I’ve tried posting this to the DNG forum but received no replies or answers so I decided to also post it here.
I finally decided to switch and adopt DNG for my workflow following information I have read on both Bruce Fraser’s and Peter Krogh’s texts (Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2 and The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers respectively).
While trying to convert my RAW images to DNG I ran into some problems I didn’t know how to solve. I am hoping some of you will be able to share your experiences with me on these topics. Here they are:
1. While converting I choose to adopt a naming protocol that starts with the date formatted as yyyymmdd (this is one of the options available from DNG converter menus). The files created had yyyymmdd as the initial part of their names instead of the dates themselves (for instance 20060615). DNG converter doesn’t seem to be reading the date in the files, extracting them and placing them in the file name. What is the reason for this problem ? Have I done something wrong or is there a bug with the converter ? In case the information is relevant I am currently shooting with a Canon EOS 1Ds MK II. This camera generates 17 MB file sizes in average. I am running Photoshop CS2 with Camera RAW and DNG Converter version 3.4 which are (to the best of knowledge) the latest available.
2. In my conversion setting I chose to include a copy of the original image in the DNG file and didn’t select to have any compression. The original RAW file was 17 MB in size but the resulting DNG was a little more than 50 MB which is a very large file. Is there a reason for this file to be so large ? Why would DNG cause the file size to be increased by a factor of 3 ? Is compression a problem, what are the pros and cons, and how much reduction am I to expect if I choose this option ?
3. After using Camera Raw for a while I have become comfortable with its "auto" settings and the resulting images. Most times they are usually dead on or I have to do very little in terms of editing and the auto settings provide a good starting point. If I have Camera Raw default settings set to auto, will the previews generated by DNG converter be created based on the adjustments created with these settings ? If not, how can I convert my images so that they reflect the auto settings in Camera Raw ?
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
I follow the basic workflow outlined in Peter’s book. It works very well for now (until some better tools come along – like Lightroom, for example.)
First: Run images through Bridge. It is here that you rename the files and apply bulk metadata (such as copyright notice & bulk keywords.) It is also in Bridge that you will do your initial edits of throw-aways and apply ratings/labels to the keepers.
Second: Batch process in Camera Raw. It is here that you’ll apply the settings that will get the image 90% of the way to "good". If the default/auto settings work for you, all the better. In any case, you must run the files through Camera Raw in order for the CR settings to be embedded as metadata. Unless the settings are embedded, the full-size preview that is created during the DNG conversion process will not reflect those settings.
Third: Convert to DNG. This is the last step (prior to cataloging.) By the time you get to this step, the files are already renamed.
The reason your DNG is so big is that you’re including the original RAW file in the DNG package. 17MB + 17MB. The DNG lossless compression works very well. I’ve been using it for a year now and have not seen any problems with it.
Regarding the issue of preserving the original RAW file: I’m still hesitant to throw away the RAW file once the DNG is created. There are a couple of RAW processors I use that do not read DNG’s (Capture One and Raw Developer.) I anticipate that this situation will be resolved in the future, and that DNG will be adopted as the standard format. In the meantime, however, I hedge my bets by keeping the original RAW files (CR2’s) on a separate set of drives, and archive the DNG’s on my main storage unit. In the future (hopefully), I’ll be able to scuttle the CR2’s when the RAW processors become a bit more mature and the industry settles on DNG as the standard.
Thank you for your suggestions and my apologies if my postings were not in line with the rules of the forum. I placed a few copies of the same post since (1) I din’t receive any replies to my original post (not until I placed additional copies) and (2) since the issue referred to DNG and this implicates different applications (DNG Converter, Bridge, Camera Raw and Photoshop) I thought it would be wise to post in these different forums to see how different users using different applications deal with the issues that relate to DNG files. It is possible that the DNG issue may be dealt with in entirely different manners depending on what software is being used to save the file as DNG. The only way for my to find out was to check in different forums.
In any event I will follow the posting conventions you have shared with me.
I follow the basic workflow outlined in Peter’s book. It works very well for now (until some better tools come along – like Lightroom, for example.)
