Originally posted by newmikey "It will open up raw shooting to more people, more products, and more opportunities, and make it easier for photographers and users of photographs to build more valuable and comprehensive workflows."
When I stopped counting in 2010, there were 14 cameras makers using DNG, 47 camera models using DNG, 240+ software products able to process DNG to some or a full extent, and 290+ Adobe-Convertible raw image formats. And about 7 or 8 alternative DNG converters to cater for niche or hacked cameras that the Adobe DNG Converter didn't cater for.
DNG has made it easier for niche and minority camera makers to output raw files and get their raw files processed.
Suppose that you were developing a digiscope that can record raw files. You need a raw file format to write. You needed raw file converters to process those raw files. What do you do?
Answer (and it has been done): use DNG. The format is published and freely available. There is an SDK to help develop the DNG code. Once completed, there are perhaps 100 or more software products that can now process your images.
There are many other niche and minority cameras that have benefited in the same way. Life became easier for those camera makers and users.
Originally posted by newmikey DNG turned out to be just one more raw format.
DNG is unlike
any other raw file format.It is the only one with a freely available specification. It is the only one with a freely available (no questions asked and no NDA) SDK comprising C++ and executables. There are various other aids for using it too:
Digital Negative (DNG), Adobe DNG Converter | Adobe Photoshop CC
There is a weird attitude that some people have towards DNG. It is fairly common for people to say "DNG has problem X, so I'll continue using my ... [CR2s] ... [NEFs] ... [PEFs] ... ". Yet those raw file formats not only also suffer from problem X, but also lots more problems. Somehow, their anti-DNG (or perhaps anti-Adobe) attitude is so strong that they think a problem X with DNG (even if it exists) is vastly more serious than the same problem X and lots more with their own camera makers' non-DNG raw files.
Another common trap that people fall into is that because the format of DNG is specified they can see things that they think (rightly or wrongly) are problems. But because the format of their own camera makers' non-DNG raw files are not published, they can't see what problems are lurking there, so they appear to assume there aren't any!
Some people have criticised DNG for allowing data of unpublished format to be output as DNGPrivateData in the file. While ignoring the fact that
everything in their own camera makers' non-DNG raw files is in unpublished format! It is hard to find faults with DNG that are not present (along with many more) in camera makers non-DNG raw files.
DNG is the only archival raw file format Endorsements for DNG
How many other raw file formats are used by cameras of several different manufacturers? And why not? (As far as I know, DNG is the only raw file format for which explicit permission has been published for everyone and all organisations to use it).