert to DNG - you can't convert back to NEF and expect to do U-Point manipulations with CaptureNX. Personally, I love the U-Point stuff (but won't be doing it for a while I guess! ;)).

I suppose you could keep both (NEF and DNG) formats - but that's twice as much space... and that cuts into part of the whole reason for converting to DNG in the first place.

[XaiLo]

Eric I'll conceed that Adobe is proud of their products but to say their over priced? Adobe's raw converter is free. Photoshop has never been marketed as a consumer product, Photoshop Elements 6.0 is $99 and Lightroom while $299 can be had for as little as $99. Not exactly pocket brakeing pricing.

As for DNG it does have industry support.
Sorry but there's no other way to do this
but to state who is supporting DNG.

Some companies that support DNG:

Hasselblad - need I say more
Leica - same as above
MegaVision - same as above
Seitz - same as above
Noritsu Koki - same as above
Silicon Imaging
Better Light
Sea&Sea
Pentax
Samsung
Ricoh
Casio

Here's a pretty good range of commercial software:

Photomatix
DxO Optics Pro
Xara Xtreme
Ulead PhotoImpact
ProShow Producer
PanoramaStudio
Panorama Maker

non commercial

IRIS

More Apple

Apple Tiger
Apple iPhoto

I'm not saying DNG is for everyone, but it is a viable option and as with jpeg I would enjoy having that option. My only qualm with DNG is that Nikon does not support it natively. But that may cut into their Capture NX sales? Try as we may Photoshop is the standard in a few industries and DNG is probably on it's way to becoming a de facto standard.

[theMadHatter]

I'm not saying DNG is for everyone, but it is a viable option and as with jpeg I would enjoy having that option. My only qualm with DNG is that Nikon does not support it natively. But that may cut into their Capture NX sales? Try as we may Photoshop is the standard in a few industries and DNG is probably on it's way to becoming a de facto standard.

From what I can see, DNG isn't going to cut into NX's sales as much as NIK software's new offering of Viveza. Now I can use U Point color control in CS3 or Elements. This is one of the more useful features (in my mind) of NX for down-and-dirty correction. I know NX is more tightly integrated with NEFs than Adobe's offerings, but the gap is getting smaller. ;)

[Rooz]

hmm, that sounds interesting. is Nik software nikon related ? how can you use the Upoint in CS3 ?

[erichlund]

Eric I'll conceed that Adobe is proud of their products but to say their over priced? Adobe's raw converter is free. Photoshop has never been marketed as a consumer product, Photoshop Elements 6.0 is $99 and Lightroom while $299 can be had for as little as $99. Not exactly pocket brakeing pricing.



Corel PSP can be had for little more than Elements, yet has most, if not all, of the capability of Photoshop. Photoshop costs 4-5 times the cost of Paint Shop Pro.

Adobe's RAW converter is pretty useless if you aren't using other Adobe software, since it's a Photoshop plugin.

Not sure how you get Lightroom for $99 unless you have a qualifying product, in which case you've already probably spent the big bucks. There is the Academic version, but that's more expensive than just buying the full program, since you actually have to go to school. BTW: For those of you thinking about it, please be aware that the academic license almost always specifically precludes using the package for commercial purpose.

There are also programs with the same basic capability as Elements for less than elements. Corel Photo Impact is $70. I guess it's good that the Adobe RAW converter is free, because Corel Photo Impact includes RAW support directly. I have to admit, I don't know the full capability of elements: Can it do HDR and panoramas, or do you have to get additional software for that?

So, even when they aren't breaking the bank, they're still more expensive than the competition, just because they can.

Whenever Adobe comes out with a program, I usually start looking around. There's always something out there that's just about the same thing and quite a bit cheaper.

[K1W1]

I think Nikon purchased Nik about 6 months ago.

[erichlund]

hmm, that sounds interesting. is Nik software nikon related ? how can you use the Upoint in CS3 ?

Despite the similar name, Nik Software doesn't actually have any relation to Nikon except that Nikon contracted them to produce the NX applications.

Viveza is a $250 photoshop plugin that adds control points capability to those programs that can use it. Of course, the plugin costs twice what CaptureNX costs, but nobody wants to bring that up.

Edit:
Found out Nikon did invest in Nik, but did not purchase the company outright, see below.

[erichlund]

I think Nikon purchased Nik about 6 months ago.

Not quite. They have a technology sharing agreement. Here's a link (http://www.niksoftware.com/company/usa/entry.php?info=company/pressroom/nikcoop.shtml).

