Converting NEF to DNG

Phil-D

Phil-D

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,553
Edit My Images
Yes
Just bought a Nikon D7200, first time out for an hour yesterday evening. When I tried to open the raw files with ACR 7.4 that comes with Elements 11, it doesn't support the D7200 raw file and can't be updated to ACR 9.0.

A bit of a Google came up with converting the NEF to DNG, downloaded the converter and although a PITA, it does work.

I read on one site that a DNG file doesn't hold as much information as the NEF but, like owt else, other sites contradicted that.

Is a NEF file converted to DNG just the same and is there any other alternative without having to buy an upgrade to Elements 14, thanks
 
Last edited:
Phil-D said:
Is a NEF file converted to DNG just the same and is there any other alternative
Click to expand...


I would not convert ever.

An easy way out is search for a converter
that supports the files. Like CO9 Pro or, if
on MAC, Affinity Photo.

If on PC, a version should be published
in September 2016.
 
Kodiak Qc said:
I would not convert ever.

An easy way out is search for a converter
that supports the files. Like CO9 Pro or, if
on MAC, Affinity Photo.

If on PC, a version should be published
in September 2016.
Click to expand...

You say you would never convert but not why??

I'm happy with Elements 11, it does/did :rolleyes: everything I need for PP'ing apart from open the D7200 NEF file

I've had a quick Google for CO9 Pro, I'm guessing it's some pp'ing software?? but all I'm getting is a UK post code :rolleyes::D
 
Really is annoying isn't it Phil? I'm lucky in that im a graphic designer so I have Photoshop for work which includes the latest version of ACR, but still I remember when I went from d7000 to d7200 to d500 I had to wait for ACR profiles to be updated. Unfortunately I think these days you just have to factor cost of new software into the price of the camera (that's if you want to continue using the same software of course...Nikons own View Ni-i and capture nx-d will work with those NEFs perfectly fine.

Sorry that doesn't answer your question about converting though!
 
Phil-D said:
Is a NEF file converted to DNG just the same ...
Click to expand...

No. The converter reads the bits of the NEF it understands and then stores them in DNG format. It doesn't transfer everything. However, Adobe apps don't use the stuff they don't understand anyway, so if you're using Elements, it's already been ignoring stuff in the NEF. How useful that stuff is, is open to debate.

There are arguments for and against - but the key for me is - once converted to DNG, can you process the file in a way that you like and get the output you want. If so, then DNG is fine for your needs.

You can, if space is no problem, store the NEF inside the DNG, which obviously makes it pretty big but delivers some level of future proofing.

The DNG spec is published, unlike NEF and CR2, so in theory, it's more future proofed already anyway, although some argue about that.

I'll go back to the bottom line - if you can get the image you want from the DNG, then it's good enough.
 
htid said:
Really is annoying isn't it Phil? I'm lucky in that im a graphic designer so I have Photoshop for work which includes the latest version of ACR, but still I remember when I went from d7000 to d7200 to d500 I had to wait for ACR profiles to be updated. Unfortunately I think these days you just have to factor cost of new software into the price of the camera (that's if you want to continue using the same software of course...Nikons own View Ni-i and capture nx-d will work with those NEFs perfectly fine.

Sorry that doesn't answer your question about converting though!
Click to expand...

Cheers Chris, buying Elements 14 isn't going to break the bank, the annoying thing is, I'm just starting to think I'd got mi head round Elements 11 and now I might have to start again! :banghead: :D

When I converted the NEF to DNG, ACR 7.4 opened it no trouble. I couldn't see a difference but I'm not very computer literate and PP'ing has never been my strong point. :)
 
EightBitTony said:
I'll go back to the bottom line - if you can get the image you want from the DNG, then it's good enough.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tony, so just to clarify, I won't get anything better out of a NEF file that I can't get out of DNG with the software I already use, Elements 11?
 
Last edited:
Phil-D said:
You say you would never convert but not why??
Click to expand...
•


— cause I don't need to
— nothing could be better than the NEF file
— I use a top app with my top gear
— I am at "war" with Adobe and do not use their products since three years
 
Kodiak Qc said:
See…
https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Software/Capture-One-Pro/Highlights.aspx

https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Software/Capture-One-Pro/Supported-Cameras.aspx
Click to expand...

279 EUR = £236 ...... I won't be buying that! :runaway:

EightBitTony said:
I don't have any evidence to prove it, but that is my understanding.
Click to expand...

Thanks Tony (y)

Kodiak Qc said:
I am at "war" with Adobe and do not use their products since three years
Click to expand...

Maybe just that one answer would have done Daniel ;)
 
Phil-D said:
279 EUR = £236 ...... I won't be buying that!
Click to expand...


…but you can subscribe to it for 6 or 8 £ per month!
May of my students do just that!
 
Kodiak Qc said:
…but you can subscribe to it for 6 or 8 £ per month!
May of my students do just that!
Click to expand...

I missed that bit :) I don't have a problem with Elements 11, it's capable of far more PP'ing than I'll ever want, its just a PITA ACR 7.4 won't open the D7200 NEF and won't update to 9.0.

Suppose its done to make folks purchase the latest version :rolleyes:
 
I just did an experiment. I converted 118 Canon raw .CR2 files to DNG using Adobe DNG converter. These were images of flowers (lots of different, subtle colours), birds and kites (the things flown on the ends of pieces of string, not the birds). I imported all 236 raw and DNG files into Lightroom using default parameters and then exported them to JPEG 1300 pixels high. I then compared the pairs in Faststone Image Viewer, with the second image of each pair exactly overlaying the first one. This is the technique I use to identify differences between differently processed images, and the technique makes differences jump out at you, including quite minor differences.

