JPEG v DNG - Please educate me?

[Buel]

Hi all.
When I view my photos on my mem card, I have both JPEG and DNG. The app I used to make 3d models with JPEGs doesn't recognise the DNGs.....so my questions are - what use are they and why do I have both, please?

 

[waynorth]

A very short explanation:
DNG, also called RAW-files are raw, unprocessed data taken directly from the camera sensor. To view them as a photo, you need to process them in a software called RAW-converter. Popular ones are Lightroom, Camera Raw, DxO and several others. Here you can adjust the photos in every way you want - colour, sharpness, contrast etc.
JPG's on the other hand are RAW-files that are processed in the camera. The engineers at the camera manufacturer have decided what is the best way to adjust the photos, they are sharpened, colours are saturated, contrast are increased, distortion corrected etc.

The good thing with DNG files is that the photographer has much more control of the finished result. The files can take far more adjustment than JPG-files, and they have larger dynamic range.
JPG's are great for those who don't care so much about post-processing, but think that the photos look fine as they are from the camera - which they often do. JPG's are not necessarily "worse" than DNG's, but you have less flexibilty to adjust them.

 

[Buel]

A very short explanation:
DNG, also called RAW-files are raw, unprocessed data taken directly from the camera sensor. To view them as a photo, you need to process them in a software called RAW-converter. Popular ones are Lightroom, Camera Raw, DxO and several others. Here you can adjust the photos in every way you want - colour, sharpness, contrast etc.
JPG's on the other hand are RAW-files that are processed in the camera. The engineers at the camera manufacturer have decided what is the best way to adjust the photos, they are sharpened, colours are saturated, contrast are increased, distortion corrected etc.

The good thing with DNG files is that the photographer has much more control of the finished result. The files can take far more adjustment than JPG-files, and they have larger dynamic range.
JPG's are great for those who don't care so much about post-processing, but think that the photos look fine as they are from the camera - which they often do. JPG's are not necessarily "worse" than DNG's, but you have less flexibilty to adjust them.

Thank you, that is really helpful!!

 

[Dronecation]

Thank you, that is really helpful!!

Storage is cheap, so keep those DNG's for later usage when you may become more proficient at processing and want to alter some images down the road...

 

[Ridgeback65]

If you’re old enough, this film analogy applies:
jpgs=slides/transparencies; raw/dng= negatives.

Different brands and types of slide film shot on the same scene had dramatically different looks that are “baked in” (Velvia, Kodachrome, etc) when you click the shutter. This could be fantastic or horrible depending on the subject. Same goes for jpgs.

Negatives on the the other hand (analog or digital) give more power to the user *after* shutter to perfect (or ruin) the image in the darkroom or PS.

As a 34 year pro, I shoot raw 99.9% of the time as I know what I’m doing in post production. Having said that, I shot transparency film back in the day (negatives for b/w of course). Mastering slide film took years of practice, testing and cost to perfect and was ongoing as Fuji and Kodak were always coming out with new formulations.

If you’re happy with your jpg images straight from the camera and don’t push them too much in PS (mess with the exposure, pull back highlights/shadows, etc) then jpg is fine. Raw allows for much more stretching of the image in a non-destructive way before opening it in PS.

 

[Felix le Chat]

If you’re old enough, this film analogy applies:
jpgs=slides/transparencies; raw/dng= negatives.

Different brands and types of slide film shot on the same scene had dramatically different looks that are “baked in” (Velvia, Kodachrome, etc) when you click the shutter. This could be fantastic or horrible depending on the subject. Same goes for jpgs.

Negatives on the the other hand (analog or digital) give more power to the user *after* shutter to perfect (or ruin) the image in the darkroom or PS.

As a 34 year pro, I shoot raw 99.9% of the time as I know what I’m doing in post production. Having said that, I shot transparency film back in the day (negatives for b/w of course). Mastering slide film took years of practice, testing and cost to perfect and was ongoing as Fuji and Kodak were always coming out with new formulations.

If you’re happy with your jpg images straight from the camera and don’t push them too much in PS (mess with the exposure, pull back highlights/shadows, etc) then jpg is fine. Raw allows for much more stretching of the image in a non-destructive way before opening it in PS.

One further point not clarified (as far as I can see). The Digital NeGative (DNG) can be manipulated (edited) in a non-destructive way: which means any changes made to a DNG can be reversed and the file returned to it's OOC (Out Of Camera) state at the click of a button.

Editing JPG's is a destructive process, you lose the original image the instant you apply the editing changes and save the file.

 

[maggior]

One further point not mentioned (as far as I can see). The Digital NeGative (DNG) can be manipulated (edited) in a non-destructive way.

Any changes made to a DNG can be reversed and the file returned to it's OOC (Out Of Camera) state at the click of a button.

Editing JPG's is a destructive process, you lose the original image the instant you apply the editing changes and save the file.

You can edit jpegs in a non-destructive way, but yes, with RAW files (DNG in this case), there is no choice since there is no way to manipulate the RAW file directly.

 

[Meta4]

Editing JPG's is a destructive process, you lose the original image the instant you apply the editing changes and save the file.

Only if you aren't smart enough to Save As with a different filename.
It's not rocket science.

 

[Meta4]

If you’re happy with your jpg images straight from the camera and don’t push them too much in PS (mess with the exposure, pull back highlights/shadows, etc) then jpg is fine.

Check the link here to see what you can achieve with jpg image files.

Poor image quality

I see comments like this all the time, but I disagree. Contrary to popular opinion you can also get great images shooting jpg. It was not a popular opinion, but more an opinion based on facts. Some cameras can do great jpegs, yes, but DJI drones are set up a different way. Just compare jpeg...

mavicpilots.com