There's some capital investment, but that falls somewhat short of buying the company. Nik still claims to be a U.S. held company.

[K1W1]

I knew that there was Nikon money involved somewhere. Any bets on 49.9%?
What surprises me is that it was two years ago. I could have sworn it was more recent but then I guess it's around two years since NX was released and that happened about about the same time.

I'm sure that the pricing of Viveza as a stand alone product has something to do with Nikon wanting to make NX a more attractive proposition for Nikon users. People who use other brands of cameras can pay through the nose, afterall they have already forked out for Photoshop so they are used to it.

I wonder if the Viveza technology will be able to be ported to Lightroom in some usable form?

[Rooz]

$250 for a plugin ? i'll give that a miss thanks.

[XaiLo]

Thanks for the heads up theMadHatter :)

[K1W1]

Corel PSP can be had for little more than Elements, yet has most, if not all, of the capability of Photoshop. Photoshop costs 4-5 times the cost of Paint Shop Pro.

It's a perception thing along with good marketing.

If Adobe decided to sell Photoshop for $99 and there is no doubt that they could if they wanted to Pros would come regard it as a toy product along with all the other $99 graphic arts programs and it would quickly loose it's place as the top dog of photo editing to something perceived as being better that would generally be more expensive.

Same thing with cars. A $10,000 Hyundai will get you to work just as easily as a $1million Maybach so why do people spend the money on the German beast?

[XaiLo]

Eric, out of sheer curiosity how much time have you spent using Photoshop?

[erichlund]

Actually, for the pros, there probably is a lot of value in that $600 beast. For one thing, pro software usually buys you a lot of support, and real support is not cheap. But, I'm not a pro, and I just can't get around paying that much for a software program when there's nothing I can't do for a lot less money.

[erichlund]

Eric, out of sheer curiosity how much time have you spent using Photoshop?

Recently, none. I played around with a trial download, once upon a time, but the tools that I would use were not significantly different from what was then Jasc PSP. Adobe has their own style, but the principles are the same. There was, of course, a boatload of stuff I didn't want or need.

I don't do this stuff for a living, and I don't see the point in paying Adobe's bloated price for pro software. I have to do that with Microsoft Office because I retain compatibility with my company's applications. With my photo editing, I don't have to worry about compatibility with anybody. So I'll use what works for me.

[XaiLo]

Things make sense now, I haven't used PSP for years now... but I agree if the nuances and features of photoshop are not going to be utilized. Then it could percieved as a waste but that is quite different than not being worth it. One would not use a formula one race car to run out to the corner store... then say that it is over priced because that's all it would be used for.

[Rooz]

personally, i only use PS for cloning and framing.

[theMadHatter]

Thanks for the heads up theMadHatter :)

Not a prob... was just pointing out another option to NX. I just wish NIK would port it to LR. That way if you are just doing "quick fixes", you don't have to leave LR. If your are needing to go into PS, you've already committed to the "long haul" on that photo, and might as well use PS' advanced image correcting tools. It's doubtful thought, since it would put LR into NX's realm.

Just my opinion, and those may vary! ;)

[e_dawg]

Nope. I originally thought it would be a good idea at one point, but I couldn't be bothered to do so yet. I would have to use even more space by having a DNG copy of my NEF and ORF files. If I wanted to access them (or at least NEF) again, I wouldn't want to convert from DNG back to NEF again to use all the features of Capture NX.

What do I mean by that? I do some of my global and almost all of my local adjustments in CNX and use NEF files as my "master" and working copies for pics taken from ALL of my cameras. Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus... you name it: they all get post-processed in CNX to some extent and then exported as JPEG. I love that program!

[Visual Reality]

Nope. I originally thought it would be a good idea at one point, but I couldn't be bothered to do so yet. I would have to use even more space by having a DNG copy of my NEF and ORF files. If I wanted to access them (or at least NEF) again, I wouldn't want to convert from DNG back to NEF again to use all the features of Capture NX.
What features do you use?

[Rooz]

being a very happy NX user myself, i'd imagine the colour control points and the ability to very easily make selective adjustments to an image would be high up the list.

imho, NX's results are also the best around. the problem is its a memory hog. LR is much faster and easier to use and the interface is also far better.

[XaiLo]

hmm, that sounds interesting. is Nik software nikon related ? how can you use the Upoint in CS3 ?

According to MacWorld Nik engineered U point and it was originally employed in NX. It's used as a plug-in in photoshop.

