[STES]

Couldn't find any answers to this question and problem of mine:

When opening PEF files in my photo editor Affinity Photo (MAC), I get no thumbnails in the folder from which I open the files (actually I have the same problem in Light Room, but Affinity Photo is my go to-editor).

I've been trying to dig up solutions to this problem on the net and in the forums, but haven't found anything useful, so far. I imagined, there might be a plugin of some sort somewhere that might help me.

The problem persist whether I copy the PEF-files directly from the SD-card onto a hard disk, use Digital Camera Utility 5 or Nikons Nikon Transfer 2. And the anoying thing is, that I have to open the PEF-files in the editor to check which frame is which and which to choose - and that really slows down work flow.

I have no problem with Nikons proprietory NEF RAW files - and I'd rather not use DNG.

Camera: Pentax K-3 II

Thx!

[boriscleto]

Not an issue for me. What version is you Digital Camera RAW Compatibility? K-3 II support was added in 6.17 in October 2015.

The only place I don't get a thumbnail is in the Finder. There is no small thumbnail in Columns view. But if you click the icon you get a preview.

[STES]

Hi Boris,
I don't seem to be able to verify my version of Digital Camera RAW directly anywhere on the computer - but as I'm running latest version of OS X Yosemite, I guess it must be 6.06? There are no pending updates on OS X Yosemite, Affinity Photo, LR5 etc. indicating, that my image processing software is up to date. But as you mention Digital Camera RAW 6.17 of October 2015 I beginn to wonder if the price of staying with OS X Yosemite (instead of going for El Capitan) is showing here? My current version of Yosemite OS should support K-3 PEF's, though (not K-3 II, I know) ...

[boriscleto]

Hi Boris,
I don't seem to be able to verify my version of Digital Camera RAW directly anywhere on the computer - but as I'm running latest version of OS X Yosemite, I guess it must be 6.06? There are no pending updates on OS X Yosemite, Affinity Photo, LR5 etc. indicating, that my image processing software is up to date. But as you mention Digital Camera RAW 6.17 of October 2015 I beginn to wonder if the price of staying with OS X Yosemite (instead of going for El Capitan) is showing here? My current version of Yosemite OS should support K-3 PEF's, though (not K-3 II, I know) ...

DCRC 6.17 requires El Captian, so I guess K-3 II support is limited in Yosemite...

[kadajawi]

Any reason for not using DNG? It's the most compatible format out there, while support for Pentax is... well, sketchy at times.

[STES]

Any reason for not using DNG? It's the most compatible format out there, while support for Pentax is... well, sketchy at times.

I started my involvement with this forum out by asking about the differences and advantages of the PEF resp. DNG RAW-formats, as I come from the Nikon environment of no choice: RAW is Nikon RAW = NEF.

A lengthy discussion followed - and I chose to go by PEF, as first of all: it utilizes a smaller data side car compared to DNG's embedded data files and second: I'm not using Adobe Photo editors (or video editors, but that's another story).

I have complete faith in Pentax and PEF - and PEF works beautifully on MAC with OS X El Capitan's Digital Camera RAW Support of Pentax K-3 II's PEF-files.

[kadajawi]

I started my involvement with this forum out by asking about the differences and advantages of the PEF resp. DNG RAW-formats, as I come from the Nikon environment of no choice: RAW is Nikon RAW = NEF.

A lengthy discussion followed - and I chose to go by PEF, as first of all: it utilizes a smaller data side car compared to DNG's embedded data files and second: I'm not using Adobe Photo editors (or video editors, but that's another story).

I have complete faith in Pentax and PEF - and PEF works beautifully on MAC with OS X El Capitan's Digital Camera RAW Support of Pentax K-3 II's PEF-files.

Ok, interesting. Shouldn't the difference in embedded data be pretty much negligible? A few kb won't change anything. And it seems to me like if a raw converter supports a format, it will be DNG. Not just with Adobe software. Plus DNG files from the latest camera should still be compatible with old software, while PEF files from that camera won't work.

The only reason why I use PEF is because I want to convert the files to DNG in Lightroom (smaller files... even true when I use DNG in camera), and when the files end in DNG it's harder to tell if it was already converted or not.

