I'm just wondering how long it might take to have Adobe set up with the new 5D RAW after the camera comes out? Are they working together better these days?

You are asking a question that can't really be answered...those that know can't say, those that say don't know. Why torture yourself? It'll come when it's time...and not a minute sooner :~)

The question should be, now darn long will we have to wait on the hardware (the camera)? Had my on order since a day or three after announcement.

For our order at the Smithsonian, we're being told late November (Thanksgiving?) but I'm not holding my breath.

Yup, late November is what I've been told too. I'm chomping at the bit.

I am guessing you'll see the software before you see the hardware.

I certainly hope so. I don't want to get the camera and not be able to use it. (Well, I guess I could use it, but I couldn't finish anything with it until it is supported by LR.)

Then do yourself a favor and add your voice to the list of people who dislike undocumented and proprietary raw file formats. The industry doesn't have to be like this if Nikon and Canon changed their behavior...a new camera that saved DNG (at least as an option) would have support from the get go. The fact that Nikon and Canon continue to force undocumented and proprietary raw file formats on the industry is why we are where we are...

After years of having heared this pile of garbage repeated over and over, I can't say I am surpised, but I can still say I am outraged.

I am outraged not only at the attitude of the camera manufacturers, who remain secretive regarding the raw data their cameras are creating and about the attitide of regarding their sucking software as the maximum their customers should be expecting.

I am equally outraged at the attitude of Adobe, whose lousy software architects (if there are any, though I don't see the result of their activities regarding raw data processing) seem to think that they are called by some suprame entity to regulate the market, while in fact they are slowing down the development.

However, all the above is nothing compared to the distasteful attempts of other suckers to make Adobe's mistakes appear as some natural limits of computing technology we should be thankful to enjoy.

Dooode...you have some anger management issues? Seems like your pissed off ay everybody. You don't like Adobe's engineering? Cool, write something yourself. Oh, yeah, I think you have. That cloud your judgement?

You keep calling Adobe engineering a disaster but you never actually say anything but the word disaster...not particularly useful or descriptive. Maybe you should try hard?

Jeff why should Canon/Nikon provide Adobe with it's RAW details? after all they like Adobe are in business to make money, both have their own software, and their own shareholders to please. Adding support for another companies benifit isn't going to make them any money, adding DNG to their cameras is also going to cost them money, as their software already opens their RAW they don't really need to do it.
One could use the same argument to suggest Adobe open up it's coding to other companies, then they could make ACR updates for the older versions of PS. Wayne

Wayne, the difference is that most of the intelligence that goes into building a camera system is the hardware and the software processing, not the file format.

Cameras that offer non-raw file formats (i.e., just about all of them) tend to use a single one: JPEG. This makes it possible for anybody who has JPEG-reading software (i.e., just about everyone) to read these camera-generated JPEGs as soon as they get the camera, without needing to wait for software updates. For example, you don't need an updated version of Picasa, Firefox, ACDSee, Photoshop, Windows, Mac OS X, etc. to read these JPEGs.

Some cameras do write in-camera DNG raw files. So, analogous to the above, anybody who has DNG-reading software can read those camera-generated DNGs as soon as they get the camera, without needing to wait for software updates.

That isn't the case with today's non-DNG raw files, which is too bad because most use an IFD structure very similar to TIFF; it's just that everyone stores the essential data in different tags (and occasionally move them around from camera to camera ...). And in some cases,
the non-DNG format is quite close to DNG (such as Canon CR2 and some other recent cameras, where the image data format is identical to DNG). Many other cameras are also use delta Huffman coding to store the raw image that is trivially different from the Lossless JPEG compression that DNG uses. So I don't buy the argument that adding DNG support to the camera is really going to cost them more money; if anything it'll save them money.

