PhotoshopNews.com
May 23, 2005

DNG Workflow / Part I

When the DNG format specification was announced at last year’s Photokina, a little touted free application was also announced called Adobe DNG Converter. The application is for the conversion of undocumented, proprietary Raw files into the publicly documented DNG format. At the time, many people played with the DNG Converter and decided that while interesting, it didn’t really add anything to their raw processing workflow except perhaps adding a step. As a result, most people don’t really use a DNG workflow.
(Updated 05/25/05 at 4:00PM Central)

Well, things have changed, and now both the DNG file format and the Adobe DNG Converter do have something substantial to offer.

To understand the benefits of a DNG workflow, you must first understand how to use it. In its simplest form, you take proprietary raw files and use the DNG Converter to convert them into DNG. The application itself is very simple. It can live anywhere, in your applications folder or even just sitting on your desktop-that’s where I tend to keep it. You can either double click DNG Converter to launch it or just drag and drop a folder of Raw files onto the app icon. Either way, you’ll be presented with the standard Adobe DNG Converter dialog.


Click on the image to see larger sized image in a new window.
This is the main DNG dialog showing various options you can choose.

At the top, at Step 1, you can browse to select the folder you wish to convert. If you are going directly from a compact flash card directory, you’ll want to select the option to Include images contained in subfolders. This option allows you to essentially blow past the 100 images per file folder limit on compact flash cards and process all Raw images on a card.

Step 2 is to select the destination folder. You can choose to convert in place, however, there are some significant reasons you really may not wish to do this. First off, keeping both Raws and DNG files in the same folder can cause problems when updating Camera Raw settings and adding metadata. Second, converting to DNG and keeping them in the same folder as the originals does nothing to duplicate the locations where the files are stored-and that is something you should be doing. Ideally, you should never have only a sinlge copy and location where your Raw files are stored. The rule is, duplicate locations and if possible, multiple media.

Step 3 is to choose whether or not you wish to alter the DNG file name. In the past, I’ve argued against altering the raw file names because of the risk of effecting the original proprietary Raw files. However, DNG Converter allows you to change the converted file while preserving the original Raw file format name and numbers inside of the resulting DNG file. So, if need be, you’ll always be able to determine the original file name that the DNG copy came from.

Step 4 is rather important and your options must be chosen wisely based upon your specific needs.


Click on the image to see larger sized image in a new window.

The DNG Converter preferences allow you to select various options in the conversion process. In general, you’ll always wish to select the Compressed (lossless) option. Depending on the proprietary Raw file format your camera produces, you can generally expect to save between 10-30% or more by compressing the DNG. You will lose nothing-the compression is completely lossless. For some Raw file formats, the compression can be considerable. In only a few cases, the compressed DNG may actually be slightly larger. The Nikon D70 for example uses a lossy compression scheme-DNG files made from D70 files will grow by the difference between the lossy scheme used by Nikon and the lossless scheme used by Adobe. But, in general you can expect to see file size savings-which if you shoot a lot can contribute to space savings on hard drives.

The Image Conversion Method allows you to either keep the DNG in the un-demosaiced form or to demosaic the file and convert to a linear file. Generally, you’ll want to keep the file in it’s un-demosaiced form as there is a space savings. Linear DNGs have already been converted to RGB files and therefore are larger.

Editor’s note: Bruce Fraser sent the following comment regarding Linear DNG: “The only reason to use Linear DNG is to feed the file to a DNG reader that can’t understand the particular flavor of DNG that DNG Converter creates for the specific camera, or to act as an interchange format-e.g., lens correx with DxO can write out a linear DNG that ACR can read. This is typically NOT an option people want, not because of size considerations, but because it’s no longer really raw-it’s half-baked. All the operations that take place during demosaicing are set in stone and can’t be redone.”

The big question is whether or not you wish or need to embed the original proprietary Raw file directly inside of the resulting DNG conversion.

If you do choose to embed the original proprietary Raw file inside the DNG file, you will be able to extract the original Raw file in the future. The DNG Converter can batch Extract Raw files just like it can do DNG conversions.


Click on the image to see larger sized image in a new window.

This is an important decision. If, for reasons of image verification or provenance, you may need to provide the original of a digital image, you should probably embed the original proprietary Raw file inside the DNG file. In scientific or forensics photography, the ability to extract the original raw may be required. The extracted Raw file from the DNG is a bit for bit copy of the original file so one could examine the original Raw file. The resulting DNG file will be the size of the converted DNG file plus the addition of the original proprietary Raw file combined. It will still be smaller that a converted 8 or 16 bit/channel tiff file. It will also probably be smaller than a linear converted DNG file. But, you will pay a file size penalty.

