Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-09-2014, 04:13 AM   #1
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MetteHHH's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,817
Any DISadvantages to .png rather than .pef raw files?

I always used .pef - I guess because it seemed natural to use the native file format for my camera.

However, I use Lightroom, and I got the Scott Kelby lightroom book for Christmas, and he lists a lot of advantages to using .png (open source file format, smaller size, changes in lightroom saved as metadata to the original file). He doesn't go into disadvantages, though.

I am thinking there might be some. But I can't really imagine what they might be...

Any ideas?

If this thread just sinks into board oblivion unanswered, I think I will switch - but I would love to learn!

04-09-2014, 04:25 AM   #2
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,464
Do you mean DNG? Digital Negative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DNG is not open source, but it was released by Adobe as an open standard.

Because a PNG is a Portable Network Graphics file. PNG (PNG's Not GIF) is a raster image format meant for transferring images on the Internet, not print quality graphics. Portable Network Graphics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
04-09-2014, 04:48 AM   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MetteHHH's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,817
Original Poster
Yes! Thanks boriscleto - I meant .dng, and I meant open standard, not open source.

Thank you for providing free nonsense translation services

Any opinion as to advantages / disadvantages?
04-09-2014, 05:03 AM   #4
Veteran Member
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,186
There are a couple threads about DNG vs PEF. Some prefer Pef, but most just use dng because it is supported by more raw developing software. With the modern cameras there is practically no difference.
Whether the files are handled non-destructively depends on the software, not only the files. But pef and dng both support this, as far as I know.
What software are you planning to use? Because dng and pef files do not look good until you develop them. Pentax cameras usually come with a free version of Silkypix. Lots of people like to use Lightroom, Aftershot pro, and CaptureOne Pro. Good free alternatives are FastStone and Gimp.

04-09-2014, 05:11 AM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MetteHHH's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,817
Original Poster
Thanks Na Horuk - I read through the previous threads and found no reason not to switch to dng. Sorry to post a replicate thread, but it was all due to my misspelling (or misthinking) dng in the first place - so I did do a forum search before posting, but unsurprisingly no previous threads compared pef to png...

I use Lightroom, which is why the topic came up in the first place - dng would simplify the file structure on my pc a bit, if nothing else (by incorporating edits in the metadata rather than in a seperate file). Since my workflow is messy, every bit of simplification helps!
04-09-2014, 05:22 AM   #6
Veteran Member
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,186
No worries, there are so many of these abbreviations and formats it gets confusing. But for most intents and purposes, dng and pef are virtually identical. Some Pentax cameras don't even offer pef, only dng.
04-09-2014, 07:32 AM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,991
I think initially there was a slight advantage to PEF in file size. At some point that seems to have gone away. I don`t think there is any advantage to PEF anymore. Even Pentax has stopped offering it on all cameras I believe, which shows you what they think.

If you use Adobe software then DNG is a no-brainer, for other software determine which format is supported better.

04-09-2014, 09:32 AM   #8
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 964
Lots of information about DNG

Here is more than anyone is likely to want about DNG!
04-09-2014, 11:30 AM - 1 Like   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,236
Most anyone who has Adobe certification has gone through the Adobe brainwashing on the superiority of their proprietary DNG format (they can call it whatever they want, but it's functionally proprietary). They pretty much have to say this to remain in Adobe's good graces. Notice this pitch also includes the subtle implication that Adobe makes the only legitimate editing software - therefore (much like Microsoft) they have the right to create (and control) the standards. The question is, do you want to use the camera maker's proprietary format, or the "Universal" one by Adobe? The advantage of the camera maker's format is the RAW software can know for sure what camera took the shot, and apply the right camera profile if it has one. With DNG it sometimes can't tell (or is too lazy to figure out) what camera took it.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't use DNG, but it has just as many disadvantages as advantages. I use PEFs because Capture One has done better with it in the past, and I think it still does.