Regarding your comment "provide Adobe with it's RAW details", you are confusing the image format versus the image processing. It is the image processing abilities (demosaic, noise reduction, lens corrections, tool set etc.), not the file format, where the software should (and do) compete. In other words, ideally, photographers should choose their raw converter(s) based on things like image quality and workflow, rather than what the format of the file is.

It is entirely possible for camera makers to use a common file format without divulging their image processing recipes (i.e., secret sauces) which they could continue to incorporate in their own raw converters (and sell if they choose to, such as in the case of Nikon Capture NX). I would argue that they would actually sell MORE cameras that way, based on the data I've seen.

Gabor, you have now thrown "lousy software architects" and "nightmare of software architecture" in Adobe's direction. You have made some reasonable technical arguments in the past, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but the insulting remarks are out of line. Watch your tone, please.

Maybe because the images that their cameras produce belong to us!!

When we lose our ability to control our images, we are poorer for it. Kodak never told me that I could only develop my film in D76, or just use a Bessler enlarger. Maybe I preferred Rodinol and an Omega. A proprietary raw format is a clear equivalent in that the camera maker is hobbling what I do with my images. (And if you use their software, you know that I use the word hobbling without exaggeration).

Once the image is shot the camera company's role should come to an end. Creating their files (at least optionally) in an open format that allows me to use whatever image processing tools I wish is not just a want to have, it's a must have.

There are already raw formats that have been orphaned by camera makers. How will you feel when 5, 10 or 15 years from now you go to open your prize winning (money earning) raw file and find that the manufacturer's current raw processing software no longer supports it, and that the last version that did only runs on the equivalent of a Commodore 64 and is only available on a 5 1/4" floppy?

Sorry. Once the shot is taken the image is mine, and I don't want any company to control its destiny. DNG, or some other standardized format is therefore a must.

Give me DNG or give me death – so to speak.

Michael

Sure they do and they should be able to do so. But I'm not buying a 5D MII (or any of my previous Cannon's) for their software. I'm buying their hardware. They can bundle software or not, I don't care. If they cripple the camera itself, I'm not too happy. And as Michael points out, the data is mine, not theirs. This is another classic example of a group of companies that don't know if they are in the hardware or software business. Really, how many Canon or Nikon customers purchase the product based on the usually lame software they bundle with the hardware? Let em make all the profits the market will allow. They allow you to produce a JPEG no? That's not proprietary nor affecting their profits. Proprietary Raw files serve no one, certainly not the consumer.

I thought there were "maker notes" or something in DNG. So canon or nikon wouldn't have to tell everything about their RAW files. Just put the bulk of the data in a recognizable format and stuff anything required for their secret sauce into the maker notes. Everybody wins.

The point I was making (which some of you missed) was are Nikon/Canon going to make any extra money from adding DNG, the answer is not really. Judging from the waiting list for the 5d2 and the way d700 and d3's are flying off the shelves, it seem not many togs are refusing cameras because they don't have DNG.
Take Nikon for example, why would they want to encourage their customers to use a rivals software? Yes it would be nice for us togs to have more choice of formats, but business is business.
Adobe doesn't support it's older version because it would cost them money and they wouldn't sell the new version. Nikon doesn't support Adobe DNG because it would cost them money and they wouldn't sell their software. Money talks I suppose. Wayne

Why should either Nikon of Canon care? They are selling hardware. A 3rd party might make their final product look better. Having DNG gives the customer more options. It shows good will towards a customer. It shows they care about providing a format that isn't proprietary. It in no way makes the final product less desirable, just the opposite.

Tell us how Nikon or Canon makes more money or offers more to the customer by NOT supporting DNG give the facts above.

Once I pulled the trigger, the shots are mine!

I think if camera makers would stop trying to write processing software, and rather plug all these ressources into QM we all would benefit from that. Whether Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc. I personally know not a single soul in my circles that uses canon, nikon, olympus etc software. Same counts for certain medium format offers, the goal is to get the DNG and after that it is Lightroom and Photoshop in my world.

