1. DNGs are about 3 times as big, not 20% smaller than Nikon (Nixon) NEF files. I used Adobe Camera RAW on a few different Nikons from the D7000 to the Z9, and this is consistent. 2. It is possible to compress RAW files (or most files). Several makers including Sony and Nikon offer various compressed RAW formats. TiCoRAW from IntoPix is a licensed RAW compression used in the Nikon Z8/Z9 for their High Efficiency RAW formats. 3. The Sidecar file is only in some programs, not all of them. A RAW is a fancy TIFF, and TIFFs can hold multiple images (that is where the thumbnail comes from) among other things. So DxO uses them, but not everyone does. 4. Camera makers and software companies interpret RAW files differently. Capture One does not look the same as Lightroom, and neither looks like DxO, On1, Luminar, Apple Photos, Aftershot, or Darktable. Each one takes the data and draws it slightly differently. It's not just the Bayer style sensor (for not Fuji cameras). How sensitive is model X to Green light? What is the dynamic range at 200 ISO and on and on. There is a lot of computing that goes into that. 5. Betamax lost to VHS because JVC sold the license to EVERYONE and Sony wouldn't sell Betamax to anyone. So it was Sony versus the world. Also, to further step on that analogy Betamax is widely regarded as superior to VHS, but VHS won due to marketing. 6. It isn't "Lossless' if you lose something - like dynamic range. 7. If you spend $2000 on a camera, don't be afraid to shell out $200 for a RAW Processor. 8. While the differences between RAW files may not be immediately obvious, they are there. As you get better at developing photos, those subtle differences will be more obvious. This is rather like playing a musical instrument. When first starting out, maybe you do not always notice when something is slightly out of tune. When you get better, it is like fingernails on a chalkboard. I would LOVE one standard file format to rule them all, but not at the expense of quality, and not for triple the file size. And when has Adobe ever lead the way in smaller file sizes?
lol - but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? 1. OK - must vary brand-to-brand an on compressed/uncompressed RAW I guess. 2. Yes, but this happens in camera, not in post. My X-T4 can shoot compressed or uncompressed RAW but there is literally no difference in size between a zip and the RAW itself. 3. A DNG is a fancy TIFF too. 4. Yep and I said as much. 5. Yep and I said Betamax was superior - but the analogy was made to discuss interoperable standards, not the superiority of one or the other. 6. Yep and I said it depended on the conversion tool you use. I actually see a considerable increase in dynamic range (at least a stop, sometimes more) when converting to linear DNG in DxO Pure RAW. I don't view that as a disadvantage. 7. Agreed. 8. Very true. I've been at processing RAW files since I got a Canon Powershot back in the early 2000s and every different camera and brand has a different signature style. I sometimes revisit old edits to see how I process them now. As I said - there is actually an increase in quality if you use something like PureRAW to pre-process to DNG. True of my Fuji RAWs, true of my Canon RAWs, true of my Sony RAWs and true of my DJI RAWs. Out of interest I downloaded a sample Nikon RAW file (I've never owned a Nikon camera) to test your claims. The original was 18.3Mb. I first processed it in PureRAW and the resulting DNG was 52.1Mb. Then I tried with the current Mac version of Adobe DNG Converter and the resulting file was reduced to 12Mb. Next I tried a Fuji RAW (original 29.5Mb) and the converted file was 34Mb in PureRAW and 36.9Mb in Adobe DNG Converter. Then I tried a Canon RAW - original size 26.4Mb - PureRAW took it to 78Mb(!) and in Adobe it went down to 22.8Mb. Disabling lens softness, vignetting etc in PureRAW made no difference to file size outcomes. I checked the DNG conversions against the originals created by Adobe DNG Converter and could see absolutely no difference in dynamic range at either end of the histogram, but it's an interesting subject and I might run them through DiffChecker and do a more scientific test.
I have DNG with my ricoh gr3, leica q2 and sony Xperia phone, my canon r5 is CR3 and never had an issue with formats, actually never even given it a thought 🤔 previous canons were CR2 with no issues.. converting maybe ok if you have an unusual format but as you point out canon has too much of the market to be ignored. Maybe im just lucky never to have had an issue
I started digital capture in 2002 after 30 years of shooting film. My first DSLR was the whopping 4MP Canon 1D. I immediately shot raw format and suffered along with Canon DPP, until Adobe Camera Raw came along in 2003 as a $99 plugin to PS. Then in 2004 the DNG converter came out and I immediately started converting all my raws, so I wouldn’t lose those pesky xmp files. I tried to get on board with LR in version 1, but it wasn’t until v3 when I really embraced it. It’s been my main squeeze ever since. I even print directly from my DNG files to my Epson 9900. My current workflow is card reader, LR with Import Preset (including rudimentary Develop Presets like File Renaming, IPTC, Lens Corrections, Color Profile, Capture Sharpening.) and Convert to DNG. The OG’s like Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe guided me with their invaluable knowledge in the Real World book series. Thank goodness because it was like the digital Wild West back then…
Cheers John. Doesn't sound a million miles away from my workflow. I must admit I'm fairly late to the DNG party - only really started doing it routinely a couple of years ago when my frustration with four different RAW formats for my various cameras became too frustrating!
Thanks for posting this - I have been converting to DNG for years and I often feel like I'm alone in this club. I have now completely ditched Lightroom Classic for Lightroom - my workflow is the following: - Insert my memory card into the card reader on my Mac. - Use Adobe DNG Converter to convert and copy the files from the card to my local HD as DNG files. - Use Lightroom to make any edits while the DNGs are still on the local harddrive. - Meanwhile, in the background, Google Photos is backing up all the photos (in Storage Saver mode - this isn't for long-term backup purposes but really just for using GP's excellent search functions). - Copy any edited DNGs to the Adobe Cloud to have available wherever I may be. - Lastly, move the files from the local HD to my NAS from within Lightroom for long-term storage (via 10Gb ethernet from the Mac Studio - the NAS then has a series of backups that it does to the photos, which is more or less sending the files to other NAS devices I have set up at other locations). I'd love to hear if anyone has any suggestions for improvements to this.