First: Run images through Bridge. It is here that you rename the files and apply bulk metadata (such as copyright notice & bulk keywords.) It is also in Bridge that you will do your initial edits of throw-aways and apply ratings/labels to the keepers.
If this is the case then what is the purpose of Adobe’s DNG Converter application ? It is my impression that Bruce Fraser recommends a different approach with the conversion being the first step prior to any editing in Camera Raw or Photoshop. In any event, the conversion process should not be different whether it is being performed with DNG Converter or with Bridge. Don’t you agree ?
I have also tried to save the files as DNG from Bridge and the same happens. I can’t seem to insert the date as part of file names. All it does is insert yyyymmdd as a text string instead of extract the date from each individual file and place it as part of the name.
Second: Batch process in Camera Raw. It is here that you’ll apply the settings that will get the image 90% of the way to "good". If the default/auto settings work for you, all the better. In any case, you must run the files through Camera Raw in order for the CR settings to be embedded as metadata. Unless the settings are embedded, the full-size preview that is created during the DNG conversion process will not reflect those settings.
Thank you for this explanation. This is a good reason to perform this from Bridge to save some time as the preview images will incorporate the auto adjustment settings applied by Camera Raw.
Third: Convert to DNG. This is the last step (prior to cataloging.) By the time you get to this step, the files are already renamed.
The reason your DNG is so big is that you’re including the original RAW file in the DNG package. 17MB + 17MB. The DNG lossless compression works very well. I’ve been using it for a year now and have not seen any problems with it.
Thank you. I will avoid embedding the original RAW files in my DNGs and will apply the compression since you and all others who have replied recommend compression and haven’t had any problems with it.
Regarding the issue of preserving the original RAW file: I’m still hesitant to throw away the RAW file once the DNG is created. There are a couple of RAW processors I use that do not read DNG’s (Capture One and Raw Developer.) I anticipate that this situation will be resolved in the future, and that DNG will be adopted as the standard format. In the meantime, however, I hedge my bets by keeping the original RAW files (CR2’s) on a separate set of drives, and archive the DNG’s on my main storage unit. In the future (hopefully), I’ll be able to scuttle the CR2’s when the RAW processors become a bit more mature and the industry settles on DNG as the standard.
Good points and my concerns as well. I wouldn’t want at this early stage when not all developers have yet adopted DNG to give up my original RAW files. My intention in including the original RAW files in my DNGs was to avoid using too much storage space but it seems I have no choice. To maintain a safe work flow I feel I need to keep my RAW files and have at least one back up copy of them. I also need to have a DNG copy with all the metadata and information on all editing applied to the image, but also at least one copy of this DNG so that I don’t loose all this valuable information in case my working copy gets corrupted or deleted. So it seems I will have to find enough storage to keep not 1 or 2 but actually 4 copies of each image in case I want to have a really safe work flow.
Thank you for such a detailed response and for taking the time to help me with my questions.
Those are not really "conventions", much less "rules" for posting in the forums. It’s only a collection of tips put together by a forum host in order to maximize your chances of getting a reply. That’s all.
If this is the case then what is the purpose of Adobe’s DNG Converter application ? It is my impression that Bruce Fraser recommends a different approach with the conversion being the first step prior to any editing in Camera Raw or Photoshop. In any event, the conversion process should not be different whether it is being performed with DNG Converter or with Bridge. Don’t you agree ?
The best reason for performing the DNG conversion as the last step in the process has to do with the full-size jpeg preview that is a part of the DNG package (if you choose that option – which you should.) That preview reflects the adjustments you have made in Camera Raw; the jpeg preview is quite often good enough to be used as a final delivery image. One of the things that happens during the DNG conversion process is the creation of this jpeg preview. If you make your Camera Raw adjustments first (directly on the RAW file), the process is very fast. Saving your Camera Raw settings (by clicking the "Done" button in Camera Raw) writes a 4k sidecar file that is associated with the RAW file; it is a virtually instant process. If you make your Camera Raw adjustments on the DNG, when you click "Done", the entire DNG must be re-written including re-generating a full-size jpeg (on my camera – a Canon 5D – it is a 4368×2912 file) and takes considerably longer. In a professional production environment, when you multiply the the difference in time by hundreds or thousands of images to be processed, it is significant.
