The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

which raw converter for A7s/A7??

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
The files are DNG which were imported by LR on my harddisk. Maybe thats the fault and LR did something to the files. I do have the new C1 Version (as a test Version at the moment)
Tom, there is your problem I believe. I am going to make a few assumptions here, so I apologize if I don't guess your particular situation correctly the first time.

DNG is basically only supported to read those converted files using Photoshop or Lightroom. In other words, your original Sony proprietary ARW raw files have now been converted to Adobe proprietary raw files, which no RAW converter I know of except those made by Adobe will read. There are reasons why no other raw converters use the Adobe license for the DNG technology that relate to the specific Adobe license terms, but the only thing that matters to you right now is nobody does.

When photos are converted to DNG with Lightroom, the DNG files replace the original ARW files in the catalog. You have the option of deleting or preserving the originals on disk after the conversion, but unless you have specifically selected to save the originals, Lightroom will delete them. This sounds like what has happened to you, so I am making my first assumption that you have elected to delete your original AWR files on import and DNG conversion.

Your only hope is if you selected in the preferences to imbed the original ARW file into the DNG when Lightroom did your import. If you checked this box, your ARW files can be extracted and so recovered from inside the Adobe DNG files. This is the only way I suggest anyone ever use DNG, by also imbedding the original files.

This is what the box looks like in the Adobe DNG converter:



That blue selection box at the bottom is now your only safety net for getting your original files back at this point Tom. If you have previously saved DNG files with the original raw file embedded, you can extract the original raw file, but you will need the Adobe DNG converter to do that I believe.

You can download Adobe DNG converter Version 8.6 for MAC from here:
Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Macintosh : Adobe DNG Converter 8.6

Install the DNG converter, then launch it. Choose one of the file folders that contains your stored converted DNG files. Then hit the EXTRACT button at the bottom of the DNG converter screen, and see what happens. The Lightroom default is set to NOT imbed the original files. If you changed that when you first set this up to preserve the original files, you are in luck. If not, again I suggest you change it to that now to preserve your options while you consider how you wish to move forward. Here is what the DNG Converter screen looks like, and I have circled what you want in red:



For what it is worth, using the DNG format with the imbedded original Sony ARW file has some merit. You can set Lightroom up to bake into the DNG file the workup PIE as you change it. All of your adjustments and the original file are all together in one place, still as a DNG, so you have immediate portability between computers. You can open up that DNG file with any Photoshop or Lightroom, and you will see the prior adjustments, and can make new immediate adjustments on the spot, such as in a clients office. This is important for professionals who use Lightroom on multiple computers as I do. It also allows you to backup your adjustments for offline storage for possible future additional adjustment, which you can not do with a rendered Tiff or JPG.

I sort of feel at this point like various RAW converters are similar to the old days of chemistry and film. Each provides you a different set of variations and looks. I use mostly Lightroom at this point myself because of the professional workflow advantages and the excellent printing abilities, but I also use other converters when I am not satisfied with the Adobe conversion. Iridient Developer and DxO are the two best alternatives for me to go to when the Adobe conversion lacks. C1 is always so full of bugs from version to version, I hardly bother with it given the other stable options that exist, but some people like it the best.

Bottom line Tom, choose your own poison, but keep your options open on import so you do have options from here forward. I also use a cheap backup drive that I simply copy the original files to as they are imported. You may also want to consider that as well. You can never have too many backup copies of your photographs! :thumbup:
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
...DNG is basically only supported to read those converted files using Photoshop or Lightroom. In other words, your original Sony proprietary ARW raw files have now been converted to Adobe proprietary raw files, which no RAW converter I know of except those made by Adobe will read. There are reasons why no other raw converters use the Adobe license for the DNG technology that relate to the specific Adobe license terms, but the only thing that matters to you right now is nobody does. ...
Huh? Your statement above is terribly inaccurate.