Thanks David. I certainly can't think of any improvements to your workflow - you have a great backup system in place and having it all in the cloud is certainly a flexible solution. :)
An excellent explanation. I considered adopting a RAW workflow about 10 years ago, but in the end I decided against. I think the future compatibility issue is a bit overblown sometimes, I have 20+ year old RAW files from a Canon 10D that are still supported in Lightroom. I don't think it would be in Adobe's interests to stop supporting old cameras from a major manufacturer. If they ever did then of course, I would be forced to convert those files to DNG. Likewise with the storage space argument - storage is relatively cheap these days so the cost saving from the size difference between RAW and DNG is smaller. I photograph wildlife and even with aggressive culling, I have many tens of thousands of images in my library which easily fit on a couple of 2TB SSD drives (although backups mean I need two sets, obviously!) Still, the cost of those drives isn't prohibitive. I do use PureRaw often though - so I end up with duplicate DNG files on some images. However, I find PureRaw doesn't work for all images - in my opinion it can sometimes introduce artefacts such as worming in out of focus image areas, so I won't run all my images through it. I use Topaz in PS on those that don't clean up well with PureRaw. Each to his or her own, of course - but I'm pretty happy with this workflow. It isn't the most efficient, but I prefer to keep my original RAWs and I don't want all my images going through PureRaw. Thanks for the video - I enjoyed it.
Yea, the main thing is just to find a solution that works for you - there is no right or wrong way of doing it. I have tonnes of dupe DNG/RAW combos on my drives and I don't stress too much about it these days - storage is cheap. :)
Hi Andy, I used to use a Pentax K100D camera. DXO Photolab does not support RAW files from this particular camera so I converted them to DNG using Adobe software to do so only to discover DXO does not support DNG conversions from RAWs that are not supported. DXO support told me that! So the premiss of DNG Conversion is not that simple. I cannot in any way edit (or even view) those photos in DXO Photolab. In addition to this I do a fair bit of smart phone (iPhone) photography and RAW files produced by many apps (ProCamera, Halide and Camera+) are not supported by DXO Photolab (or at least were not in V6). I am not particularly techy so there may be workarounds but DXO Support never suggested anything. I am not having a go at DXO - I use Photolab and Filmpack but I'm aware that some of my photos are simply supported which is a bit irritating.
Thanks Barry. I just downloaded a sample K100D file to do some tests and converted it to DNG in Adobe DNG converter. Like you say - DxO won't touch it, which is extremely surprising to me given their boasts about camera/lens profiles. So I tried it with the other apps I currently have installed and the K100D converted DNG opened fine in Adobe Camera RAW, Adobe Lightroom Classic, Affinity Photo 2, Luminar Neo, Pixelmator Pro and ACDSee Photo Studio. I don't currently have Capture One or Photo RAW installed, so can't check them but it does unfortunately look like DxO are something of an outlier in not supporting that camera. If you're a Mac user then I reckon Pixelmator Pro might be a great option - it's currently just $25. FYI - I also tested Pixelmator Pro on an HDR DNG created on my iPhone and it opened that fine too. Another option would be to convert the K100D RAW to a lossless TIFF and then into DNG in Adobe Converter - it's an extra step but a possible work-around.
Thanks for your reply Andy. I asked DXO at the time (couple of years ago) why they did not support the camera and the answer was that as it was not a very popular camera it was not worth it financially for them to do the work to support it. I have loads of different software so it's not an issue. I raised it because lots of people are saying DNG is the future as all software support it when that is not strictly true.
yes,i had nothing but problems with dxo,the non support of a lot of files seems ridiculous,maybe in the future they will,but i dont have that long to wait for a team that is behind the curve,end of the day i got rid of it.plain n simple.
Great presentation and info! Thank you Got a question. Just updated from the XT2 after 7 years, to the xh2. I was using LR6 to process and print the Fuji RAWs and trying to figure out what to do for editing now. I despise the Adobe subscription model..... Do you know if the free adobe DNG converter uses the same improved demosaic engine from the current light room? Or do i need to do a deep dive to find a converter? (You and others have said the new Adobe LR Fuji processing is now mostly on par with others)
I don't know for sure, but since ACR and LR have parity, and since the DNG converter is updated extremely regularly, I'd say there was a strong chance.
Have I said how much I enjoy your videos, I have been up to now just sticking with the RAF lossless compressed files, might have to give the DNG conversion workflow a try. Another cost option is iridient digital Iridient X-Transformer, not tried it myself but have heard good things. Makes you wonder why most camera manufacturers don't support the DNG format natively.
Thank-you kindly. When I first switched to Fuji several years ago I bought Iridient X, but let it lapse when I had to pay again not long afterwards for a point release. It does good clean DNGs, but I think the far superior DNGs I end up with through Pure RAW with the extended dynamic range created during demosaicing, are a better fit for me personally. :)
When I first jumped into digital photography in 2016, I converted to dig on import after watching a few vids on u-tube. Then reading opinions on a forum decided to use Nikon’s new files on import. Still using LR v6 for processing & sometimes Nikon’s NX Studio for raw. And of course, all files are converted automatically when using Affinity for some editing. If dng is 20% smaller, more than just gps info (which my D810 doesn’t have anyway) is being tossed aside. In my opinion once you jump into the Apple or Adobe ecosystem system you’re kind of stuck there (that’s just good biz on their part) & that’s the way they want it. Yeah, I know you can use other software also. As far as I know, (& I’m no expert by any means) Leica Camera is the only one using the Adobe dng format. And even some Leica store owners like doing at least their basic raw developing in C1. Anyway, if all camera makers used dng, what would set the different editors apart for real (not ai) photo editing? Would they all look the same with the exact same adjustments, or???
I don't think that the fact that the files are 20% smaller means you are losing anything - it may just be a more efficient files format. Also, I have been converting to DNG for years and have never lost any GPS info.
I shoot compressed raw on my Sony a7iii which creates raw files that are around 25MB. When I convert to dng the files are always slightly bigger unfortunately. I do use lossy dng sometimes. Especially for street photos in even light without highlights or shadows to recover. I treat them like a 100% Jpeg file. The one thing I've noticed about them is the transform tool in Lightroom treats them differently. Clicking the auto button doesn't do exactly the same thing.
The interesting thing though is if you shoot in uncompressed lossless format on a Sony (where the file sizes are almost double) and then convert that to DNG you will reduce the file size by about 50% - this allows you to get any advantage (if there is any) without the long-term file storage problems.
