[Wheatfield]

I thought PEF and DNG were pretty much the same thing. I've been using DNG since I do use Lightroom. Are there advantages to using PEF in my case?

If a new camera comes out, it can sometimes take a while for the various raw converters to catch up.
This is not an issue with the DNG format.
Other than that there isn't anything one way or the other that's better or worse and if a person is always a generation back from the latest and greatest camera, they will never have a problem.

I switched from PEF to DNG with the K10 because my software wouldn't play with the K10 PEF files, but would play nice with DNG.
It was a couple of months before the software caught up, but by then I was not going to switch back.

---------- Post added Jul 1st, 2022 at 06:08 PM ----------

Are we sure that Pentax (or other brand) DNG would be read-able if Pentax wouldn't be supported?

Personally, I'm not so sure about how generic are DNG files, and I think (maybe I'm wrong) that each camera manufacturer has it's own way of using the DNG container. If the DNG implementation is brand specific, that means there's no generic advantage over PEF.

The DNG format has a set of specifications it has to meet to be valid. The idea of the format is to be universal and brand agnostic.
This differs from camera maker's formats which are not only brand specific, they are model specific as well.
This is why if one buys a brand new camera, it can sometimes be a while until it's files are readable in various raw converters and why eventually older raw converters simply stop supporting new camera native formats, whereas DNG files are readable in any raw converter that supports the DNG format.

I still have Photoshop 7 on an old laptop. This was the first version of Photoshop that had a raw converter and predates the CS suites. It will open K1 DNG files, though it takes a very long time and there is no good reason for doing it other than random curiosity.
The point is that one doesn't have to get onto the buy new software hamster wheel to keep up with one's new camera with DNG, while it's a real possibility if one is using a native format.

The DNG format allows the user to extend the life of their older software if it is doing everything the user wants it to do. Manufacturer's native formats don't necessarily allow that.

---------- Post added Jul 1st, 2022 at 06:09 PM ----------

You are all ignoring the elephant in the room: when presented with a DNG file, there is no obvious way to tell whether it is really a raw file or even whether it is actually produced by a specific camera respecting the DNG guidelines. It could be:
1) A straight out of camera raw file (from a camera manufacturer offering the DNG option to store raw in-camera)
2) A manipulated raw file stored by LR (or some other software)
3) The result of a conversion of a proprietary raw file to DNG via any of the many existing converters which may or may not result in the loss of proprietary Maker notes
4) Same as (3) but now in a lossy compression format which may even omit some sensor data besides Maker notes
5) A non-raw image file (post demosaicing, post WB or both) stored inside a DNG container
6) Any other variation I have not yet named above

This is not about fear but about certainty. The certainty that a PEF/NEF/CR2/ORF/ARW/etc file comes straight out of the camera which generated it, with only minimal adjustments allowed to its EXIF (such as copyright info or GPS coordinates)

Strawman.

---------- Post added Jul 1st, 2022 at 06:12 PM ----------

Thanks, that clears up where you stand. You don't really care about all of the software improvements and technical experience gained since 2017 and you have no interest in availing yourself of any camera potential in the sensor data of newer camera models since that same date. I will never understand the fact people buy the latest and greatest DSLR body only to subsequently not use it to the fullest of its capability and/or the fullest of newer software developments available.

Another strawman with a hint of ad hominem attack thrown in for good measure.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Of course X-rite ColorChecker software deals also with ICC profiles and non-DNG files:

No it creates ICC and DCP file but in order to build those files it first needs a file containing an image of a target created taken by a camera so that it can be opened in its software and guess what that file format needs to be ?
After taking an image of a colorchecker target the only way to open that raw file in X-rite has to be converted into a DNG raw format for the software read and open and then build you a DCP ICC color profile that then can be loaded into anyone of a number of raw converters.



Notice as to how it X-rite software needs to be in the DNG format and that it has to converted ( saved as DNG)

And again here



Creating DNG Profiles for Adobe Camera Raw

And again to state it for x-rite software to open the raw file of the target you just shot needs to be in a DNG file format for it to read and open so that you can create color profile of the colorchecker target your camera produced

I don't think you are following what is being discussed here , Yes any raw converter does not need the raw file to be a DNG file so that a DCP or ICC colorprofile can be applied to the raw and converted into a color image.
What is needed if you are creating a colorprofile DCP or ICC using adobe profile editor software or X-rite profile editor software the image used to create the profile has to be in the DNG file format

---------- Post added 07-01-2022 at 06:49 PM ----------

I use DxO photolab 5 and it enables you to simulate the colour renderings of various camera bodies when processing the dng files.
*Forgive me if this is not what you were referring to*

Basically yes, for the raw converter to convert the data in the raw file into a working colorspace it needs to know what those values in the raw file represent and how they are to be converted With DXO you can also import your own custom made color profiles ( DCP ICC) further down in the vary same tab,

[biz-engineer]

The DNG format has a set of specifications it has to meet to be valid. The idea of the format is to be universal and brand agnostic.

