DNG

[DjBeau]

Hi

If I wanna save an edited image in RAW I can choose DNG. It keeps all the information that I "edited into it" but still let's me go back to the original RAW file, even on another computer.

But are there any alternatives? Anyone know about the pros and cons?

Second question:
I Lightroom I can choose to "embed original RAW" in my DNG. But is there any reason to do so when I can always "unedit" the picture (again, even on a different computer)?

Regards
Beau

 

[Antithesis]

I always thought lightroom saved your settings as long as you didn't move the photo. DNG's take up hard-drive space, and if that's a concern, then I'd just take your files and leave them in a folder where you will edit them. Lightroom has a database that is meant to be lightweight on hard-drive space, where copying files 2 or 3 times (from RAW to DNG and then Jpeg) is less than efficient.

DNG's will however have added the benefit of backing up your editing work if something crashes. That is really the only benefit I see.

For question number two: I never use the DNG option for the above reason, so I don't know.

 

[musicaleCA]

DNG's take up hard-drive space, and if that's a concern, then I'd just take your files and leave them in a folder where you will edit them. Lightroom has a database that is meant to be lightweight on hard-drive space, where copying files 2 or 3 times (from RAW to DNG and then Jpeg) is less than efficient.

DNG's will however have added the benefit of backing up your editing work if something crashes. That is really the only benefit I see.

For question number two: I never use the DNG option for the above reason, so I don't know.

Er...they don't take up any more space than the original RAW file. It's the same information, just in a different format. Unless you actually save the original RAW inside the DNG, and then yes, the file size will double.

DNG doesn't require sidecar files to store metadata. And it is open source. Those two reasons alone are why I always convert my images to DNG when importing them.

 

[dl4449]

Yea as I understand it DNG is about 20% smaller than raw.
I am switching to DNG because you dont have the sidecar file.
Troy

 

[Derrel]

What camera system do you shoot? Nikon Capture has long had the ability to allow you to edit your raw .NEF files,make adjustments, and have the files "perfected", with no sidecar files to clutter up things and to get lost.

If you shoot Nikon, you could adjust the raw files in Capture,and then have the option to revert to original settings at ANY time, on any other computer.

If you shoot Fuji S3 or S5 Pro .RAF, I would never consider converting them to DNG.

 

[DjBeau]

I actually didn't know, Capture could do that. I am shooting Nikon but I've become very fond of lightroom 2 since it's very interconnected with Photoshop. It's a really nice workflow between those two.

But maybe Capture and Photoshop are also easily connected? That would actually be a reason for me to switch since I want a raw-file with preserved editing and no sidecar.