The software we have at our disposal has probably plenty "man years" in development time behind it. The software that comes bundled with a camera usually would end in my bin, but I need to keep it to be able to update the cameras firmware. I just wish more cameras would write DNG to start with. I think the announced new Leica S2 will do so as well.

What Michael said is a phenomenon you can find in the audio industry already. Files became incompatible even within one single breed of sequencer software . If I am working on a composition that is saved as symphony.xyz and wait 2 years, update the software to it's latest incanation, and try to open the file.... well.... talk about a cold sausage, chances are you will not be able to swiftly have this transferred into your new application.

DNG is the best that happened to this BS since a long time IMHO. A very clever move that made me laugh in deed, while camera makers refused to standardise RAW formats and everyone cooked their own sausage, Adobe has managed to just let them be and came out with DNG which solves the problem. I am somewhat certain not everyone out there liked that!

Any attitude of camera makers that would claim the file I shoot NOT to be my property, well, I simply would not buy their camera. Just my € 0,02 which is more than $ 0,02 fwiw.

Best,
Georg

That's what I also have been told. They seem to have some technical problem, that delayed 5D2's production.

The first part could also be said about Adobe supporting earlier versions of ACR but they dont offer their goodwill towards us do they.
I didn't say Canon or Nikon make MORE money from not having DNG.
Nikon makes some money from selling it's own software (as well as it's cameras) both Canon and Nikon would have to spend a fair amount of money making all their cameras DNG format as well as their own RAW. As I suspect the vast majority of photographers are not using DNG they probably dont see the point of wasting the money to make life easier for Adobe.
Wayne

And you know this how? And by supporting DNG, dismisses this so called fact how? What's the file format got to do with this? How is making the format proprietary in any way make their software better? Or, they simply fear any competition (which they have anyway)? And even if what you say is true, as the consumer, how can you allow this company to hold your data hostage?

I'd gladly pay a reasonable software premium to Canon if they'd support DNG. I'd highly consider jumping from one camera manufacturer to another if the hardware were comparable but the other guy didn't force a proprietary format on me.

Sure they do. You can run the data through the DNG converter.

Hi Wayne,

I think you are on the wrong track with that assumption. To my experience, most colleagues in my small circle, and they do use all kinds of cameras, do use DNG in deed, not to make life easier for Adobe, but for themselves.

I see your point though, but as Andrew said, the DNG converter is available, and free if I am not mistaken, and allows for continuation of "older" photoshop versions such as CS3.

Your other assumption that camera manufacturers would have to spend a fair amount of money on writing DNG files, well, I do not know how much money is involved in supporting that, but I intend to think it is not a question of possible investments, rather than being somewhat unsupportive of a common standard, may be?

Hi Czornyj,

Do you have a reference link regarding the reported technical problem?

I've only heard vague information from a european wholesaler. It seems to be reliable - 5D2 was expected to be available in November, now they say something about December:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5839...5D_Mark_II.html

I always shoot RAW + JPEG and rename the files in Bridge. When you rename the RAW files, Bridge also renames the JPEG with same name [albeit different extention]. Also if I move the RAW files the JPEGs also move too. Very handy.
Now if I shoot with a camera that uses Adobe's RAW standard and rename the DNG file, the associated JPEG now does not get renamed, which makes for a whole lot of work. So by using Adobe standard RAW files, Adobe products are less usable. Nice one!


PS - I don't any dumb comments about why it's pointless to shoot JPEGs as well as RAW - thank you. I've found it can be very a useful timesaver on occasions.