Reason why I was asking about how generic is DNG is because I had my raw converter unable to read some DNG files. To me, it looks like DNG offers some degrees of freedom about how the data in packed inside the DNG contained, some of the data configurations may not be readable. For instance, if I shoot a Pentax HDR saved as DNG, my raw converter doesn't know how to handle the HDR, it just reads it as an single image without HDR. Other instance is hand-held pixel shift as DNG, my raw converter can't read it, but the file is still a DNG. When I converted PEF raw files to DNG using Adobe DNG converter, neither PDCU nor Silkypix are able to open the DNG files.

[newmikey]

No it creates ICC and DCP file but in order to build those files it first needs a file containing an image of a target created taken by a camera so that it can be opened in its software and guess what that file format needs to be ?
After taking an image of a colorchecker target the only way to open that raw file in X-rite has to be converted into a DNG raw format for the software read and open and then build you a DCP ICC color profile that then can be loaded into anyone of a number of raw converters.

I get it, I think. So because your profiler requires a raw file to be (once in a while) in DNG format to generate an ICC (or DCP) profile, you just end up preferring DNG as an overall format for all of your images? You may find that logical but I struggle there. For the profiling, it doesn't really matter that the DNG converter strips some information out of the raw file (as per Adobe's own statement) but why does that imply that it is better to shoot DNG (or convert to DNG) as a general standard?

That would cause me to say: "I shoot in PEF because even though I incidentally need a DNG file for my profiler, I can easily convert a PEF to DNG". It doesn't really resolve any of the other problems surrounding the DNG format and it is, again, a software argument instead of a container format argument.

I'm still lacking an answer to my original question which was "Why would I NOT use PEF (NEF,ORF,ARW,CRW etc.)?"

[Hythloday]

I'm still lacking an answer to my original question which was "Why would I NOT use PEF (NEF,ORF,ARW,CRW etc.)?"

Turn it around to: Why would I not use DNG?

PEF is the camera format and DNG is universal Adobe format used by practically all software. The DNG format offers far more flexibilty than the PEF format. You have developed a good way of developing your PEF files. But what will happen if one of your software components has stopped developing its product?

For myself I have used Photoshop Elements 14 for a long time. It is an Adobe product. Do I like Adobe? No, its colour profiles aren't what I what. PSE is a fine program to work with but I cannot use PEF files, but DNG files are no problem. Some years ago there was a RAW converter called Rawstudio. Its dcp colour profiles could be used in PSE. The Rawstudio colour profiles were far better than Adobe's colour profiles. But Rawstudio has stopped developing its software product. (see: https://www.linux.com/news/rawstudio-fast-and-light-raw-photo-converter/)

Now I use Rawtherapee to convert my DNG files. Rawtherapee is a better rawconverter than Camera RAW in PSE with more possiblities. But the last update was 5.8 released on 4 Feb 2020. The developing team has become smaller. Honestly speaking, I don't need version 5.9 as version 5.8 works perfectly for me.

Be happy to use PEF, but when you have to change software you will come to the conclusion that DNG is a far easier format.

[StiffLegged]

This really has run its course. Whether a user shoots PEF or DNG raw images is the user’s decision, since there’s no difference in image quality. Whether the user processes the images with one or another software tool is also the user’s decision and in this case it’s down to the user’s skill or lack of it which determines the quality of the results, not the brand on the download.

Use what you need and are happy with, you’re not sheeple for doing so. Ignore idiots who insist otherwise.

[Rondec]

Reason why I was asking about how generic is DNG is because I had my raw converter unable to read some DNG files. To me, it looks like DNG offers some degrees of freedom about how the data in packed inside the DNG contained, some of the data configurations may not be readable. For instance, if I shoot a Pentax HDR saved as DNG, my raw converter doesn't know how to handle the HDR, it just reads it as an single image without HDR. Other instance is hand-held pixel shift as DNG, my raw converter can't read it, but the file is still a DNG. When I converted PEF raw files to DNG using Adobe DNG converter, neither PDCU nor Silkypix are able to open the DNG files.

