RAW shooters: Do you save in RAW or DNG ?

[PASM]

At the moment - various raw formats. But with an eye on DNG for the future.

 

[Gaerek]

I convert to DNG. I don't keep the original .cr2 file embedded or anything else. It seems that if any format will ever not be supported, my camera's native format will be unsupported before DNG will. I haven't seen any issues with using DNG over RAW, and I've been converting for 3 years now. Oh, the DNG file is about 2/3 the size of my RAW too, so that's the cherry on the top. Essentially, I haven't seen any compelling reason not to use DNG, and it's likely (not for sure, of course) to be supported longer than my native RAW format.

 

[mikehaugen]

I don't see future support being an issue that that would need to be considered. If the software you use now supports whatever format you use, as long as you still have that software available in the future then you still have support if for some reason the newer versions don't support it. It seems to me that as programs progress to be able to support newer formats, they still retain all of the older formats as well. Maybe some of you have seen otherwise, and then again I have only had experience with adobe. I really just don't ever fear that my .cr2 files will ever be unreadable, maybe not very editable, but in that case I will just convert them if that becomes the case.

 

[SrBiscuit]

I keep everything RAW (NEF). It's what I work with in LR, and then I go straight to JPG for web post, or other formats for print. If I'm going to get heavy-handed in PP, I'll ALWAYS save the .PSD as well. In my years as a GD, I've learned it's always smart to save the raw file, whether it's the psd, ai, nef...WHATEVER. Keep it!

 

[usayit]

Mycamera spits out DNG so i am not so sure how to vote.

What is the advantage of converting other raw formats to DNG?

 

[PASM]

It's just raw not RAW. The word isn't an acronym..as I recently realised, myself.

 

[Bben411]

If your using Photoshop CS5. you can get the plugin called Camera RAW(The version depends on your camera make, model) which is a program that processes RAW files into Photoshop for editing with great amounts of control. .Dng is also a supported file type. You may already know this but it doesn't hurt to share again.

 

[DerekSalem]

I shoot in RAW at all times, copy them to a named folder on my computer (for the event) then add that folder into Lightroom 3. Delete anything I need to delete from within Lightroom (deleting the files, not just removing them from LR), then make edits in LR. Non-destructive editing is required IMO.

When I want to export I have 4 main exports with different sizes and options for each: my website, Flickr, Facebook, and mobile (which is for my Atrix 4G phone or Galaxy Tab tablet). I don't always export all 4 but that way if I want to put something onto a specific service I just hit Publish and it creates JPGs specifically for the use I want them. Then I upload the files and delete them.

 

[Gaerek]

I don't see future support being an issue that that would need to be considered. If the software you use now supports whatever format you use, as long as you still have that software available in the future then you still have support if for some reason the newer versions don't support it. It seems to me that as programs progress to be able to support newer formats, they still retain all of the older formats as well. Maybe some of you have seen otherwise, and then again I have only had experience with adobe. I really just don't ever fear that my .cr2 files will ever be unreadable, maybe not very editable, but in that case I will just convert them if that becomes the case.

Really? Does every program you owned 10 years ago (15 years? 20 years?) work on the computer you use today? I'm not saying it's a huge issue, but it is an issue. There are plenty of programs I used in the past that simply don't work anymore, without emulation. Will CS5 work on the computer I have in 10 years? Maybe. Maybe not. Will Photoshop CS10 (or whatever the version of Photoshop will be) support my camera's format in 10 years? Maybe. Maybe not.

Formats come and go. Maybe I'm overly paranoid about it. But working in IT has taught me a few things. In this case, things that work today are not guaranteed to work in the future. Things that come out in the future are not guaranteed to support things today. I'd rather ensure the greatest chance of future support now, rather than frantically batch convert GB's or even TB's of photos 10 years from now because my camera's RAW format might not be supported. Not saying my way's the best way. But I just want to make it clear that future support is not a sure thing, and the extra few minutes it takes me to import photos and convert is worth it for me, if for nothing else than a bit of peace of mind.

Keep in mind that the very popular Kodak Photo CD format of the 90's hasn't been supported by Kodak for around 10 years, and hasn't been supported natively by Photoshop since (I believe) Photoshop 7.0. There are programs that let you convert the format today, and I believe you can still get a plugin for modern Photoshop versions to make it work, but it's only going to get harder and harder to use that format as the years go on. Just because it's popular now, and is used by lots of people now doesn't mean it will be in the future.

