4 Replies Latest reply on Apr 28, 2008 9:18 AM by (Kerwin_Bartinson)

    Is DNG a truly portable format?

      I have recently been testing the latest Aperture against the current Lightroom & have discovered that my altered DNG files from Lightroom do not open with amendments in place in Aperture. Pondering this, it is obvious that although the corrections are embedded in the DNG files, they are Adobe specific instructions & cannot be understood by Aperture.

      I wonder how many people who have adopted the DNG format realise that with their first edits they are locking themselves into Lightroom (or Aperture).

      It seems to me that DNG needs two key elements to become truly independent & portable. Firstly, it needs to be able to store multiple edit versions. Secondly, it needs to be able to store the edit commands in a public, independent structure that both Adobe & Apple (& others) can use to write to (or convert to). Wishful thinking? Maybe, but if Adobe wishes DNG to become the PDF of the image world, it will have to happen.

      This was a simple (and possibly obvious) discovery, but it has completely altered my perception & belief in DNG as a truly independent format which, until now, was rock solid.
        • 1. Re: Is DNG a truly portable format?
          Level 1
          >It seems to me that DNG needs two key elements to become truly independent & portable. Firstly, it needs to be able to store multiple edit versions. Secondly, it needs to be able to store the edit commands in a public, independent structure that both Adobe & Apple (& others) can use to write to (or convert to).

          DNG already does...although at the moment only Camera Raw & Lightroom are actually storing settings in XMP. Aperture could if Apple decided to...so could anybody. It's all in the XMP data blocks...
          • 2. Re: Is DNG a truly portable format?
            Level 1
            I believe the problem you are having is a problem with Apple and not DNG.
            DNG is open and available for anyone to use and support. However, companies
            other than Adobe seem to only half support things. As an example when my
            Pentax K20D came out I had no trouble reading the DNG files right from the
            K20D before Adobe added support for it to ACR or LR. However, other
            companies RAW processors wouldn't handle the K20D until they added support
            for the cameras PEF file (the camera can do either PEF (this is Pentax's own
            format) or DNG.) This has nothing to do with Adobe but how other companies
            choose to support DNG.

            If you want to complaint to someone complain to Apple. However, my opinion
            is why should Apple support the reading of LR or ACR data when I am certain
            Adobe doesn't read or support Aperture data. Supporting DNG is not the same
            as supporting DNG with someone else's meta-data editing information in it.
            In my mind that is two different things. If Aperture supports say a DNG file
            converted from a Nikon NEF or a Canon CR2 then that is what they should be
            supporting not one that has been converted and then editing in someone else
            editing software.
            • 3. Re: Is DNG a truly portable format?
              Panoholic Level 2
              > It seems to me that DNG needs two key elements to become truly independent & portable

              DNG needs only one element to become truly independent, namely becoming independent of Adobe. As it is now, the DNG "standard" reflects Adobe's concerns. If and when Adobe sees the need for something, they adjust the specification according to their need.

              The same is true regarding the CRS schema (name space) of XMP (note, that this is not part of DNG). It has been defined according to the capabilities of ACR of the day. In the meantime new adjustments appeared in ACR, and you can bet that sooner or later the XMP specification will be expanded by crs:Vibrance, crs:HighlightRecovery etc. (these appear in the XMP tag already without having been officially specified).

              However, there is a deeper problem in regard of the adjustments. There are some adjustments, which can not be interpreted on different ways, like those relating to cropping; but what is the exact meaning of Brightness or ColorNoiseReduction, etc? The actions carried out by a particular raw processor are proprietory to that raw processor. One can not expect the same result simply by uttering the same words.
              • 4. Re: Is DNG a truly portable format?
                Level 1
                I believe the problem you are having is a problem with Apple and not DNG.
                DNG is open and available for anyone to use and support. However, companies
                other than Adobe seem to only half support things. As an example when my
                Pentax K20D came out I had no trouble reading the DNG files right from the
                K20D before Adobe added support for it to ACR or LR. However, other
                companies RAW processors wouldn't handle the K20D until they added support
                for the cameras PEF file (the camera can do either PEF (this is Pentax's own
                format) or DNG.) This has nothing to do with Adobe but how other companies
                choose to support DNG.

                If you want to complaint to someone complain to Apple. However, my opinion
                is why should Apple support the reading of LR or ACR data when I am certain
                Adobe doesn't read or support Aperture data. Supporting DNG is not the same
                as supporting DNG with someone else's meta-data editing information in it.
                In my mind that is two different things. If Aperture supports say a DNG file
                converted from a Nikon NEF or a Canon CR2 then that is what they should be
                supporting not one that has been converted and then editing in someone else
                editing software.