[peterh337]

Faststone shows just the jpeg preview, so you can't zoom it to any useful level. I would say that's not good for a picture viewer. ACDSEE is much better but I don't know if any later version supports PEF natively (or at all).

[stevebrot]

Is DNG an adobe thing exclusively?

For full support, yes; though Adobe has proposed it as a standard for RAW files. In theory, DNG should be universally readable by all supporting vendors, but such is not the case outside of an Adobe workflow. Additionally, the checksum feature is limited to Adobe tools as is the ability to interpret process XMP from archived DNG. The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) has come out as a strong proponent of DNG as a central component of a "best practice" workflow. Their observations and recommendations comprise one of the best references I am aware of regarding the format.

File Format | dpBestflow

FWIW, although I capture as DNG, I archive as broad gamut 16-bit TIFF.

Edit: There are fine points of difference in how Lightroom deals with metadata in DNG vs. PEF. A full discussion would take pages, but it is enough to say that if you want you RAW files to remain pristine, either NEVER update metadata or set your files read-only or other than DNG.


Steve

[Wasp]

I only use Windows when I absolutely have to, i.e. it cannot be done in Linux. I have always used DNG myself, ever since I got my K10D. Have never even tried PEF to be honest. It was one of the first settings I changed after I got the camera. Now that I think of it, I never even installed the Pentax software. I only used the CD for the PDF manual.

The support for DNG in Linux has always been pretty good. Excellent these days actually, but I find myself wondering what the open source world can do with PEF. Can anybody comment on that?

As an aside, with 16 gig SD cards now cheap and with the magic that Darktable e.a. can do with raw files, I don't see much reason to shoot JPEG anymore.

[wombat2go]

but I find myself wondering what the open source world can do with PEF. Can anybody comment on that?

ImageMagick handles them

[newmikey]

I find myself wondering what the open source world can do with PEF. Can anybody comment on that?

Linux user myself. I've never had any issues with PEFs and always stayed away from DNG for that reason. Plasma desktop and Dolphin filemanager handle PEF thumbnailing just fine, Darktable/UFRaw/Rawtherapee/Digikam have always been able to deal with PEF. As a Linux user I've never seen any good reason to use DNG actually quite the opposite - should I ever need DNG, all of my PEFs can be converted but if I'd only have DNGs and Adobe drops support or the F/OSS community gets its knickers in a twist over DNG, one cannot ever convert DNGs to PEF.

Any one-way conversion possibility is more than sufficient reason to stay with the format which does allow conversion(PEF) rather than the one that doesn't(DNG). I really do not need any other reasons and as Adobe doesn't really release any of its software on my chosen OS, there is zero benefit to DNG.

Oh, and by the way: Libraw and DCRAW usually update within days of a new camera model hitting the market, way faster than any commercial software.

[Class A]

FWIW, Capture One support is often better for the native format (here PEF) compared to DNG.

I used to convert my K100D images to DNG because the latter format supported compression whereas the K100D PEF files were uncompressed. Converting a PEF to a DNG with Adobe's DNG converter will throw away some data, BTW. For almost all purposes that data won't be missed (invisible pixels) but purists will stick to PEF. In-camera generated DNG may be different, though.

I'm now using the PEF format for my K-1 images and have been fine doing so.

[PDL]

The last PEF codec (to make thumbnails visible in Windows File Explorer) was released by Hoya. Ricoh does not support PEF codec's. There is a "patch" that will allow the Windows 7 codec but it does not support "modern" cameras.

You have to purchase an alternate program to view PEF's in Windows 10. Ricoh has abandoned PEF on Windows use DNG and download the DNG codec from Adobe, it is slow and crappy. Or switch camera systems to a manufacturer that does not abandon its users.

[funktionsfrei]

I still don't get it. Why use PEF?

Because Pentax in their infinite wisdom eons ago decided to name their proprietary RAW format "PEF"?

Pentax supports out-of-the-camera DNG, so no "crappy codecs" are needed, no PEF-to-DNG conversion is needed, no software support from Ricoh is needed, no alternate programs.

I see only disadvantages in PEF, and not a single advantage. Is it because it has "Pentax" written on it that it's thought to be better?

[newmikey]

The last PEF codec (to make thumbnails visible in Windows File Explorer) was released by Hoya. Ricoh does not support PEF codec's. There is a "patch" that will allow the Windows 7 codec but it does not support "modern" cameras.

