bill_3305731's profile

1.1K Messages

 • 

12K Points

Sun, Apr 5, 2020 10:57 PM

3

Photoshop Save As DNG please

Using Photoshop (with Lightroom) to focus stack images and for Save As, DNG is not an option. Seems strange since Adobe would like the world to switch to DNG (not happening but that's another story). 
 
So after stacking 5 Fuji 57 MB raw images, the result is a 1.36 GB TIF. Exporting it in Lightroom at full quality to a DNG, 102 MB. Come on Adobe, we shouldn't have to go through this extra step to get a DNG file and save over 90% of the space. 

Responses

92 Messages

 • 

1.9K Points

1 y ago

I do not think this suggestion makes sense to me.  To do focus stacking the image is demosaiced before the stacking.  The result should be some RGB format and not Bayer array format like DNG or proprietary raw formats.

1.1K Messages

 • 

12K Points

1 y ago

Not sure what you are saying. Photoshop creates a TIF, that is the default. Converts to a DNG just fine. 
 

953 Messages

 • 

14.4K Points

1 y ago

If you make a stacking of photographs alone result count, therefore they were flattened picture and here is!

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

59.7K Points

1 y ago

It does not make any sense to convert the focus stack to DNG, because the result would still be a 'TIFF in a DNG envelope'. It won't become a 'raw DNG' like the panorama DNG and HDR DNG that you can merge in Camera Raw of Lightroom. Basically it would be the same file with just another extension.

Johan W. Elzenga,

http://www.johanfoto.com

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

59.7K Points

1 y ago

It does not make any sense to convert the focus stack to DNG, because the result would still be a 'TIFF in a DNG envelope'. It won't become a 'raw DNG' like the panorama DNG and HDR DNG that you can merge in Camera Raw of Lightroom. Basically it would be the same file with just another extension. You wouldn't have any of the advantages of a 'real' (raw) DNG file, but you would lose the layers that you do have in the TIFF file.

Johan W. Elzenga,

http://www.johanfoto.com

Adobe Administrator

 • 

15.9K Messages

 • 

295.3K Points

1 y ago

499 Messages

 • 

9.4K Points

8 m ago

Yes please, plus one for one-step "save as DNG" from Photoshop. 

This is my signature.  There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

59.7K Points

Save as DNG from Photoshop (not from ACR, that is already possible) would be useless, as explained 5 months ago. It would be a flattened TIFF in a DNG wrapper. 

Johan W. Elzenga,

http://www.johanfoto.com

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

59.7K Points

BTW, saving a focus stack made from raw files as DNG would be another matter. That would/could become a DNG like the panorama and HDR DNG files that Lightroom and ACR can produce. That kind of 'Focus Stack DNG' is already possible with HeliconFocus.

Johan W. Elzenga,

http://www.johanfoto.com

1.1K Messages

 • 

12K Points

8 m ago

Useless to you, not to the rest of us. If you don't want this feature then don't use it.

92 Messages

 • 

1.9K Points

I am very curious what such a feature would do for you.

1.1K Messages

 • 

12K Points

Save 1-2 GB of storage per image, roughly a 90-95% reduction. Before conversion to DNG's each TB could only store 300-600 images. I'm only stacking 5-10 shots. If someone is focus stacking 100's of shots for macro photography, they can easily end up with 25-100 GB per image.

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

59.7K Points

How exactly would you save that much? DNG does not support layers, so if you compare saving as a 'flattened' DNG with saving an uncompressed layered tiff, then I see where the difference comes from but that is comparing apples and oranges. I don't see why a flattened tiff saved with zip compression would be significantly larger than the same image in a DNG wrapper.

Johan W. Elzenga,

http://www.johanfoto.com

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

59.7K Points

You are comparing apples and oranges and you don't understand what the DNG format supports and does not support. That 25-100 GB per image is the layered image. If you would flatten it and save it as TIFF with ZIP compression, then that would give you 90-95% reduction too. DNG does not support layers, so if you would save it as DNG you would also flatten it.

Johan W. Elzenga,

http://www.johanfoto.com

Champion

 • 

3.5K Messages

 • 

59.7K Points

You are comparing apples and oranges because you apparently do not know what the DNG format supports and does not support. You seem to think that DNG is some kind of miracle file format, that can save huge files with extremely high compression without any loss. If that were true, I would obviously support your request! Unfortunately that is not true however, there is no free lunch. That 25-100 GB per image is the layered image. If you would flatten it and save it as TIFF with ZIP compression, then that would give you 90-95% reduction too. DNG does not support layers, so if you could save it as DNG you would also flatten it. And the flattening is what reduces the file size so much.

Johan W. Elzenga,

http://www.johanfoto.com