Whether you consider DNG proprietary or not depends on whether you mean Adobe owns the standard or if you consider the standard to be 'secret' the way most proprietary standards are. Usually, proprietary carries the implication that something is not only owned by some specific company as well as that it is secret. DNG is a standard owned by Adobe but it is publicly disclosed and licensable for redistribution at no cost "in perpetuity." For more information about the Adobe Digital NeGative standard, see
Photoshop Help | Digital Negative (DNG)

All of Adobe's image processing software apps support it, of course, but so do most of the other major image processing and data asset management software packages as well. While I don't have a definitive list of which software titles do or don't support it, all of the dozen or so image processing apps I own and/or use are perfectly capable of working with DNG files to the point of their being transparent compared to native, proprietary-format raw files. That includes (outside of Lightroom and Photoshop) Flare, VueScan, OS X's Preview.app, iPhoto, Aperture, PhotoRAW, Cumulus, RPP, DarkTable, dcraw, Iridient Developer, and a couple of others I use even less frequently.

I'm surprised that there would be any issue using DNG files in Capture One at this point in time. Hasselblad, Leica, and other camera manufacturers output DNG format files as their native raw output.

G
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Huh? Your statement above is terribly inaccurate.

Whether you consider DNG proprietary or not depends on whether you mean Adobe owns the standard or if you consider the standard to be 'secret' the way most proprietary standards are. Usually, proprietary carries the implication that something is not only owned by some specific company as well as that it is secret. DNG is a standard owned by Adobe but it is publicly disclosed and licensable for redistribution at no cost "in perpetuity." For more information about the Adobe Digital NeGative standard, see
Photoshop Help | Digital Negative (DNG)

All of Adobe's image processing software apps support it, of course, but so do most of the other major image processing and data asset management software packages as well. While I don't have a definitive list of which software titles do or don't support it, all of the dozen or so image processing apps I own and/or use are perfectly capable of working with DNG files to the point of their being transparent compared to native, proprietary-format raw files. That includes (outside of Lightroom and Photoshop) Flare, VueScan, OS X's Preview.app, iPhoto, Aperture, PhotoRAW, Cumulus, RPP, DarkTable, dcraw, Iridient Developer, and a couple of others I use even less frequently.

I'm surprised that there would be any issue using DNG files in Capture One at this point in time. Hasselblad, Leica, and other camera manufacturers output DNG format files as their native raw output.

G
The issue isn't that C1P doesn't support it. It does - when a camera natively shoots it as their RAW format like the digital Leica M's. It's possible that the files are changed/converted/not recognized though once processed.

Maybe that causes the issue with SOME RAW Processors and how they read the files.
 

pflower

Member
For me it is entirely due to the fact that my operating system for the past x years doesn't support LR 5 so I have to use dngs in order to get the files into LR 4.4. But I am sure you are right - better to use a program that deals with the files in their original format. And yes I do keep the original files backed up. In fact given the cost of 32gb SD cards I am starting to archive those and not reuse them (each one is now the cost of 2 rolls of film without any processing).

So am starting the process of changing OSs and from here on will maintain 2 catalogs - one in LR 5 for the A7 files and everything else in my main LR 4 catalog until I can amalgamate the two.

I still need to keep a functional OSX 10.6.8 machine running, so does anyone have any suggestions or links to discussions as to the best practice of dealing with a 2tb internal drive so that I can partition it to run 2 different operating systems off it - all my photos etc. are on external drives so I just need the basic operating systems, printer drivers and apps accessible from the startup disk.

Thanks



Wondering why folks convert these files to DNG in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong but once you convert them you take away all of the raw file input on what Sony puts into the algorithms which include lens corrections. LR and C1 plus a few others support these files but you need to update the software to do that . I had to buy LR just to see my A77II files for a bit until it was supported by CI. I honestly don't know a valid reason to convert to DNG unless it was a support issue and even at that you should at least keep the original ARW Raws somewhere.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yes you can partition a drive to run different OS software. Right now you would have to back up your OS drive today using carbon copy cloned or super duper on a external drive than boot from that than erase and partition your 2tb drive right in your disk utility program and split it into 2 portions than clone over your existing drive copy back over than in your second partition load Yosemite if you want than use that for processing RAWs And that way you can get higher versions of LR, C1 that support the A7 series of cams. That would keep you out if making Dng files.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
iPhone spelling is worse than me. Lol