To me DNG is a good idea that never caught on (enough). It works fine when it's produced directly from a camera (like Pentax or many smart phones and drones). I'd never convert to DNG from any of the big camera producers own raw formats though. You lose some metadata (probably insignificant, but who knows) and the proprietary raw-formats have better support than DNG in non-Adobe products. One advantage of DNG though is that it has support for file verification, and I agree that an open spec could be an advantage but so far nobody has had problems with decoding the proprietary formats. Making an extra backup in DNG could make sense if you're willing to (almost) double data storage usage.
metadata has nothing to do with the image-quality,and i use non proprietary software with no degredation except,for the colour science,is usually a tad off.i.e the Leica look,or HNCS,but That,is a software thing,Not the glass used.
I am new to your channel and just subscribed. I found this breakdown one of the clearest explanations I have seen. Camera manufacturers, like most greedy companies run by bean counters who lack an understanding of and caring about their user bases, want to keep you captive and incapable of fleeing their tyrannical grips. Apple being one of the worst, if not the worst, which is why I won't and never have touched an Apple product. I have a best friend who is a coding, image genius who worked once with Steve Jobs who said he was a PERFECT, royal SOB and refused to have anything more to do with him. And, he is one of the nicest guys in the world. Apple's ideology and orientation reflects Job's nasty, capricious, cavalier character. But, I digress. The love these bean counting fools have of locking you in is a major red flag and I, for one, make sure I research throughly any equipment I consider from this angle. Sony used to be just as bad, if not worse, than Apple * with going out of their ways to build incompatibility into their systems. Fortunately, they seem to have abandoned that stupidity, which is why I have my eye on their latest cameras and likely will be purchasing one.
Thank-you and welcome. Unfortunately I don't think there are any benign companies in existence. If there are shareholders (and actually even if there aren't) then it's always going to be about the bottom line on the balance sheet and not the best interests of their customers. Remember when Google's motto was "Don't be evil". How did that one pan out!? Being locked into a system is monumentally frustrating, but it takes serious legislation at a nation-state level to effect change in that area - we're only seeing a USB-C port on the iPhone because the European Union made it so. :)
Another great topic, Andy! I've been using some form of DNG workflow for a long time (10+ years) for all of the reasons you explained, but am embarrassed to admit that I struggle with how non-Adobe raw processors work with the converted files. For example, editing the converted DNGs in C1, DxO, etc. results in either a library-based edit (C1) or a proprietary sidecar (DxO DOP files) that limits my ability to carry those edits forward to other apps if (when?) I change raw processors (or view the DNG an app like Adobe Bridge). This reduces the utility and benefits of DNG for me, but I continue to use it anyway. Is there a way to ensure those non-Adobe raw processors can consistently "see" the DNG edits applied in other applications? You mentioned something about a C1 export which I've never considered (and I've recently let my C1 subscription lapse and I won't be using it moving forward), but is there something similar for DxO PL7? The creation of sidecar DOP files for DNG conversions seems silly and if required I might as well edit the original RAW directly. But if I can find a way to "merge" those edit instructions into the DNG that would make for a really desirable workflow solution I've been searching for. [Note: I really like the cataloging features for Adobe products and if I could leverage Bridge instead of LR and combine that with PL7 for single-file DNG edits with assistance from FP7 and Nik where desired it would be great IMHO.] Long winded reply, so thanks for your consideration.
OK - here's what I've found. If I convert my Fuji .RAF file using Pure RAW to linear DNG I can then open that file in Photolab and all edits are stored internally in the file - no .dop file is generated. If I open that same linear DNG in Adobe Camera RAW it also stores all changes internally and no .XMP file is created. However - the changes do not transfer between apps. So it looks a lot like each app creates its own .EIP file within the DNG wrapper. Thinking about it, this does make sense I suppose - since all RAW editors have differing sliders and tools and unless there was an official specification they'd all be slightly different. Not a deal-breaker for me, but it would certainly be something I'd like to see in the future. :)
@@Andyhutchinson Really appreciate your analysis. I'm curious that you didn't observe an external DOP, but the most obvious difference in my workflow from your approach is that I always convert DNGs using Adobe's converter app. I'll need to do some further investigation, but won't clutter up the comments further. ;) Thanks again for your take and this excellent video. :thumbsup:
What about shooting in the tiff format. Always wondered about that with newly released camera models when Adobe hasn’t released their LR/PS update yet. Would a brand new camera model photos taken in tiff, open up in eg. Version, LR6.14?
Hi Andy great video.. can you help ?. i have purchased DXO pure raw4 /PL7 and both products will not open any DNG files from my DJI drone and pocket2 camera I have troll the Internet for answers but I've come up with a blank they will open perfectly with light room but with DXO . do you have any ideas how I could get them to work with DXO ..many thanks
That's disappointing. I have no problems opening the DNGs from my Mavic 2 Pro. But I downloaded a sample Pocket 2 DNG file and it wouldn't open for me. Turns out DxO don't support that camera, which is strange given its popularity. There is a bodgy work-around on this site - forum.dxo.com/t/support-for-dji-mini-2-and-dji-pocket-2/17359.
Yes - they can. If you convert the RAF files using DxO PureRAW, you can apply the Fujifilm Profiles in Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Camera RAW/Photoshop. And if you open that PureRAW converted file in Photolab it will recognise the original colour profile you took the photo with, but you won't be able to switch between profiles.
Hi Andy, found this very interesting as I also went over to Fuji (XT4) a little while back and have not been able to use Raw files ever since. Your solution would no doubt work except my ageing Intel 2011 IMac is too old to even upload the necessary software as indeed it is for the upgrade to the latest evolution of ON1Raw (my post editing software of choice!). Time for a change, but here lies my next dilema. Are you able to advise how much RAM I should specific on a new Macmini M2 please? I have seen several vlogs saying this new machine is so powerful that even the base model is probably good enough but they always then suggest buying more if you can afford it. They then go on to say memory storage is ridiculously costly and the money is better spent on ssd external back ups but then again continue to say the 512gb option will run faster and should be considered! Is it any wonder I’m struggling here? I take and edit a limited number of pictures for my own enjoyment as a casual hobby and other than that our computer use is very limited. I’m therefore reluctant to spend vast fortunes unnecessarily. Having said that I would like to go back to editing raw files and at least make a decent job of post editing. Any thoughts please? Thanks
On the M2 Mac Mini I'd definitely go to 16Gb minimum on the RAM for the simple reason that you can't upgrade it yourself afterwards. The Apple silicon Macs are extremely memory efficient and 16Gb will be more than adequate for post-processing. If you need to save money on the purchase you could always get the smaller internal SSD and then buy an aftermarket 40Gb NVM.e enclose and SSD and use that for storage or even booting the operating system.