I know a number of Nikon users who have bought the software, therefor nikon have made money from it. as for a company holding my data hostage DNG is Adobe brand of raw, how is this different and we have to use THEIR converter/software to open it, every bit as much hostage to adobe as canon. (remember I can open my canon raw in both photoshop and canons software, I cant open DNG in canons software only adobes!)
I am a working photographer, out of the few dozen other local togs I have asked (6 work for us) only one uses dng (only to backup his canon raw). Judging by the response of Nikon Canon (probably the 2 biggest camera companies) it's not taking the world by storm.
I'm not suggesting people shouldn't use DNG, nor am I saying it would be a bad thing if all cameras used DNG as an option, what I don't want is a DNG only situation which forces me to use adobes products (at around twice the US price) I like to have the option of the makers own raw and their own software if I choose. Wayne

Its an open, fully documented format, free for anyone to use (like TIFF).



Not so, there are other products like the newer version of Bibble that "open" DNG. Anyone who wants to support it can do so easily and at no cost. The fact that YOUR camera maker's software doesn't "open" a DNG is more due to their lack of adopting standards and flexibility with data formats.



There's no force from Adobe. The force is from the camera manufacturers who refuse to provide us with the options of an open format which does have advantages over the proprietary formats we have little choice to use directly. For your "tog" friends, they might actually understand the more of advantages of DNG after reading this and decide to use the format (more so if the stubborn manufacturers would listen):

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf

What advantages? Yes the file size is slightly smaller, big deal with data storage so cheap (1 TB under a hundred quid) this makes no difference to me.
I have yet to see any real tests of DNG proving it's as good as the cameras native raw.
You use what you want I'll use what I'm happy with.
Wayne

Actually, you're using what you have to use. A standard digital negative format could be opened in any RAW converter, so you could basically use anything.
Now we're forced to buy the newest converters, (no matter if we like it or not) becouse the old ones just don't support newer RAW files, and - what's even worse - some RAW formats are not supported by some converters.

Nope, you can use Aperture for example. Lightzone too, I think, and no doubt others too before long.

John

I believe Capture One, SilkyPix, and Raw Developer also read DNG raw files.

It is true that Nikon sells its own software (Capture NX). But having basic raw decoding support for NEF isn't one of CNX's advantages. Lots of programs decode NEFs already. No, the real advantages of CNX, at least in the views of some photographers, are the qualities or features that it provides that aren't offered by competing software (e.g., integrated U-Point technology, color rendering presets, etc.).

In other words, yes, CNX has competitors, but those competitors are raw conversion software products (Bibble, Camera Raw, Capture One, etc.), not file formats like DNG.

Different issue entirely. The issue if not making updates for software no longer shipping and supported has nothing to do with the file format except for the fact that if Nikon and Canon _DID_ offer a DNG option, then people all the way back to Photoshop CS using Camera Raw 2.4 COULD use that DNG file–which pretty much busts that argument.



"Nikon" doesn't even write Capture NX, Nik Software does (with Nikon's cooperation). Nikon makes some revenue, yes but it's unclear if Nikon makes any profit. One would have to look into Nikon's books to know for sure. Canon doesn't even try to sell their software, but neither of these arguments are on topic for the issue of the usefulness of DNG. DNG is a proposed standardized, documented and open raw file format. DNG does NOT require the camera makers disclose ANYTHING because their are designed private maker notes that would allow them to maintain their "secrets". The camera makers (at least Nikon and Canon) would only need to do trivial coding to be able to use DNG and there is no cost associated with using DNG since Adobe has a liberal license that costs nothing. So, the argument that it would cost Nikon and Canon a lot of money to offer DNG is false.

The vast majority of photographers WOULD use DNG if the camera makers offered it because it's an open, documented standard, has the advantage of being able to be written to safely so metadata can be embedded into the file without a sidecar file and DNG offers optimal compression. There would be zero negative consequences to photographers should Nikon and Canon offer DNG and very little if any negative consequences to the actual camera makers. If their cameras offered DNG and their software read DNG they would actually benefit by being able to compete directly with Camera Raw & Lightroom by processing all of the camera formats that DNG supports which is over 200 raw file formats.