Anyway you need help partitioning your drive I can walk you through it. It's really not that hard
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I actually have a Pegasus 4tb drive running raid 0 and partitioned into 2 drives one for working files and one as a OS backup. Than I have other backups for just the Raws and even more backups. Now if I can find a backup for me that be pretty cool. Lol
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Thank you to all of you for all the suggestions and help. I will need 1 or 2 days to check - but it seems really that LR did change my files to DNG when importing them.
I also plan to check out a color checker profile in LR when I find the time.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Tom or anyone for that matter if you process on several machines. C1 has EIP setting which packages the file and can be moved to another machine with all your settings. So if you travel from home to home. You can just take it with you , which is a nice option.

Yes living in Arizona people here have there 2,3,4,5 and I even heard 7 different homes around the world. House I'm shooting right now it's there 6th home. They spend 3 weeks a year here and it's only a 12 million dollar spread. I can safely say we are ALL in the wrong business. :wtf:

:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:
 

Annna T

Active member
Thank you to all of you for all the suggestions and help. I will need 1 or 2 days to check - but it seems really that LR did change my files to DNG when importing them.
I also plan to check out a color checker profile in LR when I find the time.
In complement to what has already been said concerning DNG files : ACR/LR have known several updates and different process versions are available : 2003, 2010 and 2012 (current version). Some raw converters may not be able to read all the versions. So it matters which process versions you are using. Even if it is only a tag and you haven' yet made any change to the file, if the version of the raw converter you are using isn't able to read the version indicated, then you may not be able to open your files.

If I remember correctly when you convert your raws using the separate dng converter, then you have a dropdown menu where you can indicate the files retro compatibility.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Thank you to all of you for all the suggestions and help. I will need 1 or 2 days to check - but it seems really that LR did change my files to DNG when importing them.
I also plan to check out a color checker profile in LR when I find the time.
Copying with DNG conversion on the fly is a LR option, but you have to choose it. LR does not do that by default.

I use the Xrite passport sw to do calibrations.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Wondering why folks convert these files to DNG in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong but once you convert them you take away all of the raw file input on what Sony puts into the algorithms which include lens corrections. LR and C1 plus a few others support these files but you need to update the software to do that . I had to buy LR just to see my A77II files for a bit until it was supported by CI. I honestly don't know a valid reason to convert to DNG unless it was a support issue and even at that you should at least keep the original ARW Raws somewhere.
Actually, DNG v1.3 standard has updated format specs for embedded lens corrections which translate the manufacturer embedded data unless the manufacturers encode it as encrypted or private maker data.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
In complement to what has already been said concerning DNG files : ACR/LR have known several updates and different process versions are available : 2003, 2010 and 2012 (current version). Some raw converters may not be able to read all the versions. So it matters which process versions you are using. Even if it is only a tag and you haven' yet made any change to the file, if the version of the raw converter you are using isn't able to read the version indicated, then you may not be able to open your files.

If I remember correctly when you convert your raws using the separate dng converter, then you have a dropdown menu where you can indicate the files retro compatibility.
LR and ACR process versions have nothing to do with the DNG format. The drop down menu relates to which version of the ACR plugin you want the DNG to be compatible with, since the DND spec has been upgraded over time (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3) and older versions of ACR can't read some option set in later DNG revisions (like embedded lens corrections).

The process version used in LR and ACR affects which demosaic and gamma correct algorithm is used, and can be applied to any raw file input.

G
 

Annna T

Active member
LR and ACR process versions have nothing to do with the DNG format. The drop down menu relates to which version of the ACR plugin you want the DNG to be compatible with, since the DND spec has been upgraded over time (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3) and older versions of ACR can't read some option set in later DNG revisions (like embedded lens corrections).

The process version used in LR and ACR affects which demosaic and gamma correct algorithm is used, and can be applied to any raw file input.

G
When you change the process version, the sliders you are using to adjust tones are changing as well, aka the way you adjust the gama curve. So I think that we are saying more or less the same thing.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
When you change the process version, the sliders you are using to adjust tones are changing as well, aka the way you adjust the gama curve. So I think that we are saying more or less the same thing.
I think so...