 

[mikehaugen]

I just think that if there ever is an issue with any format, it will be phased out over time and anyone that even kind of keeps current will know. It's not like all of a sudden tomorrow .nef or .cr2 files will be unreadable. If say canon and nikon change their formats for some reason in there next generations, photoshop cs6 is not going to all of sudden drop support for them. If one day my current format starts to become obsolete then I will worry about it, and will have plenty of time to get things taken care of.

 

[Josh66]

I don't really see the advantage of converting to DNG, but if I had a camera that could shoot in DNG - that's what I would use.

I would hope that camera/software makers would be smart enough to make any future RAW format backwards compatible with the old ones... Or, I guess I mean the software to read the files.

 

[Joseph Westrupp]

I don't really see the advantage of converting to DNG, but if I had a camera that could shoot in DNG - that's what I would use.

I would hope that camera/software makers would be smart enough to make any future RAW format backwards compatible with the old ones... Or, I guess I mean the software to read the files.

A 20% reduction in storage size isn't enough of an advantage?

 

[Josh66]

I don't really see the advantage of converting to DNG, but if I had a camera that could shoot in DNG - that's what I would use.

I would hope that camera/software makers would be smart enough to make any future RAW format backwards compatible with the old ones... Or, I guess I mean the software to read the files.

A 20% reduction in storage size isn't enough of an advantage?

Well, it's not a disadvantage - but it isn't exactly a deal breaker for me. Memory is cheap. File size alone wouldn't be enough for me to add another step to my workflow...

If there were some other advantage, beside the file size - I might do it. And again, if my camera could shoot in DNG, I would use that - it's just that there doesn't seem to be much point in converting one RAW file type to another...

 

[DerekSalem]

I don't see future support being an issue that that would need to be considered. If the software you use now supports whatever format you use, as long as you still have that software available in the future then you still have support if for some reason the newer versions don't support it. It seems to me that as programs progress to be able to support newer formats, they still retain all of the older formats as well. Maybe some of you have seen otherwise, and then again I have only had experience with adobe. I really just don't ever fear that my .cr2 files will ever be unreadable, maybe not very editable, but in that case I will just convert them if that becomes the case.

Really? Does every program you owned 10 years ago (15 years? 20 years?) work on the computer you use today? I'm not saying it's a huge issue, but it is an issue. There are plenty of programs I used in the past that simply don't work anymore, without emulation. Will CS5 work on the computer I have in 10 years? Maybe. Maybe not. Will Photoshop CS10 (or whatever the version of Photoshop will be) support my camera's format in 10 years? Maybe. Maybe not.

Formats come and go. Maybe I'm overly paranoid about it. But working in IT has taught me a few things. In this case, things that work today are not guaranteed to work in the future. Things that come out in the future are not guaranteed to support things today. I'd rather ensure the greatest chance of future support now, rather than frantically batch convert GB's or even TB's of photos 10 years from now because my camera's RAW format might not be supported. Not saying my way's the best way. But I just want to make it clear that future support is not a sure thing, and the extra few minutes it takes me to import photos and convert is worth it for me, if for nothing else than a bit of peace of mind.

Keep in mind that the very popular Kodak Photo CD format of the 90's hasn't been supported by Kodak for around 10 years, and hasn't been supported natively by Photoshop since (I believe) Photoshop 7.0. There are programs that let you convert the format today, and I believe you can still get a plugin for modern Photoshop versions to make it work, but it's only going to get harder and harder to use that format as the years go on. Just because it's popular now, and is used by lots of people now doesn't mean it will be in the future.

Yes, filetypes get phased out if they lose their significance...but RAW won't really lose it's significance any more than negatives did in the days of film. For professional photographers the raw data is a necessity in shooting. Any bigger-name development platform (lookin at you, Photoshop) will continue to support those file types as long as they're available and probably well after.

Anyway, at any point in the future if those file types get phased out you can always just use your version of Photoshop that handles the files to convert them to something else that's lossless. Photoshop has an *amazing* batch feature. Makes it incredibly easy to convert thousands of images at a time. You could convert your entire drive if you wanted to while adding a beautifully massive watermark and uploading to facebook.

 

[DerekSalem]

I don't really see the advantage of converting to DNG, but if I had a camera that could shoot in DNG - that's what I would use.

I would hope that camera/software makers would be smart enough to make any future RAW format backwards compatible with the old ones... Or, I guess I mean the software to read the files.

A 20% reduction in storage size isn't enough of an advantage?

A reduction in size always means a reduction in quality. In the case of MP3s the way they reduce size is usually removing the sound the human ears can't hear or redundant sound in the background. In photos it's usually by blending the highlights and shadows. Either way you lose detail.

I have yet to see an *ACTUALLY* lossless file type that's smaller than the original RAW...since by definition that could not exist.