Converting TIFF to DNG

[_H__G__Smith_]

It's possible to convert a TIFF file to DNG in Lightroom, and I could have sworn I had done it at least once with the DNG Converter that comes with the Camera Raw plug-in. Now it works only with Lightroom. Is there some way to convert a TIFF file to DNG in Photoshop alone? I'm currently using CS, not yet having had time to upgrade to CS3.

[_Kerwin_Bartinson_]

No. TIF is bitmap, DNG is RAW two totally different forms of image data. You
can go from DNG to TIF but not the other way.

Robert

[benjaminw53931606]

I want to turn DNG to TIFF, but I don't know how

[JP Hess]

Benjamin, this is a really old thread. It might have been better to start a new one. However, there are a number of ways to generate TIF images from DNG files, But actually "converting" the DNG files isn't one of them. When the files are opened in Camera Raw there is an option to save images, and one of your options is to save as a TIF file. It will be created in addition to the DNG file. The DNG file can be opened in Photoshop and then saved as a TIF file. But, again, it will be created in addition to the DNG file.

[_Jeff_Schewe_]

Actually, both Lightroom and Camera Raw 4.x can both create linear DNGs from gamma encoded JPEGs and TIFFs. They are not "raw files" in that they've already undergone a demosiacing process but they are indeed DNG files in a linear gamma. This requires Lightroom or the Camera Raw version found in Photoshop CS3. The DNG Convertor however can't make a DNG from a TIFF or JPEG files.

[_H__G__Smith_]

My thanks both to Kerwin Bartinson and to Jeff Schewe. Having spent many fruitless hours on the Internet, in Photoshop Help, in my own Photoshop library, and in a major bookstore trying to find the answers to my question, your help is much appreciated. I finally did find from experimentation that ACR will work both with converted raw files and with a TIFF file exported from Lightroom into DNG. Even so I wasn't sure until now that I was actually working with DNG files in both cases. This also explains why I was unable to use the DNG Converter to make a DNG from a TIFF file even though I thought I remembered seeing a reference somewhere that CS3's DNG Converter will do it. Jeff Schewe has just saved me another fruitless search trying to find out how to convert a TIFF file to DNG in CS3. At least I know now that it can be done in CS3's ACR version, information that I have not been able to find until now.

[_Kerwin_Bartinson_]

Jeff can you provide some light on why someone would want to convert a TIFF
to a non-raw DNG? Benefits? Right now I am at a loss to see the point,
though if Adobe went to the trouble to add the ability they must have had
reason.

[_Jeff_Schewe_]

If you want to take advantage of the processing routines in Camera Raw (optimized order for processing) and things like synced spot healing across multiple images (useful) and a better pipeline for processing jpegs (applying the same corrections across hundreds of images, Camera Raw/Lightroom can be useful for tiffs and jpegs.

[PECourtejoie]

Kerwin, maybe could it be useful in case you want to use a converter that would accept linear DNGs but no TIFFs, for instance, in case of scans...

(I guess that Jeff misread your question)

[_xbytor_]

OK. We can do the (tiff|jpg) -> dng translation with Lr or ACR.

How can we automate it?

If I'm constantly needing to convert to dng, I'd like to write bit of script (javascript, shell, perl, whatever) to integrate that into the automated parts of my workflow.

-X

[_Eric_O_Brien_]

Why convert a TIFF file to DNG... Archiving? Last time I checked, TIFF_as_DNG files were about HALF the size of the originals (even when those had been "compressed").

[JimHess-8IPblY]

You are not gaining anything by converting those images to DNG. The TIF image is not raw image data, so converting to DNG doesn't give you any of the advantages of working with raw images. But ACR/Lightroom will allow you to work on those TIF images without converting them. And you will have all the advantages that Jeff mentioned.

[_xbytor_]

Using DNG means that I have one image format as input to my workflow. It also means that I can do non-destructive edits via ACR on those images.

These are reasons enough for me to want to convert JPG to DNG. I'm not worried about image size. If I need more room, I'll buy another terabyte. As ACR becomes more automate-able in the future, these reasons become even more important. If I wasn't using ACR, the (jpg|tiff)->DNG translation would be far less compelling.

-X

[Ramón G Castañeda]

> It also means that I can do non-destructive edits via ACR on those images.

You can do that to TIFFs too, as well as to JPEGs.

> If I wasn't using ACR, the (jpg|tiff)->DNG translation would be far less compelling.

It's totally, utterly unnecessary, far from "compelling"

[_xbytor_]

If I convert everything (jpgs, tiffs, different raw formats) to DNG first, then everything is much cleaner from an automation and workflow point of view for me. For instance, I don't have to worry about whether or not my 'open jpegs/tiffs with ACR' options are set correctly in Lr, Ps, Bridge, and ACR because it doesn't matter; all new images are DNGs. (I crash Ps on a frequent enough basis that sometimes I'll forget to resets the preferences, so the less I have to worry about them, the better off I am.)

