Raw Files Backup

Awais Yaqub

Hello i am about to burn my photos on DVD, stock also includes Raw files should i burn them as they are or should i convert them to DNG format ?
I have downloaded DNG converter

Thanks in Advance

Richard

Awais Yaqub wrote:

Hello i am about to burn my photos on DVD, stock also includes Raw files should i burn them as they are or should i convert them to DNG format ?
I have downloaded DNG converter

Thanks in Advance

IMO, it doesn't make much difference for the foreseeable future. If you have used Adobe's ACR in PS or Lightroom to process the pics, you should make sure that you save the corresponding XMP files as well, or you may lose whatever settings you made during conversion.

RogersDA

Richard wrote:

IMO, it doesn't make much difference for the foreseeable future. If you have used Adobe's ACR in PS or Lightroom to process the pics, you should make sure that you save the corresponding XMP files as well, or you may lose whatever settings you made during conversion.

If using Lightroom then exporting the files to dng will save the image adjustments (colors, contrast, crop, etc.) with the dng thus there is no need to save any xmp file such as from Bridge. Will that metadata information be readable in the long-term? Who knows. But, if it is not then at least the original image is still available (as long as dng is supported - but that apllies equally as well to native raw formats).

Awais Yaqub

No actually i deleted those files as i never knew they are keeping the information about settings.
So now i have simple raw files from camera. I was reading somewhere at Adobe website that converting to DNG is safe for future

Richard

Awais Yaqub wrote:

No actually i deleted those files as i never knew they are keeping the information about settings.
So now i have simple raw files from camera. I was reading somewhere at Adobe website that converting to DNG is safe for future

They are safe as long as Adobe and others support them, which is also true of .CR2 or .NEF. They do have the advantage that metadata is stored in them, rather than in a sidecar XMP file. The disadvantage is that it adds an extra step to your workflow.

Howard Barlow

Richard,
The DNG has the meta in them? I've never looked at DNG. Maybe I should. I'm doing the same as Awais, as I have a jillion travel images i need to put on disc, too.

Richard

Howard Barlow wrote:

Richard,
The DNG has the meta in them? I've never looked at DNG. Maybe I should. I'm doing the same as Awais, as I have a jillion travel images i need to put on disc, too.

Well, I know the specification supports metadata, but to be honest, I have never actually used it myself, so I don't know if there are any gotchas. I would think that since Adobe is pushing it, Adobe products would provide full support. Don't know about other products. Maybe someone who is actually using it could clarify.

RogersDA

Howard Barlow wrote:

Richard,
The DNG has the meta in them? I've never looked at DNG. Maybe I should. I'm doing the same as Awais, as I have a jillion travel images i need to put on disc, too.

The dng supports original RAW metadata, and you can supplement it with additional metadata; e.g., include the adjustments made using Lightroom.

The dng spec is here.

There is a lot of concern out there that dng may not be supported in the long term. However, as Richard and I have stated, that concern applies equally well to other formats including native, proprietary raw formats from the varios camera manufacturers.

Also, some people believe that the current dng specs do not include all of the camera manufacturer's original metadata from the raw file. I have read just a little about this, but I am not too familiar with what is missing in the dng that has everybody worried.

The only other concern is that the conversion from native raw to dng is not necessarily lossess at this time. While that could be a concern for some, I personally don't think it is a serious issue for most people. That, however, continues to be a big debate.

So, I have dng files and raw files. I have also talked with other people that convert from raw to tiff, make all their adjustments in the tiff, and delete the raws (keeping only the tiff images).

geospatial_junkie

The only way to keep the best quality original is to keep the RAW file. DNG is a good format, but not as good as the RAW image (this has been covered ad naseum in most digital photography books). Any form of conversion has its price.

I keep my RAWS of each shoot on a DVD. On a second DVD I have have 3 folders. One for the RAW, one for the PSD files, and one for the JPG finals. You could substitute the PSD folder for a DNG folder if you wish. So in essence, I have two backups of the original, one backup of the PSD file, and one backup of the final JPG file.

If you organize your workflow to work in this fashion from the start, its really not a big deal.

Richard

Do you guys have a link on the RAW to DNG conversion quality loss issues? I don't think I've seen this raised as a problem before, though I haven't been following it much.

Thx.

geospatial_junkie

Richard wrote:

Do you guys have a link on the RAW to DNG conversion quality loss issues? I don't think I've seen this raised as a problem before, though I haven't been following it much.

Thx.

I'll post a reference or two to it tonight. I have them in books at home. Just can't remember which ones!

Nikolai

Awais,
RAW are your negatives. Converting them to DNG will *not* improve them, but *may* (not necessarily, just in theory) make them worse.
Conversion will definitely take time, and, depending on the conversion options, the resulting DNG may take twice as much space (if you opt to store original raw file inside for "fiuture compatibility purposes").

For all practical purposes it's highly unlikely that that particular RAW format becomes unsupported by a software that would still support DNG circa same time period.

I personally wouldn't bother with DNG for now.

And don't delete XMP files next time:-)

EDIT
Some RAW formats are absolutely horrible (Sony's used to be few years ago, don't know about now). For such marginal cases DNG conversion makes total sense.

geospatial_junkie

I'm going to keep looking for this reference, because I did read it somewhere. I'm pretty sure it was a ebook that I had/have.

O.k... firstly, I don't see how you can convert one file format to another and not lose data. I know DGN is lossless compression, but does that mean 100% or 95%? Secondly, comes the proprietary questions. Let's say for example, that you convert all your raw files to DGN, then 5 years from now Adobe decides to change from DGN to another format (not likely, but possible). Well, know you've got ANOTHER conversion to make. Another scenario is that another upstart graphics company designs yet another proprietary format and it is found to be better. Yup, ANOTHER conversion.

I find this very similar in some ways to the days when Wordperfect and Wordstar regeined supreme among wordprocessors. Then, Microsoft appears with Works and Word. No one would probably would have guessed this would have happened in the 1980's. The raw photo file lis ike a simple text file in notepad. It will always be able to be opened by photo software.

Yes, DGN does an incredible job and compressing file sizes and keeping all metadata intact without the need for linked files, however, if you are putting them on DVD's, does it matter? Why wouldn't you keep your original? I haven't heard a viable argument yet, besides space. That isn't a good enough argument to me.

Below I've included numerous links on this topic, with the majority being in favour of DGN.

Forum Postings:
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Doh5
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t5476.html
http://www.dgrin.com/archive/index.php/t-32094.html
http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/Community-Landing/Forum-Landing/Forum-Categories/Topic/?topic-id=66602

Articles:
http://www.nikondigital.org/articles/library/adobe_dng.htm
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf
https://asmp.org/pdfs/PhotoshopCS2RAW_chap09.pdf
http://safari.oreilly.com/0596008511/photoshopraw-CHP-9

Blogs and Sites:
http://light-shoot-print.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-convert-raw-files-to-dng_8140.html
http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2008/02/to-dng-or-not-to-dng.html

Remember, don't make your decision based on conveniance alone. If our company made archival decisions based on conveniance, we would be in a whole heap of trouble! By the way, if you ever submit your photos to magazines or newspapers, often they will ask for the ORIGINAL raw. I'm not really sure if a DGN would qualify. Also, if you are ever sued or are suing about the validity of a photo or about any copyright issue, then it would probably be a good idea to have the absolute original. After all, there is really no arguing that. I'm sure someone could drag in an expert testifying about how to alter a DGN though.

Hope I didn't bore you all! I'll keep looking Richard, its bothering me because I know I read it. Maybe its in one of my Thom Hogan articles...