[STES]

Ok, interesting. Shouldn't the difference in embedded data be pretty much negligible? A few kb won't change anything. And it seems to me like if a raw converter supports a format, it will be DNG. Not just with Adobe software. Plus DNG files from the latest camera should still be compatible with old software, while PEF files from that camera won't work.

The only reason why I use PEF is because I want to convert the files to DNG in Lightroom (smaller files... even true when I use DNG in camera), and when the files end in DNG it's harder to tell if it was already converted or not.

I agree: There isn't much difference, if there is one at all in practical terms. I just want to make sure, that I get the optimum RAW-file, and at the moment it seems to me, that the proprietary RAWs like NEF and PEF must be the way to get that certainty, in comparison to a non proprietary RAW (in terms of camera maker) like DNG.

I've just downloaded FastRawViewer and RawDigger - maybe they will show a difference between DNG, PEF and NEF - even if the purpose of FastRawViewer and RawDigger for me is to ensure optimum exposure and exposure latitude and not to check differences between RAW formats.

[emalvick]

It's important for those that don't know to realize that DNG isn't really a format but more of a container. What ends up happening is the DNG you get out of your Pentax is not quite the same as the one you would get if you converted another RAW format to a DNG. This actually becomes a factor with software that supports some but not all DNG files. For instance, the old Bibble software used to accept DNGs that came out of the camera (such as those from our Pentax cameras) while it didn't support those that came from Adobe's DNG converter.

As far as Pentax is concerned, there should be almost no difference between the files you get out of your camera be they PEF or DNG. Pentax has created them to be nearly identical. I think the reason for the DNG format is that software that more uniformly supports DNG files (Adobe products are one obvious example, but non-Adobe products do occasionally) will support your Pentax camera's DNG files before they may ever support your PEF files. The DNG container is supposed to allow for this.

This benefited me when I got my K3 because at the time DxO did not support its PEF files, but it did read the DNG files. Of course, that didn't mean DxO's software had the profiles already, but it was enough to allow me to at least read the RAW files.

Now, I do think there is good reason to potentially use PEF files vs. DNG files, and that is the one listed in this thread regarding the use of sidecar metadata rather than embedded metadata. It's a matter of personal preference, but if you have PEF files, software will only save metadata in XMP sidecar files. So, if you are cataloging your software with keywords or PP in LR, the information will be stored in the sidecar files. Once you have the PEF files backed up, you only have to back up the changed XMP files, which are much smaller and quicker to write.

With DNG files, all that information is embedded in the container. So doing all the above saves the information within the DNG files, and you have to back up the whole DNG file each time you make edits to the metadata. You are in essence transferring more data, writing more data to your back-up drives, and so forth when you use the DNG format.

Of course, if you only tend to process metadata and PP once, it may not matter. The one benefit of DNG's in this regard is that you don't have to move two files around if you need to shift your files around or share them. You have one file that has the metadata self-contained. Using PEF's with XMP files means that if you are using File Explorer you have 2 files for every photo, and they need to stay together if they get moved (or you lose the metadata). Then again, that can also be a nice security feature since you could share PEF files without metadata, but rarely do we share RAW files of any kind anyway.

For myself, I use DNG files. The extra operations didn't matter much to me, but I am second guessing it as I can tell that things aren't as smooth as they were with the larger DNG files I get from my K3 (vs. my K5). I'm contemplating using PEF files just to see if it makes my workflow a bit smoother. My catalog software can deal with either quite easily, as long as I don't mess with my files outside the catalog (e.g. using Windows Explorer). With software like DxO optics Pro, it may not matter much as the PP info is stored in a separate sidecar file from even the metadata. In that environment, changing to PEF may be a moot point.

[MJSfoto1956]

I'm definitely seeing my K-3ii PEF thumbnails using Affinity Photo on my Macbook Pro running OS X El Capitan v10.11.6.
Not sure what might be the problem with your setup.

Michael

[boriscleto]

I'm definitely seeing my K-3ii PEF thumbnails using Affinity Photo on my Macbook Pro running OS X El Capitan v10.11.6.
Not sure what might be the problem with your setup.