The unfortunate situation we're in at the moment is that many photographers are either ignorant to the downsides of the current situation regarding undocumented and proprietary raw files or simply don't car. They will care in the future if the industry fails to maintain all these proprietary raw file formats long term and that's a serious risk. Look, there is zero downside to photographers if the camera makers adopt DNG and very little downside to the camera makers themselves. Far too many photographers either don't know or don't care about the issues...but any photographer who actually thinks the current situation is good for photographers is deluded.

Ok; I give up. After reading this and other threads which make abundantly clear the many reasons why all camera manufacturers of raw-capable cameras should use a common raw format, could someone please tell me why they don't? Or at least a hypothesis?

Thanks,
Bruce

Not invented here syndrome, cultural issues, stubbornness to name a few.

They already have a format and the cost of switching is not $0.

I'm pretty sure that the real reason is that the camera companies have fallen into the trap of "oh, lookie here at what we found". None of the camera companies have any real background or experience at file formats or even image processing. The traditional role of a camera company was to provide a light tight film transport and form an image on unexposed film. Neither Nikon nor Canon have EVER been involved in image processing. The only company that does have any track record is Fuji in that they also made film and did processing. Nikon and Canon are really rookies in this field. Nikon and Canon BOTH had a tie with Kodak–Kodak DOES have a long track record of image processing and substantial background in digital processing–too bad Kodak let things slip away. Back before either Nikon nor Canon ever made a digital camera, Kodak sold digital cameras with both Nikon and Canon bodies. The early 35mm camera style digital cameras were wholesaled by Nikon and Canon to Kodak who in turn handled all the sensor work and analog to digital conversion. Neither Nikon nor Canon really liked that arrangement but Nikon broke loose from that triad first and camera out with their own digital camera first...Canon followed by a year or so.

When Nikon and Canon started making digital cameras (and Canon actually started making their own sensors) they decided that now they could control the whole image capture process including the actual file formats. Nikon actually DID already have their own digital file format, NEF (Nikon Electronic File is what I think it stands for) and made the incredibly stupid choice of also giving their raw captures the same extension. Canon started with .crw and for their first full frame (1Ds) switched to .tif (which was also incredibly stupid but followed what Kodak had started as Kodak's raws were also .tif).

From there–and we're only talking 8-9 years ago, both Nikon and Canon have heavily invested and competed with each other on the basis of the "Nikon" or the "Canon" "Look". Which is an absolute joke because neither company has any real experience in doing that. But, you have to understand the typical Japanese mindset...they play the game on the long field and are incredibly reluctant to release anything that hold in their grasp–even if what they hold, the raw file format, really has no secrets or value. Understand, the really big secret when it comes to digital processing ain't in the file format, it's what goes on in the camera where the sensor data is converted to digital data. Once it's written to media, all the secrets are pretty much over and done with. But Nikon and Canon are both very, very stubborn and so far have refused to accept hardly any raw file standards...ironically, both Nikon and Canon's own recent raw file formats have evolved and substantially improved. Why? Because of DNG. See, DNG does point out how raw file data can live with metadata in a safe and useful way. The current NEF and CR2 raw files from recent cameras are so close to being well formed DNG files that it would be trivial to take them the rest of the way to being fully formed DNG.

But, one roadblock to all of this is that the marketplace isn't really pushing Nikon nor Canon to adopt DNG. There are still photographers who think .nef and .cr2 undocumented and proprietary raw file formats are a good thing. Some photographers also seem to have a decidedly anti-Adobe vibe and continue to to think and say that DNG is a bad thing for the industry. That DNG will stifle competition (FALSE), make Nikon or Canon surrender secrets (FALSE), give Adobe ownership of raw processing (FALSE), make Adobe a lot of money (FALSE) or any of a variety of really pretty stupid reasons why DNG is not good for the industry. They are wrong–these photographers that drink the camera companies Kool-Aid, but that's the why the photo biz is...get ten photographers in a room and you end up with ten distinct opinions and the inability to act in their own best collective interest. I've been there, done that and have the tee shirts (and scare) to prove it. I'm a past national president of the Advertising Photographers of America (APA) and I've dealt with other photo organizations such as ASMP, PPA and EP and it's very, very difficult to get any sort of collective effort off the ground and accomplished.

