[UncleVanya]

To be quite honest, adding options to the JPEG engine like this is not interesting at all for an all-raw shooter like myself. The idea might appeal to people who often (or even incidentally) shoot jpeg but then I'm wondering why these profiles are locked to specific lenses if jpeg profiles is all they are. But again, as long as they keeps their filthy handses off my preciousss PEF files, I'll survive.

Why do you use PEF rather than DNG? I’m curious.

---

Last edited by UncleVanya; 06-24-2022 at 01:15 PM.

[reh321]

Why do you shout in PEF rather than DNG? I’m curious.

Did you mean “shoot” instead of “shout”?

[newmikey]

Why do you shout in PEF rather than DNG? I’m curious.

Why would I shoot DNG instead of PEF?

[jslifoaw]

Why would I shoot DNG instead of PEF?

I know for me, it allows me to continue to use an older suite of Adobe software (CS5.5) to process files from new cameras, and is generally a more universal format. Pretty much any software that can process PEF can process DNG but not the other way around.

In the past, there may have been a file size benefit as well because of varying degrees of support for lossless compression, but I think PEF has caught up; back in the *ist D / K100D days, not only was PEF the only RAW format available out of camera, but they were not compressed so they were huge relative to the resolution.

[newmikey]

I know for me, it allows me to continue to use an older suite of Adobe software (CS5.5) to process files from new cameras, and is generally a more universal format. Pretty much any software that can process PEF can process DNG but not the other way around.

All of the software available to me now and in any foreseeable future processes PEF. I have never nor will ever run Adobe products, not compatible with my PC - so zero interest.

[gatorguy]

All of the software available to me now and in any foreseeable future processes PEF. I have never nor will ever run any Adobe products - zero interest.

Absolutely no reason not to use PEF if you prefer.

[newmikey]

Absolutely no reason not to use PEF if you prefer.

I know but it gets a bit much sometimes when people ask why I'm not using DNG instead of PEF. What's in it for me to use a format which is primarily designed around and for software I have no intention to ever use nor is provided for my operating system? I would need a reason to NOT use PEF, not a reason to use it.

Other than that, any of the existing proprietary raw formats (NEF, CRW, CR2, ORF, ARW and yes also PEF) at least guarantees the content is an actual and accurate reflection of the data as captured by the camera - a true digital negative if you will (or as close to it as possible). A DNG could be a converted proprietary raw, a straight out of camera native DNG, an LR edited DNG, an image file with lossy compression, non-raw (post demosaicing) image etc. etc. Far from being proof of ownership and author rights, a DNG just poses questions about its origins.

Also, as to the argument of archiving doesn't really hold any ground either. My current raw software can still load and convert bayer files from my 2003 Casio QV4000 (with raw firmware hack), QV5700, Canon G5, G11 and Pro1. It also has zero issues with PEF files from my very first Pentax DSLR in 2006 - the K110D - all the way up to todays KP PEF files (even if they are pixelshift PEFs).

So what would be the reason for me to NOT use PEF?

[jcdoss]

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?

[newmikey]

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?

Nope, none whatsoever.

[UncleVanya]

Why would I shoot DNG instead of PEF?

It is more broadly supported and you give up nothing by doing so.

[newmikey]

It is more broadly supported and you give up nothing by doing so.

Sorry. Same old, same old argument doesn't fly with me and never did. Last time I looked even on Windows or Apple there weren't too many packages which read DNG but not PEF. On Linux that number goes down to zero. What is your definition of "broadly supported"?

[UncleVanya]

Sorry. Same old, same old argument doesn't fly with me and never did. Last time I looked even on Windows or Apple there weren't too many packages which read DNG but not PEF. On Linux that number goes down to zero. What is your definition of "broadly supported"?

Dude. Feel free to add me to the ignore list. I’m done.

[newmikey]

Just tested on Mac OS, changed RAW format in K-3 III from DNG to PEF. Took a snap, inserted SD into Mac.

DxO says fine
DCU says fine
Photos (MacOS native app) has white blank box. Has no idea what to do with this (unlike DNG)

SInce I only use Photos to do a quick look-see I don't care, I can do same in DCU or DxO. But in this experiment, Apple native app can read DNG but not PEF.

Cheers!

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5287970

It remains a self-defeating argument to say that you can trick an OS or a software package to read a raw file by either converting it to DNG or using the DNG native format on your camera. If Pentax put anything into that raw file (DNG òr PEF) which postdates the cutoff for that OS or app's latest version update, you will not benefit from it.

Whether you see an image on-screen or not is totally beside the point, in most cases you'd be looking at the builtin jpeg preview thumbnail anyway but even if you can convince your software to "convert" a DNG from a generation of camera for which your software is not adapted, you may be missing out on some exciting new capability of your shiny new camera.

So to me, an app "has white blank box. Has no idea what to do with this" would be a sign to update my app, not to feed it a DNG unless it was a temporary measure to tide me over until the update.

Does everybody here REALLY believe that using older and outdated software which is not really aware of any newer camera models is a great idea? Likewise, has the marketing trick worked and does everyone really believe that you lose nothing from converting a newer generation DNG with older software? Lastly, does anyone really believe the misinformation that native raw formats may become unreadable in some distant future while DNG will still be there, even if a lot of software available today still reads native raws from before DNG was even "invented"?

[Digitalis]

Lastly, does anyone really believe the misinformation that native raw formats may become unreadable in some distant future while DNG will still be there, even if a lot of software available today still reads native raws from before DNG was even "invented"?

There is a litany of AV formats that have gone extinct without any possibility of being able to recover data, is it really so far-fetched to think the same can happen to digital image files? Cameras that use nonstandard pixel formats and altered colour filter arrays* and alternate pixel pattern layouts** that may be difficult to correctly interpret with current software as the original processing software could. Early Kodak, Fuji,SONY, Nikon and Foveon cameras have raw files that for various and assorted reasons are rather difficult to read correctly.


* The SONY DSC F828 used an alternate RGBE Mosaic. Depending upon their content when RAW files from the F828 are improperly interpreted the resulting images can be unusable. Sigma Foveon cameras have don't need images to be demosaiced. And In any case Sigma uses horrid proprietary raw conversion software: If Sigma dropped their corporate egotism and adopted DNG, their users could change to better and more efficient workflows and be more competitive with other photographers.

**Super CCD HR and SR I and II, the Nikon D1X used non-square pixel elements.

[kypfer]

Does everybody here REALLY believe that using older and outdated software which is not really aware of any newer camera models is a great idea?

Possibly the main reason I've come to grips with DCU (for as much as I need it), apart from the "price point", is knowing that it'll be the first to accommodate any updates and innovations