I use Light room for catalouging. “everything” is in Lightroom And yes, Lightroom (and Photoshop and Affinity Photo 2) and has no problem with DNG’s produced by VueScan. In fact the only program I have that has a problem with DNG’s from Vuescan is Dxo.
In fact Affinity Photo 2 recognises the VueScan DNG as having come from a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED
So there is nothing stopping Dxo supporting Vuescan and the Nikon slide and film scanners.
Now many may say that Nikon don’t make those film and slide scanners any more. this is true but millions of films and slides were scanned into DNG using this sytem for all the museums and collections and archives across the world. They are alreaedy in this format. The ball is in DxO’s court.
The DNG produced by Vuescan will be no different to a TIF file as they are both RGB images and will contain the same data. As the DNG is NOT a RAW file there is no demosaicing to do and therefore you will never be able to use DeepPrime.
If you want a DNG after working with TIF files you can simply convert your TIF to DNG, after all DNG is just a file container and can contain RAW or RGB files.
My advice, just use TIF as you will not be able to use DeepPrime and you will not lose anything by not using DNG.
2 Likes
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
166
Sure that’s my point. I know that what comes out of Vuescan is 24 or 48 bits of RGB. The 88 MB serialized DNG is almost three times as heavy as the non-serialized DNG of the same RAW -file.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
167
That is also true but it’s not Vuescan that has a profile but the scanner and DXO will never support all the 6000 scanners Vuescan is said to support.
Photolab identifyes the model code alright as Perfection4490 and it is that that is the problem and maybe some other code too. Because there is no profile for my scanner and DNG-files made with u supported RAW is not supported. There is a condition for that in Photolab that isn’t there in Lightroom but maybe there are some other limitations around these files in Lightroom too. That is to others to find out.
Lightroom seems to be open for these files but Lightroom lacks Deep Prime too.
This says that VueScan produces RGB files (as you have already pointed out).
This says VueScan will never produce mosaiced files (RAW files). It also means that even if DxO supported DNGs from VueScan you would NOT be able to use DeepPrime as that operation works during the demosaic process.
I looked at the information on VueScan’s web pages and believe that what Ed Hamrick calls RAW files are just unprocessed RGB files direct from the scanner without any profile information attached.
This is what I would do if scanning slides with VueScan and process with PL:
Scan to TIF in 48bits
Adjust Colour Rendering options to taste
Do all other edits
Export as required.
I believe the confusion comes from many people’s belief that DNG is a RAW format. The truth is it CAN contain RAW camera files but it can also contain RGB files. RGB data in DNG should be no different from TIF data.
The problem is there are millions of images that the worlds museums, archive and collections hacve already scanned to DNG. A DNG that it seels “everything” reads except Dxo PL, You are asking an entire industty to change from a system that has worlked for eyars because Dxo wont; fit in with the rest of the world.
I am not upgrading from PL 5 to PL6 and this is the parting of the ways for me with Dxo.
I have been using Dxo since long before iit was Photo Lab. However because it does not handle DNGs I am using it less and less.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
170
DNG has other properties too that most people are not aware of. In enterprise DAM-systems you can do a lot of clever things in automated workflows that you can´t do with TIFF. No one that can avoid it will handle TIFF in a DAM-workflow. It´s not just that the files are three times heavier than RAW-based DNG, I have also learned that TIFF-files has a more inefficient handling of metadata than DNG and JPEG that have special headers for XMP which TIFF is lacking, Updates are more inefficient of that reason.
A DNG can both contain the RAW-data, a developed JPEG that is not just a small preview but a JPEG delivery file developed just the way the photographer intended and on top of that the XMP-metadata. In an automated workflow like the one I have experiences from building one RAW-based DNG could automatically generate one RAW-DNG (as is), a full size JPEG kan be automatically extracted fron the DNG and stored among all the other full size JPEG-files and a smaller preview that carries the master XMP-metadata can also be made automatically. The last files might be as small as 1080 or 1024 just to archive max system performance when people are querying the system. Then for example when someone would like a download of a big JPEG or the DNG the system can automatically pick the XMP-masterdata from the smaller files before the file is sent to the one asking for it. So you see a DAM-based cultural heritage system can have very much to gain to use DNG instead of TIFF that most people might not be aware of. Properly used DNG is fantastic.
