Looks like you're taking a hit in conversion quality vs.
#Adobe dng converter portable software
I just compared my original 40D file, converted by the not very workflow-friendly Canon DPP with the superb workflow software Lightroom's conversion. Lossless compression, non-destructive editing.īut it looks like this is all marketing speak. In the digital era we strive for anything lossless. This is actually a great message by you (if I don't misread it). Philosophically speaking, there is no gain without a loss. Quote Am I misreading this as a contradiction? If you write on this forum for advice you may get good or bad advice but I presume that all information is intended to be helpful. There was a gentleman on the MFDB forum who had a real bad experience. It is quite obvious that some people have issues with Lightroom. Many people of great experience and knowledge use Lightroom and DNG, like Michael Reichmann (the owner of this site) or Jeff Schewe, they both use Canon and they both know what they are doing. This is not a question of diplomacy or philosophy, more about how things are. It just holds pixel data and information tags.
I don't thing DNG has anything to do with Color Profiles. If your Photoshop is incorrectly set up it may ignore the color profile. Lightroom uses ProPhotoRGB as a color space. Washed out colors may relate to color space.
#Adobe dng converter portable mac os
Will you be able to read your present "raw" files on your Mac OS X/7 or Windows 2012 computer? The issue is really that with each camera there is a new "raw" format. One example is the white balance information.
Regarding proprietary information there is a lot of information embedded in the image, some of that information is standardized like EXIF and IPTC tags. Could you see the difference? Probaly not! Could you measure the difference? Absolutely! OK this may or may not be a diplomatic view. You would not loose information but could not reconstruct the original image. Such a conversion would be virtually lossless. I doubt that any observer would be able to observe a difference. BUT this would not be pixel for pixel equivalent with the original image. It is feasible to convert a 12 bit linear image to an 8 bit gamma encoded image without loosing any significant information, because of gamma encoded imaging is more efficient. One issue is that RAW has linear encoding, so it does not use gamma. Lossless encoding means that you can restore every bit in the image. This is essentially what is called run length encoding. A very simple example is:Ġ00000000 can be written 9x0. There is actually a lot of lossless compression.
0 kommentar(er)
