Options

Any DNG regrets? I'm thinking of going back to NEF.

MileHighAkoMileHighAko Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
edited August 28, 2011 in Finishing School
I'm curious on people's experience of using DNG over native RAW. In my case (Nikon shooter), I'm thinking of going back to NEF and not converting to DNG during my LR3 import. My reasons are really simple: I want access to the extra focus data that is available in ViewNX in the NEF file such as focus point location. The benefits of DNG just don't seem to be worth the loss of this important data (actually, the ONLY benefit of DNG that I can come up with is smaller file size).

Anyway, I thought I'd ask here if anyone, after year(s) of experience, have found any regrets going DNG or any regrets staying native RAW. I've been DNG for the past year, and think I'll go back to NEF.
http://www.adamcartwright.com

Comments

  • Options
    Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2011
    None.......guess since I only work in LR and Photoshop and I have never seen any of that info ever, it does not bother me.....and for me, I know where I was focusing on all my photos with out needing to see a location in the exif data..........I made the move to DNG quite some time ago due to the fact that I had raw files in several flavors and wanted to get it all standardized.....do not see going back for any reason.
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • Options
    MomaZunkMomaZunk Registered Users Posts: 421 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2011
    So I have been thinking about this lately as well.
    I shoot nikon and use LR/PSE.

    The .nef files are faster to import without the .dng conversion. In fact this is what I do to get a fast backup on my laptop when I am traveling. I then import/convert all the .nef to .dng when I return to home base. I do backup all the .nef files on import, so I have not discarded them (yet).
    The .nef files would require sidecar files to keep the info correct?
    .dng files are a little smaller and supposed to be more universal.

    I am not sure of the benefits of using the .nef files over the .dng format besides the focus points you mentioned.

    What other info can you get from the .nef files?
    Dee Zunker

    Website
    Facebook Twitter Google+
  • Options
    arodneyarodney Registered Users Posts: 2,005 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2011
    No regrets and only benefits to DNG (such as the ability to embed the many DNG Profiles I use in my workflow). Now we need Adobe to allow us to embed lens profiles. The more image specific metadata and such that can be embedded in our raws, the better. The other benefits:http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf

    Since I don’t use the manufacturers raw converters, their proprietary metadata is useless to me.
    Andrew Rodney
    Author "Color Management for Photographers"
    http://www.digitaldog.net/
  • Options
    basfltbasflt Registered Users Posts: 1,882 Major grins
    edited August 28, 2011
    MomaZunk wrote: »

    What other info can you get from the .nef files?

    none
    NEF is the image as your camera-sensor captured it
    not modified in any way > raw , unchanged

    EXIF is not importand and takes no diskspace

    with LR or PS , there is no need to convert before editing
    take advantage of that feature
    Bas

    /ɯoɔ˙ƃnɯƃnɯs˙ʇlɟsɐq//:dʇʇɥ
Sign In or Register to comment.