DNG

[jenkins]

<p>I am thinking of switching to DNG as I can't seem to find any good reasons not too...Unless anyone can tell me otherwise? :)</p>

<p>Should I convert my whole back catalogue?</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>There has been lots of discussion of that very issue here recently. A search of this forum will yield lots of information and opinions. Some people like it, some don't.</p>

<p> </p>

[EricM]

Waste of time and it increase your hard drive space as you'll keep your originals and then double your

files with dng. I stopped, Simon. You lose choices with other software as well. Definitely more reasons not to convert than there are to convert.

[jenkins]

<p>Eric I understood these dng files could be 15-50% smaller, there is an option to delete the originals after conversion.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>So far I'm not seeing any reason to unless the camera's native raw format happens to be DNG. My Ricoh GX100 uses DNG for the raw file, so that's what I use with Lightroom. But with my Nikons I just use the NEFs.</p>

<p>There's no indication Nikon plans to abandon their semi-proprietary NEF, and Adobe seems to get results from NEFs equal to or better than Nikon's own software.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Lex doesn't the last part of what you said make the case for DNG?</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'd need to save my recent V1 NEFs as DNG and see if any significant meta data is lost in the process.</p>

[Brad_]

I have been revisiting the idea of conversion periodically over the years, and have yet to find a compelling

reason.

[jenkins]

<p>File size Brad? 15-50% reduction that's why I am considering it and to rid myself of those side car files.</p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"</strong><strong>Lex doesn't the last part of what you said make the case for DNG?"</strong><br /><br />These aren't the same dng's you'll be converting to. <br>

<br>

<strong>"Eric I understood these dng files could be 15-50% smaller, there is an option to delete the originals after conversion."</strong><br>

<br />You wont find 50% reduction. It's marketing fluf. 15 to 20% yes, and is average. And sometimes there's hardly any reduction at all. If you include certain sized jpg previews, it can even be bigger than what you started out with. If reducing size is your motivation, converting comes at a huge cost to your time and hdd space. Every wise person will tell you to keep your originals and not throw them away after converting to dng. So, you have now doubled your files. I swallowed the blue pill from Adobe and did this for years, since they released it. I'll tell you, from someone that makes a fair bit of data, it is a pain doing this dng routine; waiting to convert, burning both formats to dvd and duplicating them on external hard drives. And heaven forbid you change a name to a dng file you are working on and, guess what, it doesn't match your original raw file name or any of the back up's that have been burned and duplicated. Waste of time and head ache. And what do you gain? Some sort reassurance from the scare tactics that dng is open source and you're safer than with evil proprietary raws. Well, the sky isn't falling. Simon, if you want smaller files because of your computer speed or storage space reasons, I'd deal with your hard ware and get a faster computer and more drives.</p>

<p>Also, and most importantly for me, according to Andrew Rodney dng has the problem of “baking in” some of the changes to the raw file made during the conversion process and hence does remove some flexibility to re-edit your files. Interestingly, this is not an issue when staying with your native raws and xmp files and is a deal breaker for me. It should be for everyone! Who wants a format that removes flexibility to re-edit your files? A recent thread here at Feb 05, 2013; 12:36 p.m. brings up the subject.<br>

<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00bJJK</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>What never gets discussed and I haven't found a thread on it anywhere on the web is concerns over xmp side car corruption. </p>

<p>I remember Jeff Schewe mentioning it in passing on an unrelated subject but he never went into details. He just simply said he experienced it.</p>

<p>I don't know if it has happened with my 3000 or so Pentax Raw PEF files but I do notice when reopening old Raws in ACR that some setting numbers (i.e. Contrast, Brightness, etc.) have slightly changed. And sense I hadn't looked at the preview in months I often have to make adjustments because I don't remember making it look that high contrast or that bad in general.</p>

<p>I end up doubting my own memory of how the file looked back when I finished editing it. I don't keep finished copies in other formats.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Dupe deleted.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I use DNG exclusively for my archiving raw format because I hate having seperate xmp sidecar files. If they ever get

seperated from the proprietary format raw format files you are in a world of pain. Well it's not quite that bad but it isn't

pleasant. I speak from first hand experience.

 

As for image quality differences between NEF or .CR2 files and DNG format copies I've seen none.

 

15-20% file size savings is nothing to sneeze at if you have thousands of images.

