Convert RAW files to DNG (dng)?

ejg1890

This topic may already have been opened in this forum but didn't find anything quickly.

I am going back to the drawing board regarding the management of my digital assets (DAM). As a result, I have been reading books, articles on the internet and forum "conversations". One area of great discussion is the process to convert the proprietary RAW files (Nikon, Canon, etc) to the dng format. I know a number of years ago the overwhelming response was NO to dng. However, this appears to have changed over the last 2-3 years.

In fact, as I have read there are a number of professional photographers who now convert to dng. The 2 primary reasons include: 1)Standard RAW format. They may have or have had several different camera manufacturers with different proprietary formats. The dng format standardizes there photo library to a single format. 2)DNG has a smaller file size than the proprietary RAW files. For the 20+mp cameras this can be more than 50% smaller. All this saves on disk space. (I know everyone states disk space is cheap, but looking at your primary storage as well as backup and archiving all that space adds up. Several hundred dollars here and there will eventually add up to thousands of dollars.)

The negatives for dng is it is not supported by the camera companies, and not all software supports dng. I have also read Adobe as submitted the dng specification to the ISO. If it does become an ISO standard, then dng support would move from adobe to an international cross company organization to define future specifications.

What are the thoughts of others on dng? Do you convert to dng? Why? Why not? Interested in hearing opinions.

Thanks

Art Scott

There are also a few cameras that offer DNG in camera..........I do keep my raws
but I also convert to DNG for my working files...... I now exlusively use Adobe
Products for my editing and the plugins are all Adobe compatible, so working with
DNG;s not a problem for me......I do not embed my raw files in the DNG....I have a folder
titled "Original Raw Files" for every shoot......I keep those just in case something
should happen that DNG becomes a totally lost item with Adobe.....but I also do this
because I have a Konica Minolta Camera (.MRW Raws), Nikon Cams (NEFS) and my sister has
a canon p/s and I think it is .cr2, (I think)...........so everything gets DNG converted
first...............

BradfordBenn

I go with DNG as it is just plain easier for me to not worry about having the right RAW converters installed. I also think that in the future it will save me trouble as it is an "open" format in theory. Once ratified and adopted it can become very powerful. Think about how ubiquitous PDFs are now, they are an open format now but started as proprietary.

ejg1890

Art Scott wrote: »

There are also a few cameras that offer DNG in camera..........I do keep my raws
but I also convert to DNG for my working files...... I now exlusively use Adobe
Products for my editing and the plugins are all Adobe compatible, so working with
DNG;s not a problem for me......I do not embed my raw files in the DNG....I have a folder
titled "Original Raw Files" for every shoot......I keep those just in case something
should happen that DNG becomes a totally lost item with Adobe.....but I also do this
because I have a Konica Minolta Camera (.MRW Raws), Nikon Cams (NEFS) and my sister has
a canon p/s and I think it is .cr2, (I think)...........so everything gets DNG converted
first...............

As stated I am looking at chaning my DAM approach. One of the issue is the different camera. My dslr's are Nikon, but I have used 2 Olympus cameras (each different RAW formats) and Canon for my underwater Pics. The dng format would make it easier as I would need to remember. However, I don't know if there are benefits for keeping the original RAW files.

BinaryFx

Recently discussed here for more pros/cons:

Revisiting an Old Debate
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=44205

Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

pathfinder

If I would convert my CR2 files to dng, would I still have available the different camera profiles I am offered withCanon CR2 files in the Raw conversion process - landscape, portrait, camera neutral,Adobe, etc that I know see with CR2 files, or would I be limited to a singular camera profile, like I get with my GF1?

I like the choice of different camera profiles and would miss them if they disappeared.

ejg1890

pathfinder wrote: »

If I would convert my CR2 files to dng, would I still have available the different camera profiles I am offered withCanon CR2 files in the Raw conversion process - landscape, portrait, camera neutral,Adobe, etc that I know see with CR2 files, or would I be limited to a singular camera profile, like I get with my GF1?

I like the choice of different camera profiles and would miss them if they disappeared.

I'll check tonight as I have converted a group of DNG files to test. I believe the profiles are there as I do use the camera profiles on a regular basis.

pathfinder

Great, the profiles are the main reason I have stayed with RAW files, rather than dng, thus far.

ejg1890

pathfinder wrote: »

Great, the profiles are the main reason I have stayed with RAW files, rather than dng, thus far.

I have verified the profiles are available for dng files. Select a small group of RAW files a convert to dng as a test. That's what I did. I was relieved to see that the converted dng files included the Lightroom/ACR modifications, so I did not need to redo all my previous work.

arodney

pathfinder wrote: »

Great, the profiles are the main reason I have stayed with RAW files, rather than dng, thus far.

DNG is a raw file and the profiles are actually called DNG Camera Profiles (although you don't have to have a DNG to use them). The DNG spec has far more useful functionality in terms of the use of these profiles too (they get embedded into the DNG, multiple profiles are possible etc).