RAW or DNG?

[KhronoS]

Since i`ve bought my new DSLR, i've taken the advice of the pros and shot in RAW which i can see it`s starting to occupy a lot of space ( i have more the 3000 raw files stored on my drive, in a few days i`m buy an external drive of 500GB so i guess that wouldn't have to be more of a problem). But a few days back i have started to read about the DNG file format (Digital Negative) and seams that would still be a RAW file but in a smaller size.
For example i saved a RAW file in DNG format and in RAW the file had @ 14MB and in DNG @ 12MB, and saved it with photoshop's Camera Raw in Full Size with the Compressed (lossless) option selected.

So my question is, what do you guys think about it? The difference between the quality of a RAW and a DNG will be "noticeable" (i'm quite a quality addict) ? Do you recommend to convert all my RAW`s in DNG or should i stick to simply store it in RAW?

 

[Flash Harry]

Either will do, the DNG'S are supposed to be future compatible for reading with any pic editor where raws are specific to your camera/software and normally require a PS plugin to enable PS to convert them. H

 

[JerryPH]

Delete the blurry and bad pics. That will save you more space than any compression or different standards will ever be able to do.

I used to save every picture I took, and that started to fill a lot of HD space and DVDs... especially since I saved in the RAW and high quality JPG formats (post processed).

Now I save only the good ones. You will be surprised at how few you actually end up keeping and how hard it will be to fill up that drive.

As far as space for me, I have a mirrored dual drive 1TB portable setup that I have for the laptop (firewire), and last night I ordered a 18 TB SAN for my home network. That should let me take a couple more pictures before I fill that one up... lol

 

[djrichie28]

I convert my Raw files into DNG files just so I can open them in CS2. At this current time there is not a Nikon Raw update for CS2. My other option is to buy the upgrade for CS3, or batch process all the NEF's to Tiff with the Nikon Software. So far the Adobe DNG converter does the job. Someone may know if there is actually a significant difference. I am just saying that I haven't noticed a handling one.

If it's really just converting the data from the sensor into a universal language then I can't see why there would be any loss once the software generates an image from the DNG, which is why I thought it should be ok. I could be wrong but I haven't noticed anything different. I used to shoot Olympus Raw and the DNG files operate with CS2 exactly as the Olympus Raw files did.

Since I have been using DNG files, I have not noticed anything different about them. I'll store the NEF's in a separate folder and burn them to a CD or DVD when the folder gets large enough so I will always have them backed up.

 

[sultan]

Use DNG. Not only are they smaller but they are standardized and future compatible, unlike the camera manufacturers RAW formats. What would you be able to do with RAW files 10 years down, now that your camera manufacturer has long stopped supporting your camera's format.

 

[KhronoS]

Totally forgot about this thread. I decided to burn the RAW and keep the DNG

Thanks guys for the great info

 

[Mav]

Well are you really sure that YOU need to shoot in RAW and that it's appropriate for your particular style of shooting and editing needs? There's also pros that shoot nothing but JPEG too. I personally shoot 99% JPEG and only mess with RAW if it's important enough (once in a lifetime shots) and/or there's a greater chance of error (difficult conditions). Otherwise I don't bother and JPEG gives me all the flexibility I need. Saves a ton of space too.

 

[Garbz]

Search the forum. THere was a large debate about this in the last 2 months.

 

[KhronoS]

Well are you really sure that YOU need to shoot in RAW and that it's appropriate for your particular style of shooting and editing needs? There's also pros that shoot nothing but JPEG too. I personally shoot 99% JPEG and only mess with RAW if it's important enough (once in a lifetime shots) and/or there's a greater chance of error (difficult conditions). Otherwise I don't bother and JPEG gives me all the flexibility I need. Saves a ton of space too.

I'm not always shooting in RAW and i just wanted to know if its better to make the few RAW photos in DNG to save some space

Search the forum. THere was a large debate about this in the last 2 months.

I did find it and i did read it, thats why i didn't answered this thread, because i have found my answers

 

[TamiyaGuy]

I, personally, only shoot RAW or DNG if I absolutely need to. JPG is fine for almost all of my work, including post processing. I honestly can't tell the difference between a high-quality JPG and a RAW converted to TIFF/BMP/whatever.

 

[tbstimp]

There is a website called UPDIG that addresses a lot of the choices we have to make with our files. It's for photographers. It's a great resource. Here is the link to what they say about archiving RAW vs DNG