Point of fact, if the photo organizations had any balls, this issue of undocumented and proprietary raw file formats should be an issue that ALL photographers should be able to get behind. Unfortunately, there's enough photogs out there that there is no single unified voice out there telling Nikon and Canon to fix this problem. And I'll tell you that photographers actually arguing on behalf of the camera companies purely pisses me off (which is one reason I tend to be very, uh, blunt about this issue). Personally, I'm of the opinion that any photographer that defends Nikon and Canon's approach to raw file formats is an idiot.

Interesting Insights Jeff. Thanks!

Back in 2006 the Open Raw Initiative conducted a survey with interesting results.

http://openraw.org/files/2006rawsurveyreport.pdf

I was delighted when this OpenRaw started to initiate a discussion on the issue. Sad to see that this is long ago, and not much has changed ever since.

An interesting and blunt reply Jeff, sadly coloured by your connections with Adobe. I don't know what circles you move in but here in the UK in the real world DNG is not a big issue, I would honestly say most digital photographers don't use it, certainly almost none of the "idiots" I spoke to don't.
I personally suspect it would cost more than a trivial sum for Canon/Nikon to convert their cameras and software to DNG. It certainly seems to cost Adobe too much to offer updates for older versions of it's ACR, but it's alway cheaper when it's someone else money your spending.
As I said in my earlier post I am still waiting to see any real evidence DNG is better than the cameras own brand RAW. There have been a few other file formats launched recently jpeg xr for one, I wonder how quick Canon/Nikon will be to convert all their cameras to this, or will they wait and see what happens? after all other file formats have fallen by the wayside in the past. Wayne

Hee hee hee!

Jpeg is a good example. Imagine, that every camera has it's own jpeg format... Do you need any evidence to belive, that one standard jpeg format is better than 1000 camera specific jpeg formats?

No but I have seen the rubbish VHS format bounce the far better quality Betamax off the planet, mainly because one company pushed it. Remind you of anything??? Wayne

Then perhaps you all should educate yourselves...there's an upcoming event at The Institute of Physics, London, UK you may be interested in 4th International Conference on Preservation and Conservation Issue in Digital Printing and Didigtal Photography. So at least some Brits are up on current events relating to conversation and preservation and it's a pretty big issue for the National Archives. Ask some of these people what they think about undocumented and proprietary raw file formats for digital photography and the what they think of the benefits of DNG would be.

Seriously, if you don't think this is a big problem, you've got your head in the sand...

There are separate issues here:

1. The professional aspects, i.e. what makes the architecture inadequate; but does anyone dispute this?

2. The underlying reasons, i.e. if Adobe planned to further the sale of PS/LR by means of ACR, or the designers have not realized the negative consequences of their decisions, or the consequences were not deemed important enough. This is pure speculation for outsiders.

3. The choise of the terms describing the inadequacy; this is a subjective matter.

Anyway, my professional assessment is unchanged, and mincing the words is the last item on my list of priorities.

A clear distinction has to be made between following aspects:

1. Creating the raw file in a form, which allows a generic interpretation of the data,

2. Adding information, which is useful but not essential for the interpretation of the data.

DNG accomodates both concerns. However, one of the reasons (perhaps the main reason) for users sticking to the propriatory formats and to the propriatory raw processing software is, that most cameras offer features/options, which were/are not transformable in standard DNG format.

Examples:

- saturation, contrast, sharpness. These are particularly striking, for many, perhaps most users wish to preserv and automatically use these in-camera settings,

- custom curve, like some Nikon and Canon cameras support,

- color rendering options, like "portrait", "landscape"

- exotic camera features, like Canon's Dust Delete Data, noise calibration, whatever.