That’s great. Thank you so much. I was already planning on adding one of the hubs that included space for ssd storage and an sd card reader so that all fits with your suggestions.@@Andyhutchinson
Well actually Andy, DNG doesn't work with ALL editors. I have a Samsung Galaxy S20+ and DXO Photolab will NOT read DNG files. All the others, no problem.
From DxO's website: "DxO PhotoLab will accept DNG files created natively by supported cameras found in the list of supported cameras and lenses. DxO PhotoLab also supports DNG format if the original RAW format is supported, BUT only as long as they have been generated by Adobe Lightroom or Adobe DNG Converter (RAW DNG) without any further corrections (RAW-DNG) and without compression." "DxO PhotoLab also supports DNGs which were created with DxO PhotoLab and DxO PureRAW. However, automatic optical corrections and denoising will not be available for those DNGs as they have already been applied. So you'll see the icon for "no optical module available"."
Interestingly my old PS CS5 (lifelong license) can't open modern Sony A7 ARW files, but it can open the DNGs from PureRAW2, so the standardization works in this case. But that's just a curio, I don't use the old ACR 6.0, except for checking differences in the demosaicing. I edit the DNGs in Darktable and they come out 99.9 percent visually identical to the ARW files. I don't know what the 0.1 percent is caused by, it's hard to tell; it may be caused by a slight inconsistency in the presentation of the thumb nails. Thank you for the precision of the two types of DNG.
Thanks Eigil. I've been doing some full comparisons of the RAW files vs the DNGs from my X-T4. So comparing the .RAF file with a linear DNG converted in PureRAW. Using layered images and difference mode in Photoshop or comparing in Diffchecker, I get at least 1 stop of extra dynamic range when converting with PureRAW. Is that similar for you with the A7's ARW files?
@@Andyhutchinson Maybe. If I try to load the native ARW side by side with the DxO DNG into the trial version of Diffchecker - nothing happens. The same if I convert both files to TIFFs. If I load the same files into Affinity Photo 2 (the DxO file has been generated without any distorting parameters, and the two are stacked to match) then with the Difference blend mode, all the brightest parts of the image are a bit lighter. If I put a Brightness-Contrast layer on the DxO layer and reduce the brightness, the result gets almost black - but still with the brightest parts shining slightly through at the optimal setting. So, maybe you are right. With this correction the histogram remains wider for the DxO DNG layer. This is also apparent when comparing the before-after versions in DxO PureRAW2. My conclusion is that some of the difference is in overall brightness - but the difference can't be entirely neutralized by changing the brightness - so, is the remaining difference due to an extended dynamic range? I don't know the perfect tool or method to decide for sure.
Guys, isn’t it just that a linear de mosaic is being used with Pure Raw, and so it’s not bumping up the midtone contrast? In other words that the highs (especially) but also the lows are not crushed? That is my experience with using linear camera profiles in LrC, as opposed to using the usual Adobe camera profiles. In my case it is indeed akin to getting back about a full stop of dynamic range. I am not sure it has anything to do here with the format (DNG) per se, as I do not use DxO, but I am sure I do like working with linear (flat) camera profiles. They are much more malleable, certainly in LrC at least. Let me know what you think please, I might need to give Pure Raw a spin….Cheers guys.
@@mike_burke yes - it's a flat conversion - the extra stop seems to be coming from a combination of the demosaicing process and the camera/lens correction, rather than any manipulation of the pixel colour and light intensity across the image. I've tested literally all of the RAW demosaicing engines as of the current generation of releases and DxO are simply doing a better job of decoding that RAW sensor data. And yes, it has nothing to do with the file format, it's just a convenient conversion when using PureRAW 👍
I've been using capture one just to edit my Fuji raws. I always used the free express programme. Id convert to tiff then take into my old stand alone lightroom. Now they say they are no longer going to be having this programme. Im cheesed off about this. I dont want to be tied to a subscription. Capture one going the same way as adobe
@@Andyhutchinson have downloaded the adobe dng converter. The only thing I will miss is the fuji simulations, my base colour has always been classic chrome.
@@julieholland9639 if you convert using either Adobe DNG Converter or DxO PureRAW you can still select the Fuji film simulations because the DNGs are treated just the same as the original RAW file. I do this in Adobe Camera RAW/Photoshop and in Lightroom. Also works in DxO Photolab. 👍 You will find the DNGs are slightly larger when converting Fuji RAW files though - depending upon whether you shoot compressed or uncompressed RAW in-camera.
I just downloaded a sample Mini 2 DNG and can confirm it does indeed crash Luminar. In fact I had to trash the photo and empty the bin before the app would even open again!
Adobe themselves say it's open source on their website - www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/comparison/dng-vs-raw.html#:~:text=DNG%20stands%20for%20Digital%20Negative,photos%20-%20especially%20with%20Adobe%20software.
Is there any way we can it more difficult? After all we have phone cameras lapping at our heals. Let’s make it as complicated s possible so cell phones will rule.
![I Replaced ALL my ADOBE APPS with these [free or cheaper] Alternatives!](/img/n.gif)
1. DNGs are about 3 times as big, not 20% smaller than Nikon (Nixon) NEF files. I used Adobe Camera RAW on a few different Nikons from the D7000 to the Z9, and this is consistent.
2. It is possible to compress RAW files (or most files). Several makers including Sony and Nikon offer various compressed RAW formats. TiCoRAW from IntoPix is a licensed RAW compression used in the Nikon Z8/Z9 for their High Efficiency RAW formats.
3. The Sidecar file is only in some programs, not all of them. A RAW is a fancy TIFF, and TIFFs can hold multiple images (that is where the thumbnail comes from) among other things. So DxO uses them, but not everyone does.
4. Camera makers and software companies interpret RAW files differently. Capture One does not look the same as Lightroom, and neither looks like DxO, On1, Luminar, Apple Photos, Aftershot, or Darktable. Each one takes the data and draws it slightly differently. It's not just the Bayer style sensor (for not Fuji cameras). How sensitive is model X to Green light? What is the dynamic range at 200 ISO and on and on. There is a lot of computing that goes into that.
5. Betamax lost to VHS because JVC sold the license to EVERYONE and Sony wouldn't sell Betamax to anyone. So it was Sony versus the world. Also, to further step on that analogy Betamax is widely regarded as superior to VHS, but VHS won due to marketing.
