Raw and DNG: what is your strategy?

<p>Hi, in order to improve my digital workflow, I'm just curious what is your strategy regarding original raw files and their conversion to .dng... I mean, is it better converting the original raw file in dng files and develop the latters or viceversa? If you convert raw files into .dng, then can you discart original raw file?<br>

Thank you for your suggestions, Alberto.</p>

<p>RAW vs DNG its the same.. or close too.</p>

<p>the good thing about DNG is you can included all the development preset in it + your raw.. kind of a folder that included everything and then you zip it. Of course you can also take the raw + the xmp sidecar file and do the same thing, but for some people / OS it is not that easy to find and do (i think on a PC the xmp file are invisible by default, on a mac you see the file just aside your raw by default)</p>

<p>I rarely use DNG, could say close to never as other than what i just say i dont see the point of it (even if i totally understand what is DNG)</p>

<p>Some people trasnfert everything to DNG and also keep the raw file.. i think its a bit over, but if you feel comfortable and secure doing so.. why not ; )</p>

 

<p>I second Patrick's comments. a) I don't see a real advantage in doing this, and b) I don't have any use for them, either for my print services or storage. Is there a particular reason you want or need DNG files?</p>

<p>DNG files have simply not gained the traction Adobe had hoped.<br>

I see no advantage in it.</p>

<p>Editing in RAW + saving as (RAW+TIFF) works fine for me.</p>

<p>I use DNG, but only because CS3 doesn't support RAW files from the EOS 5D2. There's no discernible difference in quality between RAW and DNG that I can see. I also save the original CR2 files (which I consider to be the "real negatives") on DVD. For me, DNG is just a necessary tool to get the images through the editing and to the TIFF stage...</p>

No interest here in converting to DNG...

<p>it is a necessary tool because you dont have a newer version of Ps then.. correct?</p>

<p>1. I do not like Nikon software for processing NEF files.<br>

2. I do not use undocumented file formats for MY pictures.<br>

3. I like Adobe Lightroom and I hate Sidecar .xmp files.<br>

So I convert all my NEF files to DNG. I am doing this for two years now and have no regrets.<br>

Regards, Marko</p>

 

<p>For my workflow there is no advantage to DNG, and there are a few minor disadvantages. Should that change in the future, I'll convert then. Everyone needs to make their own assessment.</p>

<p>"it is a necessary tool because you dont have a newer version of Ps then.. correct?"</p>

<p>Exactly, Patrick. I'll upgrade PS.....someday.</p>

<p>I shoot all raw, Canon cr2, and I convert all cr2 to DNG and then delete the original cr2. The DNG is just as archival, and it can store both user added metadata (keywords and captions, etc.) as well as Lightroom develop settings in the file itself, without the need for sidecar files, which is a much nicer way to work.</p>

<p>After tweaks in Lightroom, DNG is exported to 16-bit Adobe RGB tiff, which undergoes final tweaks in Photoshop. Everything is backed up in triplicate.</p>

<p>Thank you for your suggestions! I was thinking about DNG mainly for storage and maybe for future compatibility.<br>

Besides, I'm quite confused with .xmp sidecar files (I'm a Windows OS user) and I like more the idea of a unique file with the original raw data + development settings...<br>

Patrick, what does it happen to the sidecar .xmp file if I move the raw file (I cannot see the .xmp file in Windows OS)?</p>

<p>if you move the raw without the xmp file you will loose all development setting you have done in the future.. its the "what did you do to this file" instruction manual.</p>

<p>Some PC user tell me you can make them visible by going somewhere in the control panel and select "make file visible " or something...</p>

<p>Yes, other companies have not flocked to DNG, so I think there is no need to archive as DNG. I am keeping mine as CR2s.</p>

<p>I use Nikon-Raw (NEF) only. If something should happen in the future, so NEF's are not supported, I might take on the task of batch-converting NEF's (+xmp) to DNG, but for the time being, I cannot see why I should do it. Just one more time-consuming task as per now.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you have an earlier version of PS/LR, that will not read your Raw-files, then the situation is quite different, and I would batch-convert the files to DNG as soon as the Raw-files are on my harddisk</p>

<p>Robin, the Leica M9 (now come with Lightroom 3 instead of C1 Pro) and the Blad H3 both shoot in DNG directly (finally you could use somehting else than the bad Phocus software), and that should be the case for all the camera.. user then could choose whatever software they want to process instead of the propriatary software.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Patrick, if the xmp is separated from the raw file by moving of the raw file to another folder, you have to find the xmp's again. These are probably in the same folder as the original placement of the raw-files. They should be spotted using the Windows Explorer tool (Start>Programs>Accessories). You can also turn visibility on by going to the control panel and choose (I'm on a non-english version of Windows, but I think the names is something such as) "Folder Alternatives" and then choose the tab "Show??", and turn the radio button "Show hidden files and folders" on.<br>