The sliders and such are purely a UI implementation issue. The underlying gamma curve/demosaic algorithms are independent of the adjustment UI; the adjustment UI is different between LR and ACR even with the same process versions. They probably implemented different API in the underlying algorithm libraries to support the new UI which is why they can't just use the same UI in LR or ACR when you switch process versions.

G
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Actually, DNG v1.3 standard has updated format specs for embedded lens corrections which translate the manufacturer embedded data unless the manufacturers encode it as encrypted or private maker data.

G
For some companies yes for a lot of ithers they want nothing to do with DNG and have there own file format. This has been s big issue for quite sometime. I have not kept up with the debate but there has been a lot of backlash on it.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
For some companies yes for a lot of ithers they want nothing to do with DNG and have there own file format. This has been s big issue for quite sometime. I have not kept up with the debate but there has been a lot of backlash on it.
I think DNG was one of those things that was a good idea to have an open source RAW format. It could potentially hurt competition if it tied people into the Adobe ecosystem due to them getting the updates first or if companies if the best results were achieved through adobe products. It could be great for consumers if people weren't tied to a converter due to support.

That's actually why I originally went with LR - no one else was supporting software lens corrections in a timely manner when I was shooting Micro 4/3 and the D-Lux 4 (which was natively supported in C1v4.) Look at all the MF cameras that aren't supported and will never be supported in C1P. I think Phase is shooting themselves in the foot because the person who buys a Pentax 645D/Z is primarily doing it due to the astronomical costs of other MF systems. They'd probably never invest $20K+ into a Phase/Mamiya/Leaf because they probably can't afford it/justify the extra money involved to get that. Phase can still sell a $300 software package though and get SOME money from them.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
For some companies yes for a lot of ithers they want nothing to do with DNG and have there own file format. This has been s big issue for quite sometime. I have not kept up with the debate but there has been a lot of backlash on it.
Most companies have kept their own file format, and are uninterested in migrating to DNG as a standard. The reason is because they have substantial money invested in their format (via firmware, software products, stuff they consider as IP that potentially nets them an advantage). But the ability of DNG conversion to retain embedded lens correction information isn't compromised by that. What it's compromised by is when the manufacturer hides private data in private or encrypted maker notes, which is rare for lens correction. It is mostly tonal and color transforms (the Nikon case) that they hide that way.

Nikon, Canon, and others have given their lens corrections to Adobe to include in the LR/ACR database for conversion, even when they haven't given them their proprietary color/tonal rendering information. Others, like Olympus and Panasonic (Micro-FourThirds) embed it into the raw files and have given Adobe the spec so it is automatically applied at raw conversion time. I don't know where Sony stands on this, but so far they seem to have been pretty open with their raw format specs and features.

I don't know why you harbor so much antipathy for DNG format, Guy. It works well. The only thing which the Digital NeGative format specification hasn't achieved is the broad usage that it was designed for. It might never get there, but that doesn't make it bad.

G
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
I think DNG was one of those things that was a good idea to have an open source RAW format. It could potentially hurt competition if it tied people into the Adobe ecosystem due to them getting the updates first or if companies if the best results were achieved through adobe products. It could be great for consumers if people weren't tied to a converter due to support. ...
To be precise, DNG is NOT an "open source RAW format." It is a publicly disclosed raw format standard, not open source.

The updates to DNG don't invalidate older DNG files. They have all just incorporated more ability to encode potential raw data features, or were bug fixes. And since it is a publicly disclosed format, it doesn't tie anyone into the Adobe ecosystem at all; anyone can implement an app that can read DNG based on the format specification. So there's little to hurt competition.

DNG format is quite similar to most raw formats. It is a derivative of a TIFF container format specification. A DNG file contains sensor data, camera EXIF data, IPTC data, and other image ancillary data components organized according to a well defined specification. The single thing that distinguishes DNG from most other raw files is that the format is specified publicly and available for any enterprising developer to write code that read and writes it. The reason most raw files are considered read-only isn't that they're so different or so difficult to understand is that they are undocumented, which raises the possibility of data loss if the app writing to them breaks the format.

G
 
Top