The post about Samsung phones seems to have got nowhere.
Why can’t DxO allow manipulation for these files regardless of where they come from.
Most of us are sufficiently grown up to accept the results might not be perfect - but why stop us trying and force folk like me to use Luminar?
Tony
Dear @TonyGamble ,
this is a long discussed theme and a search within the forum “smartphone dng raw” brings results from 2018 to these days.
We asked a lot of time to support dng from smartphones with basic functions, maybe with a warning that theses format is not fully supported, but didn’t got some clear answer.
So we can only hope, that DXO shows some mercy 
, and/or the EA members address this point again and again.
My workflow for the moment is to use Affinity photo to develop DNG’s from smartphones, export it to tiff and work on the rest with DXO. The longer I work with AP the more i do with smartphone files till the end result…without DXO
Have fun
Guenter
Thanks Guenter.
I’ll use Luminar. I mainly bought it as it comes from Ukraine and it seemed a good way of getting some cash to them. I find the GUI much slower than DxO but at least I can use it for my phone pictures.
I was staggered to see the .dng from the Samsung was about 24mb. Must be worth using.
Tony
I like DXO, and have been a user for years. I agree - the lack of support and willingness to support DNG on iPhone is silly. Is anyone listening to what the users of DXO keep asking for?
A bit OT, but… I have heard several times that Affinity is not a very good RAW developer (of course we all know that PL is the best! 
). If that is true I am wondering if developing in Affinity and then finishing in DXO is really any better than the out of camera JPG. You must find the process worthwhile, but I’m curious in what ways?
Of PL5, On1, Affinity and Luminar, I rate Affinity as the worst raw developer
I tend to use On1 for dng for shots taken on my phone and only resort to Affinity for Pano as it is pretty good at stitching. Someitmes I will us Luminar depending on the shot itself
I agree, The Develop persona’s limitations make it, by far, the weakest link in this otherwise competent software. There does not seem to be much interest on Affinity’s part to make Develop a more robust and feature rich raw processor.
Mark
To be fair, I paid my £50 4 years ago and they haven’t asked for a penny since. PL5 for Raw and then Affinity for the rest is a good workflow (for me anyway)
I am wondering what is coming when they get to v2.0. They are even more tight lipped than DxO!
I just checked on Affinity Photo version 2.0 and the comments I saw in several places seem to indicate it may be a paid update.
In any case, suggesting that the Develop persona is subpar in no way implies that Affinity Photo as a whole is a poor value. In fact, as most people who use it know, it is an incredible bargain, And even the less than stellar Develop persona is an acceptable light raw processor for those users not really committed to getting the very best from their raw files before finalizing them in a pixel editor.
Mark
These users should just use Apple Photos (or PureRaw for that matter). Hit the auto button and you generally have a good enough result.
I’ve actually discussed this with a number of Affinity Photo users who process raw files using Develop.
My observation is that most of them really don’t understand how to get the most from raw files and have no experience with top of the line programs like PhortoLab, C1, and Lightroom. For them Develop is all they want or need.
Mark
I’ve just taken a couple of really contrasty shots this morning.
All I have is Luminar and they don’t show a histogram graph so I cannot tell how much flatter the file is than a .jpg processed by the camera. I might see if I can look at it with Resolve which is my video editing software. Or maybe there is something Open Source I can use. I did fiddle with OpenRaw ages ago. Maybe that is worth a try?
I only meant Develop was sub par compared to all the others
I use Affinity a my main pixel editor as it does everything I ask very well indeed. I also use NIK plugins from there, rather than direct from DxO
I suspected that 2.0 would be paid which is fair enough. It’s not like I haven’t got my moneys worth these last 4 years! Still curious as to what they are planning mind you.
I know that you were only referring to the Develop persona.
Mark.
Any of you folk able to answer my request for a RAW developer that has a histogram to show me what is in the file?
Ideally FreeWare or ShareWare.
Tony
Yes, same here when working on DNG-files out of my DJI Osmo Pocket. What can I say: Affinity Photo does a wonderful job on these files. Nevertheless I would appreciate a lot the support of DxO.
I wrote a small tuto about how to make Photolab to open normally not supported images see EXIF modification - TuTo DxO. Carefully note the limitations.
DxO PL relies strongly on exif information and its optical modules to optimise the results and for DxO accepting not to optimise results is certainly not a way to go as it will make PL as any lambda photo editor. Additionally DNG format differs from camera to camera and there is no single solutions for all.
Having a “lambda” photo editor is better than no photo editor. Many of us don’t have large occasion to edit phone or other DNG and certainly don’t want to pay for other software for that rarity. Letting us open the file in PL5 and not get as perfect results that our supported DSLR gets is still better than nothing and forcing us to look at other applications that let us handle all files in one place.
Looking for something free I decided to download RawTherapee as it is an often mentioned app.
It gives me a histogram that is what I first wanted to see.
I cannot get it to make any meaningful changes so I must RTFM on the next rainy afternoon.
I looked at changing the EXIF as per that tuto but felt it was, for me anyway, not worth the effort. But that’s simply MHO and not at all important to the world at large !! It did look jolly clever and must have taken hours to prepare the tuto - well done GaoGao.
Tony
As I mentioned DNG is not a generic format like JPG or PNG, they are many flavours of DNG. For example opening a Samsung Galaxy Edge 7 DNG using the exif editing trick will give good result, but very bad for a DNG comming from a Xiaomi Note 10, and impossible for one from a iPhone 7.
The market for a sophisticated image editing software as PL5 is not the smartphone users, because most of them will not invest in the necessary time to learn PL5 and a pay such money to post images on Facebook or Instagram. For this the smartphone image quality and embedded editing software is good enough. DxO is a small company compared to Adobe, I guess they don’t have the resources to invest in non core functions, the hundred of different smartphone, non core for the targeted users of PL5
