DNG Conversion from RAW: How To Speed Up?

WorldRoutes

I'm new to DNG conversion having just bought a Canon G5X. I have not been able to figure out how to:
- Convert some (but not all) of the CR2 files in a folder without creating a new folder for them.
- If I've recorded both RAW and JPGs, are the JPG images in a folder being converted by DNG affected in any way? Is there a way just to convert the RAW images in a folder and not include the JPGs without first duplicating the RAW images in a separate folder?

The DNG conversion is a pain as it adds more steps to my work flow that slows everything down. Any ideas to make this process easier and faster would be greatly appreciated!

WorldRoutes

mercphoto

Why bother with DNG?

gricketts

WorldRoutes wrote: »

I'm new to DNG conversion having just bought a Canon G5X. I have not been able to figure out how to:
- Convert some (but not all) of the CR2 files in a folder without creating a new folder for them.
- If I've recorded both RAW and JPGs, are the JPG images in a folder being converted by DNG affected in any way? Is there a way just to convert the RAW images in a folder and not include the JPGs without first duplicating the RAW images in a separate folder?

The DNG conversion is a pain as it adds more steps to my work flow that slows everything down. Any ideas to make this process easier and faster would be greatly appreciated!

WorldRoutes

If you are using Adobe DNG Converter, it offers numerous options for the conversion process and where to put the saved DNG files. JPG files are just JPG. Only camera RAW files can be converted to DNG files. Converting to DNG is the best way to ensure future compatibility. Camera RAW files are proprietary. DNG is an open standard. Thus the software updates in photo editing software each time a camera manufacturer introduces a new model.

Of course, if the above is not a concern for you (and for many it is not), then there is neither need nor requirement to convert to DNG.

If interested, there are other advantages to DNG over RAW—search DNG vs RAW.

mercphoto

https://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng

pathfinder

Good link. There are lots of others too. - http://photographyconcentrate.com/should-you-convert-dng/ - http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2009/08/10/dng-raw-and-jpeg-what-i-use-why/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative - http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshop/2015/12/dng-pros-cons-and-myths.html

Bill, I've followed this issue for years, and reading the various options from Adobe and others - I have converted to DNGs since LR 3 or earlier I think. Disc space and future compatibility was a consideration early on. It does take longer to convert the files, but I only do that with my desktop which has the power to do it without breaking a sweat. For my laptops when traveling I just copy and add the RAW files themselves into my traveling LR catalog. One think I do notice is that it takes longer to back up ones image files, since if you edit them, then the edits have to be written into the DNG files itself, not an external XMP file, so backing up does take more time.

I have been considering just keeping the RAW files, but find I am a creature of habit to a intent I think.

I may have to try keeping the RAW files and see what I think about that.

Julian Kost has a nice comment about conversion in this link - http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/2011/11/lr3-when-to-convert-raw-files-to-dng.html

Basically, if you are going to delete 10-30 % or more of your files as not worth saving permanently, why convert them to DNG on importing? Just ADD the RAW files to your catalog, do your editing, and then, and only then, convert to DNG if that is your desire. Saves quite a bit of computer processor time for RAW files that are destined to be deleted = no need to ever convert them. I may rethink my workflow a bit, here.

mercphoto

I've come to the realization that the only thing truly archival is a print. A print will never become "unreadable" by your eyes. As such I've stopped believing the DNG will be the "forever RAW file" that Adobe claims. Its a big reason why we (try) to make photo books of all the important pictures our our kiddo (we are sorely behind on doing this though). Its also why I don't bother with DNG.

I can no longer play cassette tapes. Or VHS tapes for that matter. I don't own LPs anymore. We almost never buy a CD or DVD, preferring digital files of both. So I've already lived through obsolence more than once and the earth did not stop spinning. Eventually our MP3's, AAC's audio files, MP4 videos, etc. will be difficult to play. Same with RAW files, JPGs, and I will bet even DNG files.

Do you have archived slides? There may come a time when getting prints made will be difficult. Heck I wonder if you can even still do Cibachrome prints any more (print from slide directly, not through an inter-negative). But at least slides are close to a print, in that you can view them with your eyes, or a projector.

pathfinder

I printed Cibachrome in my own darkroom back about 30 years ago when I was diving regularly and shooting a Canon F1 under water. I have digitized all those files to tiffs or jpgs.

Ektachrome does not store well for me, it is not color stable over time, and even Kodachrome, which is more stable color wise, gradually gets invaded by fungus growing on the emulsion. I think the humidity in Indiana contributes, even though I store the images in air conditioned rooms. Like you said, long term storage is hard, but prints do better as the years go by than most other vehicles. I need to print more as well. I do still own Kodachrome slides my father shot in the 1940s. They look pretty good all things considered.