EN
Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Software & IT · Product decision · 2004–2026

Adobe's DNG gave cameras one open RAW format and became ISO

Adobe published DNG, a royalty-free archival RAW format, in 2004; Leica, Pentax and Ricoh adopted it, and in 2026 it became ISO 12234-4.

Adobe

The solution

Every camera maker shipped its own RAW format — Canon CR3, Nikon NEF, Sony ARW — so software had to be updated for each new camera, and proprietary files risked becoming unreadable if a vendor dropped support. Photographers and archives needed a format that would outlive any company.

In September 2004 Adobe announced DNG (Digital Negative), created by Photoshop co-creator Thomas Knoll: a publicly available, archival, royalty-free format based on TIFF that stores raw sensor data and metadata in one file. Adobe published the specification so anyone could implement it.

DNG won the interchange and archival slots: Leica adopted it from the start, followed by Pentax, Ricoh, Samsung and Casio, while hundreds of software makers including Apple and Google support it. In March 2026 the format was ratified as ISO 12234-4:2026, making the open raw format an official international standard.

Why it worked

  • A public, royalty-free spec meant no vendor held archives hostage.
  • One documented format cut per-camera engineering for software makers.
  • Embedded metadata made DNG a single self-contained archive file.
  • Adobe's own tools guaranteed the format would always be readable.
What it achievedPublish the RAW spec royalty-free; win archivalclever

What can be applied

A vendor can win a standard by giving away the format and keeping the tools: by making DNG free and documented, Adobe turned proprietary raws into the odd ones out and made DNG the archival default.

Aftermath

DNG is now an ISO standard (ISO 12234-4:2026) and the default for raw archival and interchange workflows, even though Canon, Nikon and Sony still ship proprietary RAW; Adobe's open format remains the reference point whenever raw compatibility is debated.

Sources

spotted an error? The archive wants to know.

Related cases