[travismcgee]

<p>I don't like sidecar files either, so I don't use them. My edits live only in the Lightroom catalog. </p>

[EricM]

<p>Windows users don't usually see xmp files as there is a wonderful option in the folder view panel to 'hide known file types'. If I'm losing xmp files, I have bigger issues to worry about. Knock on wood, it hasn't happened yet and I've been making them since we could shoot raw. For the people that use cloud back up like carbonite or crashplan, using xmp file is wonderful as only this tiny little file gets uploaded instead of a the massive dng.</p>

<p><strong>"What never gets discussed and I haven't found a thread on it anywhere on the web is concerns over xmp side car corruption."</strong><br>

<br>

Tim, I've had dng corruption. But curruption is not usually to be blamed on the file type, dng or xmp. Corruption is usually a hardware issue and having a hic-cup. But the more you mess with your files, the greater the chance of a problem.<br>

<br>

</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>I think you're talking about hiding the extension for known file types. Not the same thing.</p>

<p>As I understand it, your edits are always stored in the Lightroom catalog. You can then store a copy in the xmp file to transfer the edits to other programs with the raw file if you want. It's not required for Lightroom or Photoshop, so I don't do it. When I export from Lightroom the edits are baked in anyway.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, I like the idea of storing edits and metadata inside the image file so I wish DNG would catch on.</p>

[jenkins]

<p><strong>15-20% file size savings is nothing to sneeze at if you have thousands of images.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

My thinking exactly Ellis. <strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Eric your backing up process is a little more long winded than mine, Lightroom 4 you just convert on import and then there is an opting to delete originals, I did it last night just a test, it's no biggie. I won't be storing RAWS and DNG that is for sure. </p>

[emil_ems5]

<p>I am always importing my raw files into Photoshop CSR from Lightroom via ACR as "Smart object", before working on the picture some more. In this way, the raw file is embedded in the final document and there is no need to have a separate copy of the raw file saved. The raw file as "Smart object" can be re-edited as many times as asked for. It can also be copied as a new layer and re-processed for either highllights or shadows, "painting" in the results into the "master raw file" via layer mask.</p>

<p>I find this a very efficient way of working and saving, even if there is a price in a slightly larger file size (compared to importing the raw file as a rastered layer and working on it via adjustment layers). </p>

[chris_letts]

<p>Isn't dng just another attempt by Adobe to rule the photo world ?<br>

I can't figure any good reason why they invented it, other than because it suits them if people use their format and their photo software (which I don't) - maybe someone will enlighten as to the benefits over tiff ?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't dng just another attempt by Adobe to rule the photo world ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That and grassy knolls, drone's, and Bigfoot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't figure any good reason why they invented it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So they wouldn't have to take the time and money to hack, then update their's (and other's) raw converters, every time a new proprietary raw format, which is nearly identical to the last, comes out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>maybe someone will enlighten as to the benefits over tiff ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It actually IS a TIFF variant (which Adobe also owns). As for benefits, here are two articles:<br /> <br /> http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf<br /> <br /> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57371809-264/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/</p>

<p>Definitely more reasons to convert than there are not to convert if you work with Adobe or raw processors that support the format. The saving in storage and lack of XMP have already been discussed, lots more, read up. Then make the decision yourself, based on data and facts, not opinions.</p>

[digitaldog]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't like sidecar files either, so I don't use them. My edits live only in the Lightroom catalog.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

Only (minor for some) issue is you can't access that data should you be using that raw in ACR or as a Smart Object. ACR can't access that data, it needs the Sidecar XMP file. Not an issue with DNG of course. Like TIFF and JPEG, those instructions are written into the file container.

 

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, and most importantly for me, according to Andrew Rodney dng has the problem of “baking in” some of the changes to the raw file made during the conversion process and hence does remove some flexibility to re-edit your files</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not correct, the raw is raw (unless you select say Lossy DNG), there is no baking of anything that alters that data. There is no issue in re-editing your data. It's raw, period. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>And what do you gain</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You forgot all the gain's discussed last round (including at least three JUST in <strong>this</strong> post)? </p>

<p>No side car files. <br>

Smaller files to store.<br>

Data integrity check upon conversion to DNG.<br>

Fast Load Preview and no more ACR rolling cache.<br>

Ability for compression of non hero images using Lossy DNG (which is still a partially raw, minimally processed data).<br>

Ability to embed high quality JPEG of current rendering (for print or extract).<br>

Ability to embed DNG profiles (more than one). If you travel and use custom DNG profiles, that's a big plus. Hopefully at some point, one can embed a Lens Profile. <br>

And more is coming soon (NDA doesn't allow more comment but watch this space <g>).</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Thanks Andrew, I wasn't even aware of faster loading previews, not that it's a problem. I watched this video yesterday for further breakdown.<a href="

Link</a></p>

[marc_rochkind]

<p>I used to convert to DNG at ingestion time, to sweep in the sidecar and produce a full-sized preview. But, I stopped a few years ago because:</p>

<p>1. Substantial extra time at ingestion</p>

<p>2. I never see the folder with the raws. I do everything in Lightroom, and never have a need to look at the folder containing the originals.</p>

<p>3. The only app that actually used the full-sized preview in the DNG was iView/Media Pro, which I no longer use.</p>

<p>As for verification of the raw during DNG conversion, Lightroom does essentially the same thing when it imports the file and creates its own full-sized preview.</p>

[travismcgee]

<p>DNG is a much more elegant solution to storing edits and metadata than xmp files, but I don't use it for two reasons:</p>

<p> - the raw-only requirement of some photo competitions (or so I've heard)</p>

<p> - DNG doesn't work with third party software like DXO (or so I've heard)</p>

<p>I would love to be proven wrong on both of these issues.</p>