raw vs dng

[justpeachy714]

Hello all,
I just really got into photography and i have a lot to learn...I'll probably ask a zillion questions and ask for lots of feedback on photos.

My question for right now is: Is there an advantage to converting from raw to dng in lightroom; besides having more than one copy of the original?

(i prefer shooting raw instead of jpeg - just curious about converting raw to .dng and if there are any advantages in doing so?)

 

[KmH]

You wind up with a slightly smaller files size so over time you'd save some disk drive space.

Unlike other proprietary RAW files, edits aren't stored in a separate 'sidecar' file that also has to be moved with the original image, if in fact you want to move stuff around.

I don't know of many people who bother converting their RAW files to DNG.

 

[justpeachy714]

Unlike other proprietary RAW files, edits aren't stored in a separate 'sidecar' file that also has to be moved with the original image, if in fact you want to move stuff around.

so in essance, the dng has less baggage (sidecar files) than the raw and saves on disk space over time? however that perk of having the baggage -or history of edits- is that you can see what you have done? but if this is the case the goal should be no edits and aim for the perfect shot?? (which I am far from doing)

or am i completely misunderstanding...which is entirely possible.

 

[C-Towner]

I use Lightroom and convert everything to DNG, because I would like to believe in the future if I was ever not using Lightroom, I would have files that are more easily readable. Carrying the edits if the file is moved is not important to me, because I like to start with a "fresh" palette when I am doing PP. So if there is already processing done, and it had been some time since I worked with the file, I would hate to introduce unnecessary degradation of the image by overprocessing it, you know what I mean?

 

[Big Mike]

I agree with C-Tower. One of the biggest advantages of DNG, is that it's meant to be a universal RAW format. (as opposed to NEF, CR2 etc. which are proprietary RAW formats). So it's probably a better option for archival purposes.

A lot of people wish that the camera companies would start using DNG rather than their own RAW files. I think some of them already do, but Canon & Nikon don't seem to want to switch.

 

[KmH]

A lot of people wish that the camera companies would start using DNG rather than their own RAW files. I think some of them already do, but Canon & Nikon don't seem to want to switch.

Could you name one of those "some of them already do" that ships cameras with .DNG instead of their own proprietary RAW format?

DNG is proprietary to Adobe. At the present time:

(From Wikipedia.org) Adobe have published a license allowing anyone to exploit DNG, and have also stated that there are no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements for DNG. Adobe stated that if there was a consensus that DNG should be controlled by a standards body, they were open to the idea. Adobe have submitted DNG to ISO for incorporation into their revision of TIFF/EP.

 

[jsnonzzr]

JustPeachy is my girlfriend. right now we are trying to figure out the best way to store the pictures. Our current setup is to shoot in RAW, and then import into lightroom, on different computers. The way we are doing now is to convert to .dng, but this creates a .dng on my hard drive, a .dng on her hard drive, and of course the original in .raw on the network drive.

I’m just trying to figure out what the best solution to not having multiple copy's spread out across every computer. The way I am leaning right now is to leave the .raw's on the network storage, and access the .raw over the network. I would also need to setup a way of creating a copy of the network storage, just to make sure that the original’s are not lost. I’m open for advice on other methods, but from how its sounding, there are no major advantages to converting to .dng, since adobe is willing to support raw formats currently. (at least no major advantages from what I am gathering)

 

[Big Mike]

Could you name one of those "some of them already do" that ships cameras with .DNG instead of their own proprietary RAW format?

Sure.

The following digital cameras supported DNG at March 2008.[14]

* Casio supports DNG in their Exilim PRO EX-F1.
* Leica's Digital Modul R for the Leica R8 or Leica R9 and the Leica M8 natively support the DNG format.
* MegaVision E Series Monochrome back.
* Panoscan MK-3 digital panoramic camera.
* Pentax supports DNG in their K10D, K20D, K200D, K2000 and K-7 DSLR cameras.
* Ricoh supports DNG in the Ricoh Digital GR, considered a professional compact, and the Ricoh Caplio GX.
* Samsung supports DNG in their Pro815 "prosumer" camera and GX-10 and GX-20 DSLR cameras.
* Sea&Sea DX‐1G underwater camera.
* SeitzRoundshot D3 digital back, used in cameras such as the 6×17.
* Silicon Imaging Silicon Imaging Digital Cinema SI-1920HDVR.
* Sinar now uses DNG as the raw file standard for their eMotion series of digital backs.

Some of the Canon cameras can shoot as DNG using additional free software named CHDK.

From here
Digital Negative (file format) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GeneralBenson]

Yeah, I shoot Pentax, and I have the in camera option of sooting the proprietary Pentax raw .pef files, or shooting .dng format. I shoot everything straight into .dng raw and I think it's great.

 

[icassell]

Kelby makes the case for converting everything to .dng for the fact that the metadata is incorporated, the smaller file sizes, AND due to the fact that it is not proprietary (although it is an Adobe format, it is open to all the manufacturers to utilize). One of these days, I'm going to convert my old stuff. For now, all my new stuff is converted to .dng as I import it.

 

[dhilberg]

Could you name one of those "some of them already do" that ships cameras with .DNG instead of their own proprietary RAW format?

Here's a list:
Cameras that write DNG

Not sure when it was last updated so it's possible there are more.

If your favorite RAW processor drops support in the future for an older camera you once shot RAWs with, then DNG would be handy. I don't really think this will ever happen though (within reason). Plus, who's to say that Adobe will support DNG in the future?

I think that this reason alone will convince companies like Adobe to continue to support cameras no matter how old. ACR (for example) still supports the original Nikon D1 which came out in 1999. Also still supported is the original Canon 1D.

I could be wrong though, only time will tell.

EDIT: Big_Mike beat me to it

 

[KmH]

Plus, who's to say that Adobe will support DNG in the future?

EDIT: Big_Mike beat me to it

Thanks to both you and Mike for the lists. :thumbup:

The possibility of Adobe changing their mind about supporting DNG sometime in the future, is why I posted the Wikipedia quote.

 

[icassell]

It took a long time for me to get over my reluctance to convert my CR2 files to dng, but I'm sleeping OK again.

 

[jsnonzzr]

If your favorite RAW processor drops support in the future for an older camera you once shot RAWs with, then DNG would be handy. I don't really think this will ever happen though (within reason).

Maybe I dont fully understand DNG, but to a degree, it sounds like DNG just wrap's the .RAW's (the whole your raw image is imbeded into the DNG file). So if support is dropped for the Nikon D1 raw, then adobe, who i assume is keeping dng up to date, would become responsible for maintaing the RAW format for the D1 format.

With the above being said, wouldent it stand to reason if the RAW processor drops support for old raw formats, then so would dng?

Im thinking this thread might be streaching past the "beginer's" section :lmao:

 

[Overread]

Honestly though it does make some sense. Granted DNG could be dropped in a few years time (very little appears to last the test of time in computing) However as an emerging industry standard even if support for it is dropped chances are that converters will be able to move things from DNG to whatever the next format is.

However those canon RAW codecs for the 300D, 350D and so on for other old cameras might not be able to be converted into the next stage - thus leaving you with a load of old files that need old software in order to be used - and old software can be surprisingly hard to find in a working setup and might even not run on the newer computers (so then you would need an old computer too!)