6. It isn't "Lossless' if you lose something - like dynamic range.
7. If you spend $2000 on a camera, don't be afraid to shell out $200 for a RAW Processor.
8. While the differences between RAW files may not be immediately obvious, they are there. As you get better at developing photos, those subtle differences will be more obvious. This is rather like playing a musical instrument. When first starting out, maybe you do not always notice when something is slightly out of tune. When you get better, it is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
I would LOVE one standard file format to rule them all, but not at the expense of quality, and not for triple the file size. And when has Adobe ever lead the way in smaller file sizes?
lol - but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
1. OK - must vary brand-to-brand an on compressed/uncompressed RAW I guess.
2. Yes, but this happens in camera, not in post. My X-T4 can shoot compressed or uncompressed RAW but there is literally no difference in size between a zip and the RAW itself.
3. A DNG is a fancy TIFF too.
4. Yep and I said as much.
5. Yep and I said Betamax was superior - but the analogy was made to discuss interoperable standards, not the superiority of one or the other.
6. Yep and I said it depended on the conversion tool you use. I actually see a considerable increase in dynamic range (at least a stop, sometimes more) when converting to linear DNG in DxO Pure RAW. I don't view that as a disadvantage.
7. Agreed.
8. Very true. I've been at processing RAW files since I got a Canon Powershot back in the early 2000s and every different camera and brand has a different signature style. I sometimes revisit old edits to see how I process them now.
As I said - there is actually an increase in quality if you use something like PureRAW to pre-process to DNG. True of my Fuji RAWs, true of my Canon RAWs, true of my Sony RAWs and true of my DJI RAWs.
Out of interest I downloaded a sample Nikon RAW file (I've never owned a Nikon camera) to test your claims. The original was 18.3Mb. I first processed it in PureRAW and the resulting DNG was 52.1Mb. Then I tried with the current Mac version of Adobe DNG Converter and the resulting file was reduced to 12Mb. Next I tried a Fuji RAW (original 29.5Mb) and the converted file was 34Mb in PureRAW and 36.9Mb in Adobe DNG Converter. Then I tried a Canon RAW - original size 26.4Mb - PureRAW took it to 78Mb(!) and in Adobe it went down to 22.8Mb. Disabling lens softness, vignetting etc in PureRAW made no difference to file size outcomes. I checked the DNG conversions against the originals created by Adobe DNG Converter and could see absolutely no difference in dynamic range at either end of the histogram, but it's an interesting subject and I might run them through DiffChecker and do a more scientific test.
Consistently spot-on as always. Your content is so good that even when I'm familiar with the topic, I still find myself watching it.
I really appreciate that Bilal - thank-you :)
DNG processing also checks for file corruption.
I have DNG with my ricoh gr3, leica q2 and sony Xperia phone, my canon r5 is CR3 and never had an issue with formats, actually never even given it a thought 🤔 previous canons were CR2 with no issues.. converting maybe ok if you have an unusual format but as you point out canon has too much of the market to be ignored. Maybe im just lucky never to have had an issue
Yea, I think one of the reasons many photographers (particular semi-pro and pro) is exactly that - a guarantee of compatibility. :)
I started digital capture in 2002 after 30 years of shooting film. My first DSLR was the whopping 4MP Canon 1D. I immediately shot raw format and suffered along with Canon DPP, until Adobe Camera Raw came along in 2003 as a $99 plugin to PS. Then in 2004 the DNG converter came out and I immediately started converting all my raws, so I wouldn’t lose those pesky xmp files. I tried to get on board with LR in version 1, but it wasn’t until v3 when I really embraced it. It’s been my main squeeze ever since. I even print directly from my DNG files to my Epson 9900. My current workflow is card reader, LR with Import Preset (including rudimentary Develop Presets like File Renaming, IPTC, Lens Corrections, Color Profile, Capture Sharpening.) and Convert to DNG. The OG’s like Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe guided me with their invaluable knowledge in the Real World book series. Thank goodness because it was like the digital Wild West back then…
Cheers John. Doesn't sound a million miles away from my workflow. I must admit I'm fairly late to the DNG party - only really started doing it routinely a couple of years ago when my frustration with four different RAW formats for my various cameras became too frustrating!
Thanks for posting this - I have been converting to DNG for years and I often feel like I'm alone in this club.
I have now completely ditched Lightroom Classic for Lightroom - my workflow is the following:
- Insert my memory card into the card reader on my Mac.
- Use Adobe DNG Converter to convert and copy the files from the card to my local HD as DNG files.
- Use Lightroom to make any edits while the DNGs are still on the local harddrive.
- Meanwhile, in the background, Google Photos is backing up all the photos (in Storage Saver mode - this isn't for long-term backup purposes but really just for using GP's excellent search functions).
- Copy any edited DNGs to the Adobe Cloud to have available wherever I may be.
- Lastly, move the files from the local HD to my NAS from within Lightroom for long-term storage (via 10Gb ethernet from the Mac Studio - the NAS then has a series of backups that it does to the photos, which is more or less sending the files to other NAS devices I have set up at other locations).
I'd love to hear if anyone has any suggestions for improvements to this.
Thanks David. I certainly can't think of any improvements to your workflow - you have a great backup system in place and having it all in the cloud is certainly a flexible solution. :)
An excellent explanation. I considered adopting a RAW workflow about 10 years ago, but in the end I decided against. I think the future compatibility issue is a bit overblown sometimes, I have 20+ year old RAW files from a Canon 10D that are still supported in Lightroom. I don't think it would be in Adobe's interests to stop supporting old cameras from a major manufacturer. If they ever did then of course, I would be forced to convert those files to DNG. Likewise with the storage space argument - storage is relatively cheap these days so the cost saving from the size difference between RAW and DNG is smaller. I photograph wildlife and even with aggressive culling, I have many tens of thousands of images in my library which easily fit on a couple of 2TB SSD drives (although backups mean I need two sets, obviously!) Still, the cost of those drives isn't prohibitive. I do use PureRaw often though - so I end up with duplicate DNG files on some images. However, I find PureRaw doesn't work for all images - in my opinion it can sometimes introduce artefacts such as worming in out of focus image areas, so I won't run all my images through it. I use Topaz in PS on those that don't clean up well with PureRaw. Each to his or her own, of course - but I'm pretty happy with this workflow. It isn't the most efficient, but I prefer to keep my original RAWs and I don't want all my images going through PureRaw. Thanks for the video - I enjoyed it.
