# Do you convert all your raw files to DNG?



## Vautrin (Sep 15, 2012)

Do you convert all your raw files to DNG?

If yes, why?

If no, why not?


----------



## KmH (Sep 15, 2012)

The issue is mostly about archiving your digital image database, and the issues go well beyond Raw or DNG. You might want to get the book - The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers 

I don't use DNG because I don't use the camera maker's Raw converter. I use Adobe Camera Raw (ACR)

The notion for DNG (Digital Negative) is that camera maker Raw file formats are proprietary. Only the camera maker knows what their format(s) contain as far as image processing coding.
DNG is an open source format, in so far as everyone can see what's in it. Adobe owns the DNG format, but has published a fee-of-charge use license for DNG. Professional archivists and conservationists often recommend DNG.

Here is some more information - Camera raw, DNG | Adobe Photoshop CS6
Digital Negative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To DNG or Not to DNG? « « Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Killer Tips Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Killer Tips
DNG vs RAW

Adobe has to reverse engineer each new cameras proprietary Raw format and that takes a lot of time and effort.
As more camera makers adopt DNG as the Raw format used in their cameras, the fewer camera Raw formats Adobe has to reverse engineer.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2012)

The ONLY files I converted to DNG, except for a few experimental batches, were 30,000 or so Fuji S2 Pro files of my son's early years. Why? Because the Fuji "six megapixel sensor, up-rezzed in camera to 12MP" and its weirdness meant that basically FUji's awful raw converter, and later ACR, and the DNG converter, were the two,main software apps that could even OPEN the Fuji .RAF files. Because of the odd 6MP upsample>12 MP write-to-card nature of the S2 Pro camera, its raw files were pretty BIG for their era...really BLOATED, in fact. THis was before DVD was available....and CD-ROM discs were still 650 megabytes, not yet 700 megabytes! Adobe's DNG took out two extra bit values, and trimmed the .RAF file size wayyyyy down...*almost in HALF*, for each capture that had been written in that odd, bloated, Fuji S2 Pro .RAF format. THIS particular behavior is NOT typical of other cameras and their raw file formats. I wanted to make sure I had some way to access my kid's many thousands of baby photos in the future without the need to track down exotic, old, rare software AND an antique computer to run said SW.


----------



## SCraig (Sep 15, 2012)

I don't use DNG because I don't feel that it has evolved enough even though it is 8 years old.  When the standard gets to the point that the manufacturers, Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc., are providing a back-end module that will allow all of the facets of the RAW data to be exported properly then I'll consider it.  Until such time I'll continue to believe that Nikon knows more about the NEF format than Adobe does.

The key issue is that RAW files are proprietary.  The only ones that  truly know every single nuance of the contents of a RAW file is the  company that owns them.  Adobe doesn't know every bit setting in a Nikon  NEF file nor do they know every bit setting in a Canon RAW file or a  Sony RAW file or any other RAW file.  They may know most of them, but  not all.  DNG files contain what is known about the contents of RAW  files but only what the manufacturers are willing to allow to be known.  This, of course, pertains to all RAW converters and not just DNG.  ACR has always done a pretty good job, as have the RAW converts from Bibble and DxO, but they don't know everything there is to be known about every single RAW format.


----------



## Vautrin (Sep 15, 2012)

SCraig said:


> I don't use DNG because I don't feel that it has evolved enough even though it is 8 years old.  When the standard gets to the point that the manufacturers, Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc., are providing a back-end module that will allow all of the facets of the RAW data to be exported properly then I'll consider it.  Until such time I'll continue to believe that Nikon knows more about the NEF format than Adobe does.
> 
> The key issue is that RAW files are proprietary.  The only ones that  truly know every single nuance of the contents of a RAW file is the  company that owns them.  Adobe doesn't know every bit setting in a Nikon  NEF file nor do they know every bit setting in a Canon RAW file or a  Sony RAW file or any other RAW file.  They may know most of them, but  not all.  DNG files contain what is known about the contents of RAW  files but only what the manufacturers are willing to allow to be known.  This, of course, pertains to all RAW converters and not just DNG.  ACR has always done a pretty good job, as have the RAW converts from Bibble and DxO, but they don't know everything there is to be known about every single RAW format.



Ok but does that mean you only use Nikon software to view raw files?

Part of my line of thinking is I use lightroom + photoshop to view the raw files anyways, so since my workflow is already adobe centric, I was thinking I wouldn't notice a difference.

