One difference might be the associated color space? There is no conversion to another color space in the dng file, for the tiff, it depends on the settings.
Nobody claimed the export process of DNG and tiff in dxo are the same . They are very different!
With tiff export the image is completely made ‘final’, which means you get what you see. And tools can’t get more out of it .
The DNG export leaves a lot of the processing ‘undone’. That way the program reading the DNG still has to do a lot of processing. But that also means it can do things to the highlights for example .
The DNG export from dxo in optical only mode is very much exactly like the raw file you use as input in dxo .
But instead of a single value for r, g, OR b per pixel… It already has r, g AND b values for every pixel.
But otherwise the data is pretty much like the original raw file , which means programs like CaptureOne can do a lot to it still. (And need to do to it ).
As I wrote before I can push DNG file the same as I can push RAW file but I can’t do the same with TIFF file.
If I make a DNG file in C1P, Photolab won’ read it.
They say ‘’ make a TIFF file… it’s the same’‘.
It’ s not the same.
So if we go back to the point of this thread…
Photolab should support DNG files.
It keeps coming back to that.
As a LONG time DxO user (before it was PhotoLab) I won’t be upgrading to PL6 until the DNG format is properly supported.
Ah, i see where you are coming from. Yes , agreed. And i understand (your) need for DNG input in DxO .
Te whole thread was started by someone using scans from museum art, coming from vuescan or another tool.
THOSE DNG files are no different to a tiff from te scan. There is no ‘extra’ data. A scanner already delivers something of a ‘final’ image. Only color space profile stuff , but that’s the same for the tiff.
So your way of thinking doesn’t really apply. But that also doesn’t mean your point of 'dxo needs DNG input ’ is invalid. Far from :).
A camera Raw file , a DNG file, a tiff file . They all contain pixel values. It’s as simpel as that.
When you open a raw file , and save it as a tiff, there is A LOT OF OPERATIONS done one the original raw pixel values . The result of those operations are written to a tiff. And those operations can’t really be undone.
If you take a scan and save it as a DNG, that DNG contains pixel values. If you 'rip out ’ those pixel values , and write them as a tiff, WITHOUT CHANGING THEM, you can still do the same in that tiff as you could on the original DNG.
But the moment you apply processing steps , those are final .
That’s why I always say to save your original source file. Do not convert it , do not make changes to it… archive it as is. That’s the only guarantee you have that can always use it in the future.
The point is the “origional file” is a glass pla\te, a negative, a postive on film or a paper photograph. AFAIK ALL major (and many minor) Museums, archives, collections around the world scan to DNG as a “universal RAW” Probably because most use Adobe Camera RAW (or compatable) it works.
PhotoLab only accepts DNG if it has been generated from a camera PL supports. I am suggesting that DxO ads VueScan as a supported Camera or has a mode that accepts a DNG from unsuported cameras.
Untill this happens I won’t be upgrading my PhotoLab.
Submit that as a proposal.
Vote for your proposal.
If that’s already done. Wait.
You are free to upgrade or not.
But I’m sorry to say that it’s getting a bit repetitive reading about your personal decisions time and time again.
Let’s be constructive and keep a friendly discussion instead.
But I’m sorry to say that it’s getting a bit repetitive reading about your personal comments that add nothing to the discussion.
In my case it is not personal comments I am relaying the desision of five organisations.
But we here are users of DxO photolab, not people that influence the development , do the development or in any way can change it.
So posting here why you will not upgrade (which you do iba threatening way ) is saying it - again and again - to people who can’t really help you with it, or care about your decision.
That’s why people tried giving you tips on how to handle the files with workarounds, because that’s all we can do . Try to help you. We can’t change the software.
Also, that if you want your ‘request’ to be taken seriously , you do it with an official way that DxO supplies : a support ticket and/or the official feature request section.
I have had a few that dont work as well, the support is definitely not broad
Well stop contradicting Chris again and again then, and provoking the conversation further. There’s nothing more tired than the “your free to upgrade or not” argument.
DxO kneecapping PhotoLab for iPhone and Android DNG, Apple ProRAW, scan DNG is a serious lacuna. Those of us who love PhotoLab and use it every day and have to deal with horrid workarounds to continue to use our preferred photo editor on those files will not tire of complaining about these issues. I can’t imagine how many thousands of licenses the lack of mobile DNG has cost PhotoLab. Not sure if the scan DNG issue costs thousands of licenses but it certainly bars PhotoLab from many pro environments and costs PhotoLab much good free press.
The people who use scan DNG’s write reviews and recommend software to one another quite actively (libraries, librarians, image archivists, photo restorers).
The DNG files from different sources are probably linear DNG files. A linear DNG is not a RAW file, but a TIFF in “fancy clothes” and you can not use Deep Prime to denoise them. For that you need real RAW files.
PL should open them anyway, but with no Deep Prime options.
Of course DeepPrime cannot do the same work on linear DNG that it does on full RAW, but DxO could make a best effort (an upgrade of HQ, which is for jpeg).
That would be a very nice.addition. I have found that many of the SOOC jpegs I capture with my Nikon Z fc and manual focus Voigtländer lenses are already very sharp and contrasty. Some of these jpeg mages only require relatively slight tweaking and it would be nice to have a more robust NR algorithm for them. While historically I only edited raw files, I no longer feel the need to do so for at least 10-15% of my images captured in good light. This camera is my first Nikon and I’m blown away with the quality straight out of camera, especially with these wonderful Voigtländer lenses.