Just stop using DNG. None of the problems cited here would happen if you use the native raw format. DNG is the stupidest idea since the Yugo.
@LSe converted the images 16 years ago. I didn’t see where the time machine tool is in PL, is it Windows only?
Also, I hope you avoid TIFF at all costs — that’s been a hotbed of incompatibilities for decades.
Though the idea is well.
Indeed! The idea was excellent, but Adobe, terrified of losing one dime, has put extensive legal restrictions on DNG. The end user does not see them, but companies that provide their users with DNG conversions have to abide with not a few idiotic policies and restrictions that results in trainwrecks for end users as we are seeing in this thread. Stop using DNG if you want to keep your images “usable”.
For over a decade all the world’s major museums, archives and collections standardized on DNG. There are many millions (billions?) of images, often of scanned photos, already there in DNG. As museums across the world use many different cameras, all with different RAW files, DNG became the global standard.
So Phil, what standard format do you suggest for ALL cameras and scanners. (note many millions of images have been scanned using the Nikon slide and negative scanners with VueScan. (see https://www.hamrick.com/blog/what-is-the-best-film-scanner.html
All the worlds museums, archives and collections are eagerly awaiting your solution for their millions of images.
Since Vuescan’s DNG format is simply a TIFF in a wrapper, which is different from some other DNG file formats, I don’t see how DNG can yet be defined as a universal standard. You can have DNGs that are native to specific cameras and you can have linear DNGs. Some software will read one but not the other.
If the museum world really is that desperate for a “universal” format, why not simply use “naked” TIFF files instead of wrapping them?
You are talking about a decision that was made AFAIK over 15 years and millions (billions?) of images ago. It works well with all the museums, archives, collections, libraries etc of the world with all software except Dxo. Dxo is the only one out of step.
But which DNG format should they use?
It seems DXO is the only software that has that problem, All the other software seems to accept all the DNG formats as discussed, at length, in this forum.
I once had this camera / lens combo and have many of its NEF files in my archives. Seeing this post I converted several of these files to DNG using the latest Adobe DNG Converter app. These DNGs open normally in PL6.5.0 and the optics module corrections are applied correctly. I hope the OP has retained the original NEF files and can try reconverting.
No, I don’t have anymore the original NEF files
TIFF. I notice there are no threads from people having problems with TIF. I’ve been using TIF for as long as digital photography has been in existence. I have yet to find any software that cannot use TIF. I have yet to find a printer that cannot print a TIF. Not once in 30 years have I had problems using TIFFs. Easy.
More to the point, given that Adobe has usage restrictions on DNG, and Adobes history of making draconian decisions with callous indifference to the inconvenience and cost affecting its user base, I don’t trust Adobe with the future of DNG one bit. There’s no telling what BS they could dream up to screw their users. When they invented TIF, there were nowhere near-virtually none-of the usage restrictions we see today with DNG. Mark my words; these galleries and museums doing all this archiving with DNGs are going to regret it. DNG came into existence from Adobe for exactly the reason TIFF was already “out there” with wide, 100% acceptance with zero restrictions. Who needs a DNG which is a TIF in sheep’s clothing? Again, it’s the stupidest idea ever.
DXO is out of step? NOT! They are wise in the extreme to avoid involvement.
And the billions of images using DNG? There are far more using TIF.
From the Adobe website: “This [Web page] is a patent license granted by Adobe to individuals and organizations that desire to develop, market and/or distribute hardware and software that reads and/or writes image files compliant with the DNG Specification.” The TIF format has none of this language. Who knows what they could decide in the future to screw us all?
Notwithstanding “universal standard” is somewhat tautological, DNG is a standard. In the same way that MP3 is a standard, even though it can contain mono or stereo, constant or variable bit rate (CBR/VBR), a wide range of bit rates, chapter markers, and even additional metadata allowed for but not defined in the standard. I remember well the clear path I had to take as a podcaster — avoiding certain MP3 features because “many players” could not handle them, or did not handle them well. Chapter markers were added much later and some software (generally lazily written software) would have issues if they were present. VBR was an excellent idea but it caused problems for many potential listeners so CBR was the accepted norm.
DNG is just like this. The standard is written down. It’s out there. I don’t think it has changed, except in an additive fashion, since it was released. Not all software supports all features or data types. Putting a camera-native Bayer matrix or a fully rendered RGB matrix in a DNG makes them very different from a usage perspective, but they are BOTH DNG FILES and both follow the standard.
I cannot remember the situation, as it was years ago, but I have most certainly come across situations where some software and some TIFF files did not get along. I know the compression algorithm used was an important factor in truly portable TIFFs for a long time…
Yes, it clearly states it’s not really a problem “these days” but it certainly has been in the past. Actually, I am now recalling I had some software not that long ago that was not reading the rotation flag in TIFFs scanned by VueScan, so there’s a recent incompatibility (like in the last few years).
Perhaps in another 5-10 years DNGs will routinely be interchangeable.
[quote=“PhilHawkins, post:32, topic:32740”]
TIFF. I notice there are no threads from people having problems with TIF. I’ve been using TIF for as long as digital photography has been in existence. I have yet to find any software that cannot use TIF. I have yet to find a printer that cannot print a TIF. Not once in 30 years have I had problems using TIFFs. Easy.[/quote]
I will say it again slowly so you understand. ALL the world’s major museums. Galleries, collections and archives standardized on DNG well over a decade ago for many millions of images. Created by many cameras and many high-end film scanners.
Almost all other programs except Dxo handle DNG propperly. Photo Lab is the only thing out of step.
So unless YOU want to go round the world converting millions of DNGs to TIFF just so they will work with DXO it isn’t happening, got that?
Take the number of museums in the world - 55,000
Take the number of photographers in the world - 2,000,000,000
That make the number of museums 0,0000275% of photographers
Hardly a significant market share.
Add to the museums the art galleries, other collections, archives etc. It is not just the photographers but archivists and others. So this then rolls on to archaeologists, historians, universities that work with these museums. So several whole sectors of professionals. These are organizations that would have multiple seats and stay on support.
Apart from that, a lot of Dxo users in multiple threads in this forum are asking for proper DNG support. So it is not just the sectors I mentioned above. There is no need to change workflow as all the other tools do support DNG.
DxO PL seems to be the only tool that won’t work with DNG properly.Dxo could start to become irrelevant to professionals in many areas.
Is this true?
No it’s not true, I just made it up… Of course, it is AFAIK true. I edit a Heritage Magazine and am part of a digital archive. We have to deal with the Museums and Archives.
This discussion came up a decade ago re Light room and Nikon CoolScan film scanners and they DNG was the universal RAW standard much like PDF is for documents. Lightroom supports the Nikon Scanners with both the Nikon software and the VueScan software (Nikon recommend it in place of their own)
And in what form do you store these DNG’s?
As digital file on a hard drive.