Если кртако, получается что с DNG нормально работать будут конверторы от Adobe, либо конверторы, не берущие в расчет настройки камеры (у меня, например, в RPP резултьтат для NEF и DNG файла практически идентичный, т.е. RPP без разницы с каким форматом работать).
Замечу, что в обсуждении идет речь про С1 версии 4, сейчас 6-я версия и ничего не изменилось.
Приведу выдержку из обсуждения, которая кмк многое объясняет:
исходные данные - в С1 запихиваются три файла одного и того же изображения, NEF и два производных от него DNG
I try to put the results in cleartext:
1. C1 creates result A from the native raw file.
2. C1 creates result B from the DNG file converted from the raw. B is different from A.
3. C1 created result C from the modified DNG file. C is different from A AND from B.
If the above is right, then we can say, that
a. C1 CAN work with the pure DNG data, which includes the color conversion Adobe's way. The modified DNG differs from the original DNG in that the camera name (maker and model) has been changed, AND the MakerNote tag has been made unaccessible, and this file has been accepted by C1.
This is in contrast to some other raw processors, which accept a DNG file only if they know the camera's characteristics; see the thread "Is DNG a universal raw format?" down below.
b. C1 DOES take some information from MakerNote if available, otherwise these two version would yield the same result.
The originating question was, why the "native" and DNG result are different. Based on the above test, I can not answer it with certainty, it is not clear, what C1 uses from MakerNote.
Now, to the question of "DNG - standard or not".
The DNG specification tries to put many aspects of a raw image in a uniform shape. However, there are two distinct areas posing problems:
1. Camera specific options. The Exif specification provides for a way of recording sharpness, contrast, saturation and white balance, but the specification has been created very short-sightedly and became useless. Other options, like Picture Style has not been envisioned at all. Such options are coming in series, the DNG specification does not cover them.
These options are available in the native raw file as well as in DNG, but programs have to make extra gymnastics to extract them from DNG; NOT DNG is to blame in this point.
Some raw processor go the extra way, others don't. ACR does not make anything, which can not be seen in DNG format as well, i.e. it does not support these options.
2. The other problem area is the color transformation. There is *no* generally accepted way to describe the sensors' behaviour. Most raw processors adopted camera and model specific solutions; Adobe defined a way in DNG, which is an *approximation*. Others don't share the enthusiasm, with some justification. It is not by chance, that camera makers' own converters give the best colors of their cameras.
So, a raw processor can process a DNG file using the hard-coded knowledge of the sensor - like Aperture does - or going ACR's way of color transformation.
C1 may take some setting(s) from the native raw file, while not doing so with a DNG, even if the data is available (but differently). This may be the reason for the difference between the results of the NEF and DNG conversion.
Note, that it is not necessary to access the MakerNote for identifying the camera.