On Wed, February 20, 2008 3:28 pm, Paul Shields wrote:
> There are some bonuses with DNG - particularly the absence
> of sidecar files that one gets when using some RAW editors.
Actually, I think this is a minus. I want my original files
to be kept unchanged at all times. That way I don't have have
to update my backups, and can easily check files for corruption.
I'm a bit annoyed that Lightroom can't write sidecars for jpegs,
but insists on contaminating my originals with embedded metadata.
/ Rickard
> If you're not using Olympus's own RAW editor there probably isn't any
> reason to convert. However, the editors I use (Lightroom, Photoshop)
> will be converting the ORF file anyway in order for me to edit it, so
> I may as well keep it in DNG format. I would think DNG would outlast
> proprietary RAW formats in the longer run - so long as Adobe don't go
> out of business...
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2008, at 01:19, C.H.Ling wrote:
>
>>
>> I heard about DNG for quite some time and never think about using
>> it. Seeing
>> the recent discussion I tried to search the web to see why one has
>> to use
>> DNG, it seems that many people are not suggesting it. There is
>> always a risk
>> in converting format, IMO nothing is better (in quality at least)
>> than the
>> original camera RAW.
>>
>> Not to mention DNG, I found PS2 has poorer color rendering than
>> Olympus RAW
>> converter, I have stop using it for years. The best alternative to
>> Olympus
>> RAW converter is Silkpix, it generate image color very close to
>> Olympus RAW
>> with highlight recovery that Olympus RAW missed.
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jon Mitchell" <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:16 AM
>> Subject: [OM] Re: ORF to DNG what do I lose
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I too convert from .ORF straight to .DNG as a first step (well,
>>> second
>>> really - I rename with my own filename structure first .... and
>>> Automator on the Mac is just excellent for that). Like Chris, I
>>> choose
>>> the "embed original file" option for fear that one day the .DNG
>>> format
>>> may not be readable and I'd be left with a disc full of unreadable
>>> images.
>>>
>>> I had never actually considered the quality differences between
>>> processing the .ORF and .DNG files. Is this really much of an
>>> issue ?
>>> Whichever I use, I would be tweaking the colour balance in processing
>>> anyway, so does this matter ? Do I lose detail or some other
>>> quality by
>>> converting to .DNG and processing from there ?
>>>
>>> Now I'm getting worried. I thought I had that side of the process
>>> sussed ;-)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jon
>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> I have converted my .ORFs to .DNG, retaining the RAW file and
>>> ensuring
>>> that I can extract it later.
>>> </snip>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|