Adobe toys with standardizing DNG raw photo format

Adobe Systems is discussing potential standardization of its Digital Negative (DNG) format for digital images, a company executive has said.

Most people are fine with plain-old JPEG for their images, but higher-end cameras can produce more flexible and higher-quality "raw" photos that are encoded with camera makers' proprietary formats. Because different cameras produce different formats, companies such as Adobe whose software deals with raw files face a daunting engineering challenge understanding.

DNG is designed as an alternative to the profusion--what Adobe calls a Tower of Babel--but it hasn't caught on widely. Ricoh, Casio, Pentax, and a few other camera makers sell cameras that can record DNG files, but the two heavyweights, Nikon and Canon, along with Olympus and Sony, so far have given it the cold shoulder.

Maybe that will change if Adobe can get DNG standardized. The company has submitted DNG to the International Standards Organization for it to consider, said Kevin Connor, Adobe's senior director, professional digital imaging, in an interview with Digital Photo Pro.

He wouldn't promise anything, though.

"It's sort of premature to speculate whether a formal standard will come out of that or not," Connor said. Standardization "can take a long time, with many parties involved and different viewpoints. The good thing is that there's a discussion happening."

Standards have several advantages over in-house technology, whether proprietary like most raw formats or well documented and freely shared like DNG. Having them under control of a neutral standards body can give confidence that multiple companies can have a say in a standard's future, for example.

There are disadvantages, too. Standards typically are slow to be approved and slow to change..

Separately, Adobe said it plans to release a DNG codec for Windows to let it display thumbnails. Doing so requires installation of Microsoft's Windows Imaging Component (WIC), which is a free download but also built into Windows Vista and XP SP3.

[ewelch]

DNG

The author mentions some minor camera companies that <br />support DNG, but they neglect two heavyweights - Hasselblad <br />and Leica - two pioneers from decades ago who have seen the <br />light.<br /><br />Nikon and Canon (Sony is not in the same league) don't support <br />it because it allows them to force photographers to consider <br />using their own slow, buggy, under-featured software rather <br />than industry standards like Photoshop, Lightroom and <br />Aperture. They need to wake up and let photographers own their <br />images and not be dependent on their good graces to continue <br />to support older versions of their RAW files for as long as they <br />live. There are already versions of digital files that are no longer <br />supported by any software. This could become a major problem.<br /><br />Aperture now supports DNG. Obviously Lightroom and <br />Photoshop always have. People who don't have the latest version <br />of Photoshop can benefit from the DNG converter since it's likely <br />to support their cameras and can convert their files to DNG <br />before support is added to Photoshop, Lightroom and Aperture.

[Shankland]

re. Leica and Hasselblad

I should have mentioned Leica, but Hasselblad actually moved away from DNG because it didn't support their needs for tight integration with software. They still like it in principle.<br /><br />Neither company, however, is particularly influential in the mainstream digital camera market.

[Jens Peermann-2231419515406315]

Let them standardize

Personally I like the idea. In a world that has relied on standardizing <br />for decades it seems rather retro for camera manufacturers to keep <br />creating their own little electronic fiefdoms. Why are they doing that <br />anyway? Are they hoping that their little piece of software will become <br />the world standard some day, showering them with licensing fees? <br /><br />A world standard will come, eventually. And I'd rather have one that is <br />developed by a software company instead of a camera company. Just as <br />I prefer to buy cameras from camera companies instead of software <br />companies.

[djacobow1]

The trend is in the opposite direction

I agree that it would be a boon to consumers if camera manufacturers would pursue standards, but in fact, their behavior is in just the opposite direction. <br /><br />There has never been an iota of movements towards a standard lens mount, and in fact there is some sense that OEMs change up the electronics of their mounts just to mess with 3rd party lens companies. This benefits users how?<br /><br />How about flash interfaces. Started out more or less standard, and have gotten more and more proprietary as time has gone on. Modern Canon units do not even have auto/thyristor modes anymore, which means if you want to use the flash on a non Canon camera, you're in full manual mode -- and you're probably worried about the flash and camera damaging each other. (Yes, it used to be that flashes were more interchangeable. You would lose some automation, but if you set the flash to the same aperture and ISO as the camera, the flash would measure the exposure for you, regardless of camera make.)<br /><br />And then there are the mundane accessories, like cable releases and batteries that seem to proliferate not just with every OEM, but with each model. Hmm, I bet Canon makes a nice margin on a piece of wire with a button on one end and a funny connector on the other.<br /><br />The SLR business is "competitive", but it's not even in the same league as computer hardware. But then, what is? Wheat?