advertisement


DNG processing?

JTC

JTC

PFM Villager...
My new camera creates DNG files. Does the software used to view/edit them have an influence in how they appear (as it does for RAW formats)? I’m using On1 RAW 2022 and very happy with it - for the most part. But I wonder if LR or some other photo editor might work better with the DNG files?
 
JTC said:
My new camera creates DNG files. Does the software used to view/edit them have an influence in how they appear (as it does for RAW formats)? I’m using On1 RAW 2022 and very happy with it - for the most part. But I wonder if LR or some other photo editor might work better with the DNG files?
Click to expand...
DNG is one of many raw formats. Does that answer your question?
 
No. I know what DNG is, I just wondered whether the (ostensibly standardised) raw image wrapped in the DNG file is affected by the quality of the software that subsequently processes it. If that makes any sense? I know it does for proprietary raw formats, but there’s little to say whether the same is true when the embedded raw data in a DNG is manipulated by compatible software.
 
JTC said:
No. I know what DNG is, I just wondered whether the (ostensibly standardised) raw image wrapped in the DNG file is affected by the quality of the software that subsequently processes it. If that makes any sense? I know it does for proprietary raw formats, but there’s little to say whether the same is true when the embedded raw data in a DNG is manipulated by compatible software.
Click to expand...
When a file contains raw sensor data, the required processing to produce a viewable image is the same whatever file format is used. Insofar the outcome depends on the software used, I'd expect those differences to be present regardless of the format, be it DNG, CR2, NEF, etc.
 
Agreed, but since different raw conversions have clearly shown qualitative differences in outputs, I just wondered if that remained true of a ‘standardised’ DNG when subsequently processed by different DNG-compatible editors.
 
JTC said:
Agreed, but since different raw conversions have clearly shown qualitative differences in outputs, I just wondered if that remained true of a ‘standardised’ DNG when subsequently processed by different DNG-compatible editors.
Click to expand...
The data contained in a DNG file is no more standardised than other file types. It's still the raw pixel values straight from the sensor. The advantage of DNG is that it can provide some information about the camera that custom file formats often leave to be derived from the model identification, eliminating the need for software to maintain a database of camera characteristics. The actual conversion to displayable RGB is still subject to the same vagaries as with any other format.

That's my impression after reading the introduction of the DNG spec, anyway. None of my cameras use it, so I could be mistaken.
 
Ok, with that in mind, who does the best DNG ‘unwrapping’ (not to be confused with raw->DNG conversion)?
 
JTC said:
Ok, with that in mind, who does the best DNG ‘unwrapping’ (not to be confused with raw->DNG conversion)?
Click to expand...
That part ought to be the same everywhere, but it's possible that some software doesn't implement all the features of the format. For example, the camera can flag known dead/hot pixels. If the software ignores this information, it will still produce useable output whereas a better implementation would interpolate those pixels. I have no idea how common such shortcomings are, though.
 
JTC said:
Ok, with that in mind, who does the best DNG ‘unwrapping’ (not to be confused with raw->DNG conversion)?
Click to expand...

I've not seen major differences between the different converters, so i'd probably see which package is recommended by the camera maker to make a decision.

I have moved to Capture One, since I own a Phase One camera, and this solution seems to work well for me (and seems to do a good job with Fuji and Canon images as well, my other two digital systems).
 
JTC said:
My new camera creates DNG files. Does the software used to view/edit them have an influence in how they appear (as it does for RAW formats)? I’m using On1 RAW 2022 and very happy with it - for the most part. But I wonder if LR or some other photo editor might work better with the DNG files?
Click to expand...
Hi there. I've owned both over several years. ON1 is better for me, cheaper, fantastic presets and without the annoying filing system which kept crashing on me in Lightroom. Stick with it is my advice. All best
 
  • Like
Reactions: JTC
I am trying ON1 Photo RAW 2022 now....... OMG Its diabolical.

It SOOOO SLOWWWWWW! anything you try to do takes forever and it takes minutes for changes to happen on screen and for buttons to click. the amount of wasted time clicking things to happen but nothing happens because its still trying to do the thing you clicked the button for many many seconds ago!

No complaints about what it can do and it seems really well thought out from a UI perspective..... but its just far to slow and jerky when you actually try to use it. Lightroom just does it in realtime on the exact same PC here.

Looks like I'm going to have to go for Capture One for the Fuji files.
 
I’m running On1 2022 on my M1 Mini and it runs fine with the 47MP Q2 files. Not instant, but not significantly laggy. What machine are you using Alan?
 
Windows 10, i7 8565U - 4 cores at 2.0 GHz, 16 GB ram, NVMe SSD. Nvidia MX250 GPU. Lightroom fairly flies on it.
 
Dunno. Seems a reasonable spec. I’m all Mac so out of touch with Windows machines though.
 
Got the trial version of Capture One and it seems to be reasonably performant. But I find it difficult and complicated compared to Lightroom. I tried it a couple of years ago and going back to Lightroom was a relief.

I'll see if there's any tuning I can try for On1... What I did see of it before it started grinding to a halt looked really good.

Update - spent a bit more time with Capture One and actually its not bad after all.
 
Last edited:
Ok - found a solution to the problem of Lightroom not being good for Fuji X-trans sensor RAW files....
https://www.iridientdigital.com/products/xtransformer.html

It can be used standalone, or as a plug-in in Lightroom to convertor the Fuji RAFs to DNG and it does the raw conversion properly for the X-trans sensor. Once converted can just continue using Lightroom as I know and love. £40 one-off, so obviously a lot cheaper than getting a license or subscription to either Capture One or On1 Raw.... and a lot less bothersome than learning a new set of workflows and techniques!
 
There are lots of ‘solutions’ for Fuji processing. Older Lightroom and earlier X-Trans cameras did have some issues, Lightroom has improved over time but it still can have issues and certainly isn’t the best for higher ISO files. If you do want to use Lightroom only, then I suggest creating a camera preset which significantly reduces default sharpening and apply this to all Fuji files on import - you can automatically apply a preset based on Camera type in LR

Recently I’ve been using DXO PureRAW2 for the RAW conversion and then processing in Lightroom - this IMO works well and the noise reduction stuff in PureRAW is definitely witchcraft level!! That said it can oversharpen at times, so very occasionally I’ll use the imported RAW from Lightroom.

It’s really down to what you prefer as your main editing tool - 12 years of working with Lightroom means it’s difficult for me to move away, some people though found the transition to CaptureOne easy - I tried it and didn’t like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top