You have to purchase an alternate program to view PEF's in Windows 10. Ricoh has abandoned PEF on Windows use DNG and download the DNG codec from Adobe, it is slow and crappy. Or switch camera systems to a manufacturer that does not abandon its users.

I suppose that's a problem for Windows users. To me, coming from an OS which supports any camera format out of the box, without the need for any "codecs" I do find it somewhat curious that it is the camera manufacturer you hold responsible and not the OS manufacturer. I admit that that is a particular treat that Linux users have - we expect our OS to support any hardware as soon as someone, somewhere feels up to doing something about the perceived lack of a particular piece of code - it just gets written, released and added to the OS release or updates.

I still don't get it. Why use PEF?

Because Pentax in their infinite wisdom eons ago decided to name their proprietary RAW format "PEF"?

Pentax supports out-of-the-camera DNG, so no "crappy codecs" are needed, no PEF-to-DNG conversion is needed, no software support from Ricoh is needed, no alternate programs.

I see only disadvantages in PEF, and not a single advantage. Is it because it has "Pentax" written on it that it's thought to be better?

Well, to echo your own words: Pentax supports out-of-the-camera PEF, no "crappy codecs" are needed, no PEF-to-DNG conversion is needed, no software support from Ricoh is needed, no alternate programs as all raw converters available on Linux support it. Any time a new camerabody is released, its format is usually added to the code within days and available as a on-click download/install through the package-manager or software-centre.

Quite the opposite, why use DNG? A format which was cooked up by a company notorious for its DRM and lack of software support for the OS I have used for over 12 years. I see no compelling reason to use it at all.

I fully understand that Windows or MacOSX users who use Adobe's own software see a benefit in using Adobe's own format and I wouldn't argue with that certainly if the camera supports it as a native raw format but for Linux/MacOSX users who use non-proprietary raw software it makes absolutely no sense at all to use DNG.

I don't see Canon, Olympus or Nikon users abandoning their CR2, ORF or NEF format in droves either so the argument that "DNG is better" seems not to fly far...

[funktionsfrei]

I suppose that's a problem for Windows users. To me, coming from an OS which supports any camera format out of the box, without the need for any "codecs" I do find it somewhat curious that it is the camera manufacturer you hold responsible and not the OS manufacturer. I admit that that is a particular treat that Linux users have - we expect our OS to support any hardware as soon as someone, somewhere feels up to doing something about the perceived lack of a particular piece of code - it just gets written, released and added to the OS release or updates.


Well, to echo your own words: Pentax supports out-of-the-camera PEF, no "crappy codecs" are needed, no PEF-to-DNG conversion is needed, no software support from Ricoh is needed, no alternate programs as all raw converters available on Linux support it. Any time a new camerabody is released, its format is usually added to the code within days and available as a on-click download/install through the package-manager or software-centre.

Quite the opposite, why use DNG? A format which was cooked up by a company notorious for its DRM and lack of software support for the OS I have used for over 12 years. I see no compelling reason to use it at all.

I fully understand that Windows or MacOSX users who use Adobe's own software see a benefit in using Adobe's own format and I wouldn't argue with that certainly if the camera supports it as a native raw format but for Linux/MacOSX users who use non-proprietary raw software it makes absolutely no sense at all to use DNG.

I don't see Canon, Olympus or Nikon users abandoning their CR2, ORF or NEF format in droves either so the argument that "DNG is better" seems not to fly far...

Ah, so it's just a political decision of using a proprietary closed format instead of an open and well-documented format.

[stevebrot]

To me, coming from an OS which supports any camera format out of the box, without the need for any "codecs"

There are codecs, though as a Linux user, you don't have to fiddle with them. There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding why Windows users are not able to view preview thumbnails of PEF images in Explorer. The blame goes on Microsoft, not on the RAW format vendors (yes, plural...Pentax is not the only one). PEF files, as with DNG and many other RAW formats are TIFF/EP compliant.* The preview and thumbnail JPEGs may be readily extracted from well-known locations within the file without any image processing. The same is true for TIFF image files, another format that Windows 10 does not show preview thumbnails for and RAW formats that are EXIF/DCF compliant. In theory, a few codecs should cover a number of file types but Windows does not do so.**

I don't see Canon, Olympus or Nikon users abandoning their CR2, ORF or NEF format

They have no choice, except by switching brands, though many do convert to DNG on import to Adobe products.

Ah, so it's just a political decision of using a proprietary closed format instead of an open and well-documented format.