Michael

The problem is the OP is using OS X 10.10.x Yosemite.

[kadajawi]

It's important for those that don't know to realize that DNG isn't really a format but more of a container. What ends up happening is the DNG you get out of your Pentax is not quite the same as the one you would get if you converted another RAW format to a DNG. This actually becomes a factor with software that supports some but not all DNG files. For instance, the old Bibble software used to accept DNGs that came out of the camera (such as those from our Pentax cameras) while it didn't support those that came from Adobe's DNG converter.

As far as Pentax is concerned, there should be almost no difference between the files you get out of your camera be they PEF or DNG. Pentax has created them to be nearly identical. I think the reason for the DNG format is that software that more uniformly supports DNG files (Adobe products are one obvious example, but non-Adobe products do occasionally) will support your Pentax camera's DNG files before they may ever support your PEF files. The DNG container is supposed to allow for this.

This benefited me when I got my K3 because at the time DxO did not support its PEF files, but it did read the DNG files. Of course, that didn't mean DxO's software had the profiles already, but it was enough to allow me to at least read the RAW files.

Now, I do think there is good reason to potentially use PEF files vs. DNG files, and that is the one listed in this thread regarding the use of sidecar metadata rather than embedded metadata. It's a matter of personal preference, but if you have PEF files, software will only save metadata in XMP sidecar files. So, if you are cataloging your software with keywords or PP in LR, the information will be stored in the sidecar files. Once you have the PEF files backed up, you only have to back up the changed XMP files, which are much smaller and quicker to write.

With DNG files, all that information is embedded in the container. So doing all the above saves the information within the DNG files, and you have to back up the whole DNG file each time you make edits to the metadata. You are in essence transferring more data, writing more data to your back-up drives, and so forth when you use the DNG format.

Of course, if you only tend to process metadata and PP once, it may not matter. The one benefit of DNG's in this regard is that you don't have to move two files around if you need to shift your files around or share them. You have one file that has the metadata self-contained. Using PEF's with XMP files means that if you are using File Explorer you have 2 files for every photo, and they need to stay together if they get moved (or you lose the metadata). Then again, that can also be a nice security feature since you could share PEF files without metadata, but rarely do we share RAW files of any kind anyway.

For myself, I use DNG files. The extra operations didn't matter much to me, but I am second guessing it as I can tell that things aren't as smooth as they were with the larger DNG files I get from my K3 (vs. my K5). I'm contemplating using PEF files just to see if it makes my workflow a bit smoother. My catalog software can deal with either quite easily, as long as I don't mess with my files outside the catalog (e.g. using Windows Explorer). With software like DxO optics Pro, it may not matter much as the PP info is stored in a separate sidecar file from even the metadata. In that environment, changing to PEF may be a moot point.

I have to disagree with the DNG is more of a container thing. The DNG specs say how the files have to be encoded, so that any DNG decoder can decode the files. There is some lossless compression possible, but how you do it doesn't matter, as long as the decoder is able to decode it. That's why the DNG output of the camera is different to that from the Adobe converter. The camera encoder isn't as sophisticated, it needs to be fast on a pretty slow processor. The PC based encoder can do a better job, as it has much beefier hardware at its disposal and has more time to do the job.

At some point Adobe added lossy DNG, which is essentially a hacked JPEG file that is capable of saving files with significantly higher dynamic range than a traditional JPEG can, and that lets you do all the kind of adjustments you could on a true raw file, like white balance etc. I've used these files, and I don't see a real downside. I use it on low ISO files that aren't so important. (Btw., it would be cool if Pentax added this capability... imagine those situations where you need a high frame rate for a long time... you need to burst for a while, that is possible with JPEG files, but less so with raw files because the files are too big. But with this, you'd get JPEG sized files that you can properly edit like a raw file, and that include most of the dynamic range of proper raw files, etc.). But I digress, Some DNG decoders will struggle with these files. They shouldn't with lossless DNG files, if they do, maybe Adobe changed something in the format. But I expected Adobe to stay downwards compatible.

True, with the sidecar files, though good backup software will only store the changes to the files, so there is little difference to using sidecar files.