I have many scans of 35mm slides and negatives that are 500MB, Scans of glass negatives, which tend to be bigger than 35mm slides, can be over 1GB .
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
174
Yes, that is precisely how I have interpreted the answer from Ed H and that’s what all users of Vuescan has to relate to. There will be no real “RAW”-files from Vuescan, just TIFF-files in a DNG-container. That is also pretty clear if we read the upper part of the “Export-many” in Vuescan (Professional version).
He is also very clear that he doesn´t intend to make a RAW from the sensor in my Perfection4490 or any other of the 6000 scanners Vuescan supports.
The DNG-options are visible only after selecting “TIFF-fil”.
I think it´s very important people understand the difference between a real RAW-based DNG and a demosaiced version of it that is really nothing more than a TIFF with the limitations comming with that. We can only expect Deep Prime to work fully out on RAW-based DNG but that said, I´m sure a lot of people would prefer to be able to use all functions in Photolab except Deep Prime with their demosaiced DNG, than not being able to use Photolab at all for these files. .
KeithRJ: “…I believe the confusion comes from many people’s belief that DNG is a RAW format. The truth is it CAN contain RAW camera files but it can also contain RGB files. RGB data in DNG should be no different from TIF data.”
I have said it before: I can´t really understand why DXO have chosen a way handling DNG that locks a whole industry of users from using Photolab with their DNG-files RAW-based or not and with or without a DXO profile. That´s not really all that smart if a small company like DXO really have the ambition to survive as something more than a plug-in manufacturer to Adobe.
Just an observation. PhotoLab does not support PNG, nor GIF, nor WebP files. They are ‘just’ simple RGB images, so surely it should?
In other words, its lack of DNG support is not an isolated omission. There are MANY file types that PhotoLab does not support and only a handful it does, some of which are a subset of DNG files. PhotoLab was built to process RAW files… be thankful it opens JPEGs and TIFFs too, and maybe, in time, more types.
It´s not a complete lack of DNG-support. It´s a partial DNG-support. It does support all my Sony-cameras RAW-files converted with the Adobe DNG Converter and it supports both RAW-based and serialized DNG-files from all those cameras. Compressed as well as not compressed but there is definitely a problem with the lock for both RAW-files without a DXO-profile and for DNG-files based on such RAW-files.
1 Like
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
178
I suppose those phone “RAW-files” are not real RAW-based DNG either but more of TIFF in a DNG-container. They suffer from the same problem we experience with the Vuescan files. Files like that are with words of Ed Harrick “a part of the DNG specification” too and that is confusing as Keith already had described.
Maybe the vendors of phones and scanner software that gives a semblance of exporting real RAW-based DNG should be more clear in their user info what they really support and what they don´t.
Below you can see the lower part of the Export-menu in Vuescan Professional mode and how Hamrick Software consistently is using RAW in the labels of the menu.
“Råformatfilens namn” - The name of the RAW-file “Storleksminskning av råformat” - The compression of the RAW-format “Råformatfilens typ” - Type of RAW-format file
(Here you can select between B/W (1bit), Greyscale 8 or 16bits, Color 24, 48 or 64 bits (RGB)
Etc. Etc. In eight labels in the “Export”-menu they use the word “RÅ” which literally means RAW
Maybe they have to give a deeper thought how to better describe what they support and not for their users RAW means definitely something else for most photographers than the DNG people gets from Vuescan and maybe som phones too.
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
179
@zkarj
Maybe we should not mix other image formats with the image file formats compliant with Adobes XMP-metadata standard. DNG-, TIFF- and JPEG-files are the formats supported in that case for now. That will just boost the confusion even more.
While that is an undeniably correct statement, I think it is where the misunderstanding comes from.
Rather than “partial DNG support” I would say (and indeed DxO say) that PhotoLab supports RAW files from a defined list of devices, including DNG conversions of those, and the special case of DxO’s own DNG intermediary files.