Whichever you choose, don't let Adobe scare you into thinking your PEF files are going to become obsolete, and you'll lose all your photos. Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes, if ever, even if Pentax goes belly up tomorrow. Someone will always make software to read those old photos.

Last edited by DSims; 04-09-2014 at 11:38 AM.
04-09-2014, 12:22 PM   #10
Pentaxian
Paul the Sunman's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,836
QuoteOriginally posted by MetteHHH Quote
I always used .pef - I guess because it seemed natural to use the native file format for my camera.

However, I use Lightroom, and I got the Scott Kelby lightroom book for Christmas, and he lists a lot of advantages to using .png (open source file format, smaller size, changes in lightroom saved as metadata to the original file). He doesn't go into disadvantages, though.

I am thinking there might be some. But I can't really imagine what they might be...

Any ideas?

If this thread just sinks into board oblivion unanswered, I think I will switch - but I would love to learn!
I normally use PEF with my K-5. However, with my K-3 I have swapped to DNG because I do my processing using Apple Aperture, and that software (currently) reports "unknown lens" with all lenses for PEF files from the K-3, but gets it right for DNG.
04-09-2014, 01:24 PM   #11
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 964
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
Most anyone who has Adobe certification has gone through the Adobe brainwashing on the superiority of their proprietary DNG format (they can call it whatever they want, but it's functionally proprietary). They pretty much have to say this to remain in Adobe's good graces. Notice this pitch also includes the subtle implication that Adobe makes the only legitimate editing software - therefore (much like Microsoft) they have the right to create (and control) the standards. The question is, do you want to use the camera maker's proprietary format, or the "Universal" one by Adobe? The advantage of the camera maker's format is the RAW software can know for sure what camera took the shot, and apply the right camera profile if it has one. With DNG it sometimes can't tell (or is too lazy to figure out) what camera took it.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't use DNG, but it has just as many disadvantages as advantages. I use PEFs because Capture One has done better with it in the past, and I think it still does.

Whichever you choose, don't let Adobe scare you into thinking your PEF files are going to become obsolete, and you'll lose all your photos. Ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes, if ever, even if Pentax goes belly up tomorrow. Someone will always make software to read those old photos.
DNG is the only archival raw file format.

Here is lots of information on my blog.

Here is lots of information on my website.

Here is the Wikipedia article on DNG.

DNG files identify the camera concerned.

(I am independent of Adobe. I'm not sure what "Adobe Certification" is, and I certainly haven't got it. What I do have is more information published about DNG than anyone else outside Adobe, published over about 7 years).

Whatever a person's criticisms about DNG, ask: "do these same criticisms apply to camera makers' own raw files?" Mostly the answer is "yes, and lots more!" Try getting a specification of a camera maker's raw file format. Or a source-code-based SDK for it. Or a license to manipulate it or develop or use software that manipulates it. Try to find anyone on the planet who believes camera makers' raw file formats will ever be the raw file format of choice of photograph archivists. But all of these are possible with DNG.
04-09-2014, 02:03 PM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 307
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
Try to find anyone on the planet who believes camera makers' raw file formats will ever be the raw file format of choice of photograph archivists. But all of these are possible with DNG.
Dear Barry, greetings from the other side of the English Channel.

A little off topic, but you seem to be the right person to ask this question.

So I have been playing around DNG for a while now. I see sometimes that the image preview is garbled or the stored image is damaged but the embedded JPG is intact.

Let me explain better. Sometimes I take a picture, its jpg preview would show fine in thumbnails, then I refresh it, it shows garbled or damaged. Now it is reading the DNG as I gave it some time. So the DNG is damaged but the embedded JPG is not.

Can you throw some light - Can this problem occur? Why is an embedded jpg required anyways?

best regards,
Deedee
04-10-2014, 01:55 AM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,236
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
DNG is the only archival raw file format.

Here is lots of information on my blog.