So, what about a DNG converted file will be different than the original proprietary Raw file? If you are shooting with a camera that outputs either NEF’s or CR2′s (Nikon and Canon), essentially, you’ll lose nothing. Starting with Adobe DNG Converter version 3.1 (the one released with Camera Raw 3.1 in May, 2005), the DNG Converter will take all the proprietary metadata from the original file format and safely move it to the private portions of the fully documented DNG file. This is a new, not so widely known addition to the DNG Converter v3.1. The next upgrade to the DNG Converter will add even more file formats.

Editor’s Note: Thomas Knoll has clarified what is and is not migrated from the proprietary raw file to DNG files upon conversion. DNG Converter 3.1 and above does indeed move all EXIF private maker note from all TIFF-EP based raw file formats, not just NEF and CR2 files. The file formats that do NOT use EXIF based private maker notes are not migrated. File formats from; Kodak, Foveon and Leaf do not use EXIF private maker notes, so those files are not supported for migration. Additionally, Canon CRW files and Fuji RAF do not completely adhear to the TIFF-EP and EXIF spec. So some metadata will be migrated and some will be stripped. Also, black masked pixels (the far outter edges usually cropped off by conversion software) for certain files, such as some CR2 files are also not preserved in DNG conversion. Future updates to the Adobe DNG Converter will continue to add to the scope of what is preserved and migrated to DNG.

So, if you shoot NEF or CR2 you will, in essence, loose nothing by converting to DNG. Even the Nikon D2X encrypted As Shot white balance is moved to the converted DNG file. It isn’t decrypted, but it is safely moved. As a result, if, at some time in the future Nikon grants Adobe permission to decrypt the WB data, it’ll still be there in the DNG file waiting to be used, as will all the other undocumented metadata.

If your Raw file format is not NEF or CR2, some or most of the proprietary, undocumented metadata found in the private maker notes of the EXIF specification will be stripped out. Is this important data? Hard to say since it’s undocumented. However, it’s metadata that Camera Raw can not currently use so if you are satisified with the way Camera Raw can convert your file, then the proprietary metadata may be meaningless to you.

The addition of the option to embed the entire original proprietary Raw file inside of the DNG file and the recent ability to move private maker notes into non-embedded DNG files have made a difference in the way you should look at a DNG Workflow. More about the benefits later.

Once you decide what flavor of DNG you wish to convert to, you simply press the Convert button.


Click on the image to see larger sized image in a new window.

How fast is the DNG Converter? The speed will depend upon the size of the original Raw file as well as both your processor speed and the speed of your hard drives. For example, the files shown above were Canon EOS 1D MII 8 MP CR2 Raw files. The processing times quoted below were done on a 1.5 GHZ G4 17″ laptop using the normal internal hard drives. Certainly not slow, but far from the top of the heap these days.

Straight DNG Convert: 3.5 seconds
DNG + Compressed: 4 seconds
DNG + Compressed + Embed: 6 seconds
DNG + Compress + Embed + Linear: 8 seconds

Compressing the file adds a bit to the processing time. So does embedding the original Raw file. Doing a compress, embed and linear conversion is the slowest. What were the file sizes after conversion?

The original Raw folder contained 12 CR2 files and was 83.2 MBs.

The DNG files without embedding but with compression was 66.8 MBs. A savings of about 20%.

Converted while compressing and embedding the original Raw file the size is 145 MBs.

Even with the embeded Raw file, that’s still far smaller than converting all the files to 16 bit/channel tiffs. DNGs with the embedded Raw files are even smaller than 8 bit/channel tiffs.

So, what are the tangible benefits to converting your undocumented, proprietary raw files to DNG? Aside from the very real and serious danger to long term preservation of undocumented and proprietary Raw files, (see the PSN story Digital Preservation) you will end up with Raw files that are smaller (in most cases), will allow for the safe adding of your own metadata such as IPTC and keywords directly in the DNG as well as storing the Camera Raw settings, again, right in the DNG file.


Click on the image to see larger sized image in a new window.

On the left are the original Raw files with their required XMP side car files. On the right, the DNG files have had the XMP metadata safely written directly into the converted DNG file format. If you must deliver your raw files to clients, this is an ideal raw delivery format since you can embed IPTC, keywords and your suggested Camera Raw settings directly in your files.

So, is the DNG Workflow for everybody? Perhaps not. As outlined above, it does add a step in your raw processing workflow. You get the benefit of knowing your proprietary Raw file formats have been converted to a fully documented Raw file format. You will probably see file size savings of 10-30% (or more, perhaps less). You have the ability to store not only the DNG converted Raw file but also embed, directly in the DNG a bit for bit copy of the original Raw file should you need it. You also get the benefit of having your Raw files stored with all your metadata embedded directly in your DNG file so you won’t need to worry about side car files at all. You get the potential benefit, depending upon the EXIF jpg thumbnail size in the original Raw file, of better performance inside of Adobe Bridge. If you shoot with multiple cameras possibly from multiple manufacturers, you also get the benefit of having all your Raw files in the same format.

If you need to deliver your Raw files to clients, something I try to avoid, it allows you to set all your metadata including Camera Raw settings directly in the DNG files. With your conversion settings from Camera Raw and your metadata locked into the files burned on CD or DVD, you can be assured that clients will have both your vision of what the file should look like as well as your name and contact info locked into the file.

Is all of the above worth an additional step in your raw processing workflow? It is for me. Since the release of Adobe DNG Converter 3.1, I’ve decided to convert all of my proprietary Raw files to DNG. I generally don’t bother with embedding the original inside the DNG file. There may be times, when creating a workshop demo for example, where I’ll also keep the original proprietary Raw files. But only for the purposes of demos will I be keeping the undocumented and proprietary raw files.

In the DNG Workflow Part II, I’ll outline a novel concept, using the Adobe DNG Converter at the point of original Raw file ingestion. Stay tuned.

24 Responses to “DNG Workflow / Part I”

  1. Ken Tanaka Says:

    I wholeheartedly support the DNG initiative and eagerly look forward to the day when manufacturers come to their senses and realize that proprietary RAW formats represent absolutely no benefits either for the manufacturers or for the consumers.

    But before I can completely incorporate the DNG conversion into my normal workflow the converter must become much more reliable. At present approximately 1% of my conversions produce a corrupted DNG image. This corruption appears as blocks of color, sometimes covering nearly the entire image. Reconversion always seems to remedy the image, although it sometimes trashes another image in the batch.

    I continue to experiment with the DNG converter but, at least at this writing, it presents just one more darn nit requiring close supervision in a chain of such nits.

    -K.Tanaka-

  2. Jeff Schewe Says:

    I’ve never had the DNG Converter barf an image that didn’t already have some sort of issue already. It would be useful to post the DNG Converter version, your OS and CPU platform and the exact steps to reproduce a corrupted DNG file.

    It would also be useful to post in the Adobe User to User Forum, where Thomas Knoll hangs out and try to troubleshoot your issues. Like I said, I’ve never had it happen to me. In fact, I had to go to extreme measures to get DNG Converter to pop an error for the next DNG Worlkflow section due on Wed.

    Link to the DNG Forum:
    DNG User to User Forum

  3. Keith Dannemiller Says:

    Jeff:
    I wholeheartedly agree with Ken Tanaka’s observations about the reliability of his results with the DNG Converter. The exact same thing happens to me when I run the converter on files that have come from my NIkon D-100. My abbreviated flow goes something like this: Copy the Nikon folder with the original .nef files twice–once to a working desktop folder and also to an external drive; quick edit, realignment, and rename of folder and files in the desktop download; add IPTC metadata; generate and apply Camera Raw settings to all files; open the DNG Converter and convert using 1) Compressed (lossless), 2) Preserve Raw Image and 3) Embed Original Raw File. As Ken mentions, at this point when I do a revision in the File Browser of the generated .dng files, about 20-25% are corrupted–weird color blocks, and some files that just didn’t convert. My work flow continues with a series of specific actions on the desktop files–not on the .dng files. They (after numerous repeats to get a complete folder with no corrupted files) go to the same external drive for archiving.
    An interesting aside: When I take that same original folder of Nikon .nef’s that I first saved to the external drive and drag and drop it on the DNG Converter, voila! everything converts perfectly–no corrupt files, when viewed in the File Browser. I continue my same flow with IPTC metadata entry in the .dng file, open in Camera Raw, generate and apply the necessary settings. The files seem viable at this point for continued actions in Photoshop. I need to do some more tests to see if this is a workable pathway for me.
    It seems that the glitch is in the use of the DNG Converter after the original Nikon .nef file has passed through Camera Raw processing and had IPTC metadata entered. At least this is what my quick and simple test shows me.
    Nikon D-100; Photoshop CS; Adobe Camera Raw 2.4; Digital Negative Converter 2.4; Mac 10.4.1; G4.

    Keith Dannemiller

  4. Josiah Davidson Says:

    This whole thing is great. I thank Adobe wholeheartedly for their initiative and all their work in creating a DNG converter. It is not yet an integral part of my workflow, but it will be soon.

    I have two requests:
    1) I would far prefer a file renaming system like Chris Breeze has in his BreezeBrowser. My main need is for the naming process to be able to pull out the timestamp from the EXIF data. I also have occasional need to extract the original filename or parts of the original filename. Chris’ file renamer is almost perfectly capable and flexible.
    2) I would like access to all of the EXIF data in both current and legacy cameras. If I’m going to standardize on DNG, I need at least the full access to EXIF data that BreezeBrowser provides from my older cameras (Canon G3, Canon S45, Canon 10D, Canon 300D, etc.)

    Jeff, thanks for your articles. Keep ‘em coming!

  5. Daniel M Says:

    Keith:
    Have you tried upgrading to the latest version of the converter? Does it have the same problems?

  6. Andy Frazer Says:

    DNG Converter is also a great tool to check if any of your RAW files have been corrupted on disk. You can’t use a thumbnail browser to check them because it only views the thumbnail files, not the RAW files themselves. This happened to be me two months ago. Some of my RAW files got corrupted due to a disk problem, but the thumbnails looked fine in BreezeBrowser. When I ran DNG Converter on my entire disk, it found half a dozen RAW files that were corrupted, but which looked good in the thumbnailing tool.

  7. Ed Nixon Says:

    Just so I’m clear in my own min: the only two RAW formats for which DNG Converter will save all RAW information are those of Canon and Nikon.

    Consequently, people using equipment from other vendors are constrained to save the original RAW file if they a) want to take advantage of features in another RAW converter package that may exploit features that Adobe doesn’t support and b) have a file that might be processed more completely, better, etc. by some future version of any RAW converter software.

    Do I have that straight? Thanks. …edN

  8. Jeff Schewe Says:

    As of Camera Raw & DNG Converter 3.1, yes, the only proprietary raw file formats that DNG migrates the private maker notes to the DNG is NEF & CR2 files from Nikon & Canon. Some parts of other formats have some of thier private maker notes migrated but it varies by camera and format and the manner inwhich the camera maker does or does not adhear to the EXIF spec.

    Future versions of DNG Converter and Camera Raw will expand the cameras and file formats, but i have no information when or what cameras updates will support.

    As for other 3rd party converter support, Phase One’s Capture One and & RawShooter already support DNG with a variety of other converters being added. The only restriction is that the odds are the camera companies’ own proprietary conversion software don’t support DNG such as Nikon Capture od Canon’s DPP.

    Also to be clear, I’m referring to the undocumented private maker note metadata. The rest of the pixel data is preserved when converted to DNG.

    In the past, there was no good way of preserving undocumented and therefore unkown data in a raw file. It’s not safe to read data from an NEF or CR2 for example and try to then re-write data back into those files. Even Nikon has been burned by writting data back into NEF files.

    So, to stress the point, DNG does not lock you into having to use Camera Raw. . .DNG does pretty much preclude you using the proprietary camera company’s own software though. rawformat.com has a list of 3rd party support for DNG, see: DNG Support Status as of April, 2005

  9. Scott Buttrick Says:

    Jeff,

    Great article! You convinced me to start converting all my RAW files to DNG. I have a D2x and am a little miffed at Nikon on their position on proprietary encryption. Do you delete your original RAW files after conversion or archive them?

    Regards,

    Scott

  10. Ken Tanaka Says:

    Indeed, Jeff, here is my platform:

    - Mac OS 10.4 (and 10.3 on a separate Mac)

    - Current DNG Converter version: 3.1 (but I encountered precisely the same issue on all previous versions, starting from the very first)

    - Photoshop 9 (CS2), but also encountered the problem on CS.

    - RAW files: Virtually all of my RAW files are CR2′s from a Canon 1D Mark II and 1Ds Mark II. Occasionally I also have RAWs from my Canon 10D (CRW’s), although I cannot recall whether or not the corruption occurred with this format.

    - Typical Workflow:
    1. I always copy my images to a Firewire drive before any processing.
    2. Review images with Bridge (formerly CS’s Browser). Sometimes make adjustments in ACR.
    3. Exit Bridge, invoke DNG converter and convert.

    None of the original RAW images that DNG-C has corrupted has ever shown evidence of damage when reviewed in Bridge (Browser) or when loaded into PS. As I noted earlier, DNG-C never trashes the same images twice. Last night’s work provided a good example. I processed a batch of 45 images (from a 1Ds Mark II) four times. Each conversion produced 1-2 trashed DNG’s and never the same image twice.

    It’s hard to imagine that this has not been a very common problem, as I really do not do anything funky with my images and all of my gear, from end-to-end, is in top working order.

    Keith may be on to something. It may well be that something in the metadata might be causing this hiccup. But I must also note that I originally suspected that something in the Browser/Bridge preview might be the cause. After running several conversion batches immediately after copying images from my CF cards I encountered the same problems.

    Once again, I feel that the DNG initiative may be the most significant initiative before the advanced/professional digital imaging community. It’s fundamental that it succeed, the sooner the better. I am not grousing about the DNG Converter. It’s a new technology and, as with most such products, it still has some kinks. I offer my experiences purely as constructive feedback. I have every intention to continue using the Converter.

  11. Douglas Urner Says:

    Jeff,

    Thanks for your ongoing work to press this issue home. I think it is critical for the ongoing usefulness of the digital images that we’re producing right now. I have no doubt that an open standard will be adopted by — or imposed upon — camera makers. But I fear that the longer this takes the more likely it is that old and obscure cameras will drop through the cracks and the images they procduced will be effectively lost.

    Do you know if version 3.1 adds support for integrating DNG Converter into an automated workflow? I’m really hoping that Adobe will add support soon so that DNG Converter can be run from the command line and/or be scripted.

    This would be a killer feature and would mean that DNG Converter could streamline workflows, rather than adding a step to them.

    Thanks, Doug

  12. Andrew Hall Says:

    Jeff

    Interested in your comments regarding not needing sidecar files with DNG. My short question is – can you still have sidecar files with DNG – and is this likely to continue to be so?

    The longer explanation follows.

    I do a lot of PS scripting and I use sidecar files to provide extra functionality in raw processing. Specifically, I create carefully named multiple sidecar files which I use to drive multi-layer processing of *individual* raw files. One sidecar might contain info to process the raw file at an exposure setting of -1, the second sidecar might use exposure +1 (a much simplified example). I find this a very efficient way of pre-processing my raw files as I can get all my colors / white balance / (even sometimes sharpening and noise reduction) how I want them, ready to be processed into multiple adjustment layers, but storage-wise I only have a single raw file and a few sidecars.

    It would be far less efficient to have multiple versions of the full DNG for each different raw processing layer.

    I realise not many others want to mess with this but personally I find it incredibly useful to:

    1. Be able to work fast and efficiently with multiple layers from individual raw files, and

    2. Be able to hold images in a preprocessed stage, with an automated system to take them very fast through to the processed stage when I actually want to use the.

    Andrew Hall

  13. Charles H. Irwin Says:

    Thanks, for this terrific.DNG Workflow by Jeff Schewe. I just want you to know that I have sent all of the Camera Makers the letter that Michael Reichmann, and Juergen Specht were so nice to develop. I hope all of our Photographers will go to luminous-landscape.com, and read What’s New under May 24, 2005, and do as I have done, and send your own letters to all of the Camera Makers. Thanks, to all who have worked to keep our Raw Negatives our property and not the property of anyone else.

  14. Michael Says:

    Well, looks like there are only Canon and Nikon users in here. Why else would you praise DNG so much?

    Don’t get me wrong. The idea of one open RAW format is great, but why on earth do they strip data from the original just because they don’t know what to do with it??

    When i heard about DNG i was ready to convert every RAW file i have as soon as i get the converter. But luckiely i read about the possibility of data loss before i started.
    OK, i could embed the original, but what a waste of space (Embeded original: +8MB and up, embed original EXIF: 1KB?, 10KB?). I’m not into forensics, so i don’t need the original file, as long as all the information is copied to the new one. DNG even keeps the encrytped WB info of Nikon files, because Nikon “might” allow them to decrypt it in the future. What about all the other information that “might” be available if other companies open up their formats? Sorry, lost, we didn’t know what to do with it.