ACR (and thus the DNG converter) did not allow for custom curves, nor for color rendering options up to the DNG version 1.2, which came out in 2008-05. Saturation, contrast, sharpness are still not covered. (*)

One can't expect customers to exert pressure on the manufacturers towards adopting DNG, while important features are not accessible that way.

(*) Saturation, contrast, sharpness are covered by Exif, but not adequately.

Most people who used Internet Explorer or Safari as their browser, do so as it came with the computer and hence the great market share of these two amongst PC + Apple users respectively. Most people don't bother to use DNG as if their files aren't DNG in first place you have to make a concious decision to change your files during import.


I'm sure it could be done in Firmware as you can hack Canon P+Ss to do RAW files that way - and that's by people who had to reverse engineer the software.
Adobe only have to rewrite software as camera companies keep changing their RAW formats. But Adobe make it possible to keep working with new file formats in old software for no charge if you convert to DNG. So there is no need to waste time rewriting the old software. And Canikon can use DNG for free as well.


Uh RAW is RAW, so a better brand of is not a relevant term. Just like various movie/sound files are often identical bar their extension and the wrapper.

No, it doesn't. There's no "VHS-like" RAW standard.

All of your examples are simply proprietary rendering instructions which can be (and already are) stuffed into the maker note. This is easily compatible with the DNG container, and in fact, DNGs created from the DNG Converter (or Camera Raw, or Lightroom) already contain all this data. So it would be trivial for DPP or Capture NX to extract the special data (e.g., shooting distance) from the DNG private maker note tag, just like it does today from the maker note (or private TIFF tags) of a CR2 or NEF.

Maybe cause they're idiots! Show some respect to Jeff. Jeff's "coloured (AND i will spell it the correct way Jeff!!) connection to adobe" is the 'circle' that has done a whole bunch for this industry that you will only ever have wet dreams of doing mate. His abrasive approach can be unsettling, yes, i sometime wonder if he was an Aussie in a past life, but we love his direct to the point no bull. (Colour colour colour....!)


This is not a matter of whether one is better than the other from a consumer/marketing perspective. Stop viewing this as a product release type issue, when was the last time you viewed an advertisement for DPP?. Precisely because it is the camera manufacturers own brand, is what gets in the way of my control of my intellectual property. I bought the camera, not the proprietary RAW format.


AAhhh well, i think you need to read your own words on this one, exactly, you hit the nail on the head, spot on, could not have said it better myself, cha ching. So, then, what are you waiting for, switch to DNG and you wont have to worry about that in the long term future?

That undocmented proprietary formats are unsafe for future use is indisputable in my opinion. The impulse to develop a standard probably came from the nightmare Adobe faced by supporting xyz versions of different RAW formats in ACR.

Agreed?

Some seem to claim that Adobe's whole intention is to create a dependency/cash making maschine. While they are in the business to make money there are very good people in Adobe that have a passion for photography, otherwise we would not be were we are in terms of post processing!

Since DNG was first introduced in 2004 many have joined to support it, and besides it has evolved, but only revised twice ever since I think.

If anyone doubts that the intention is to make this a standard, of which we all would benefit at the end, you may not have noticed that Adobe, to the best of my knowlegde, is applying for DNG to become an integer part of ISO 12234-2:2001. TIFF/EP

In handing over DNG to this body there is not a doubt left of their intentions to make this a standard such as PDF already is.

While not in ISO, today, EPS postscript is quasi a defacto standard.

Version 4 ICC became ISO15076, seriously folks what's so bad about that? Think about the benefits! DNG turned into such de facto standard in the past 4 years, against the roadblocks put up by manufacturers.

The world of photography will move towards standardisation, and this is of benefit to us, the photographers/printers/publishers/artists.

While I would not call colleagues who are against DNG idiots, I would ask to think twice about the benefits of such initiative before bragging on about Adbe being a bad company in general temrs, which is BS and counterproductive.