Do I lose something by converting NEF to DNG?

<p>I use Photoshop CS2 and since camera raw in CS2 would not open the NEF file from my new Nikon camera. So I use the RAW to DNG converter from Adobe to convert the NEF file to the DNG file which my CS2 would open. I am wondering if I lose anything by doing so? Should I keep the NEF file for the future when I upgrade to a newer version of Photoshop?</p>

<p>Archive the NEF for record keeping purposes. Some contests - journalism, wildlife, nature, etc. - may require the original camera raw file to verify that any editing is within their standards. It's possible some organizations may not consider a DNG from the NEF to meet their standards for an original camera raw file. (I've provided a reference link in previous discussions - it should be somewhere in the forum's dusty basement.)</p>

<p>Other than that I can't think of any other problem, besides the usual workflow arguments pro and con about converting to DNG.</p>

<p>Yesm you should keep the NEF file. You should also keep a copy of the Nikon ViewNX2 that will convert the NEF file to JPEG or TIFF for use in other programs, just in case the software you are using to process the DNG falls off the cloud.</p>

<p>Many excellent and technically competent photographers use only dng files. In terms of quality, there's no evidence I've ever seen that anything is lost in dng conversion. It's all well and good to keep the nef file but do not fear the dng will be anything less. There is no guarantee that any software company will be around for the long term.</p>

<p>Incidentally, there's an option to embed the original raw file (Nikon NEF, for example) in the DNG. I've never tried to extract the NEF from the test DNGs I've created using that option. Presumably that should satisfy contests and journalism requirements, but I'd probably check with those organizations first. Or, perhaps, Adobe has already dealt with this issue and may have an FAQ on it.</p>

<p>Bebu, I've tried with the last DNG converter, and I really cannot see a thing you lose in the process of going from NEF to DNG. However, in my view, you do loose quite a bit sticking to Adobe Camera RAW in CS2. The newer versions really do get much nicer results.<br>

Photoshop CS2 is still on all counts an extremely competent editing program (and on modern PCs, it flies in comparison to newer versions), but for RAW conversion, newer is really better. It could be well worth trying out trial versions of programs as Lightroom, CaptureOne, DXO Optics and compare the results with CS2 processed DNG files.</p>

<p>What you can lose is proprietary metadata that <strong>only</strong> the company who wrote it understands. The image data undergoes no alteration or loss, it's raw (assuming you pick the correct options for conversion now that there is a Lossy setting). <strong>IF</strong> you think you would need that proprietary data because you'll switch converters back to Nikon's OR you end up moving to a converter that doesn't support DNG, you'll want to keep the camera originals. Otherwise toss em if you wish. </p>

<p>Call it hedging bets if you like, but the files I have on my main drive are DNG but the simultaneously-made backups that go straight onto an auxillary drive are Canons raw format. </p>

<p>No reasonable person would toss out their native nefs after converting to dng...they'd keep them! So you've lost time in the conversion process and you'll lose additional time baby-sitting twice as many files while backing-up and archiving both nef and dng. You have of course lost hard drive space as you've now doubled your files. You've lost entrance opportunities into your camera manufactures software as well as other great 3rd party converters...you have less software choices with dng. You also lose native data from your nef that you might want at some point down the road...Nothing is for free, it's a universal constant that in order to gain something, you have to give up something and dng has a heavy price to pay. I did the dng conversion for nearly a decade and suggest you save your self a headache and keep your nefs. It's cheaper, along with more software options, to just keep your adobe software up to date. As Wouter explains really well, the newer raw converters provide much better results than CS2</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No reasonable person would toss out their native nefs after converting to dng...they'd keep them!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm known as a wild and crazy guy, now add not reasonable to (your) list. Yup, I trash the camera originals, have zero need for them. I've been shooting and processing raw data before Canon or Nikon sold digital cameras. I know what kinds of raw converters and workflow I like and I'll never use DPP and further, have at least three preferred raw processors from differing companies that all support DNG. Since DNG contains all the raw data the camera provided, no fear on this end I'm ever going to lose those neg files for processing. <br /> So no, I lose <strong>no time</strong> backing up data I'll never use. I waste <strong>no time</strong> converting since it happens while I conduct other work. My recommendation is, if you have to convert data, don't sit there and stare at the screen while this happens, use that time to do something useful!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You've lost entrance opportunities into your camera manufactures software as well as other great 3rd party converters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I haven't. You might. Which brings us to this statement:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I did the dng conversion for nearly a decade and suggest you save your self a headache and keep your nefs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is curious it took you a decade to figure out this workflow wasn't for you!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As Wouter explains really well, the newer raw converters provide much better results than CS2</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here's a suggestion. Since DNG is such a burden for people with older software that can't read newer cameras files (thanks <strong>solely</strong> to the camera manufacturers), how about you take up a collection of money so instead of converting using a free solution, all those people can upgrade to newer software on your dime. Then they would not need DNG.<br /> Of course, if you spent less time complaining about a free solution that fixes an issue the camera manufacturers have produced and placed the blame where it belongs, maybe, <em>maybe</em> the next camera system would provide a raw file (DNG or otherwise) that <strong>can</strong> be edited in CS2. Because the differences in one CRW or NEF from the previous version is tiny! So tiny one can if they so desire, hack into the file and make it work in the older software product. Heck, don't waste time coverting to DNG in a batch process, individually edit each raw so it can be recognized in an older raw converter.</p>

<p>The answer is always simple for you: upgrade, don't convert to DNG etc. Since it isn't possible for many to upgrade for any number of reasons (money, old hardware etc).</p>

<p>Thanks everyone! I can't afford to upgrade photoshop now because it means to upgrade my computer as well. I will keep the NEF files for those images that are important. </p>