Either way works, I just prefer the qiucker approach.
BTW, the value of the embedded jpeg preview becomes apparent when you use a cataloging software like iView Media Pro. With a library of DNG’s, you can generate image files, web galleries, etc. directly out of iView very quickly without having to go through Photoshop. Very nice.
Since I have Camera Raw with auto adjustments as default I was under the impression that even when using DNG Converter in the beginning of my workflow, it would call Camera Raw in the background and perform the conversion using the default settings (in this case auto adjustments). Would this be the case ?
I understand your reasoning for converting at the end of your workflow and it certainly makes sense. I will try it myself and see how I can improve my workflow with this different approach.
Do you know if Adobe is planning to introduce the new version of Bridge with the cataloging features currently found in iView Media Pro ? I found iView a great product but have become so used to Adobe’s products that I would honestly prefer to stick with just Photoshop, Bridge and Camera Raw. Any changes we might see some advanced cataloging features in Photoshop CS3 (Bridge and Camera Raw also) ?
I just wanted to update the group on the problem I had been experiencing.
The naming problem I found while trying to rename my files as I converted to DNG seemed to have been related to a sintax issue or the formatting of the name.
When I selected the option yyyymmmdd(date) from the available options I also added an underscore (_) sign next to it to create a space between the date and the next portion of the name which I entered in the next space as a the type location for the photos.
Example:
yyyymmdd(date)_ + LosAngeles
The software would rename the files using yyyymmdd(date)_LosAngeles as the initial part of the name without using the date from the files (or the system if this is the date used).
I found out that the problem is the underscore. The yyyymmdd(date) can’t be modified with anything else otherwise the software will not recognize it as a command to enter the date. Once I moved the underscore to the following block it all worked perfectly. This is an example of how it worked compared to the example above:
yyyymmdd(date) + _LosAngeles
Following this example the DNG Converter now names the files using in the following manner:
Example: 20060918_LosAngeles ….
My problem has been solved. I thought I would share this here as others may experience the same problem in the future.
Something else I had noticed was the fact the Apple’s Preview wouldn’t open the DNG files I created in the beginning. Everytime I tried to open a DNG file Preview would crash. I posted messages on Apple’s forums but didn’t received any answers as to how to solve this issue or what the problem was.
The first conversions I made had the original RAW files embedded in the DNG file. I stopped embedding the original RAW in my DNG files and now the DNGs can be opened with Preview without a problem. Another problem solved.
Thank you again for all the help and the suggestions for my problems. They have been extremely helpful.
Do you know if Adobe is planning to introduce the new version of Bridge with the cataloging features currently found in iView Media Pro ? I found iView a great product but have become so used to Adobe’s products that I would honestly prefer to stick with just Photoshop, Bridge and Camera Raw. Any changes we might see some advanced cataloging features in Photoshop CS3 (Bridge and Camera Raw also) ?
Regarding upcoming software releases from Adobe, the standard wisdom applies: Those who know can’t say, and those who say don’t know.
I doubt that anything Adobe develops as a new release – whether a new Bridge or Lightroom – will come close to approaching the "robustness" of iView as a cataloging solution. Bridge does not do cataloging at all; it is a browser. And Lightroom is still not even up to v.1; it’s still in beta. So I would guess that the front end of the workflow (Bridge/Camera Raw of Lightroom) will take a giant step forward, but that iView will remain the preferred cataloging solution for the foreseeable future.
I would suggest that you go back to Peter Krogh’s book and dig out as much of the info as you can, then see if you can find when Peter will be in your neighborhood and attend one of his workshops. (Check out www.damuseful.com.) At this point in time, it’s all you need to know about DAM. …And no, I am not a paid spokeman for Peter, just a very satisfied customer.