Yea, the main thing is just to find a solution that works for you - there is no right or wrong way of doing it. I have tonnes of dupe DNG/RAW combos on my drives and I don't stress too much about it these days - storage is cheap. :)
Hi Andy, I used to use a Pentax K100D camera. DXO Photolab does not support RAW files from this particular camera so I converted them to DNG using Adobe software to do so only to discover DXO does not support DNG conversions from RAWs that are not supported. DXO support told me that! So the premiss of DNG Conversion is not that simple. I cannot in any way edit (or even view) those photos in DXO Photolab. In addition to this I do a fair bit of smart phone (iPhone) photography and RAW files produced by many apps (ProCamera, Halide and Camera+) are not supported by DXO Photolab (or at least were not in V6). I am not particularly techy so there may be workarounds but DXO Support never suggested anything. I am not having a go at DXO - I use Photolab and Filmpack but I'm aware that some of my photos are simply supported which is a bit irritating.
Thanks Barry. I just downloaded a sample K100D file to do some tests and converted it to DNG in Adobe DNG converter. Like you say - DxO won't touch it, which is extremely surprising to me given their boasts about camera/lens profiles. So I tried it with the other apps I currently have installed and the K100D converted DNG opened fine in Adobe Camera RAW, Adobe Lightroom Classic, Affinity Photo 2, Luminar Neo, Pixelmator Pro and ACDSee Photo Studio. I don't currently have Capture One or Photo RAW installed, so can't check them but it does unfortunately look like DxO are something of an outlier in not supporting that camera. If you're a Mac user then I reckon Pixelmator Pro might be a great option - it's currently just $25. FYI - I also tested Pixelmator Pro on an HDR DNG created on my iPhone and it opened that fine too. Another option would be to convert the K100D RAW to a lossless TIFF and then into DNG in Adobe Converter - it's an extra step but a possible work-around.
Thanks for your reply Andy. I asked DXO at the time (couple of years ago) why they did not support the camera and the answer was that as it was not a very popular camera it was not worth it financially for them to do the work to support it. I have loads of different software so it's not an issue. I raised it because lots of people are saying DNG is the future as all software support it when that is not strictly true.
yes,i had nothing but problems with dxo,the non support of a lot of files seems ridiculous,maybe in the future they will,but i dont have that long to wait for a team that is behind the curve,end of the day i got rid of it.plain n simple.
Thank you, that was very informative - particularly your workflow.
Thank-you :)
Great presentation and info! Thank you
Got a question. Just updated from the XT2 after 7 years, to the xh2. I was using LR6 to process and print the Fuji RAWs and trying to figure out what to do for editing now. I despise the Adobe subscription model..... Do you know if the free adobe DNG converter uses the same improved demosaic engine from the current light room? Or do i need to do a deep dive to find a converter? (You and others have said the new Adobe LR Fuji processing is now mostly on par with others)
I don't know for sure, but since ACR and LR have parity, and since the DNG converter is updated extremely regularly, I'd say there was a strong chance.
Have I said how much I enjoy your videos, I have been up to now just sticking with the RAF lossless compressed files, might have to give the DNG conversion workflow a try. Another cost option is iridient digital Iridient X-Transformer, not tried it myself but have heard good things.
Makes you wonder why most camera manufacturers don't support the DNG format natively.
Thank-you kindly. When I first switched to Fuji several years ago I bought Iridient X, but let it lapse when I had to pay again not long afterwards for a point release. It does good clean DNGs, but I think the far superior DNGs I end up with through Pure RAW with the extended dynamic range created during demosaicing, are a better fit for me personally. :)
Cool vid, Andy. Thanx for turning me on to Hazel! DNG Adobe style all the way.
DNG means never having to say you're sorry....
No worries. I did a whole video about Hazel on this channel if your'e interested. It's such a useful little app. :)
@@Andyhutchinson Mũy apreciado, amigo. At this age, any automation has me thanking the Gods at the altar of technology.
DNG is a RAW format...albeit an open source one. I like your videos!
Cheers! :)
When I first jumped into digital photography in 2016, I converted to dig on import after watching a few vids on u-tube. Then reading opinions on a forum decided to use Nikon’s new files on import. Still using LR v6 for processing & sometimes Nikon’s NX Studio for raw. And of course, all files are converted automatically when using Affinity for some editing.
If dng is 20% smaller, more than just gps info (which my D810 doesn’t have anyway) is being tossed aside. In my opinion once you jump into the Apple or Adobe ecosystem system you’re kind of stuck there (that’s just good biz on their part) & that’s the way they want it. Yeah, I know you can use other software also. As far as I know, (& I’m no expert by any means) Leica Camera is the only one using the Adobe dng format. And even some Leica store owners like doing at least their basic raw developing in C1. Anyway, if all camera makers used dng, what would set the different editors apart for real (not ai) photo editing? Would they all look the same with the exact same adjustments, or???
I don't think that the fact that the files are 20% smaller means you are losing anything - it may just be a more efficient files format. Also, I have been converting to DNG for years and have never lost any GPS info.
I shoot compressed raw on my Sony a7iii which creates raw files that are around 25MB. When I convert to dng the files are always slightly bigger unfortunately. I do use lossy dng sometimes. Especially for street photos in even light without highlights or shadows to recover. I treat them like a 100% Jpeg file. The one thing I've noticed about them is the transform tool in Lightroom treats them differently. Clicking the auto button doesn't do exactly the same thing.
Yep - I've found that too - I'm guessing it's because the demosaicing process takes place during conversion and it differs slightly between apps. :)
The interesting thing though is if you shoot in uncompressed lossless format on a Sony (where the file sizes are almost double) and then convert that to DNG you will reduce the file size by about 50% - this allows you to get any advantage (if there is any) without the long-term file storage problems.
To me DNG is a good idea that never caught on (enough). It works fine when it's produced directly from a camera (like Pentax or many smart phones and drones). I'd never convert to DNG from any of the big camera producers own raw formats though. You lose some metadata (probably insignificant, but who knows) and the proprietary raw-formats have better support than DNG in non-Adobe products.
One advantage of DNG though is that it has support for file verification, and I agree that an open spec could be an advantage but so far nobody has had problems with decoding the proprietary formats. Making an extra backup in DNG could make sense if you're willing to (almost) double data storage usage.
