Anybody know why that would be the case?Īndrew, downloading his file and being the forth to use 7.1 and returning here to report you also have a slightly bigger dng just like Aaron, Will and myself have, has nothing to do with solving the mystery of getting a huge dng file from using 4.1 or 4.6.ħ.1 is the process, 8.4 is the converter version I tested with and the results are clear. But, of course, I can't open it because my version of Camera Raw is too old. That produced an reasonable file size-just about the same size as the. I tried doing the conversion with compatibility set to 7.1. DNG files after conversion, I had DNG Converter set to be compatible with CR 4.1. Perhaps re-reading Aaron's third post at 8:11pm and then replicate his procedure of using 4.1 and 4.6 and see what you findīecause I'm using CS3, the last version of Camera Raw I can use is 4.6. Too bad there isn't an Adobe expert around to help us out with it.Īndrew, downloading his file and being the forth to use 7.1 and returning here to report you also have a slightly bigger dng just like Aaron, Will and myself have, has nothing to do with solving the mystery of getting a huge dng file from using 4.1 or 4.6. It happens with 2.4 as well but stops the huge conversion when using 5.4 and beyond. ARW's are a few meg's larger than the original.Īaron, I'm not sure and it's the first I've heard. You don't have to upgrade Photoshop, you don't have to use LR, you just need either a newer version of the DNG converter or examine the settings and use the latest (7.1). There are 6 options and for legacy workflows, Adobe updates but continues to support the older processing versions. I wonder what the difference could be, though? DNG is compatible with Camera Raw 4.6 or earlier. It must have something to do with converting so that the. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The exercise is to convert it with 4.6, like Aarron, and report ones finding Further, using the most current version of the DNG converter, IF one selects the oldest format (2.4 and later), the same NEF becomes 81MB on disk! So it's clear what the issue is here and how to 'fix it'. Newer versions of the converter do not produce the large increase in size the OP reported so the solution is simple based on a proper test as I've conducted: Upgrade such a newer version of the DNG converter can be utilized or stick with the current workflow, understanding the size issue is due to an older versions routine. You've failed again to properly read or comprehend posts as the test that follows is quite clear (I wrote it):īe useful if you could upload one camera raw so we could test different options with newer versions of the DNG converter. The exercise is to convert it with 4.6, like Aarron, and report ones findings. If that's the case, there might not be any way around the large files. It might need to load camera profiles (or some other data) that the CS3 Camera Raw doesn't provide natively. I suspect the OP's problem of large file size is related to making the files compatible with CS3. But it's the best option I have at the moment, and it seems to be working well for me. I'm not entirely convinced that DNG is the future, or that it it is any more "archival" than the native formats of popular cameras, so I can't say that I'm an enthusiastic evangelist for DNG. I just don't see how it benefits me.) I may go to Lightroom in the future, but I'm not yet willing to spend the money for it, or to change to the database-centric workflow it demands. (Actually, I understand how the new model benefits professionals whose livelihood depends on having the latest versions of multiple Adobe tools, and also how it benefits Adobe's shareholders. I see no compelling reason to upgrade CS5, and I particularly don't see the supposed benefits of renting software over a "traditional" perpetual license. The converter even includes an option to read the subdirectories of an SD card and output all the DNG files to a single directory, which I otherwise would have to do manually.įor me, using DNG is a cost-effective choice, at least for now. The conversion step is reasonably quick and painless. DNG files from the converter average 18% smaller than the original CR2 files, which helps with archiving the files to DVD with the finished images (I archive the original CR2 files separately). I'm in a similar situation, using DNG to let me process raw files from a Canon SL1 with Photoshop CS5.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |