The dynamic range of DNG avoids blown highlights and keeps colors saturated. The flower petals are saturated in real life, not washing out in the center of the flower.
2 Likes
Thanks Wlodek, for saying the quiet part out loud.
The rest of you people… Off you go, shoot in JPEG, edit in MS Paint, and be thankful for it! If this guy can live with a screenshot of a JPEG, so can we all.
There, case closed, RAW files are completely unnecesary.
1 Like
You forgot to add ‘for low DR images which are already good’.
I’m amused. The photography world overflows with those who just want their RAW files to look like their OOC JPEGs. The OOC JPEG provided above looks processed, as it should, I don’t know if the highlights are blown out. They are desaturated, which is perceptually normal and what you might do intentionally for a natural looking final image. It looks reasonably realistic to me.
1 Like
This is another example from a Pixel 9, captured in dual format, dng and jpg, in the DCI P3 color space. You will find below the out of camera jpg and a sample at 400%.
Below, a jpg created from the dng file converted to TIF using Adobe Bridge, then the TIF was edited in Photolab 8.
1 Like
The dng file
PXL_20250403_211918672.RAW-02.ORIGINAL.dng (19.9 MB)
Lens profiles YES but camera profiles NO. They just gives you a little better starting point in your editing than without them.
Why not let the DXO customers decide whether they shall have to wait six months before DXO fix a profile, to use their new camera with Photolab as I had to do with my then new Sony A7 IV (one of Sonys best selling models) and many users of other brands have had to do to or if we ourselves decides to start from scratch without any camera-profiles at all. Everything is better than NOT being able to open the files at all.
The result efter the postprocessing will be the same anyway - it might just take same extra moves - why not let your users decide for themselves. You are deliberately obstructing your users from using a software you already have been payed for. … and yes, it is for sure possible to change model codes with a hexeditor and a batch update macro tool but that is not a good thing because it will harm our productivity. I know because that was what I used to do for six months
2 Likes
A further comparison of a Samsung ExpertRAW DNG image, vs. JPG straight out of camera . The DNG file was converted using Adobe Camera RAW.
Notice the lack of texture and some blown highlights in the JPG.
Top : DNG - converted to TIF;
Bottom : JPG
3 Likes
Very good example where we can see that even a phone “RAW/DNG”-image can be processed to a very good result too.
There are so many comments about how bad mobile images are (straight out of the phone) contra images taken with interchangeable lens cameras where the last always are postprocessed RAW and the phone images are not. It would have been interesting to add even a postprocessed RAW-file from a “dedicated camera” to this set too.
Thanks for that pass Pierre! Sometimes we need to set the records straight and conduct more serious comparisions than the ones we most of the times see.
2 Likes
I agree that it would indeed be interesting to see more comparisons - how sensors / different cameras compare against each other is a topic of endless debate, so maybe not super relevant to this thread, but interesting nonetheless.
There’s no arguing that millions of people shoot on mobile, and probably tens of thousands shoot RAW on mobile + other devices that also generate DNGs, and DxO PhotoLab should support those files no matter what, without the need of workarounds.
It is currently “impossible” [wink, wink] to make a proper comparison of a mobile DNG vs a compact or ILC camera with a bigger sensor and have a nice discussion with tons ef engagement, people shooting new examples, having debates, different processings in PhotoLab… nope, DxO says no to that. A shame, really, that they’re not only forcing us, but encouraging us to leave DxO PL for other software that does care about usability.
2 Likes