• Global community
    • Language:
      • Deutsch
      • English
      • Español
      • Français
      • Português
  • 日本語コミュニティ
    Dedicated community for Japanese speakers
  • 한국 커뮤니티
    Dedicated community for Korean speakers
Exit
0

converting raw to DNG

New Here ,
Jan 21, 2018 Jan 21, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I use LR 4.  I have upgraded my camera to a D7500 which uses a newer version of RAW which LR4 does not read and Adobe don't seem to support the products they have sold in the past which seems a little off to say the least. Furthermore, the options of forums only being LRcc is sad and not expected from a industry leader. however, I have down loaded the Adobe RAW converter but the quality produced is poor 1024 x 643, but still retaining the 20 meg file size.  there doe snot appear to be a selective option to chose a higher resolution.  please advise a solution.  regards  alan

Views

4.2K

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 21, 2018 Jan 21, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

The only way to reduce the pixel dimensions when using the DNG converter is to use lossy compression, and choose Limit Size to.

You can limit size to 1024 pixels on the long side, but the file will then be very small, only a few hundred kb.

Where are you seeing the 20 MB file size?

Also, 1024 x 623 is not a standard aspect ratio for files from a digital camera, so I'm not sure what's going on.

It might be helpful if you could provide some more information, and maybe put a sample DNG file on Dropbox that we could download and examine.

DNG-lossy-compression.png

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 22, 2018 Jan 22, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Per, Thanks for the response.  This is the screen I get prior to hitting convert.  Note there is no condition to compress.  I have not knowingly set any preconditions.  I have enough trouble including A suffix or prefix for the new file names. The files are visible in Explorer and also with Photo where the pixel references are made.

I certainly don’t want to diminish the pixel count of limit file size as I strive for the best quality from my shots.  I also find the programme cumbersome and it does not flow in the process.  All in all I am disappointed in Adobe’s lack of support for the older versions of their programmes.  I would imagine the time to write the patch is minimal even between the various versions of LR, but is avoided on the expectation of people upgrading.  I am sure there are many older adobe users who simply have no need for the latest and greatest, we are happy with the product we bought from the then market leader.

Hope we can get this quality issue sorted.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 22, 2018 Jan 22, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I can see from your screenshot that you aren't using lossy compression, and that pixel count is preserved.

In the Lightroom library, please select one of the DNG files, and report back the listed pixel dimensions.

See screenshot below.

LR-dimensions.png

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 22, 2018 Jan 22, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Per,

Thanks for the info, I'll send the data and I have uploaded two files to drop box.  The first is where the file size has doubled to 43 meg, but the pixel count is 256 x 151! the more recent down loads are all the original file size but reduced pixels.  I suspect I changed the settings between the conversion of the two files as I learned a little more about my needs and use of the package.

How do I get to that screen you have shown in the post?

I have posted the two files in dropbox but I do not know how to share.  I last used DB about 4 years ago.....

Ciao

Alan

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 23, 2018 Jan 23, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

aland73773638  wrote

How do I get to that screen you have shown in the post?

You need to have the Metadata panel visible, set to Default or Exif or Exif and IPTC in the dropdown menu. In the screenshot I posted you can see that it is set to Exif and IPTC.

If you can't see the Metadata panel, press Ctrl+4, or choose the panel from the Windows menu.

I have posted the two files in dropbox but I do not know how to share.  I last used DB about 4 years ago.....

Click the Dropbox icon on the taskbar.

Then click the globe icon in the little window that pops up. This will open dropbox.com in your web browser.

Click Files on the left, then hover your mouse over the folder you want to share, and click Share.

Then click Create a link, and finally click Copy link, and paste the link in a post here.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 24, 2018 Jan 24, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Per,

Don't forget I am using LR4 and I don't seem to have the same facilities as you.  However, I have gone to drop box but it demands an email address.  I am thinking it would be easier for me to send the files directly to your email.  Unless  you have any other suggestions.

I have been unable to find the info in the Metadata, none of the dropdowns are visible to me.  Not having much luck here.