I did not notice any differences in geometry, colour, tonal distribution or sharpness/detail in any of the pairs.

I then converted 73 Panasonic raw .RW2 files to DNG. These were images of flowers and invertebrates. I imported all 146 raw and DNG files into Lightroom. I wanted to see if they responded differently to processing and so processed them all as follows (these are not necessarily settings I would actually use btw, I was just using some non-trivial adjustments to see if I could induce a different response as between raw and DNG Versions).

I first used Autotone. This often increases the brightness more than I like, so I decreased the Exposure by 1 stop. Then Highlights -83, Clarity +21, Vibrance -12, Sharpening 100 Radius 1.0 Mask 60. They all looked rather dark at that stage, so I increased the Exposure back up by one stop. I then exported to JPEG, full size (compression 80) with Output sharpening Screen Standard. I then compared the pairs in Faststone at 100%, for each pair choosing a different position on which to centre the comparison, with the positions varying from around the centre to out towards the edges, and sometimes choosing subject areas and sometimes background or midground areas.

It was not a pretty sight (the images were from a noisy, small-sensor camera, without any luminance noise reduction and oversharpened for 100% viewing), but here too I did not notice any differences in geometry, colour, tonal distribution or sharpness/detail in any of the pairs.

It might not be the same for NEF images of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.

If anyone would like to check whether I have missed differences I will upload all 384 JPEGs to Flickr.

btw, previous experiments have shown that if I use the same slider settings for a raw file in ACR in PSE14 as with Lightroom I get what appears to me to be exactly the same result.
 
Last edited:
htid said:
@GardenersHelper wow that's some very thorough testing! Surely 10 images would have shown you without needing to do all those though?
Click to expand...

Pretty much I think, although I do find larger samples more convincing. In this case I just used two sets of images I had to hand and didn't really think about the numbers involved, other than a vague "that'll do". And compared to some of the comparison stuff I do there really wasn't much effort needed. The processing for example took no more of my time with 200 than it would have with 10. (I carried on browsing while the DNG Converter and Lightroom processing was being done, and it didn't take long anyway.) And even with 200 pairs the comparisons didn't take long.
 
NEF files do hold Nikon only information and a few years back (when using NX2 rather than the dire NX View) it would render greater luminance and saturation than that provided by Adobe CS at the time. (Not saying that was necessarily correct, personal thing I suppose), although if you played with Adobe long enough it wasn't difficult to produce the same result. Just that NX2 and CO got there faster.

I was also running Aperture and Capture One software as a comparison and CO came pretty close to the final image produced by NX2.

I dont have issues with Adobe, but would say that CO is a nice bit of software and its updates and initial costs compare well to that of Adobe.
 
GardenersHelper said:
btw, previous experiments have shown that if I use the same slider settings for a raw file in ACR in PSE14 as with Lightroom I get what appears to me to be exactly the same result.
Click to expand...

They're both using ACR, Lightroom just doesn't present it as such, but the actual processing is the same engine.
 
Last edited:
shreds said:
NEF files do hold Nikon only information and a few years back (when using NX2 rather than the dire NX View) it would render greater luminance and saturation than that provided by Adobe CS at the time.
Click to expand...

Yep, and CR2's hold Canon only information. Neither Canon nor Nikon reveal the format of their RAW files to anyone and so everyone, including Adobe have to reverse engineer them (stupid situation). That means some of it is open to interpretation. However, my point still stands that if you generally use Adobe products to process your RAWs, you can't be any worse off using DNG's because to get to the DNG, you use an Adobe product which understands just as much as the others about the file.

If you use non-Adobe products, you may or may not be better off sticking with the original RAW, depending on how that company has understood the underlying format.

I just wish camera manufacturers would either a) publish their RAW file formats or b) adopt a common one (which is what DNG is intended to be, although started by Adobe).
 
shreds said:
would say that CO is a nice bit of software and its updates and initial costs compare well to that of Adobe.
Click to expand...
•


+1
 
Many photographers were suspicious of Adobe DNG before they went to the subscription model for Photoshop.

I have no problem with the subscription model although understand why many photographers would have concerns.

Following the transition to subscriptions, as well as demonstating their inability to safely store millions of email addrsses, I think Adobe have 'cooked the golden goose' and will never be able to convince the world to go down the DNG route.

Shame really because it would only have taken Nikon or Canon to adopt it and it would be the international standard.
 
Thanks for the replies, although some of the technical stuff is well over my head!

General opinion seems to agree that working on a DNG in ACR is no different to working on the NEF, its a PITA having to convert but that's what I was hoping to here and for now, it'll do (y)

I'll probably keep mi eye out for a 2nd hand Elements 13, that can be updated to ACR 9.0 and supports D7200, cheers :)
 
entoptika said:
Converted all my raw files to dng a few years ago. Didn't notice any difference, but it has made all those images impossible to enter into some competitions, because I no longer had the raw file. I could have avoided this by embedding the raw file.
Click to expand...

That's a point I'd never considered - I'm surprised comps don't accept DNGs given some cameras create them natively. Is it because they're converted from NEF/CR2 to DNG or purely because they were DNGs?
 
EightBitTony said:
Is it because they're converted from NEF/CR2 to DNG or purely because they were DNGs?
Click to expand...
•

Neither nor…

RAW files are not editable this is clear and
that's the reason they are credible, receivable.

DNG files ARE editable that's the reason why
they are not credible, not receivable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top