DNG or RAW?

[joshua_]

I'm trying to figure out what will be best, DNG or RAW?



I would imagine DNG would make sense if I was going to do more with the photo in another program besides Lightroom 4, but can't think of another reason to import as DNG.


For now I don't think I'll be doing much of anything besides Lightroom, but I realize that may change in the future. I don't have Photoshop right now. So far the only other program I would even use is Gimp.

I may, in the future run a program specific to do some HDR stuff for fun, but I'm not even sure about that for now.

Advice?


Thanks

 

[KmH]

I never saw sufficient reason to convert my image files to DNG.

DNG is a Raw image format. DNG is a non-proprietary, sort of universal Raw image format.

In fact, the DNG format is owned by Adobe, though Adobe offers it as an open source format.
Digital Negative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why NOT to use DNG
To DNG or Not to DNG? « Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Killer Tips Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Killer Tips
Why use DNG? - Bing

 

[joshua_]

Thank you KmH

 

[dbvirago]

I've just been skeptical of the, 'it's' non-proprietary so you can still read those files 50 years from now' argument. Doesn't matter if it's non-proprietary (hope I don't have to type that again), you still need software that can read and understand the file format. If DNG doesn't catch on sufficiently, 50 years from now, you may have to use 50 year old software to open them.

 

[Garbz]

Yes and no. DNG is an open format with a published specification. 50 years from now someone can simply grab a technical manual and write the software, or pay someone to do such a trivial task. Being an open format also increases it's chance of being natively supported in more programs.

I actually think the "Why NOT DNG" post is incredibly naive. As someone who has just spent the best part of a week attempting to get and old dos copy up and running at work to talk to some old hardware we have laying around I can say for certain he's definitely over simplifying.

 

[480sparky]

DNG, while 'open source', may still end up the BetaMax of the photography world.

 

[joshua_]

Yall really did help me decide, thanks.

I was really looking to see if there was much benefit in moving to DNG, things that I might not understand yet due to how new I am at this. I believe that was answered for me, personally.

Thanks again

 

[usayit]

DNG, while 'open source', may still end up the BetaMax of the photography world.

Terrible anaology. As already mentioned, DNG and its published materials Opens the door for future use which the same cannot be said for Betamax. Sony also had an alterior motive behind its push for Betamax into the market. There are many file formats in use today, decades after thier introduction.... simply because their standards are well established and published,

If anything, the DNG format will probably survive much longer than the media they are stored on.

 

[sekhar]

I used to use original RAW too, but switched to DNG recently after discovering some key advantages. First, it compresses and produces smaller files, which translates to something like 3 MB less per my 6D image. This add adds up big time.

Next, I have CS6, but don't usually use Photoshop but do almost all processing with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). With the original RAW files, ACR adds the changes in a separate metadata XML file - i.e., there will be two files: foo.cr2 and foo.xmp. With DNG, ACR puts the edits on the same file, so it's cleaner (i.e., there's just one foo.dng). This matters even if you make minor non-destructive edits in ACR and end up using Photoshop, etc.

Browsing with preview on my Windows machine is easier with DNG. I tend to use the Windows codecs and other tools for previewing files in the standard file explorer window. These tools don't keep up with the latest RAW formats. E.g., they don't currently support my 6D files. Once I convert to DNG, they are ready to go.

This is minor, but converting to DNG also gives more accurate EXIF info. At least for the bit depth: the original CR2 files show the RAW image depth as 16 bits, whereas the DNG files correctly show it as 14 bits for my 6D.

I also do video, and DNG sequences are pretty common. E.g., one workflow from Adobe Premiere Pro to Adobe Speedgrade uses a DNG sequence. Some new cameras, like the Black Magic Cinema are delivering their RAW footage as DNG sequences, though I'm not sure this is necessarily going to catch on. Still, my point is that DNG is gaining in video as well.

Also IMO you're much safer to convert to DNG in terms of future-proofing than leaving in an old format. E.g., 10 years from now, chances are you won't be able to open your RAW images from an obscure Olympus camera. That might happen with DNG too, but with DNG, you'll have a big heads up if it's going to disappear, giving you enough time to migrate your stuff if necessary. I.e., one thing to monitor and worry about.

 

[usayit]

I use DNG as well.... two cameras I have spit them out natively. Havent had a problem importing the into LR3. I recently purchased an olympus OMD recently only to discover that Adobe LR3 doesnt support its files. Adobe wants me to update to LR4. Short term solution, convert to DNG prior to importing into LR3.

 

[KmH]

Some camera makes use DNG for their Raw files rather than a proprietary format.

 

[480sparky]

DNG, while 'open source', may still end up the BetaMax of the photography world.

Terrible anaology. As already mentioned, DNG and its published materials Opens the door for future use which the same cannot be said for Betamax. Sony also had an alterior motive behind its push for Betamax into the market. There are many file formats in use today, decades after thier introduction.... simply because their standards are well established and published,

If anything, the DNG format will probably survive much longer than the media they are stored on.

You missed the point. There's no guarantee that DNG will even be a viable format in the future. Something else may come along and blow it out of the water. No no can predict the future, not even Adobe.

 

[usayit]

There's no guarantee that DNG will even be a viable format in the future. Something else may come along and blow it out of the water.

Nothing is guaranteed duh...

But you still missed my point. I have series of bits on media I assume I can read. Assuming i have the specifications and proper documentation, i can easily write software that can make some use of that series of bits. It doesnt matter if something better comes along... Heck i can translate it to the new format if necessary. Its really not that difficult (i make a living in software).

The concern here is which format has a better chance of surviving. If i have a series of bits and no specs nor documentation, my only choice is to reverse engineer.... Not easy and often next to impossible.

Betamax is a terrible analogy simply because its roots lie with Sony and their hardware which is always difficult to reverse engineer.


In summary... Let me make it really simple. An existing file is always viable as long as you can retrieve he bits and there is someone able to do something with those bits.. Chances are far greater with a bits of a known open standard.

 

[usayit]

Some camera makes use DNG for their Raw files rather than a proprietary format.

Yup... Leica M8, M9 and if i recall correctly my old pentax K10d has the option for PEF or DNG.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

If I am not mistaken, DNG does not need a sidecar file to save all of your edit settings on LR. If you use RAW, you need the xmp file with the raw file if you want to see the edit on another computer.