--> Skip to main content

Lossy DNG vs Original Camera RAW

Storage has long been a problem. Despite Moore’s Law, I seem to keep filling larger cheaper drives. Ok, so it’s a first world problem, I admit it! At some point in the past, I was converting all my raw files to RAW. The appeal then was that the DNG files promised to be more universal than the RAW files produced by various camera manufacturers.



Comparisons of RAW and Lossy DNG with Photoshop, Affinity Photo, and Capture One at 1:1



ARW file processed in Photoshop with auto settings (left), Lossy DNG processed in Photoshop with auto settings (center), Lossy DNG processed in Capture One with auto settings (right) all at 1:1 pixels.

Unfortunately, Adobe seems to be a less and less friendly company. I’ve been doing the right thing for decades and paying for their software. But they seem to be trying to make everything much more difficult with licensing and not sharing the details of their DNG format with other image editing competitors.
None-the-less We’re stuck with Adobe for a lot of things. I tried and liked Capture One. But C1 is only a substitute for Lightroom. Somehow at times you’ll need to edit photos with Photoshop or similar. Serif’s Affinity Photo is pretty capable for what it is, but not good for converting RAW files.
So here I am using Lightroom. At times I’ve been converting RAW files to Lossy DNG’s for backups. And frankly I think They’re usually good enough that I don’t need the original RAW files. So I thought I might do a few side by side comparisons for myself- and then to share with the world (or at least you who reads this!)
Presently I’m looking at a backlog of old photos from a trip in 2017. I already have created the Lossy DNG’s and thought these images would be good for this test.
First obvious question, how much do you save?
I choose a sample photo because there is variation from image to image. The image I choose reads as:
Lossy DNG 12.5mb
Camera JPG 13mb
Camera RAW (lossy compression Sony ARW) 42.5

I must say I find this to be a surprise! The lossy DNG is slightly smaller than the Camera JPG.
What you can do with a Lossy DNG that you can’t with a JPG?
Turn on or off Lens Corrections
Recover blown out details if they were in the RAW file
Recover lost shadows if they were in the RAW file
As best as I can tell, pretty much all the benefits of the Camera Raw file apply

Some other differences between the function of Sony’s ARW raw file and the lossy DNG:
DNG’s don’t use a “sidecar” to store Metadata. That could be an advantage in some ways, like the info will always follow the file when transfered. But it adds to the processing time when editing Metadata since writing the info is added to a 10-20mb file, rather than a 2k “sidecar”.

Since Adobe no longer plays nice with (anything really,) editing these lossy DNG’s could be a challenge with a competing software program. But my testing in Capture One seemed to go without a hitch. Affinity Photo had pretty poor results with both file types.

How does this work? Honestly I have no idea! But there seem to be some compelling reasons to switch to a workflow.
Feel free to download all the test files for your own personal use and testing here.
x

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Linhof Serial Year List - Salomon Says

Recently I've acquired a few Linhof cameras. I got a 5x7 view camera from Oakland Museum's White Elephant Sale. Later I stumbled upon a Color Kardan 90 Jahre Jubalaeum edition on Craigslist. And more recently, I found a "baby Technika" 2x3 (6x9) at Oakland's East Bay Depot for Creative Re-use. Not knowing much about Linhof large format cameras, I tried getting more info online, and came across a strange thread on the Large Format Photography Forum . Basically on this thread various Linhof owners ask a guy named Bob Salomon what year their Linhof was made. And the thread is over 100 pages long! Sifting through that thread is mindnumbing. Why Bob doesn't just publish the list of serial numbers is beyond me. Maybe it's just nice to feel needed. So I started compiling a spreadsheet of the serial numbers and the answer Bob gives. If you don't feel like spending a couple days reading this thread to get a hint as to the age of your Lin

How to stop annoying Corel pop-up ads

Corel has done something extra sleazy. For those not familiar, Corel has been making image editing software for as long as I can remember. The Canadian based company is known for budget graphics software including Corel Draw! (Similar to Adobe Illustrator) and Paint Shop Pro (Similar to Lightroom) as well as some other products. The price of their software makes it hard to resist. I bought a few of their products years ago. Recently ads started popping up in Windows (not on a web browser, but just in the right corner of my monitor. Those ads were for Corel products and would float over all other panes in my Windows. How sleazy is that?! So I found a way to get rid of the ads for good. Or at least until you install another Corel product. If this happens to you, and you find it as annoying as I do, follow this instruction. First, hit control (+) alt (+) delete and select task manager at the bottom. If you look at your task manager, you'll see something called "background

Who Makes Ultrafine Film?

One of these 120 paper backings stands out as being different. Not a big surprise, since one is Kodak, and another is Ilford. But our mystery film Ultrafine has the *exact* same backing paper as seen in this scan. What does this mean? There are a few possibilities that come to mind. It's always possible that the backing paper is made by a third party I suppose. Not likely, as there isn't much of a market for 120 film anymore, and I've never seen another non-Ilford film with the same backing paper. So is this mystery film, Ultrafine actually Ilford then? Another, more likely theory is that it is made by Kentmere. Kentmere and Ilford are both part of the Harman group . In researching this I just read that Harman was the name of the founder of Ilford company in the late 19th century. So how is are the Ultrafine (E)Xtreme films? I bought a bulk roll of the 400 speed. Frankly it's pretty grainy and soft. I don't hate it, and I'm trying to work with the grain.