I note the pic's you were showing on how to get the metadata, it looks very much like Norway, the intensity of the green and greyness of the rock.  Very similar to scenery around Haugesund where I visited during my work excursions

.

Regards

Alan

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 25, 2018 Jan 25, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I have been unable to find the info in the Metadata, none of the dropdowns are visible to me.  Not having much luck here.

Don't forget I am using LR4 and I don't seem to have the same facilities as you.

The Metadata panel hasn't changed much since version 2, which I happen to have installed, and which shows the pixel dimensions, so it's definitely in version 4 as well.

However, if you can send me some files, I can easily figure out the dimensions.

I have gone to drop box but it demands an email address.  I am thinking it would be easier for me to send the files directly to your email.

All file sharing services require an email address. To make things simple, I suggest that you use Filemail - it's very easy to use, and you don't even have to create an account. Filemail.com - Send large files - fast, easy & secure

I'll send you my email address in a private message. Sending large files with regular email may not work. there's often a size limit.

it looks very much like Norway

Yes it is indeed Norway. 300 km east from Haugesund, county of Telemark.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 26, 2018 Jan 26, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Hi Alan,

I have downloaded the two files from Dropbox, and imported them in Lightroom.

The pixel dimensions of both these files are 5568 x 3712, so there has been no reduction in resolution or quality. And the 43 mb one has the original embedded, which explains the almost double file size.

So nothing is wrong with these files, they are identical to your NEF files. I even extracted the embedded NEF and compared it to the DNG, and there is no difference whatsoever.

Whatever application that showed you the 1024 x 643 dimensions was wrong, so I suggest that you use Lightroom to check the dimensions.

DNG is only a different wrapper for your raw files, and image content is never touched in the conversion process, unless you use lossy compression.

In your situation, where you don't want to upgrade Lightroom, the DNG converter is a perfect solution.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 26, 2018 Jan 26, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Per+Berntsen  wrote

Whatever application that showed you the 1024 x 643 dimensions was wrong

Maybe that's the embedded jpeg preview?

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 26, 2018 Jan 26, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Yes, most likely. I checked the preview at 1:1 in the Lightroom import dialog, and it's 1024 pixels wide.

But the height is 682, not 643.

The DNG converter offers three choices for previews - None, Medium size (which is the default) and Full size.

So now we know that Medium means 1024 pixels on the long side.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 22, 2018 Jan 22, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

aland73773638  wrote

All in all I am disappointed in Adobe’s lack of support for the older versions of their programmes.  I would imagine the time to write the patch is minimal even between the various versions of LR, but is avoided on the expectation of people upgrading.

This a totally unrealistic expectation and if you stop and consider it for a while, I'm sure you can understand why. All software companies, without exception, operate this way. When a new version is out, the old ones are left behind, frozen in time.

Of course all software companies need people to upgrade! That's what keeps the wheels rolling. That's how they pay the engineers. There's nothing greedy or immoral about that.

Besides - a new application version will usually have architectural changes to work under new operating systems and new environments. So distributing updates to old users might require rewriting them especially for those old versions - going how far back? It wouldn't be fair to the users who do stay current. It would divert resources that I'd rather they spent looking forward.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 22, 2018 Jan 22, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

David,  I  do not think my expectations are totally unrealistic.  Windows keeps upgrade my software whether I want it or not.  I am not suggesting I get unlimited upgrades to facilities, I just believe that given the fact that RAW is the primary source for photographers wishing to enhance their images, that any changes are made in the source file format to keep the older version of LR or other products viable.  I do not need CC or PS cc as my needs and pocket are limited.

It is coincidental that this morning I upgraded LR v4 with updates for the D7100 which is an older camera than my 7500, so I guess it is not unreasonable to request that Adobe gets around to updating LR for the current crop of cameras using the new Raw formats.  The catch is that I get presented with a trial issue of CC.  Cynical.

