When you set up a new camera, or even go to take a picture on some smartphones, you\u2019re presented with a key choice: JPG or RAW?<\/p>\n
JPGs are ready to post just about anywhere, while RAWs yield an unfinished file filled with extra data that allows for much richer post-processing. That option for a RAW file (and even the generic name, RAW) has been standardized across the camera industry \u2014 but despite that, the camera world has never actually settled on one standardized RAW format.<\/p>\n
Most cameras capture RAW files in proprietary formats, like Canon\u2019s CR3, Nikon\u2019s NEF, and Sony\u2019s ARW. The result is a world of compatibility issues. Photo editing software needs to specifically support not just each manufacturer\u2019s file type but also make changes for each new camera that shoots it. That creates pain for app developers and early camera adopters who want to know that their preferred software will just work.<\/p>\n
Adobe tried to solve this problem years ago with a universal RAW format, DNG (Digital Negative), which it open-sourced for anyone to use. A handful of camera manufacturers have since adopted DNG as their RAW format. But the largest names in the space still use their own proprietary files. And there\u2019s no sign of that changing anytime soon.<\/p>\n
Why have some camera brands adopted native DNG files?<\/strong><\/p>\n Some smaller camera manufacturers have been using the DNG format for years, while others like Sigma have adopted it more recently. The whole point of DNG is to offer flexibility, ease of use, and ideally, a little more futureproofing \u2014 since the format is open to use and royalty-free.<\/p>\n DNG was created in 2004 by Thomas Knoll, one of the co-creators of Photoshop, and was based on the even older TIFF image specification. DNG is capable of holding additional camera metadata embedded within it. While other RAW formats are usually coupled with an XMP sidecar file for storing metadata, DNG is slightly streamlined since it\u2019s just one file that allows nondestructive metadata edits within it.<\/p>\n DNG is nearly old enough to legally drink (in the US)<\/p>\n Regardless of which camera brand you use, a RAW processing workflow is mostly the same: you take a picture, import it to a computer, open and process the file using editing software, and then export a \u201cfinished\u201d file in a universal format (like JPG) for sharing or printing. Where things often get the messiest is with software compatibility.<\/p>\n You can\u2019t use just any software or photo app to edit a RAW file \u2014 you generally need specialized apps that support your specific format. Widely used consumer apps like Apple\u2019s Photos and Google Photos have some RAW support, but it\u2019s frankly a bit janky. It\u2019s best to use software like Adobe\u2019s Creative Cloud<\/a>, Capture One<\/a>, Photo Mechanic<\/a>, or Darktable<\/a>.<\/p>\n Some camera manufacturers offer their own software. But ask most photographers, and they\u2019ll likely steer you toward the third-party apps.<\/p>\n And there\u2019s the big advantage for DNG. Because it\u2019s an open standard, there\u2019s wider third-party app support. That makes it a more turnkey solution for camera makers. It therefore makes sense that smaller manufacturers (Pentax, Ricoh, Leica, etc.) or ones with closer ties to Adobe (Apple) use it.<\/p>\n What are the advantages of a proprietary RAW format versus an open one like DNG?<\/strong><\/p>\n Larger camera companies know that app developers will rush to support their latest features, letting them stick with their own RAW formats. A proprietary RAW format offers tighter control over the image pipeline direct from a manufacturer\u2019s camera, from the point of capture to the files you\u2019re editing on your computer.<\/p>\n That\u2019s the sentiment I got from multiple camera company reps who gave me feedback when I asked them why they stuck with their proprietary format. Here are some of the answers I got when asked why they go with proprietary options:<\/p>\n Sony:<\/strong> Michael Bubolo and Ryoko Noguchi of Sony\u2019s product teams tell The Verge that Sony Alpha cameras use a proprietary ARW format \u201cto maximize performance based on device characteristics such as the image sensor and image processing engine.\u201d<\/p>\n Panasonic:<\/strong> \u201cA proprietary format enables better optimization and supports unique camera functions,\u201d said Masanori Koyama of Panasonic\u2019s Lumix division.<\/p>\n Sigma:<\/strong> \u201cAdding proprietary data allows the camera information to be given more accurately to the developing software. However, it is less versatile,\u201d Sigma said in a statement provided by US PR rep Jack Howard. (Some of its cameras use DNG, while others use the proprietary X3F format.)