Good tips and I didn't know that about file verification. Will be very important moving forwards in this A.I. era. :)
metadata has nothing to do with the image-quality,and i use non proprietary software with no degredation except,for the colour science,is usually a tad off.i.e the Leica look,or HNCS,but That,is a software thing,Not the glass used.
I am new to your channel and just subscribed. I found this breakdown one of the clearest explanations I have seen.
Camera manufacturers, like most greedy companies run by bean counters who lack an understanding of and caring about their user bases, want to keep you captive and incapable of fleeing their tyrannical grips.
Apple being one of the worst, if not the worst, which is why I won't and never have touched an Apple product.
I have a best friend who is a coding, image genius who worked once with Steve Jobs who said he was a PERFECT, royal SOB and refused to have anything more to do with him.
And, he is one of the nicest guys in the world.
Apple's ideology and orientation reflects Job's nasty, capricious, cavalier character.
But, I digress.
The love these bean counting fools have of locking you in is a major red flag and I, for one, make sure I research throughly any equipment I consider from this angle.
Sony used to be just as bad, if not worse, than Apple * with going out of their ways to build incompatibility into their systems.
Fortunately, they seem to have abandoned that stupidity, which is why I have my eye on their latest cameras and likely will be purchasing one.
Thank-you and welcome. Unfortunately I don't think there are any benign companies in existence. If there are shareholders (and actually even if there aren't) then it's always going to be about the bottom line on the balance sheet and not the best interests of their customers. Remember when Google's motto was "Don't be evil". How did that one pan out!? Being locked into a system is monumentally frustrating, but it takes serious legislation at a nation-state level to effect change in that area - we're only seeing a USB-C port on the iPhone because the European Union made it so. :)
Another great topic, Andy! I've been using some form of DNG workflow for a long time (10+ years) for all of the reasons you explained, but am embarrassed to admit that I struggle with how non-Adobe raw processors work with the converted files. For example, editing the converted DNGs in C1, DxO, etc. results in either a library-based edit (C1) or a proprietary sidecar (DxO DOP files) that limits my ability to carry those edits forward to other apps if (when?) I change raw processors (or view the DNG an app like Adobe Bridge). This reduces the utility and benefits of DNG for me, but I continue to use it anyway.
Is there a way to ensure those non-Adobe raw processors can consistently "see" the DNG edits applied in other applications? You mentioned something about a C1 export which I've never considered (and I've recently let my C1 subscription lapse and I won't be using it moving forward), but is there something similar for DxO PL7? The creation of sidecar DOP files for DNG conversions seems silly and if required I might as well edit the original RAW directly. But if I can find a way to "merge" those edit instructions into the DNG that would make for a really desirable workflow solution I've been searching for. [Note: I really like the cataloging features for Adobe products and if I could leverage Bridge instead of LR and combine that with PL7 for single-file DNG edits with assistance from FP7 and Nik where desired it would be great IMHO.]
Long winded reply, so thanks for your consideration.
OK - here's what I've found. If I convert my Fuji .RAF file using Pure RAW to linear DNG I can then open that file in Photolab and all edits are stored internally in the file - no .dop file is generated. If I open that same linear DNG in Adobe Camera RAW it also stores all changes internally and no .XMP file is created. However - the changes do not transfer between apps. So it looks a lot like each app creates its own .EIP file within the DNG wrapper. Thinking about it, this does make sense I suppose - since all RAW editors have differing sliders and tools and unless there was an official specification they'd all be slightly different. Not a deal-breaker for me, but it would certainly be something I'd like to see in the future. :)
@@Andyhutchinson Really appreciate your analysis. I'm curious that you didn't observe an external DOP, but the most obvious difference in my workflow from your approach is that I always convert DNGs using Adobe's converter app. I'll need to do some further investigation, but won't clutter up the comments further. ;) Thanks again for your take and this excellent video. :thumbsup:
@@joseph-boza no worries - you raised some interesting questions and I was curious to see how inter-operable the images were :)
What about shooting in the tiff format. Always wondered about that with newly released camera models when Adobe hasn’t released their LR/PS update yet. Would a brand new camera model photos taken in tiff, open up in eg. Version, LR6.14?
@@thomastuorto9929 DNGs are essentially a tweaked lossless TIFF in a wrapper file, so they're a solid option for intermediate processing format.
Hi Andy great video.. can you help ?. i have purchased DXO pure raw4 /PL7 and both products will not open any DNG files from my DJI drone and pocket2 camera I have troll the Internet for answers but I've come up with a blank they will open perfectly with light room but with DXO . do you have any ideas how I could get them to work with DXO ..many thanks
That's disappointing. I have no problems opening the DNGs from my Mavic 2 Pro. But I downloaded a sample Pocket 2 DNG file and it wouldn't open for me. Turns out DxO don't support that camera, which is strange given its popularity. There is a bodgy work-around on this site - forum.dxo.com/t/support-for-dji-mini-2-and-dji-pocket-2/17359.
Great information. Can Fujifilm RAF files converted to DNG still have a Fujifilm Profile added to them? What apps would you use?
Yes - they can. If you convert the RAF files using DxO PureRAW, you can apply the Fujifilm Profiles in Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Camera RAW/Photoshop. And if you open that PureRAW converted file in Photolab it will recognise the original colour profile you took the photo with, but you won't be able to switch between profiles.
Hi Andy, found this very interesting as I also went over to Fuji (XT4) a little while back and have not been able to use Raw files ever since. Your solution would no doubt work except my ageing Intel 2011 IMac is too old to even upload the necessary software as indeed it is for the upgrade to the latest evolution of ON1Raw (my post editing software of choice!). Time for a change, but here lies my next dilema. Are you able to advise how much RAM I should specific on a new Macmini M2 please? I have seen several vlogs saying this new machine is so powerful that even the base model is probably good enough but they always then suggest buying more if you can afford it. They then go on to say memory storage is ridiculously costly and the money is better spent on ssd external back ups but then again continue to say the 512gb option will run faster and should be considered! Is it any wonder I’m struggling here? I take and edit a limited number of pictures for my own enjoyment as a casual hobby and other than that our computer use is very limited. I’m therefore reluctant to spend vast fortunes unnecessarily. Having said that I would like to go back to editing raw files and at least make a decent job of post editing. Any thoughts please? Thanks
On the M2 Mac Mini I'd definitely go to 16Gb minimum on the RAM for the simple reason that you can't upgrade it yourself afterwards. The Apple silicon Macs are extremely memory efficient and 16Gb will be more than adequate for post-processing. If you need to save money on the purchase you could always get the smaller internal SSD and then buy an aftermarket 40Gb NVM.e enclose and SSD and use that for storage or even booting the operating system.
