I regret I tend to agree, I fell the more basic problem is those of us using cameras and phones wanting to use the same program for them. Something DxO refuses to accept is cresting a movement to other processing programs as the phones get better.
DNG is an adobe format. My Phone supports RAW, but I donāt use it. Still not seeing the need for DNG support in PL.
I do agree with the ransom thing with masks as I understand it. I never wanted FP, but I bought it anyway (BF promo) to check it out. Iād probably rather have Nik for viveza , but never adopted that due to it being a plug-in for software I donāt use or own. I am not a fan of hostage features. This was a reason I purchased PLE over standard. I normally shy away if a vendor takes a hard stance in this regard. So far its not been extensive. You can add FP for as little as $7 and change per month. If you space this out over a year or 2, now you are looking at a negligible amount of money for something I might use regularly. Its like a gallon of milk. I drink it, I like it, I buy it. Photography is not an inexpensive hobby. Again, I am principled, and am sensitive to hostage āha ha, weāve got youā tactics, but if $90 bucks is a dealbreaker then maybe its time to consider another hobby. Or maybe another software for post processing. Iāll stay where Iām at and let Adobe have their DNG. Its all theirs, and they can have it. Iād like it if DxO supported 8k RAW or ProRes video, but Iām not going to hold my breath, nor expect them to do so. I have DaVinci for that. Canāt have everything. 
You say this and then talk about hobby. We were not discussing hobby use but professional use.
DNG is an open standard.
ALL RAW are proprietary. ALL Camera and scanner makers have their own different RAW.
Most of the worldās museums, galleries, collections etc had billions of photos, and they standardized on DNG. So no matter what camera was used or more often which scanner was used for the billions of historical physical photos they have, the archive copy is in DNG.
Dxo is excluding itself from this huge, professional, global market.
I am on Dxo PhotoLab 5 and I wonāt be doing any more upgrades until it properly supports DNG in particular the VueScan SW (as Vue Scan is the industry standard Sw used with virtually all photo/film scanners.)
yes it is open to use, but it is Adobeās to change/modify/etc - in that sense it is proprietary AND this open to use standard does NOT prohibit somebody to write totally undocumented ( use-wise ) data in Manufacturerās tags ( maker notes ) if one wish
and most important part about raw filesā¦ parametric edits are TOTALLY proprietary use-wiseā¦ while access to the same raw file ( be it DNG or non DNG raw ) is NOT a problem from multiple raw converters, etc as you wish - so you are absolutely NOT locked into software on that side - the access to paramteric edits to use them in software from other vendors is NOTā¦ so the real issue is not in raw files and their format, the real issue is to avoid being locked up in parametric edits to one vendor ( and nobody - specifically not Adobe and Co - likes to talk about this preferring to stir the conversation to āstraw manā of raw formats )
why this is important ? not only you do not own a raw converter through a languge in the license and subscription in many cases, but you even do not own your own work as it is locked in proprietary parametric edits ( you can generate the output, yes - but your edits, you do not really own them - you canāt take them elsewhere - like you actually can with raw files )
they are all TIFF-based containersā¦ format itself is not a secret, many tags use-wise are indeed undocumented by manufacturer - BUT through projects like libraw (for example) they are practically documented and available for use just like any DNG based raw filesā¦
DxO is excluded because it really does not bring any value to that market, regardless of DNG support
Disagree. Thereās quite a few fine art museums which would benefit from best in class and easy to use RAW development tools,
PhotoLab meets those requirements.
Of course PhotoLab would not be used to manage a museumās image library! PhotoLab would be among the worldās worst DAM applications, if it was a DAM. Fortunately itās not.
sometimes it is and sometimes it is not ā¦ and in case when DNG is converted from original non DNG raw people make grave mistake by exposing them selves in addition to bugs in DNG converter (be it Adobe or not ) unless they also preserve the original file
- DNG from scanners do not really need demosaick, NR, optics correction modules, etcā¦ and for color transform DxO does not offer anything integrated in the package and nothing to exclude internal tone curve application
- DxO is not best in class as proven my multitude of their errors including in generating of DNG files, so āPhotoLab meets those requirements.ā is sorry but clear BSā¦
- as noted multiple times a proper vendor delivers a workflow including hardware and relevant workflow supportā¦ DxO delivers nothing of that nature to that market segment
My point is that the RAW processing tools are best of class. Yes, DxO would have to improve their handling of DNG to appeal to these users.
Thatās the whole point of this thread, though, isnāt it? A request for DxO to improve DxO handling and processing in PhotoLab.
they are not as illustrated ( losing unclipped data in raw files if if there was clipping in raw channels where there was none ) - there are some aspects that one can call ( but because there is no objective test it is all private opinions ) among best ( in that aspect only ) - like I can purely subjectively DxOās āAIā NR along with Adobeās āAIā NR ( I did not use Topaz ) ā¦ some optics corrections for some lenses too ( when available and when actually done right - as we all know very well manual testing of all cameras vs all lenses is a lie ) ā¦
I got a strange message today when trying to save pictures in DNG format: āRGB files cannot be processed as DNGsā. I sent them anyway and they came out as DNGs.