<br />If these xmp's also are moved to the new location, the files belong to each other again, as long as you have not changed name of the files, or have made a new xmp at the new location.</p>

<p>Patrick, one of the issues with the DNG is that not all 3rd party software will process it nor will certain proprietary software--unless you embed the original raw and extract it before processing--kind of defeats the purpose! DxO is one that won't process DNG's. Now that ACR has actually developed some better controls, including some lens/camera algorithms, noise reduction and sharpening, it might be less an issue, but I don't think it has any corrections for the H series cameras whereas PHOCUS does.</p>

<p>I think until the DNG format is more universal, it is probably not the best to change to it from the native raw for storage. If you want to process a DNG, then convert a copy of the native raw, process it and save it if you want to or discard it. I like DNG's for the reason it embeds the sidecar in one file, but like the flexibility to use one of 3 or 4 raw processors that will address the native but not the DNG.</p>

<p>DNG to the working file, CR2 to the backup drive. Just don't ask me why. Probably thats going to continue as I use CS2 , though in conjunction with Lightroom.</p>

<p>Per Christain, agree with you.. the OP ask "what append if i move the raw without the xmp"...so that was my answer about he will loose is preset.</p>

<p>Guys im not fighting against you.. i dont like the DNG format either, and dont see the point of it for 99% of the user out there.. dont throw rock at me ; )</p>

<p>i was simply saying that;</p>

<p>1_some camera use it as there native format</p>

<p>2_dng is a package for the raw and the xmp file</p>

<p>thats it!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Marko-</p>

<p>If NEF is an undocumented format, does it really matter if you keep the photos in NEF and have them handled by LR on the fly or convert them to DNG and have Lightroom handle that? Either way you've got a step where the ACR backend converts the file, but if you convert first and don't keep the NEF you lose the option of later converting the NEF with another program or version of ACR that might be better at the task.</p>

<p>Patrick, I don't use DNG either, and I really believe that Adobe just as well as Nikon could go bankrupt or seize to support the DNG-format without us being able to do something about it. If all cameramakers could skip their proprietary formats in favour of DNG it would be something else, but for now, I'll stick with Nikon's NEF-format and the xmp-files, as in my opinion DNG only adds a time consuming extra step.</p>

<p>However, I used the DNG converter for some of my cameras when they were new, and Adobe had not upgraded the CameraRaw software yet.</p>

<p>I think we agree. If you thought I was rock throwing at you, I am sorry, but English is not my mother tongue, so we might have misunderstood each other.</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

Nikon makes excellent cameras but their history with the NEF format and their software in not good at all. I am so angry with Nikon because they wanted to encode vital data of MY pictures taken on MY gear (remember the story with the white balance data). They want to lock my pictures to their mediocre software and that's the reason that I do not want to have NEF files on my computer and I do not want to use their software (never, ever).<br>

My decision to get rid of NEF files seems to be a little irational, but for me, taking in the account the buggy and very user unfriendly Nikon software and their very slow responding time (I have Nikon Coolscan 4000 and Nikon did not bother to develop Win 7 64 bit Nikonscan), it's logical. I think that my odds with Adobe are much better. <br /> Many photographers use NEF files and Nikon software to make use of camera settings. My reason for using raw is that I can make the creative decisions on my computer so I do not need camera settings to be transferred (I could live without white balance data too but my anger is a matter od principle).<br>

By conversion to DNG on imporing to Lightroom all the editing can later be saved to DNG file, so I do not need annoying sidecars. With DNG option I am not locked to the moment of conversion. If the engine gets better I only appy improved conversion process. The conversion engine in Lightroom was not very good at the beginning, but now with the camera profiles and 2010 process I get much better results from old dng files with minimal effort. But it is true that I am locked to Adobe software for the time beeing. So far Adobe was fair to me and I think that DNG has better chances to survive because it's much more open and documented standard.<br>

I think that developing engines are becoming mature so one can not expect revolutionary progres on conversion so I think I am not loosing anything by convering to DNG. On the other side I am getting a quick and convinient way to deal with raw data.<br>

Regards, Marko</p>

<p>I think the raw files don't matter for archival purposes. It's the jpegs that you produce today that you want to be around in the future. Do you really ever think you might want to go back to a raw file 10 years down the road and make some minor adjustments? Even if you do my guess is there are plenty of other people that will want to do the same and your raw files will be readable.</p>

<p>Marko, I sense some unresolved issues here :)</p>

<p>But all I'm saying is, however your order the operations, you start with an NEF file, then ACR processes it, and LR does adjustments to what it got from ACR. Inserting a step of saving the ACR output as a DNG file doesn't seem like a necessary step, unless you just like Adobe stuff better than Nikon stuff.</p>