This only became a concern for me recently after I had to start dealing with multiple raw formats as well as jpgs. I'd find myself accidentally editing my jpgs in Ps before I had exported them to psd's like I had to do with the raw files. Forcing all input images into DNG prevents me from making that mistake again and also helps me approach the editing of jpegs with a different set of eyes.

These reasons may not matter to most people; we all work differently. But I'm at the point where I ask myself 'Why shouldn't I initially convert everything to DNG?' Nine months ago I couldn't give you reasons why I should convert. Now, I can't really think of reasons (for me) that I shouldn't convert.

As the tools, technology and my work requirements change, so does my workflow. It's an ongoing optimization process. And my opinions and workflow will likely change when CS4 and other tools become available.

-X

[JimHess-8IPblY]

If the DNG format works well with your workflow, then so be it. Just remember that DNG files created from JPEG or TIF images are not the same as DNG files created from raw files from the camera. They have been demosaiced, and they are linear DNGs. It ISN'T the same type of DNG file.

[_Sean_Clarke_]

I too converted my JPEGs to DNG and installed the beta profiles. However, I still only get the "embedded profile" option under camera claibration. I was expecting to see "adobe standard beta" as an option as per the adobe instruction page (http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles)

Any pointers please? I know my Olympus E1 is not specifically supported yet but my research tells me I should still get some kind of option which another Olympus owner claims improved things for him.

Thanks

[ArrrBee]

My problem with converting non-raw to DNG is that it is confussing. You
don't know if you have a raw file or a bitmap wrapped in a raw wrapper. To
me that is like putting a snickers bar in to a three muskateer wrapper. Add
to that that even in the latest ACR and Lightroom there are some important
capabilities missing for bitmap images and I really don't see the need or
the point.

But, each there own.

Robert

[_Sean_Clarke_]

Oops. That should say camera "calibration", not "claibration".

[MadManChan2000]

The profiles are only for raw files, not JPEGs (whether converted to DNG or not).

[JimHess-8IPblY]

The JPEG image never did contain the white balance information that is stored in a raw image. It only contains the embedded profile, and that is all that can be included in the DNG conversion. As I've said before, DNG files created from JPEG or TIFF images are different. They don't contain all the metadata.

[JimHess-8IPblY]

As far as I'm concerned, there is no logical reason to convert a JPEG or a TIF image to the DNG format. Some people seem to think that by doing this while they are creating a raw file. But that simply is not the case. The image has already been preprocessed in the camera, it has been demosaiced, and in the case of a JPEG image in particular it is an 8-bit image. Converting it to DNG is not going to magically change it to a higher bit image and create all the extra image data.

Even for the purposes of a smooth workflow it doesn't make sense to me. It isn't the same kind of image file, and it seems to me that it would probably have to be handled differently in editing in Photoshop. But if, for some reason, you feel you are defying reality and are creating some magical image by doing the conversion, have fun. It just doesn't make sense to me.

[ArrrBee]

Like I said it just seems confusing to me especially a couple of years out
when you don't remember what's what.

Robert

[_Jeff_Schewe_]

>As far as I'm concerned, there is no logical reason to convert a JPEG or a TIF image to the DNG format.

Actually there are both workflow and technical reasons to do so. You want to adjust hundreds of JPEG images quickly and easy? Open in Camera Raw, adjust the images and resave them as JPEG, TIFF or PSD. A lot quicker than doing so one by one in Photoshop.

Technically, doing substantial adjustments to JPEGs (in particular) in Camera Raw will result in better final images than doing so adjustment by adjustment in Photoshop. You'll get less rounding errors and the final resultant image will be smoother doing the same thing in Photoshop with less chance of banding.

Look, there are two flavors of DNG...one where the data is un-demosiaced and one that is. The fact that Camera Raw (and Lightroom) can edit both flavors is actually a plus. Yes, it might be useful for have some indicator whether a DNG is raw or linear....but for the purpose of Camera Raw and Lightroom, both are treated the same with the raw file having far more flexibility in processing. But don't dismiss the usefulness of working on non-raw files as DNG.

[_xbytor_]

Jeff_Schewe@adobeforums.com wrote:
>
> Actually there are both workflow and technical reasons to do so.

You started me down this path, Jeff, thanks much. And you explain it much more
eloquently than I've been able to :)

BTW, it was my understanding that some future rev of DNG was going to be tweaked
a bit to handle tiffs and jpegs better. Any insight?

-X