[erichlund]

According to MacWorld Nik engineered U point and it was originally employed in NX. It's used as a plug-in in photoshop.

Ah, that's right. You're a Mac user, so you cannot use Paint Shop Pro (without running Windows). Just for grins, I downloaded Photoshop CS3 last night. Ran a photo I had not processed through it. Not too bad. Pretty much exactly what I would have done in PSP, if I had used that instead of NX, or done some processing there after NX. Even the pop ups are very similar in design. I think CS3 is a little faster than PSP. At least that's the impression I get. For non-Pro work, it's not $450 faster.

The interface, if I recall correctly, has improved a lot. At least those bits that I touched on. I didn't have much time last night, so the editing was pretty basic.

[XaiLo]

Nope the only time I touch a Mac is when I need to provide support for one. I've been a Windows user for about 15 yrs. Corel was a decent company back in the day would have liked to have seen them fair better against Microsoft. I'm sure PSP has matured over the years. But the thing is these two programs had different goals. One was a paint program the other was a photo editing software that was so well designed it compelled users to use it as a graphics design vehicle even though that was never it's intended purpose. My bf and I still loao every time one of us brings up drawing a circle in photoshop. For the first decade that I used photoshop I only used it once or only attempted once to utilize it for photo editing. To Adobes credit they acknowledged this fact and started making concessions to this segment.

Photoshop does not do any hand holding which is why it's pretty daunting to a beginner. The problem is not with the tools but the methodology while it may seem counterintuitive with photoshop; it makes much more sense when one understands various techniques employed as opposed to understanding the tools. The nice thing is there's a plethora of tutorials that will teach the user those much needed techniques. For just about anything they can concieve of doing.

And if you want to think outside the box IMHO there's no better place to play than photoshop. If someone is trying to break into the graphic design world they're going to have to know how to use photoshop that's a reality. When you look at all the industries that rely on photoshop and the billions of dollars at stake they're not using photoshop because they have too they're using it because it gets the job done.

[erichlund]

You should not think of Paint Shop Pro as a legacy Corel product. They've only had it for a year or so, but it's been around forever. The company that had it was JASC, and for a long time, it was actually freeware. It was GIMP before GIMP.

It is actually pretty uncanny how similar PSP is to CS3. They layout of the UIs are basically identical. The popups are the same. The only real differences are mostly cosmetic. When using the USM popup, I noticed the numbers were about the same as well, where you use about half as much "strength" with CaptureNX.

One thing I didn't like in CS3 was the noise removal tool. I have NoiseNinja, so I could just use that plugin (The NN plugin doesn't work in PSP, though it does accept some of the simpler plugins). With CaptureNX and PSP, I get decent results, so I don't use NN unless I'm looking for critically good results, but I haven't found the trick yet with CS3. I'm certain it's there, just a matter of working with the tool when I have time to play.

On first impression, the "real" difference between PSP and CS3 is this. CS3 has more "intuitive" aids, like colored sliders. PSP is a little less sophisticated in that area, but the popup screens picture crop is easier to tune to look at specifically what you want to look at. The capability is probably there in CS3, it just didn't hit me in the face the way PSP's does.

Going from PSP to CS3 is like going from the city you grew up in to a city you are not familiar with. All the same stuff is there, but you need to use a map for a while to find your way around.

[XaiLo]

Eric, I'm very familiar with Jasc I started out using PSP in the early 90's. My reference to Corel was about their productivity suite. I used both PSP and Photoshop side by side for quite a while... they are simular for a reason PSP has used Photoshop as a reference. It's pretty easy to appear to be innovative and cheaper when piggy backing off of another companies R&D. lol n/k

Also I have used gimp and quite a few other graphics programs over the years but when the dust is settled at the end of the day I use Photoshop because it's my tool of choice that works the way I do. And provides integration like no other program out there can.

[jcon]

I will chime in and say I personally dont see a need for DNG files. Ill stick with my NEF and JPEG.

I agree with Rooz that NX offers the best image results. I use NX for the basic adjustments, color points, D-Lighting, etc... Then I take it into PSCS3 for the more advanced editing that NX doesnt offer. I may have to check out this Viveza Plug-In! FWIW, NX reads the NEF files much more accuratly than PSCS3.

PSCS3 is very difficult to navigate for beginners as X mentioned. Once you do become familiar with it, its a breeze and alot of fun to play with. One thing I like about it is there are numerous ways to do one task. PSCS3 is just downright amazing. I will continue to use NX and CS3.