HDR and pixel shift (both varieties) are special case scenarios. In these cases, Pentax used the DNG as a container for three (HDR) or four (pixel shift) images. It takes specific software development to know what to do with these files. I don't know of any that deal with HDR, although I think Raw Therapee allows you to split the file into the three base images. Obviously with pixel shift, there are a couple of programs that can process standard pixel shift images, but I don't know of any that will take care of the hand held variety. The RT developer who posted on here some said that he didn't think it was possible to program for the hand held variety -- something about not having adequate information to do the processing the way the camera would.

I get it, I think. So because your profiler requires a raw file to be (once in a while) in DNG format to generate an ICC (or DCP) profile, you just end up preferring DNG as an overall format for all of your images? You may find that logical but I struggle there. For the profiling, it doesn't really matter that the DNG converter strips some information out of the raw file (as per Adobe's own statement) but why does that imply that it is better to shoot DNG (or convert to DNG) as a general standard?

That would cause me to say: "I shoot in PEF because even though I incidentally need a DNG file for my profiler, I can easily convert a PEF to DNG". It doesn't really resolve any of the other problems surrounding the DNG format and it is, again, a software argument instead of a container format argument.

I'm still lacking an answer to my original question which was "Why would I NOT use PEF (NEF,ORF,ARW,CRW etc.)?"

As long as your software supports PEF, there isn't a reason not to use it. If you buy a new camera on the day of release, like the K-1 II or K-3 III, it may be a few weeks before Adobe comes out with a patch that covers your new camera. You can still open DNG files from that camera, but PEF may not open well. I have certainly had that experience in the past.

[Hythloday]

Whether a user shoots PEF or DNG raw images is the user’s decision, since there’s no difference in image quality.

You are perfectly right in everything you wrote. I used PEF until 2012 and changed to DNG so I could use the Rawstudio colour profiles. Since that time I have used DNG, simply because that format offers more flexibility.

But if you don't need/want that flexibility use PEF. It is as simple as that.

P.S. All my software can process the older PEF files. But if I want to make a dcp colour profile for my K200D files I cannot do so. If they were DNG files, it wouldn't be a problem.

[slartibartfast01]

Funny how a simple one line question leads to thread of more than 50 posts
Me, I use DNG as the K-50 doesn't give me a choice.
Harry Hill has a way to decide which is better

[Hythloday]

Funny how a simple one line question leads to thread of more than 50 posts
Me, I use DNG as the K-50 doesn't give me a choice.

Well, you can always start the discussion: should I use JPG or DNG.

Well, you can always start the discussion: should I use JPG or DNG.

nooooooo

[slartibartfast01]

nooooooo

Too late
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/76-canon-nikon-sony-other-camera-brands/443567-auto-jpg-dunning-kruger-effect-post5585992.html

[Wheatfield]

Reason why I was asking about how generic is DNG is because I had my raw converter unable to read some DNG files. To me, it looks like DNG offers some degrees of freedom about how the data in packed inside the DNG contained, some of the data configurations may not be readable. For instance, if I shoot a Pentax HDR saved as DNG, my raw converter doesn't know how to handle the HDR, it just reads it as an single image without HDR. Other instance is hand-held pixel shift as DNG, my raw converter can't read it, but the file is still a DNG. When I converted PEF raw files to DNG using Adobe DNG converter, neither PDCU nor Silkypix are able to open the DNG files.

That's a problem with the raw converter, not the file. As was mentioned earlier, Adobe doesn't play nice with pixel shift images, I expect because they can't be bothered to make their raw converter decode them because we are such a small user base.

[biz-engineer]

That's a problem with the raw converter, not the file.

Yes, I agree. And if the abcd camera brand specific DNG is fully compliant with the standard, but no raw converter can read it, I'm asking myself what's the value of DNG being a standard?

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

it doesn't really matter that the DNG converter strips some information out of the raw file (as per Adobe's own statement) but why does that imply that it is better to shoot DNG (or convert to DNG) as a general standard?

I am one of the unfortunate users of another camera company that does not give you the option of using DNG as a output option. When selecting a DNG as an output from the camera it gives you the best flexibility, running 3 to 4 different software's there is no need to continually paying for the updates or subscriptions to use newer versions, there is also no need to convert files to DNG from the raw file created by the camera eveytime I want to use the camera that is not supported by the software in raw converting or other camera tools.

The main point of the thread was about using PEF or DNG and not really about converting PEF to DNG, when you have the option of using the camera with DNG as a output option it really gives you the best of most worlds. No data loss (with many times an easier access to more data and easier manipulation of data for storage in the DNG file its self) greater flexibility across raw conversion, other applications for image processing procedures and finally the reliance on developers release of profiles that can take months after release of a cameras model