Skip to main content
Adobe Photoshop Family

242 Messages

 • 

9.1K Points

Sat, Apr 9, 2011 5:01 AM

Implemented

3

Lightroom/Camera Raw: Ability to put a JPG within DNG

I know it's possible to convert a JPG to DNG, but this is currently a useless exercise because the the JPG data is not kept. Instead, the JPG is converted to a very large bitmap file.

It would make DNG much more useful if compressed formats such as JPG and PNG can be put inside a DNG wrapper.

Responses

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

10 years ago

Just out of curiosity - what practical advantages would there be?

I mean, I can see the aesthetic appeal of all photos having the same extension, but otherwise - why not just leave them unwrapped?

Summary:
------------
You may need to elaborate on the usefulness of wrapping jpgs in dng, if you want this idea to gain any traction.

129 Messages

 • 

3.2K Points

The practical advantage would be storing non-destructive edits to a JPG image without significantly changing file size.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

David - unwrapped jpgs already support this. The xmp spec allows for all non-destructive parametric edits to be written as xmp metadata to jpg files. In fact, this info is written to jpgs in almost exactly the same format as it is in a dng.

129 Messages

 • 

3.2K Points

I didn't Photoshop did this. Are other apps set up to read this info that Photoshop stores in the image?

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

No raw converter can read the non-destructive editing instructions of any other raw converter. I mean, they may be able to read the xmp, they just cant understand the edit instructions that are in it.

242 Messages

 • 

9.1K Points

10 years ago

All of the advantages of dng: nondesructive editing, hash validation, embedded preview, no likelihood of another program writing changes to the file.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

10 years ago

- Non-destructive editing - unwrapped jpgs already support this via xmp metadata.
- Hash validation - OK: I assume jpgs do not support this, or an equivalent, although I don't know. This sounds worthwhile.
- Embedded preview: Check - non-destructive jpg edits are only visible in Lightroom or bridge. The dng preview would allow visibility in any app supporting dng. - Good one..
- No likelihood of another program writing changes to the file - gotcha. This would be a plus.

Now I'm in a dilemma: I dont use DNG, but if I did I would want this FR/Idea. Do I vote for it formally? - Or just say informally:

"Good idea..."
R

242 Messages

 • 

9.1K Points

10 years ago

Voting is free, so feel free to do it :)

Let me clarify the nondestructive editing point. If I email a jpg to someone, it would never occur to them to open it in LR to see what edits have been made. In fact, I always export out of LR before emailing anything so I'm not even sure whether Windows/Mac will show them the edited or original version... In any event, if you send them a dng, they immediately know to open in ACR or LR and can see your edits, which can be helpful when working collaberatively.

Admittedly, the other reasons are probably the more persuasive ones.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

Point taken / distinction noted... - in fact, even if they did not know to open in ACR/LR, any DNG reader would recognize the preview, whereas if someone opened the jpg in a generic viewer, it would just look like you hadn't edited it... - I think you "win" this one... - I gave you the vote ;-}

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

8 years ago

Can this one be considered implemented @Lr4/ACR7?

Employee

 • 

628 Messages

 • 

11.5K Points

8 years ago

Yes, this is now implemented in Lr 4 / ACR 7 with DNG 1.4 support. The JPEG can now be effectively contained within a DNG, without increasing the file size significantly, and without loss of quality (doesn't require decompressing/recompressing the image data).

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

One could almost argue that it makes sense now to wrap all jpeg masters in a DNG, that way there is never the mistake of thinking a jpeg is baked, when it's not, as well as the other benefits cited above.

On the other hand, there is presently no way to distinguish a pure-raw DNG, from a lossy-compressed-raw DNG, from a reduced-rez DNG, from a jpeg-wrapped-in-a DNG, or is there? One could argue that it doesn't matter, but people like me, like to know... ;-}

(Obviously filesize is a clue, but that only gets you so far...)

Now how about that option to auto-convert convert PNGs to DNG upon import?

~R.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

8 years ago

One could almost argue that it makes sense now to wrap all jpeg masters in a DNG, that way there is never the mistake of thinking a jpeg is baked, when it's not, as well as the other benefits cited above.

On the other hand, there is presently no way to distinguish a pure-raw DNG, from a lossy-compressed-raw DNG, from a reduced-rez DNG, from a jpeg-wrapped-in-a DNG, or is there? One could argue that it doesn't matter, but people like me, like to know... ;-}

(Obviously filesize is a clue, but that only gets you so far...)

Now how about that option to auto-convert PNGs to DNG upon import?

PS - If Adobe created an un-DNG feature, I'd convert all my photo files to DNG today. But as it stands, it's a one-way feature, which means a "lifetime" commitment to Adobe software for processing (or a roll-yer-own un-DNG'r, if you have enough technical prowess, or maybe Adobe or somebody else will write one at some point...).

DNG: openly documented, potentially bright future, but not widely implemented / adopted, and a one-way ticket, @now.

~R.

Employee

 • 

628 Messages

 • 

11.5K Points

8 years ago

Yes, there is a way to know. Use the metadata panel in Lr 4 and select "DNG" from the popup. That will tell you the pixel data type, whether it's lossy compressed, the DNG version, whether it's a mosaic image or not, etc.

You can also use the File Type filter in the Filter headers in Library to pick out certain DNG file types (e.g., lossless compressed ones).

And I disagree with your comment about converting to DNG implying you are bound to use the Adobe software. There are several other raw converters out there that read and process DNG. Perhaps you may not prefer to use those converters, but to suggest that one is limited to using Adobe software to process DNGs is incorrect.

4.5K Messages

 • 

76.3K Points

Ah - thanks: I see the DNG options now - very good.

PS - My experience has been (@2012) that non-Adobe DNG-supporting raw-converters handle camera-generated DNGs well, but Adobe Converted DNGs: not so well.