This is a very interesting discussion. Ive enjoyed readin all the opinions.

[Visual Reality]

You guys mention NX having superior output of NEF files. I haven't noticed this - I spent an entire evening testing this very thing, taking a long series of shots with different camera settings, and every time the images looked wrong in NX. CS3 showed a more accurate image every single time. The difference was in the colors - completely wrong in NX, and much too saturated. I eventually reverted back to a None/0 enhancement profile on the camera so that the LCD matches what I will see when I get to the computer and load them into Adobe Camera Raw. This is very helpful to me.

Before anyone asks, I am using the same Color Profile in both programs (sRGB) and take all of my photos in sRGB mode. I am curious to know how you guys are getting better results in CNX.

Capture NX 1.3
PS CS3 w/Adobe Camera Raw 4.4

[erichlund]

Well, the first difference is that I shoot in AdobeRGB, Mode II. That's the most neutral starting point. You are seeing different starting points, because CNX applies all your settings, so whatever you have set to get good results on your camera LCD will also be set in CNX. OTOH, CS3 will only see the white balance. Everything else in the EXIF is unused by Adobe, so sharpening, saturation, hue...anything you have adjusted in the camera will not show up when you load your raw image into Adobe. Personally, I find that annoying. The camera has all those settings to save me work later. The only thing Nikon encrypts is the white balance, and that's the only thing Adobe uses.

This will be just as true with the new cameras and picture controls, but the names will change.

[Visual Reality]

But out of Sharpening, Saturation, etc (the camera menu options) there is nothing I can't do better in Post Processing, so I don't see the use. Especially when I don't think the images look right in CNX. For me the images in Photoshop have been much closer to a true-to-life reproduction.

[e_dawg]

Yes, Capture NX likes to apply camera settings and give the "Nikon mainstream consumer oriented look" to pictures shot in sRGB. This results in the usual oversaturated Nikon colours, especially the red push. I think you will find that when you export and view on the web that this is a little less apparent, but definitely it is not as natural.

The main culprit here is shooting in sRGB. Nikon calibrated the colour response of their cameras in sRGB to result in that "vivid look" consumers like, so it actually isn't very natural. If you shoot in Adobe RGB (or if you shoot RAW, it doesn't matter; just set the colour space to Adobe RGB in Capture NX), it results in much more natural colours. Nikon left the Adobe RGB colour accuracy alone knowing that if you're going to use Adobe RGB, you probably know what you're doing in PP and want more natural colours.

I have taken to shooting RAW and setting the colour space to Adobe RGB in CNX -- it definitely results in much more natural colours. Then at the end, I convert to sRGB for exporting to the web.

[e_dawg]

being a very happy NX user myself, i'd imagine the colour control points and the ability to very easily make selective adjustments to an image would be high up the list.

imho, NX's results are also the best around. the problem is its a memory hog. LR is much faster and easier to use and the interface is also far better.

Yep. That's why I use CNX. Colour control points and brush on local adjustments. It gives you the layer & masking power of Photoshop (without the channel specificity and advanced blending modes) with the rapid selection/masking abilities of the Viveza plug-in (which was actually derived from Nik Software's control point technology first perfected in Capture NX). I highly recommend Viveza if you prefer working in Photoshop but want the power of Capture NX's control point technology. Follow this link for some demos (click on the Lessons tab):

http://www.niksoftware.com/viveza/usa/entry.php?tab=0

Lightroom is a great RAW developer and photo management app, but it is doesn't allow you to make selective local adjustments like Capture NX and Photoshop. This is the biggest limitation to LR. Global adjustments are great, but local adjustments give you a whole different level of capabilities and results. It's very useful in scenes with high dynamic range or when you have noisy images.

Another useful feature I find is selective sharpening. Often, one wants to apply a bit of USM to sharpen your pics. But if you apply sharpening to the entire image, you might find that the bokeh is messed up. Bokeh that was formerly smooth will no longer be smooth post USM. Even worse, when you are using a slower consumer lens with aspherical elements (18-200, etc.), an already mediocre bokeh will become downright nervous and distracting. Brush on the USM with Capture NX on parts of your main subject that you want sharpened, and leave the bokeh alone. Really easy to do in CNX. Not so in LR.