Here is lots of information on my website.

Here is the Wikipedia article on DNG.

DNG files identify the camera concerned.

(I am independent of Adobe. I'm not sure what "Adobe Certification" is, and I certainly haven't got it. What I do have is more information published about DNG than anyone else outside Adobe, published over about 7 years).

Whatever a person's criticisms about DNG, ask: "do these same criticisms apply to camera makers' own raw files?" Mostly the answer is "yes, and lots more!" Try getting a specification of a camera maker's raw file format. Or a source-code-based SDK for it. Or a license to manipulate it or develop or use software that manipulates it. Try to find anyone on the planet who believes camera makers' raw file formats will ever be the raw file format of choice of photograph archivists. But all of these are possible with DNG.
Theories are nice, but it must work right in practice.

Just think about this simple fact: it's impossible for the DNG file to contain any more information than the original RAW file. At least not unless someone manually adds it. So then what is the advantage of DNG?

And why don't you show me any serious photo archivist on the planet who won't work with whatever odd format of negative or positive he has if he cares about the photograph? So what would stop him from using a PEF file when the software that can read it I readily available?


DNGs fall on their own lack of merit or execution. But Adobe itself inspires even less confidence. I've worked with companies that bought into the "open" PDF format early on. They decided to store all of their documents in that format. I'm talking about larger corporations, many of whom scan or generate over a million pages a day. Only a few years later they found they couldn't read their early generation PDF files - the format had changed and even Adobe's latest software couldn't read them! Guess who's gone back to scanning into TIFF files?


Only DNG seems to be able to take a perfectly good file and make it less usable. So the answer is "NO, the same criticisms don't all apply to the camera makers' own files."

If even casual users have problems with DNG files today (apparently I'm not the only one, even in this short thread) how can you seriously advocate it as a format to keep these files in for the future? The mere "promise" of the possibility that the DNG format may become well executed 20 years from now does not make it suitable for implementation today - or any time in the near future.
04-10-2014, 03:13 AM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,236
However, to the OP, it may be that DNG is just as good or better for you - especially if you plan to continue using Lightroom. Just make sure you try both PEF and DNG files (hopefully DNGs direct from the camera, if possible) in LR and check whether one gives you better results, or whether only one picks up the Adobe camera profile (Adobe profiles are sometimes mediocre to begin with, but still better than nothing).

Then if you pick DNG as your RAW format, keep a close eye on the files for a while to make sure they continue to consistently work well for you.
04-10-2014, 05:55 AM   #15
Veteran Member
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 964
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
Theories are nice, but it must work right in practice.

Just think about this simple fact: it's impossible for the DNG file to contain any more information than the original RAW file. At least not unless someone manually adds it. So then what is the advantage of DNG?
Simply not true! DNG files converted from other raw files do contain more than the original raw files, and this doesn't contravene any laws of logic or whatever. (The information is added by the DNG Converter, rather than "manually", whatever that means).

This article explains how this happens.

This blog explains how this happens.

This subsection shows actual contents for NEFs versus DNGs converted from them.

PEFs don't include all the camera details that DNGs from the same cameras do. That is why the Lightroom I am using can process the DNGs from my K-3 but not the PEFs from it.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
adobe, camera, converter, disadvantages, disadvantages to .png, dng, dngs, files, format, lightroom, pef, pefs, photography, photos, photoshop, software, tiff
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PEF files to JPEG luigi115 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 20 06-15-2013 11:36 AM
Microsoft releases RAW Codec with support for Pentax PEF raw files NKK Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 16 08-27-2012 06:00 AM
PEF files converted to DNG with Lightroom not readable by Raw Therapee? klh Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 13 08-08-2012 06:13 AM
Editing PEF RAW files on a Mac Kennuck Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 13 12-17-2011 12:13 AM
cs4 and raw PEF files citrus sky Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 16 08-25-2011 12:36 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:14 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top