Parametric edits and the DNG format

[Jon]

I have just completed reading "The DAM Book", and have found its in-depth coverage to be excellent.  I am left with only a couple of minor questions (which I will post separately), but also with one question of principle.

I am concerned about the possibility of parametric editiing that I perform becoming obsolete at some point in the future.  I understand that parametic editing can be stored within a DNG, but are these edits standardised?  Can the parametric edits produced by one particular PIEware application and stored in a DNG be read and applied by all other PIEware applications that support the DNG standard?

Regards,

Jon

[Chris Bishop]

My understanding (novice) is DNGs can be continually re-edited as improvements are made to the PIEware, or even different uses of the same file.
However, currently, I don't think there is much choice of DNG savvie PIEware.
Chris Bishop

[Jon]

Hi Chris

I appreciate that it would still be possible to ret-edit images, but my concern is the possibility that all previous edits might have to be abandoned if my chosen PIEware is no longer supported at some point in the future.

Jon

[johnbeardy]

That's always been a danger. However, I'd say DNG is the least worst alternative. Nikon Capture stores its adjustment settings in the undocumented raw file, so lose NC and you lose those adjustments. Aperture stores its settings in its database and I don't believe they are in a form anyone has decoded. DNG however stores its settings in the XMP which many programs can read if they want, and without messing with sidecars. The adjusted preview is also present as a reference  for how the image should look (and which can be printed).

It's then a matter of how much effort you put into translating Adobe's adjustment values to those needed by the other program, and accepting that there's a practical limit. Imagine we had to switch to Aperture, my guess is that there would be third party ways to translate white balance between the two - eg an Aperture AppleScript that grabs the DNG's WB from the file's XMP and then does some maths/lookups to compute Aperture's equivalent. Just this one field is a lot of effort.... So while the raw data and your descriptive metadata would be fine, your adjustments would be theoretically available, but practically not so.

John

[Jon]

Thanks, John.  That helps to put things in perspective.  It's not ideal, but, as you say, its the least worst alternative.

I've been learning ACR / Photoshop, and am about to commit to a DAM application.  I'm leaning towards Lightroom, if for no other reason than that I feel that Adobe's size and their commitment to imaging mean that their products / standards are likely to have greater longevity than those of their competitors.

Incidentally, congratulations on your one thousand five hundredth post !

Jon

[Chris Bishop]

Jon - without prejudice, I believe LR nad DNG is the current answer for the small guy. One computer, One oomputer operartor and One catalogue. Import to DNG, backup to different media and swap a backup offsite. The major hurdles discussed on this forum are mainly for the big guys.
(DAM book 2)
This is without doubt THE forum for DAM issues- beyond the thoughts of most photographers, with this in mind learn volumes, but adapt to your size/needs.
Well done Peter (&JB & Danalty?)
Chris Bishop