DNG converter versions/performance

[michaels13050361]

Hello. I have a Nikon D810 and its RAW files require a DNG converter 8.6 or higher to read/convert them. Can someone who really knows tell me if there's any discernible difference in appearance/results between the 8.6 and a higher one such as the latest 10.0?

Also, after I convert my RAW files with the 8.6, the file size is considerably smaller, despite my NOT having the lossy compression option engaged. Why is this, and do both versions do this the same way?

Finally, while I was easily able to download the 8.6, the 10.0 version kept saying that it was unable to be downloaded successfully despite my having the Windows 7 O.S. needed.

Thank you for your feed back on my three questions.

[Per Berntsen]

As far as I know, version 8.6 and 10 should give you identical results.

The DNG format uses lossless compression (I'm not talking about the lossy compression option), and files converted from my D800E are 10 - 20% smaller than the original NEF files.

The latest version is 10.1 - did you download it from this page? http://supportdownloads.adobe.com/detail.jsp?ftpID=6285

Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Windows : Adobe DNG Converter 10.1

I just downloaded and installed 10.1 without any problems on my Windows 7 computer.

[michaels13050361]

Thanks, Per.

Here's another question: How will choosing "embedding the entire NEF file" vs. having that option off in Preferences compare to each other? I see that the file size is far larger with it engaged. What's in the file that's making it so?

[Per Berntsen]

The option embeds the original NEF file inside the DNG, so you have two files in one, and I guess the file size would increase by 80 - 90%. You can then use the Extract feature in the converter to extract them later if you want to. I have never embedded the originals, but if I wanted keep the NEFs (which I don't), I would just archive them on an external disk.

[michaels13050361]

Thanks again, Per. Will I see any difference between the file with the imbedded original file and with that option off?

[michaels13050361]

Also, with the lossless compression you noted in the conversion, is there any loss in quality and/or change in appearance from the original NEF files? If I were to view the original NEF and converted DNG version side by side, would I see any difference at all?

I really appreciate your time.

[michaels13050361]

P.S. I ask this because my original NEF files are 73 MB while the converted DNG versions, with the compression option OFF in Preferences, are a mere 46 MB. Why do they wind up so much less, even with the lossless compression you noted? That's a lot more than you noted it should be.

[davescm]

Hi

Both lossless and lossy compression are image dependent i.e. some images compress easily e.g. large areas of single flat colour. Some do no not - lots of very fine detail. Therefore any guide to how small a compressed file will be is just a guide.

Lossless compression means that the image can be uncompressed back to its original state - no losses.

Dave

[Per Berntsen]

Will I see any difference between the file with the imbedded original file and with that option off?

No.

Also, with the lossless compression you noted in the conversion, is there any loss in quality and/or change in appearance from the original NEF files? If I were to view the original NEF and converted DNG version side by side, would I see any difference at all?

No, you wouldn't. DNG is just a different wrapper for the raw data, which are not changed in any way.

I ask this because my original NEF files are 73 MB while the converted DNG versions, with the compression option OFF in Preferences, are a mere 46 MB. Why do they wind up so much less, even with the lossless compression you noted? That's a lot more than you noted it should be.

I don't monitor the file size reduction, but have noticed that the reduction is usually around 10 - 20%, and it could well be more without me noticing. The degree of compression depends on image content, and your image may compress better than others because of large flat, or out of focus areas. My images are usually detailed and sharp.

Why don't you compare the NEF and DNG at 100% in Photoshop? I don't think you'll see any difference whatsoever.

[michaels13050361]

Thank you!

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Per Berntsen <forums_noreply@adobe.com>

[michaels13050361]

Also wondering how using the software that Nikon provides with the D810,

called View NX2, will differ from converting files to DNG.

Is working in Bridge with TIFF files converted from the Nikon software vs.

working in Bridge with DNG files be any different?

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 10:17 PM, Michael Sherer [personal info deleted by mod]

[Per Berntsen]

I tried View NX some years ago, but found it unintuitive and awkward to use.