Ummmmmm...no. It is a business decision and has nothing to do with politics. Although it has a published interface, DNG is definitely not "open" in any sense of the word. Its specification process is firmly controlled by Adobe as are the fine points of actually processing the files. In short, DNG is Adobe's proprietary RAW format. To build on newmikey's comments, here are a few bullet points:

• DNG is not a universal RAW format, it is a specification capable of "wrapping" proprietary data
• An Adobe-generated DNG, made using the Adobe DNG converter or other Adobe tool, is not readable by non-Adobe products. Likewise, non-Adobe DNG may not be fully supported outside of Adobe tools.
• A Pentax-generated DNG is mostly proprietary and camera specific except for inclusion of a rudimentary embedded dcp profile that allows for broad support by Adobe tools in advance of full support by updated versions capable of fully supporting a new camera.
• DNG is intended to serve as a standard file type "currency" for photographic image data understandable across all Adobe products. Vendor buy-in is very helpful in attaining that goal.
• To their credit, Adobe has submitted DNG to standards bodies as a proposed new standard, but with only modest traction to date.
• One of the strongest features of DNG is the presence of an embedded checksum that may be used to detect file corruption. Unfortunately the method of generating and evaluating the checksum is proprietary to Adobe and the checksum field is empty for DNG generated by non-Adobe cameras and software. So much for "open".
• Processing directives (xmp) written into a DNG by Adobe products are only reliably readable and translatable by Adobe products, thereby limiting the value of "source" DNG for archive purposes

FWIW, I am a DNG user, but not a fan. DNG is probably more "future-proof" than PEF, but future software support is only as good as Adobe's health as a company. After all, there was a previous attempt at a standardized RAW format promoted by Kodak.


Steve

* PEF are also "Baseline TIFF" compliant. As an interesting experiment, rename a PEF file substituting .tif or .tiff for .pef and load it into a TIFF-capable image editor. Most will display the full-size JPEG preview image.
** FastStone Image Viewer and similar products leverage the thumbnail/preview extraction feature. FWIW, I uninstalled the PEF and DNG codecs from my Win 7 box due to performance issues when drilling my source image directories.

[newmikey]

Ah, so it's just a political decision of using a proprietary closed format instead of an open and well-documented format.

How you got from what I wrote to the above conclusion is beyond my understanding. I'll simplify:
I use PEF because all of my raw software supports it out of the box and gets updates very fast (and free) whenever a new camera is released. I also use PEF because my OS (and with it my filemanager and other software) supports it natively, out of the box. I don't use DNG because I do not use any Adobe software which would certainly benefit from using that format. I also do not envision Adobe releasing any software for Linux and on top of that I really don't think the demosaicing routines of said Adobe software are anywhere near equal to the quality of the various routines under LibRaw or any of the other software libraries and/or raw converters available.

On the subject of PEF being a "closed" format versus DNG being "open", you must be joking. I see no single software having any issues with having supported PEF on all of Pentax's bodies from the K110D right through the K-1 and KP so what does that do to your "argument"?

Politics don't come anywhere near it!

[PDL]

Codecs have been a requirement of the manufacturer since the introduction of Vista and WiC (Windows Imaging Component). It is the manufacturers responsibility to provide those elements which are in a broad since drivers. It is not Microsoft's responsibility to write drivers for your printers, scanners, graphics cards etc. Microsoft provides a framework to provide the manufactures to communicate with their (proprietary) drivers and the Operating System/applications.

It is not HP's responsibility to make drivers for my Brother printer. It is not Nikons responsibility to make a codec for Canon cameras. It is, however, Ricoh's responsibility to make a codec for Ricoh camera, not Microsoft's, just as it has been since WIC was introduced. If you want clarification, just look on this site for the long heated arguments about Hoya sitting on its backside and taking so long to get a codec out. Ricoh has not updated the codec and the available codec will not work on any camera that has been released under the Ricoh name. I have several thousand PEF files coming from my Pentax *ist Ds. DNG is not an option (other than manually converting them to DNG using an Adobe tool, but then I really dislike Adobe).

[stevebrot]

Codecs have been a requirement of the manufacturer since the introduction of Vista and WiC (Windows Imaging Component). It is the manufacturers responsibility to provide those elements which are in a broad since drivers.

I guess that explains why support is so poor across the board.


Steve

[Wasp]

As a quick test, I took this picture in both DNG and PEF versions. The DNG files were 16 megabytes and the PEF files were 10 megabytes in size.

I then ran the PEF version through my absolute favourite (open source) editing tool i.e Darktable. No problems there, it works just fine. Now I don't know why I should still use DNG. One learns something new all the time.