carstenw
Active member
Well, the image data is stored differently in general, so all they share is some tag definitions and the general container scheme. The interesting part is generally not the same between TIFF and DNG.
The data in the DNG is only proprietary (as being opposed to open, since it is unimportant if an openly published, license-fee-free and freely implementable format is proprietary in any *other* sense) if the program which you used to export the data chose to keep something in a proprietary format, or refused/was unable to export it altogether, such as Nikon's encrypted white balance.
By the way, if the software from which you exported the DNG can no longer deal with it, it is clear where to point the finger, right? Most manufacturers are resisting the DNG format with tooth and nail (a few are not, such as Leica), but the tools are all there for them to use and adopt.
DNG normally still contains the pre-debayered data, and is typically much more compact than a TIFF. I would even go so far as to say that TIFF is the stupid version of DNG, for the purposes of photographers, and the only purpose for which I would recommend it would be as a *final* work, i.e. a negative for future prints, without any further editing being desired.
The advantage of converting to DNG rather than TIFF is that the de-Bayering is still not done, so you have the ability to apply future improvements in this algorithm, when new releases of software comes out, and when was the last release of C1 which didn't claim to have improved the debayering? And the smaller space requirements; it is beyond me why a decent compression scheme has never been universally accepted for TIFFs.
What post-raw-processing tools do you refer to which can modify TIFF but not DNG, and *which are interesting tools for photographers*?
By the way, C1 may still have the edge on Lightroom in debayering, sharpness, and white balance, and in colour profile handling, but Lightroom is light-years ahead of C1 in most other ways, and the gap in quality is getting smaller with each revision. I would not bet against Lightroom and other similar tools for very long any more.
It is already the case that when someone actually masters both programs and posts results to demonstrate the superiority of C1, the differences are diminishingly small, but are described as being huge. This trend will only accelerate. Companies like Phase One simply do not have the R&D budget of Adobe, Apple, or other tools companies.
With the Sinar workflow, you can handle debayering, sharpening, white balance and noise reduction in eXposure, then export to DNG and import to Lightroom, to have the best of both worlds. I think this approach was very forward-looking, and am sorry that they couldn't have had a more supportive parent company than Jenoptik.
I am not sure what would make you call DNG the lowest common denominator. It is a container for IPTC/EXIF and the original raw data, unless you chose to bake in the white balance or something else as you exported, your choice. The DNG is only as stupid as each manufacturer chooses to make it.