[Visual Reality]

Yes, Capture NX likes to apply camera settings and give the "Nikon mainstream consumer oriented look" to pictures shot in sRGB. This results in the usual oversaturated Nikon colours, especially the red push. I think you will find that when you export and view on the web that this is a little less apparent, but definitely it is not as natural.

The main culprit here is shooting in sRGB. Nikon calibrated the colour response of their cameras in sRGB to result in that "vivid look" consumers like, so it actually isn't very natural. If you shoot in Adobe RGB (or if you shoot RAW, it doesn't matter; just set the colour space to Adobe RGB in Capture NX), it results in much more natural colours. Nikon left the Adobe RGB colour accuracy alone knowing that if you're going to use Adobe RGB, you probably know what you're doing in PP and want more natural colours.

I have taken to shooting RAW and setting the colour space to Adobe RGB in CNX -- it definitely results in much more natural colours. Then at the end, I convert to sRGB for exporting to the web.
What's the use of shooting in Adobe RGB if you convert to sRGB?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

[e_dawg]

I already explained this, but I "shoot" and develop NEFs as Adobe RGB to avoid the unnatural colour response and red push of Nikon sRGB.

I convert to sRGB to post images online because most browsers are not ICM/ICC aware and render in sRGB.

Basically, you should use Adobe RGB for editing workflow and printing, but online presentation and on-screen viewing should be done in sRGB. If you shoot in sRGB and have an sRGB workflow, you lose the gamut of Adobe RGB for printing and have to deal with the unnatural colour response of Nikon sRGB.

As for the article you linked, the reason KR likes sRGB is because he loves super-saturated unnatural colours. The look of Nikon sRGB warms his heart. In fact, he even sets all his cameras to +++ saturation in the menu settings to get even more saturation. I doubt that's the look you're going after...

[Visual Reality]

No, it isn't. I could not get an accurate image with Adobe RGB, or any of the in-camera settings with sRGB either. I resorted to a neutral None/0 setup and sRGB and the pictures when loaded into CS3 look closest to real life. I can do my tweaking from there - I don't need the camera or software messing up my colors.

[e_dawg]

I certainly agree with not wanting the camera or software dicking around with the colours. If ACR and PS CS3 does it for you, then that's great, but I suspect there's something going on that's preventing CNX from giving you accurate colours even when you use Adobe RGB. I figure you would track down the problem if you had time, but I guess it's not worth it when CS3 works just fine or even better for you...

[BLWNHR]

Sorry for barging into a Nikon forum here. My take on things, as a photographer and IT person, is DNG is the way to go.

I think the difference in file size could come down to Nikon being a camera manufacturing company that has to provide software. Adobe is a software company. They have no doubt worked out a way to compress the image, ever so slightly, and maintain 100% quality.

I shoot RAW-DNG in my K10D, as opposed to the Pentax RAW format and have done back-to-back comparisons ans there is no visible difference.

The only other advantage I see is that DNG works in Photoshop no problems (as well as other software). Brand-specific file types need upgrades to make them work and IMO could be made redundant sooner than the DNG.

[Rooz]

NEF's open in CS3 aswell though. i think from memory, you can also shoot TIFF with the d300, not that i understand TIFF either really lol. it's all a bit too pixel-peepish for me. shoot whatever it is that works easiest for your workflow and you feel yields the best results.

[K1W1]

567 views, 56 replies and only 14 votes. :confused:

[T06]

Sorry for barging into a Nikon forum here. My take on things, as a photographer and IT person, is DNG is the way to go.

I think the difference in file size could come down to Nikon being a camera manufacturing company that has to provide software. Adobe is a software company. They have no doubt worked out a way to compress the image, ever so slightly, and maintain 100% quality.

I shoot RAW-DNG in my K10D, as opposed to the Pentax RAW format and have done back-to-back comparisons ans there is no visible difference.

The only other advantage I see is that DNG works in Photoshop no problems (as well as other software). Brand-specific file types need upgrades to make them work and IMO could be made redundant sooner than the DNG.
If you were to crop down to 100% or more with the nef & the dng I'd be interested to look at the results, I suspect them to be miniscule but I'd put a brewski on it with the aperture loupe it'd be there, cheers,kev.

[tim11]

567 views, 56 replies and only 14 votes. :confused:

That's because the rest shoot only in JPG. :D

[erichlund]

I was just noticing how many votes for conversion. Even the supporters apparently don't do it. :)

[e_dawg]

That's because the rest shoot only in JPG. :D

... those heathens! ;) j/k...

[T06]

... those heathens! ;) j/k...

...:D:D:D:D......