It's possible that I could have achieved the same results as in Camera Raw or Lightroom, but it would have taken a long time, and caused much frustration. Raw converters made by camera manufacturerers generally have a bad reputation.

Saving Tiffs from View NX, and do further editing in Camera Raw is not a good idea, since you will no longer be working with raw files. I suggest that you forget about View NX, do all the editing you can in Camera Raw on the raw files, and only edit in Photoshop when you can't achieve what you want in Camera Raw. Once you open the file in Photoshop, it is no longer a raw file, and you have to save it as Tiff or PSD.

[michaels13050361]

How does working in ACR with a TIFF file or a RAW or DNG file differ?

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Per Berntsen <forums_noreply@adobe.com>

[Per Berntsen]

First of all, a DNG file is a raw file, and there is no difference in editing a NEF and a DNG.

Raw files give you much more flexibility in editing, since they contain a lot more information than a Tiff.

So for best results, always do as much editing on the raw file as possible.

For more information, see this article that I wrote: File formats

[michaels13050361]

Thank you, Per. I'm only converting my NEF files from my Nikon D810 because

my Photoshop version is CS5, and it won't open/read the NEF files.

If I had CS6, which does read/open these NEF files, would I see ANY

difference from my converted DNG files as they stand now?

Also, are there any real advantages to CS6 over CS5?

Do you know anyone that has CS6 with an install to spare, and I'll give

them a token fee?

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:45 PM, Per Berntsen <forums_noreply@adobe.com>

[D Fosse]

CS6 is a dead and abandoned product that can no longer be legally bought anyhere. Forget it.

ACR 6.x for CS5 is limited to using Process Version 2010. ACR 7.x introduced Process Version 2012, which was a major leap forward with vastly improved shadows/highlights recovery and many other improvements.

By staying with CS5 you're crippling the D810. Really a waste of a great camera...

[michaels13050361]

So what do you recommend I do?

If someone has CS6 with a license key to sell or give me, why wouldn't it

work?

[D Fosse]

You'd be in violation of the license terms. It wouldn't be legal use. A license is personal, valid for one person only. You can't "split" activations.

To transfer a license, you (or the seller rather) need to fill out a license transfer document and send that to Adobe.

But why on earth would you? The photography plan is $10 a month, Lightroom thrown in - all future upgrades includes. Do the math.

CS6 is dead and pretty soon it will stop working properly, or at all, on new operating systems. Mac users already have problems getting CS6 to work.

[michaels13050361]

Hi D,

Here's an entirely new question, please: I see when opening any image in

Photoshop that the difference in canvas dimensions for the same images is

double when I'm using a 64 bit laptop with Windows 7 operating system vs. a

laptop with 32 bit and a Vista operating system. However, the total MB size

is exactly the same with both computers. All images start as RAW. Is this

because the 32 bit is collapsing it? Does this affect the quality in any

way? Does the operating system have anything to do with this change, or is

only due to the 64 bit vs. 32? What's actually happening between the 32 and

64 bit systems in terms of affecting image quality, etc.? The fact that

they both have same MB size is good, but I'm still concerned for the vast

majority of my work having been done on the 32 bit.

Thank you

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Michael Sherer <michaelsherer18@gmail.com>

[michaels13050361]

Hi Per,

I see when opening any image in Photoshop that the difference in canvas

dimensions for the same images is double when I'm using a 64 bit laptop

with Windows 7 operating system vs. a laptop with 32 bit and a Vista

operating system. However, the total MB size is exactly the same with both

computers. All images start as RAW. Is this because the 32 bit is

collapsing it? Does this affect the quality in any way? Does the operating

system have anything to do with this change, or is only due to the 64 bit

vs. 32? What's actually happening between the 32 and 64 bit systems in

terms of affecting image quality, etc.? The fact that they both have same

MB size is good, but I'm still concerned for the vast majority of my

work having been done on the 32 bit.

Thank you

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Michael Sherer <michaelsherer18@gmail.com>