RAW shooters: Do you save in RAW or DNG ?

[480sparky]

Even if we all woke up tomorrow to find out our current camera-specific raw formats aren't supported by new software, we still have our old software don't we? I doubt PS, LR and all the others are gonna automatically update your current software and you fire up the computer to find "Unsupported Format" messages popping up.

I mean..... I have 3 computers. One runs W7, one runs WXP and I still have a functioning W3.11. I still fire up the old machines once in a while to run the software that's not forward-compatible. Far from an ideal situation, but there's software like that I still need & use. If either of the old XP or 3.11 machines take a dump, a proper computer store can provide me with a legal & working replacement.

I think current raw formats will be the same. By the time we get to the point that they will become obsolete and totally unusable, DNG will have been handed it's hat and shown to the door as well. We'll be 2-3 formats further along by then.

 

[PASM]

I can't name one file-format that is no longer viewable..all the way back to the 1980s. Is there?

My understanding of the proprietary, raw formats is that they have encrypted file-headers intended to foil third-party software developers from offering apps which can edit them. It must be weak encryption, because it's been neutralized by various GNU/donationware.

 

[Joseph Westrupp]

A reduction in size always means a reduction in quality.

Converting your files to DNG is lossless. It's smaller because it uses a more efficient way of encoding the information.

 

[AmazingGrace0385]

RAW - don't know much about DNG, but I like have the RAW "negative" if you will. Like a PP said, storage space is cheap. Between my external hard drive to store all my images and my unlimited online backup, I think I'm good.

 

[Joseph Westrupp]

and my unlimited online backup

Who do you use for that?

 

[AmazingGrace0385]

Backblaze.$5 a month, $50 a year, or $95 for two years.

and my unlimited online backup

Who do you use for that?

 

[Joseph Westrupp]

Backblaze.$5 a month, $50 a year, or $95 for two years.

and my unlimited online backup

Who do you use for that?

Interesting. I use S3, it's cheap, but very no-frills.

 

[usayit]

A reduction in size always means a reduction in quality.

Converting your files to DNG is lossless. It's smaller because it uses a more efficient way of encoding the information.

Are there other advantages to converting raw files to DNG?

 

[Joseph Westrupp]

Are there other advantages to converting raw files to DNG?

I think the main push behind it is that it's supposed to be a format that will stick around. LOL, possibly just fear-mongering so that we're all under the Adobe umbrella.

 

[Josh66]

Are there other advantages to converting raw files to DNG?

I think the main push behind it is that it's supposed to be a format that will stick around. LOL, possibly just fear-mongering so that we're all under the Adobe umbrella.

Well, it's open source, for one. (CR2, NEF, et al are not.)

What that means for us is that any programmer who felt like it could write software to read it without having to reverse engineer it (hopefully, that software would also be open source and free).

If you didn't have anything that could read the proprietary files types, it wouldn't matter anyway though, since you wouldn't have a way of converting it.


I don't know if you could say that it's being open source is an advantage, but it certainly is not a bad thing. For most users, it wouldn't really matter.

 

[usayit]

Well, it's open source, for one. (CR2, NEF, et al are not.)

A.. HA! Ok.. It makes sense now. Thanks. I've been storing just my raw files directly and my newer cameras simply spit out DNG. I just assumed that DNG was just yet another raw format. As such, hearing people converting to DNG was like a Canon guy converting his CR2 raw files to NEF... kinda sounded strange.

 

[mayhem7]

Well, personally I prefer NEF, but that's just because I don't like to use time on conversions.. DNG is probably the best format, but so far I have had no actual need for it.
Here are some more views on the subject, if interested: Flickr: Discussing DNG vs NEF in Adobe Lightroom

 

[Joseph Westrupp]

I don't know if you could say that it's being open source is an advantage

They certainly push it as an advantage. But I wonder what the real world implications really are. If everyone adopted it (including camera manufacturers), it would certainly make Adobe's life easier!