Furthermore, I also get daily updates from a myriad of App developers, all for free.  On the issue of development, I struggle to believe that the architecture of each version of any software is totally rewritten but it is developed and tweaked.  Certainly I can imagine new techniques would be totally new add ins.

your comment about fairness, So because I am older and have supported Adobe over many years I am penalised for not wishing to invest, what for me are large sums of money to upgrade to a package whose facilities I will not utilise, to suit your balance sheet.  Surely this is not the reward for being a loyal user of Adobe products for decades.

So in conclusion, I am not being antagonistic toward Adobe, I just don't like being dropped because I don't need an all singing and dancing package from Adobe and I do feel marginalised.   Other companies continue to support users of their older products with free upgrades.  The fact is I am not actually against paying a small fee for the ability to use my new camera with my old software.  Although it is disappointing that the salesperson never mentioned anything about newer versions of Raw and it goes on.

Ciao

alan

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 23, 2018 Jan 23, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

aland73773638  wrote

Windows keeps upgrade my software whether I want it or not.

Yes, that's an often cited example. But those are security updates, not feature updates. The OS is a whole global ecosystem that needs to be kept secure. Malware spreads. That's why Microsoft even distributed security updates to pirated copies, no questions asked (not sure if they still do that, though, but they did). It's simply in everybody's interest to contain malware as much as possible.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 23, 2018 Jan 23, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Mmm David,

So Adobe considers windows 10 was a security update?  I would beg to differ.  What about the constant stream of app updates one receives everyday.  I struggle to believe all these are security updates.

You have chosen to ignore the balance of my post. perhaps inconvenient truths?  I am not a software expert and don't understand the programmes so well let alone writing the programmes but I am not convinced by your position as it does not seem logical.  Furthermore I think your comments do not suit the argument you seem to make.

So where do we go from here.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
Community Expert ,
Jan 23, 2018 Jan 23, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

What you're asking for is a free ride. You want the goodies, but you don't want to pay for them - you think it's fine to let us pay for it. Don't expect any sympathy from anyone here.

Good luck with your other issue, which I'm sure Per will help you with. Of course, you wouldn't have this problem in the first place if you upgraded to a current version.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 23, 2018 Jan 23, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

you did not read my email david I said I would be happy to pay for updates of this nature.

But you do not seem prepared to 'listen'  so be it.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jan 23, 2018 Jan 23, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I don't understand why your converted DNG files are smaller dimensions. They shouldn't be. They should be full-sized, the same size as the original raw files. If you want to use compression, you can click on the "Change preferences" button near the bottom of the DNG converter dialog. There are a number of options there that you can choose to customize the conversion.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 23, 2018 Jan 23, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

Thanks for the input Jim.  I am aware of that function and set up the appropriate preferences which has been acknowledged by Per in previous exchanges.  Yet despite the set I have had two sets of small image size, one with 20 meg file and the second with 43 meg file.

It is a conundrum.  I owe Per and email and data which I will send later to day.

regards

Alan

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
LEGEND ,
Jan 25, 2018 Jan 25, 2018

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

I don't have the D7500. However, I downloaded a sample NEF file and converted it using the DNG converter. I used lossy compression which created a DNG file that was less than 6 MB in size. I then opened it in Camera Raw. The pixel dimensions were 5568 x 3712 Pixels. Then, to compare, I opened the original NEF file. The pixel dimensions were exactly the same. So I'm having a difficult time understanding what is going wrong in your situation.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines
New Here ,
Jan 18, 2020 Jan 18, 2020

Copy link to clipboard

Copied

LATEST

The operating stystem is likely showing the dimensions of the embedded jpeg, not the raw file. If you select large size in the preferences, the jpeg will have the original dimensions. If you select medium, you will get 1024 by something. Selecting NONE gives you dimensions visible to the OS of 240 by something.

 

Open the file in Photoshop and you will be able to see the real dimensions.

Votes

Translate

Translate

Report

Report
Community guidelines
Be kind and respectful, give credit to the original source of content, and search for duplicates before posting. Learn more
community guidelines