    For now, I’m actually better of keeping my originals. DNG only works for me if it keeps all available information. But i’m optimistic (naive?). It’s only DNG 3.1 and there is lots of room to grow. Maybe version 4.1 or 5.1 will do.

    Have fun…
    Michael

  15. Don L Says:

    Ken,

    My guess would be the corruption may be the firewire drive. Have you tried converting them on only your internal drive. I’ve had problems with FW400 when an iSight was plugged in and with FW800 for a few different drives with no apparent reason. For me the FW400 was much more stable than the 800. I’ve switched over to external SATA drives w/o any of the FW headaches.

  16. Brandon Jackson Says:

    This is a very interesting article and I was looking forward to using Camera RAW 3.0 (or 3.1) and DNG files when I got CS2. However, I shoot with a Sigma SD-9 and while there is support for it, it tends to produce artifacts in bright color areas (particularly yellows & blues) that the Sigma software (and some other RAW converters also) do not produce. It seems that support is lacking for the foveon files and I do understand it may not be a priority to Adobe, however this will keep me from using DNG until Adobe updates their Camera Raw converter. Seems that the newer libraries used by Polybytes (and subsequently Raw Photo Desk) do not suffer from these issues. I t would be nice to use DNG though if Adobe finds time to look at us Sigma users. :-)

    -Brandon

  17. Jeremy Rowland Says:

    I wouldn’t let the limitations of today’s third-party DNG and RAW converters make my mind up about converting RAW to DNG. One of the main purposes of the DNG format is to provide a single, open format that (hopefully) will be supported years from now when proprietary RAW files might not be. In an ideal world, digital camera manufacturers will all start using the DNG format natively in their camera. For myself, I’m just getting started in RAW processing, but my plan (as a hobbyist) is to convert the RAW files to DNG, tweak with whichever one gives me more options and/or better results, burn both plus the resulting JPG onto CD/DVD for archiving, and save the JPG on my computer and hopefully never have to worry about either raw files again.

  18. Andrew Stern Says:

    Is there a way that I can take a file that has been scanned (Imacon) as a TIFF and open it in camera raw…..can’t seem to find a way…thanks…

  19. Tom Stratton Says:

    Big heads-up here…

    I just discovered that there is a minor, but very important bug in the DNG converter that pertains only to Mac users.

    IF:
    You are importing an entire drive
    You have the subfolders option chosen
    There are RAW files in the trash on the drive you are importing from
    You have the preserve subfolders option selected

    THEN:
    All files in the trash are converted to DNG (and more importantly if you are re-numbering your files, they are assigned names and numbers!) and are then put into an INVISIBLE folder in your destination.

    Just something to be aware of!

  20. Richard W. Golden Says:

    I just installed the DNG Converter with camera raw 3.3 in my Windows version of PS CS2. The save window in camera raw looks no different, nor can I find anything that looks like a converter that could be left on the desktop. Can anyone offer some guidance? Thanks.

  21. Brian Says:

    The DNG Converter and Camera Raw download is a zip file that when extracted gives you the new PS plug-in (Camera Raw.8bi) and the converter that is a stand-alone executable (Adobe DNG Converter.exe). Hope this helps.

  22. Katherine Emery Says:

    Jeff,

    Thank you. This has been the most helpful article I’ve found on the DNG converter and workflow process.

    After nearly a year of using ACR with NEF files with no problems, I have added the conversion to DNG as part of the process. And I’m losing a small percentage of images each time. My images are from a Nikon D70 and a D200.

    My workflow:
    - Copy NEF files directly to desktop.
    - Burn a DVD of NEF. Convert files to DNG, and save a copy of DNG on external HD.
    - Adjust white balance, exposure using ACR.

    I have noticed no problems in doing this. The error occurs when I try to reopen a file in either ACR or CS2. The thumbnail shows the correct changes, the metadata reads fine, but I can’t open the file: “Could not complete your request because the file format module could not parse the file.”

    I’ll move my problems to a forum, but thought I’d make the note that this has only occurred since converting to DNG. Thanks so much.

    Nikon D200, Nikon D70; Photoshop CS2 (9.0.1); Bridge (3.4); Digital Negative Converter (3.4); Mac 10.3.9; G4.

  23. gladys Says:

    i get the message “no allowed raw files found”
    My pictures are .CR2 , taken with the camera eos 30d.

    I cant get Photoshop CS2 to read them, even i have intalled the plug-in.

    if anyone can help me i will be very thankful.

  24. emtyness Says:

    Do you have the link for the second part?
    elastomeric paint

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.