<\/p>\n Canon:<\/strong> \u201cCanon uses a propriety RAW format because it allows our proprietary information to be added to RAW without being restricted by the standardization, and data can be handled freely, enabling optimum processing during image development,\u201d said Drew MacCallum, senior manager of product planning at Canon USA.<\/p>\n Pentax: <\/strong>\u201cThe advantage of proprietary formats is that they can evolve on their own; the disadvantage is that they may not be supported by third-party applications,\u201d said Shigeru Wakashiro, General Manager of Product Planning for Ricoh Imaging Company (which owns Pentax). Of course, Pentax is the lone manufacturer that gives users a choice between a proprietary PEF file and DNG. The Ricoh executive added, \u201cThe disadvantage of using DNG is that if all manufacturers use the DNG format, it will be difficult to manage the format separately for each manufacturer.\u201d<\/p>\n Nikon: <\/strong>Did not answer The Verge\u2019s questions by time of publication.<\/p>\n Fujifilm:<\/strong> Did not answer The Verge\u2019s questions by time of publication.<\/p>\n What are all these formats?<\/strong><\/p>\n Canon:<\/strong> CR3 (previously CR2 and CRW)<\/p>\n Pentax:<\/strong> PEF (option for DNG)<\/p>\n Leica:<\/strong> DNG (RWL on some point-and-shoots)<\/p>\n Sigma:<\/strong> DNG (previously X3F)<\/p>\n Apple:<\/strong> DNG (Apple ProRAW)<\/p>\n Sony also says its format lets it offer unique features in its own editing software: \u201cWe can maximize its performance to achieve even higher image quality and enhance image details through features such as Composite RAW and Pixel Shift Multi.\u201d<\/p>\n Sony\u2019s software for processing ARW RAW files is called Imaging Edge. Like most first-party software from camera manufacturers, it\u2019s terrible and unintuitive to use \u2014 and should be saved for situations like a high-resolution multishot mode where it\u2019s the only method to use a camera\u2019s proprietary feature. The same goes for other first-party apps like Canon Digital Photo Professional and Nikon NX Studio. <\/p>\n The only other time it may be necessary to use those apps is if you buy a camera as soon as it\u2019s released and its RAW files aren\u2019t yet supported by Adobe or other software makers. That moment of friction is when a proprietary RAW format is most annoying, primarily affecting early adopters. It\u2019s a restriction that severely affects camera reviewers and YouTubers, who often can\u2019t try out RAW files in any initial hands-on testing.<\/p>\n Getting that software support out to users as soon as possible takes a bunch of testing and work, and it\u2019s not always completed as quickly as new camera owners would like. \u201cFor new cameras, this means making sure that we add support for new or changed behaviors in RAW file formats,\u201d Eric Chan, a digital imaging fellow at Adobe, tells The Verge. \u201cFor example, new compression modes, capture modes such as High Dynamic Range and more. In addition, measuring each new device sensor for characteristics such as color and noise.\u201d<\/p>\n If all that isn\u2019t done before a new camera is released and people start taking pictures, the interim choice becomes: shoot JPGs (an inferior format) or temporarily use the camera maker\u2019s software (an inferior workflow).<\/p>\n Why is this so messy and confusing?<\/strong><\/p>\n Even if multiple brands of cameras use the same off-the-shelf sensor \u2014 Nikon, Pentax, Leica, and others use sensors manufactured by Sony \u2014 the image processing pipeline and fine-tuning is all proprietary. It\u2019s what gives brands their signature style, like the color science that Fujifilm is known for. But that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s impossible to do all of that with an open format like DNG.<\/p>\n \u201cI have yet to hear a good reason for using proprietary RAW formats. The underlying data is the same. If a manufacturer comes up with additional data that isn\u2019t included in the DNG standard, the format is extensible enough that a camera manufacturer can throw it in there, anyway.\u201d That\u2019s what Ben Sandofsky, developer at Lux Optics, makers of Halide<\/a>, told me. So maybe some camera brands are set in their ways and like having full control. Ultimately, we\u2019re sort of at their mercy and whether they choose to be more guarded with a proprietary format or use an open one like DNG.<\/p>\n I wish it weren\u2019t like this, but ultimately, it\u2019s mostly fine. At least, for now. As long as the camera brands continue to work closely with companies like Adobe, we can likely trudge along just fine with this status quo. As much as I\u2019d personally prefer to see all cameras offer a common format like DNG, so at the very least you never have to worry about incompatibilities, it\u2019s unlikely mainstays like Canon CR3 and Nikon NEF files will ever go away.<\/p>\n That means early adopters are stuck hoping their software is updated on time \u2014 and anyone with old gear needs to hope their format doesn\u2019t go out of style.<\/p>\n