RAW vs DNG

[Rudi]

Hi everyone,

I was wondering how many here convert and store their image archives in DNG format. I mean, I understand that Adobe is trying to establish a standard for the future, but with Photoshop being able to convert just about any RAW file on the planet (I exaggerate for effect :D), and the camera manufacturer's own software doing a good job.... and.... Adobe might not be here in the future, either, so.... how many of you are actually taking the time and trouble to convert and store your images in DNG format?

If so, why? If not, why not? I'm trying to decide on whether I want to do this myself, but would like to hear your reasoning, to help me make up my mind.

[Jeff JTPhoto]

Rudi personally I don't bother. I believe Canon will be around longer then Adobe. If things should change in the future I'm sure there will still be DNG or whatever is popular format then to convert to. I honestly don't see the advantage of spending all that time converting to DNG.. If I do in future decide to convert to DNG I will most likely also save a copy in the native RAW format.

[Rudi]

That is my current way of thinking, too, Jeff (including saving the original RAW in either case). I just threw this out there, just in case there is some crucial piece of the puzzle that I am missing... :)

[haibane]

Rudi, I use lightroom. Its ridiculously simple to convert so I figure why not. Although anything posted is put in tiff eventually

[Rudi]

I guess the question I'm asking here is why, James? What is the point??? Your RAW files already contain all the information that was there in the first place, and you had to convert to DNG just to preserve that. THEN you have to use Adobe products to take advantage of it (and I still don't know what the advantage is! :) ).

If I convert for Web, I convert to JPEG, if for keeps then it's usually PSD or TIF, and I ALWAYS keep all my RAWs! So... what is the point of DNG???

[haibane]

true... I could just leave then in NEF or Canon format if used. Maybe space?

[Rudi]

Hmmm... I've done some research, and apparently the DNG files can be quite a bit smaller than some RAWs (depending on camera brand). Also, it stores the data inside the file, not in an external file like Photoshop does when it converts your RAW. It is also an open standard, which, if it catches on, could be a good thing. It's a bit early, I think but it seems to make sense to store your manipulated images in DNG format for storage - smaller than RAW and all the data is still there! (unless you want to keep the layers open, then PSD I guess).

Interesting what you learn when you ask... :)

[Rudi]

I'm starting to wonder if a DNG backup of CR2 files might be the way to go. Save some space, and hedge your bets! :) In case either brand looks like going out of business, it shouldn't be too hard to convert them to something appropriate at that time...

[Jeff JTPhoto]

Rudi, I think you hit on it there. If DNG gets to the point of open format like JPEG and TIFF were numerous programs including the OS's can view, decipher and manipulate them, then I believe it will be time to consider a backup copy in both formats. For the time being however I'll just continue to double backup my native RAW files.

[Rudi]

Mac OS X already recognizes DNG format...

[Jonathan]

Rudi, If you are really serious about some DAM managment:biglaugh: i suggest the book. DAM management(i think that is the title). It stands for digital asset management. I have read the book and would love to implement DNG into my workflow. Have I done this yet? No..then again I am in a constant state of photo-editing:biglaugh: Give the book a read or glance at your local book store.

[Rudi]

Rudi, If you are really serious about some DAM managment:biglaugh: i suggest the book. DAM management(i think that is the title). It stands for digital asset management. I have read the book and would love to implement DNG into my workflow. Have I done this yet? No..then again I am in a constant state of photo-editing:biglaugh: Give the book a read or glance at your local book store.

RIGHT! The book's on order from Amazon... That'll teach me to ask questions! :D

[Jeff JTPhoto]

OK, now you've peaked my interest!

Next question.. Is there a way to convert RAW files i.e. CR2 directly to DNG without having to run them through ACR. There was a DNG converter program before but I'm not sure that its still available or whether it would batch convert..

[Rudi]

Jeff, you're asking the wrong guy! :D I'm waiting to receive this book, read it and see how I can improve my DAM. Might be preferable to do it without converting to DNG, I don't know. What I do know is that I need a better system for archiving, tagging, categorizing and backing up my images in the long run.

[MichiganMan]

I use DNG religiously. Why? Because I can. Seriously, I use it because my native RAW files are NOT compressed. Everyone of them is the same size. Huge. Converting them to DNG saves 50% or more on the majority of the files. And it is lossless compression, so no fear there.

I use Lightroom, and it can be set to convert them on Import, which I do. Saves a step in the process.

I use to convert to DNG using the stand-alone Adobe DNG converter, which is a simple process. See here for more: http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/

Shoot me for believing that neither Canon or Adobe is so awesome that either will outlive all other organizations. I don't want to say Adobe is this great organization, but the idea behind DNG sounds very logical to me, but all camera manufacturers don't think so. They all think they have some "secret" recipe for their RAW format and the conversion of it.

But, Canon, Nikon, etc are all camera or optical companies. They have virtually little experience in real software creation, and more than likely they all farmed it out to someone else. Therefore, most people find their conversion applications a bit old, illogical, slow, ugly, whatever. If all they did was write the little tiny bit of "convert to DNG" code, and there is a nice free Adobe DNG SDK (programming bits for converting and reading), how hard can that be? They do a lot less work, maintain nothing really, and make the same amount of money from a camera sale. Sounds like a nice corporate model to me.

And a lot of people claim they won't use DNG because Adobe is evil, like Microsoft is evil. But they use TIFF files, and Adobe owns the copyright to that little jewel, and they didn't mess up PDF, did they?

[beaucamera]

Rudi, I'm so glad you asked this question.

I've been around the block so many times about the best way to store my RAW images. For me the question too has been, do I store a processed image or the original.

I'm still sitting on the fence, but the dng format does have appeal, especially when you consider all that HD space it can. The problem, as I see it, is that dng is still not a standard.
:wideeyed::arghh::wideeyed:

Virginia
aka beaucamera

[Jeff JTPhoto]

Found it Rudi! In the CS3 Bridge Auto loader you can convert the RAWs to DNG on download and that has an option to embed the original RAW file into the DNG so that it may be extracted at a later date if required. Seems to be the best of both, maybe, but bigger file size.

[haibane]

Quick question guys, I had heard and read a few places on some interesting points as to why standard compression on raw files in camera can cause it to be harder to recover highlights. Do you think the DNG compression might be the same way?

[MichiganMan]

I don't have "issues" recovering highlights from my DNG files inside of Lightroom.

[haibane]

I don't have "issues" recovering highlights from my DNG files inside of Lightroom.
I don't think I do I just never compared.