Are there any advantages to working with DNG format images in Aperture 3? The only advantage that I possibly see is that you can eliminate the space occupied by the Sidecar file. Since space is not an issue for me are there other “advantages” to the DNG format.
Ray,
The general wisdom for DNG is future proofing—since it’s a “standard” created by Adobe, it should be supported “forever”. The “quotes” are not accidents. IMHO it’s largely marketing, but one benefit for Aperture users is if you have a RAW format that is NOT supported by Aperture, the Adobe DNG converter will often let you access the file anyway.
I haven’t done any side-by-side, but my understanding is that if you have DNG in Aperture, your RAW decode will be a generic DNG RAW decode. However if you have, for example, a .CR2 file from a Canon EOS 5D MkII, then Aperture will use the customized RAW decoder that was written specifically for the .CR2 files off a Canon EOS 5D MkII.
Custom always beats generic.
If anyone can add to that, please do. My experience with DNG is admittedly limited.
cheers
-Joseph @ApertureExpert
@PhotoJoseph
— Have you signed up for the mailing list?
DNG
Well I have tried to mess around it a bit
Mainly because many of hobby photographers fellows are windows/light room users
I my case where I use Nikon’s Raw the files a bit smaller between 0.4-0.7 MB. after conversion, and I can’t see any loses
So you would save some space (might)
I don’t know if it is the same for Canon
.
And as the good Mr. Aperture Wizard Joseph says A standard that will be supported forever.
So why should Apple not do the same if apple ever should stop supporting my Nikon gear then I will be using my old 35 mm camera :)
I tried to make some adjustments (BW) on a file in Aperture been a referenced, opened it up in ACR I could not see the adjustmenst
Even in Iphoto the there where no BW adjustments to see.
Sorry for my bad English
Henrik
Henrik,
No matter what format the origina file is in, the adjustments made will not be viewable in Photoshop, Light Room, iPhoto or anything else—unless you render it out (or make a Preview file, which is what that’s doing). Every application has its own recipe for doing adjustments, and those recipes are not readable by any other app.
-Joseph @ApertureExpert
@PhotoJoseph
— Have you signed up for the mailing list?
Joseph
Sorry yes you are right i was thinking of the feature where you can show Iphoto library inside of Aperture.
Henrik
Aperture could well support the DNG format if Apple chose to do so. All of the information about the exact camera make and mode are contained therein, and all of the information from the original NEF file is preserved in the DNG file. Apple simply has to do the work to parse and leverage it.
What Apple is missing more is exporting the DNG file masters. It can export them, but it doesn’t provide the fully-rendered preview in the DNG file. And raw settings made in any application will not transfer to another (eg. Aperture raw adjustments cannot be used in Lightroom or CaptureOne or DxO Optics or PhotoMechanic or …). That goes for all tools used to process raw images.
I think with only a little work Apple could fully support the DNG format.
Photographer | https://www.walterrowe.com | https://instagram.com/walter.rowe.photo
Walter,
I’m a bit confused. First of all, Aperture does support DNG reading/import. That’s the workaround users have used for years who’s RAW formats weren’t (yet) supported by Aperture directly. Using Adobe’s DNG converter, people have been importing unsupported RAW files into Aperture for years.
For export, you said “it can export them”, but again I’m not sure I follow. There is no built-in DNG export, and as far as I know there isn’t a plug-in (of course I could be wrong). And as you point out, the RAW conversions and adjustments made in Aperture wouldn’t be readable by any other software anyway. But you mention the “fully-rendered preview”; I’m not a user of DNG so I’m not that familiar with the format; are you saying that what you can get is a RAW file wrapped in a DNG wrapper, but then have the “treated” image as a preview file?
@PhotoJoseph
— Have you signed up for the mailing list?
Hi Joseph,
Let me see if I can be more clear.
Yes, Aperture can import a raw file in DNG format. And it knows the camera make and model and provides unique raw file processing based on that information. Aperture also consumes all of the meta data embedded in the DNG file like IPTC, keywords, contact info, ratings, labels, etc. All is well and good on the import side. The export side is where Aperture is incomplete regarding DNG.
Aperture can export a DNG master (eg. “Export master..”), provided it was imported as a DNG. It appears to only spit out the original DNG file you imported and any meta data you have written back to the master DNG file inside Aperture.
There seem to be two things missing from Aperture’s “Export master..” process for DNG files. The first is including an embedded, fully-rendered preview. This is an sRGB JPG that is fully baked with all your Aperture adjustments. Second is all of the adjustment settings themselves. I think Apple could add both of these easily enough if they chose.
The Adobe products include these pieces of data. I can “edit” a DNG in Lightroom, save everything back to the DNG file, open it in Photoshop, and see all of my adjustments from Lightroom. Likewise, I can make adjustments to a DNG file in Adobe Camera Raw, save them, and see these adjustments in Lightroom. And both products will embed the updated, baked preview inside the DNG file.
The embedded preview can be consumed by image management tools like MediaOnePro (formerly iView Media Pro). This frees image mgmt tools from needing to know how to interpret and render raw sensor data from different camera makers, and lets these tools include color-accurate thumbnails and previews in the image management database.
The DNG file format is nice. It retains all of the manufacturer’s original raw file data, can include the original raw file itself, can incorporate a “baked” preview with all your adjustments, can include all of the raw adjustments, and can include all of your meta data. It is a nicely packaged file format with everything you need for long term image management.
It would be nice to see Apple fully support all the features of the DNG file format in the “Export master..” process.
More information about DNG can be found on Adobe’s DNG page.
Does that help?
Walter
Photographer | https://www.walterrowe.com | https://instagram.com/walter.rowe.photo
Walter,
Thanks for the thorough explanation. I didn’t know DNG did all of that. I think you’re right; it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to support most of what you’re asking in Aperture as an export to DNG.
I’m curious, as you go from Lightroom to Photoshop, you said you can “open it in Photoshop, and see all of [your] adjustments from Lightroom”. Since LR and PS don’t have the same non-destructive editing tools, I presume you mean that you can see the final version of it (in that embedded JPG), but not the adjustable adjustments, correct?
Naturally if Aperture included this DNG export capability, the Aperture adjustments are only readable by Aperture, but yes a fully rendered JPG does make for a nice long-term archiving solution.
@PhotoJoseph
— Have you signed up for the mailing list?
Hi Joseph,
What I meant by PS and LR seeing each other’s edits is they can see the raw file adjustments that can be saved back to the DNG file. LR and PS use the same camera raw engine so any raw file adjustment made in one can be saved to the DNG file and consumed by the other.
After you’ve opened the raw file in PS as an RGB file, any adjustments in PS will have to be saved into a different format and then LR will only see the “baked” result of that in the PSD/TIFF/JPG you saved from PS (as you suggested).
Walter
Photographer | https://www.walterrowe.com | https://instagram.com/walter.rowe.photo
Lossy DNGs introduced in LightRoom 4 look to be rather useful.
“A really cool addition is the option to add lossy compression to DNG conversion. The image degradation is virtually unnoticeable, but the file savings are substantial. So if you have 30 shots of a wide receiver catching a football, you can compress the 27 that aren’t the picks, and still keep them in your catalog.”- Derrick Story