Or is perhaps Nikon => TIFF a better workflow?


----------



## SCraig (Sep 15, 2012)

Vautrin said:


> Ok but does that mean you only use Nikon software to view raw files?
> 
> Part of my line of thinking is I use lightroom + photoshop to view the raw files anyways, so since my workflow is already adobe centric, I was thinking I wouldn't notice a difference.
> 
> Or is perhaps Nikon => TIFF a better workflow?



I use a viewer application (Specifically FastStone Image Viewer) to view RAW files and decide which ones I want to process.  I then initially process them with Nikon Capture NX2.  If they need additional processing then I save them as a TIF file and edit them with something else.  For this purpose NX2 can be compared to Adobe Camera Raw or any other RAW converter.  I personally feel that using NX2 as opposed to ACR gives me a better conversion.

Capture NX2 is a very capable editor however there are some things that are difficult, or not possible, to do with it.  Cloning, for example, is not present in NX2.  It is also not very Beginner Friendly and a lot of its features are not immediately apparent.  It is a non-destructive editor in that if I don't like the way an action looks I simply turn it off or delete it from the edit list.  Compare editing actions in NX2 to using a correction layer in Photoshop.  If you don't like it, just turn it off or delete it.  One caveat is that once a file has been edited in NX2 and the editing steps saved into the RAW file other RAW converters don't seem to be able to read it.  For me that isn't a problem since it is what I use for a RAW converter but it could be for other people.

This is MY workflow.  It works for me however it may not work for you or anyone else.  It's the way I started several years ago and I've seen no reason to change things.


----------



## Vautrin (Sep 15, 2012)

The thing I find really interesting about the whole DNG thing is this...

I have an old olympus I used to shoot photos with.  Fine DNG is definitely a better choice -- I'll never shoot with it again and they're mostly snapshots.  Files go from 9 MB to about 12 MB so I'm actually _*gaining *_space with DNG

For my Nikon D700 I'm about the same... files are the same size as the original.  Not exactly -- a little more or a little less.

So it's not really saving me any space if I do lossless compression (and space is a big issue for me as my pics are just a little over 2TB)

What I do find though is they're really, really, speedy.  Much faster to read than NEF files -- could be a significant speed up to workflow, although it does mean waiting for the files to be converted and imported first.


----------



## MOREGONE (Oct 7, 2012)

I like DNG. I've always been an open source fan so that 1+ for DNG in my book. But I also like that the fact the edits are logged in the file where with .NEF files in Lightroom, the edits are stored only in the database. Loosethe database, you lose the edits.


----------



## usayit (Oct 7, 2012)

I like DNG as well... for the reasons already specified.

So recently I purchased Olympus OMD E-M5 and its raw files are only readable by its own converter...  I work mainly in Lightroom 3 but haven't upgraded to LR4 because I found putting money into Nik software was more beneficial to me.    Unfortunately, LR3 doesn't support Olympus OMD E-M5 raw files... BUT... the latest version of Adobe DNG converter does.   So while I could have been "forced" to purchase LR4 or use Olympus converter, I simply do the conversion to DNG using the converter prior to importing the images into my LR3 catalog.  Its an extra step.. but its simple and almost seamless... and FREE.

A while back, I shot with an Epson R-D1.  Its a niche very small run digital camera and raw processors either never supported its files or were very slow to support.   Adobe DNG and LR supported it... and very early too.

This and a few other reasons gives me confidence in the DNG format's longevity.   I'm also a software developer that relies on technologies and frameworks built on open-source.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 9, 2012)

I heard/read somewhere that DNG files will run a little faster in Lightroom.  So that's one reason I've been using them.  I haven't done any real testing though.


----------



## Vautrin (Oct 9, 2012)

Big Mike said:


> I heard/read somewhere that DNG files will run a little faster in Lightroom.  So that's one reason I've been using them.  I haven't done any real testing though.


After testing some DNG workflow i can tell you this is true....  

It is a trade off though as before they get super fast you need to spend quite a bit of
time converting your files


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 9, 2012)

I didn't convert any of my old files, but since I heard that it's faster, I've been converting them to DNG upon import.  Sure, it takes more time 'at that time', but I typically just set up the import and walk away.  I also set it to render 1:1 previews (takes even longer) but when I do come back to start working on them, they are nice and fast.


----------