In other words, the support is defined not by what it lacks but the limited scope it includes. By the same token, I would not say that PhotoLab’s ‘RGB’ support is incomplete because it does not support PNG files. I would say it only supports JPEG and TIFF.
There need be no confusion as to partial support of anything if we just read DxO’s statement on what it does support.
Why is that a problem?
And to be a bit cynical - what does that have to do with DxOs PhotoLab?
They chose DNG as.a format a long time ago - why are you giving DxO the blame for the worlds museums decisions?
You are for sure allowed to buy or rent and use the application of choice.
And as I have used and stoped using some applications as I haven’t been happy enough or felt they lacked what I was looking for.
Thats ok. That’s life. That’s different brand positioning, different user base in which I did not felt at home or did simply did not wished to pay for functionality I didn’t use.
I didn’t really need PL 6 either - PL 5 was more than enough for me but I like PL. IT supports my workflow and give me an amazing return of quality in regard of time invested in editing.
So I felt I wished to keep supporting DxO so they can keep on delivering quality software.
Let’s hope PL 7 might offer something you might be happy about - otherwise the market is overflowing with raw converters and developers. Today it’s not difficult to find one that do work great.
1 Like
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
182
I support the stance of JAmedia and I don´t think it´s too much to ask for that Photolab like Lightroom can read, open and handle even for example Vuescan DNG-files. It´s fine that Deep Prime might not work for these RGB-files. It´s highly inconvenient with exceptions and limitations like this that will force people to use several different converters. The real problem is that Photo Lab refuses to handle files at all that it doesn´t have ready made camera-profiles for.
Photolab doesn´t in general have any problems at all technically to handle serialized DNG. So why not letting people decide for themselves if they want to start their editing without any profile and the access to Deep Prime? It´s all we are asking for.
2 Likes
Stenis
(Sten-Åke Sändh (Sony, Win 11, PL 6, CO 16, PM Plus 6, XnView))
183
I have written a mail to Ed Hamrick at Hamrick Software and suggested they shall cease to use the misleading RAW-expression in their Export-Tab labels when it´s not what photographers mean by RAW-data in the files of Vuescan…
Quote:
" Dear Ed,
I wrote to you earlier about the problems some RAW-converter applications like Capture One and Photolab have to handle the serialized or de mosaiced DNG-files that comes out of Vuescan. This is because limitations in these programs but there is also some semantics in the Vuescan-labels we ought to talk about.
The problem is when photographers in general are talking about RAW-files, they mean one thing and when you are talking about RAW-files in Vuescan you mean something else really. In your case a RAW is really an RGB-TIFF in a DNG-container and that is not what photographers in general mean by RAW.
In Vuescans Swedish Export-Tab labels the word “Rå” is used, I think seven times and that word means literally RAW (or unprocessed) if I translate it into English and that is not what your DNG-files are containing. So, it is misleading with the RAW-concept in Vuescan DNG because it doesn´t contain RAW-data as photographers in general see it.
If I convert a Sony ARW, I can choose to convert it as a DNG in mosaic format as a “RAW” or I can create a serialized RGB-file that is not really a RAW-based DNG with RAW-data. The differences in that data has important implications that not everyone seems to be aware of when they open it in Photolab. If the DNG-file contains “RAW-data” it will be possible to use the markets best denoise function called Deep Prime XD (that demands mosaic data) but if the data in that DNG is RGB-data, all the three variants of Deep Prime are greyed out and only the oldest and least effective denoise “High Quality” will work. HQ is the one we use for serialized DNG, ordinary TIFF-files and JPEG-files.
So, my suggestion is that you cease to use RÅ/RAW as a prefix in the Export tab of Vuescan, because that definitely makes a lot of people unnecessarily confused now and find a better expression that harmonize better with what’s actually contained in Vuescans DNG-files. In English Adobe and others are using “Serialized DNG”. That is a little technical to be understood by many. Another suggestion might be “DNG containing RGB-data”. Someone else might have a better idea but I felt I had to lift the problem."