That’s great. Thank you so much. I was already planning on adding one of the hubs that included space for ssd storage and an sd card reader so that all fits with your suggestions.@@Andyhutchinson
You do this stuff so well thank you
Cheers Ian :)
Well actually Andy, DNG doesn't work with ALL editors. I have a Samsung Galaxy S20+ and DXO Photolab will NOT read DNG files. All the others, no problem.
Good catch Jordan - thank-you.
Good reason to avoid DXO.
@@AndyhutchinsonI don’t use it, but I thought I heard Capture One doesn’t handle DNGs? Or maybe it was Hasselblad files?
From DxO's website:
"DxO PhotoLab will accept DNG files created natively by supported cameras found in the list of supported cameras and lenses. DxO PhotoLab also supports DNG format if the original RAW format is supported, BUT only as long as they have been generated by Adobe Lightroom or Adobe DNG Converter (RAW DNG) without any further corrections (RAW-DNG) and without compression."
"DxO PhotoLab also supports DNGs which were created with DxO PhotoLab and DxO PureRAW. However, automatic optical corrections and denoising will not be available for those DNGs as they have already been applied. So you'll see the icon for "no optical module available"."
Interestingly my old PS CS5 (lifelong license) can't open modern Sony A7 ARW files, but it can open the DNGs from PureRAW2, so the standardization works in this case. But that's just a curio, I don't use the old ACR 6.0, except for checking differences in the demosaicing. I edit the DNGs in Darktable and they come out 99.9 percent visually identical to the ARW files. I don't know what the 0.1 percent is caused by, it's hard to tell; it may be caused by a slight inconsistency in the presentation of the thumb nails.
Thank you for the precision of the two types of DNG.
Thanks Eigil. I've been doing some full comparisons of the RAW files vs the DNGs from my X-T4. So comparing the .RAF file with a linear DNG converted in PureRAW. Using layered images and difference mode in Photoshop or comparing in Diffchecker, I get at least 1 stop of extra dynamic range when converting with PureRAW. Is that similar for you with the A7's ARW files?
@@Andyhutchinson Maybe. If I try to load the native ARW side by side with the DxO DNG into the trial version of Diffchecker - nothing happens. The same if I convert both files to TIFFs. If I load the same files into Affinity Photo 2 (the DxO file has been generated without any distorting parameters, and the two are stacked to match) then with the Difference blend mode, all the brightest parts of the image are a bit lighter. If I put a Brightness-Contrast layer on the DxO layer and reduce the brightness, the result gets almost black - but still with the brightest parts shining slightly through at the optimal setting. So, maybe you are right. With this correction the histogram remains wider for the DxO DNG layer. This is also apparent when comparing the before-after versions in DxO PureRAW2. My conclusion is that some of the difference is in overall brightness - but the difference can't be entirely neutralized by changing the brightness - so, is the remaining difference due to an extended dynamic range? I don't know the perfect tool or method to decide for sure.
Guys, isn’t it just that a linear de mosaic is being used with Pure Raw, and so it’s not bumping up the midtone contrast? In other words that the highs (especially) but also the lows are not crushed? That is my experience with using linear camera profiles in LrC, as opposed to using the usual Adobe camera profiles. In my case it is indeed akin to getting back about a full stop of dynamic range. I am not sure it has anything to do here with the format (DNG) per se, as I do not use DxO, but I am sure I do like working with linear (flat) camera profiles. They are much more malleable, certainly in LrC at least. Let me know what you think please, I might need to give Pure Raw a spin….Cheers guys.
@@mike_burke yes - it's a flat conversion - the extra stop seems to be coming from a combination of the demosaicing process and the camera/lens correction, rather than any manipulation of the pixel colour and light intensity across the image. I've tested literally all of the RAW demosaicing engines as of the current generation of releases and DxO are simply doing a better job of decoding that RAW sensor data. And yes, it has nothing to do with the file format, it's just a convenient conversion when using PureRAW 👍
@@Eigil_Skovgaard yes I get the same testing for difference in Photoshop - basically more data on the fringes of the extreme ends of the histogram.
I've been using capture one just to edit my Fuji raws. I always used the free express programme. Id convert to tiff then take into my old stand alone lightroom. Now they say they are no longer going to be having this programme. Im cheesed off about this. I dont want to be tied to a subscription. Capture one going the same way as adobe
The writing's been on the wall for a little while I think. All the developers are slowly going there.
@@Andyhutchinson have downloaded the adobe dng converter. The only thing I will miss is the fuji simulations, my base colour has always been classic chrome.
@@julieholland9639 if you convert using either Adobe DNG Converter or DxO PureRAW you can still select the Fuji film simulations because the DNGs are treated just the same as the original RAW file. I do this in Adobe Camera RAW/Photoshop and in Lightroom. Also works in DxO Photolab. 👍 You will find the DNGs are slightly larger when converting Fuji RAW files though - depending upon whether you shoot compressed or uncompressed RAW in-camera.
If I try open any DNG flies (taken with my DJI mini 2 drone) with Laminar Neo it will crash the software.
I just downloaded a sample Mini 2 DNG and can confirm it does indeed crash Luminar. In fact I had to trash the photo and empty the bin before the app would even open again!
I've installed Adobe DNG Converter 17 but it hasn't given me an icon, how do I launch it?
Just in the Applications folder for me.
Thanks
Welcome
Converting to DNG can also lose some lens correction data depending on make model.
Also not all photo editors can open DNG.
Enjoy your videos mate.
Cheers Wayne - good point about the lens correction metadata. Which apps did you have in mind that can't open DNG?
lens profiles....thats bs.
I don't think DNG is open source. That's the main reason i didn't convert my raw files.
Adobe themselves say it's open source on their website - www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/comparison/dng-vs-raw.html#:~:text=DNG%20stands%20for%20Digital%20Negative,photos%20-%20especially%20with%20Adobe%20software.
Is there any way we can it more difficult? After all we have phone cameras lapping at our heals. Let’s make it as complicated s possible so cell phones will rule.
lol - the cellphones already won. 92.5% of all photos taken now are on smartphones. But I take your point. :)