POLL : Importing to LR as DNG. Good idea or not?

[GHP]

Hi all, Happy new year to you all.
Just been thinking about my import regime for LR CC.
At the moment I import my RAW files via the "copy" option in the import dialogue, and this is the way I have always done it.
But I recently read a few articles about the benefits of importing RAW files as DNGs instead.
Benefits are imported files are smaller, and when processed there is no sidecar "XMP" file created, which is one less file to store.
Does any-one routinely convert their RAWs to DNG on import?
If so, why bother?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Cheers,
Gary.

 

[Ploddles]

I do but for no particular reason. I then store the old CR2 file elsewhere as a backup. DNG is meant to be futureproof as it is an open standard.

 

[swanseamale47]

No for me, theres plenty of raw converters and DNG just hasn't got the support it needed, theres also talk of a new version of DNG, and the fact it can't carry all the camera features as it stands (the reason it hasn't been widely addopted) some things like lens corrections and stuff with some camera makes DNG doesn't carry over.
If it works for you all well and good but the small space saving isn't a big enough advantage for me.

 

[rob-nikon]

I still save as raw files. I've read about DNG files but currently see no advantages to using DNG. Until it's a widely accepted format I'm happy to stay with nikons NEF raw format as I have software that reads it fine. Currently there is nothing to say DNG support will out live NEF Raw file support.

 

[droj]

All raw files are probably as future-proof as dng's ever will be - ie there'll be a workaround for everything if required. So it's hardly worth a thought. I've only used dng (via the free converter) when I've had raw files newer than (and so unrecognised by) the version of Camera Raw that I had at the time.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

•
DNG? …never!
DNG is a practical way for the maker to go around the multiple
Raw file supports.
…and a good way for Adobe to keep its grab on you!

 

[ianp5a]

It's an extra unnecessary step. And does things to the embedded lens correction data. And is too close to the world of Adobe. Nah!

 

[TopBanana]

I've been using DNG up until recently as I've been using a camera which is newer than the version of Lightroom I had - so I had to do a DNG conversion to get LR to recognise the file.

 

[mickledore]

I voted for the other reason to say yes option.
I do it to save space and because dng is supposedly a universal format. But mainly it's because Windows won't open Fuji RAW thumbnails in explorer. Yes I know there are plenty of other ways to view them but it's an extra step.
In real terms there's probably not a lot of difference these days. Storage is cheap so its really down to personal preference.

 

[GHP]

Like quite a few in this thread, I have converted to DNG when LR/ACR won't recognise a new camera (Fuji in my case), but revert to raw when Adobe becomes usable.
Appreciate the replies though. Thanks.

 

[ecoleman]

I always convert to DNG.

I've done numerous tests and can see no difference whatsoever when editing a DNG vs a CR2.
The reason why I convert is because of the smaller file size, quick load data that Lightroom uses and no need for XMP files.

 

[ianmarsh]

I do convert to DNG but now I shoot Fuji I wonder whether to stop. There is a chance interpretation of Fuji RAWs will improve and that may not be available if I have gone to DNG. Then again, such tiny gains are not that critical to me - jpegs are probably good enough.

 

[boyfalldown]

when processed there is no sidecar "XMP" file created, which is one less file to store.

and no need for XMP files.

No need to create and store XMP files with RAW files in Lightroom anyway. You can tell it to create them but you've asked it to do that you don't have to have one with LR and RAW files

 

[GHP]

No need to create and store XMP files with RAW files in Lightroom anyway. You can tell it to create them but you've asked it to do that you don't have to have one with LR and RAW files

But I thought it created an XMP file when any edits are done to an image?
Without the sidecar file it stops being non destructive, I thought.
Happy to be corrected though.

 

[boyfalldown]

But I thought it created an XMP file when any edits are done to an image?
Without the sidecar file it stops being non destructive, I thought.
Happy to be corrected though.

Nope. It stores a database of edits. It only creates the XMP file if you ask it to. You set it to on by ticking it in the catalog settings on the meta data tab. By default the write to XMP is unticked and it doesn't do so. Adobe used to suggest that having it ticked slowed LR down lots.

 

[GHP]

Nope. It stores a database of edits. It only creates the XMP file if you ask it to. You set it to on by ticking it in the catalog settings on the meta data tab. By default the write to XMP is unticked and it doesn't do so. Adobe used to suggest that having it ticked slowed LR down lots.

OK, so what is the point of the XMP file then?
Sorry to be picking your brains here, but I genuinely don't know.

 

[boyfalldown]

OK, so what is the point of the XMP file then?
Sorry to be picking your brains here, but I genuinely don't know.

None?.....being serious though if you wanted to read your RAW files and edits into another reader, PS for example they'd carry across in the XMP file, some folks use it as a useful backup. Reading RAWS and edits in other applications is probably the handiest

 

[GHP]

None?.....being serious though if you wanted to read your RAW files and edits into another reader, PS for example they'd carry across in the XMP file, some folks use it as a useful backup. Reading RAWS and edits in other applications is probably the handiest

Ahh, I see. Thank you.
I would say 90% + of my editing is in LR, with the occasional visit to PS for the bit extra on some images.
Personally, I'm not bothered by the space saving of DNGs, as storage is plenty cheap now, but always keen to know about speeding up LR where possible.

 

[Deadlock]

Pros and cons.
Open format in principle is sound to future proof files.
Unfortunately Adobes implementation strips some data and I find compromises skin tones.

Keeping RAW files is also problematic.
As each camera has its own version of RAW, one becomes dependent upon the software to be able to read the files. Canons own software will not support RAW files from their earlier cameras. Certain programs and Photo services do not recognise older camera RAW formats.

The industry needs to get its act together as maintaining a digital library is critical to the working professional - not to mention old photos of deceased relatives you can no longer open, currently without faffing, but soon at all?.

 

[ecoleman]

Nope. It stores a database of edits. It only creates the XMP file if you ask it to. You set it to on by ticking it in the catalog settings on the meta data tab. By default the write to XMP is unticked and it doesn't do so. Adobe used to suggest that having it ticked slowed LR down lots.

Until your Lightroom catalog becomes corrupt

 

[boyfalldown]

Until your Lightroom catalog becomes corrupt

You have it backed up properly, don't you?

 

[ecoleman]

Yes, but all edits are also written to my DNG files

 

[Livin The Dream]

Pros and cons.
Open format in principle is sound to future proof files.
Unfortunately Adobes implementation strips some data and I find compromises skin tones.

Keeping RAW files is also problematic.
As each camera has its own version of RAW, one becomes dependent upon the software to be able to read the files. Canons own software will not support RAW files from their earlier cameras. Certain programs and Photo services do not recognise older camera RAW formats.

The industry needs to get its act together as maintaining a digital library is critical to the working professional - not to mention old photos of deceased relatives you can no longer open, currently without faffing, but soon at all?.

This.

I convert always to DNG because of this Canon issue early on. Many conflicting opinions, but I can't see Adobe not having some backwards compatible software if they do decide to have a newer version of DNG. I do prefer not having the side cars too.

Anyway, Scott Kelby told me to convert to DNG to future proof, so it's gotta be right, right?

 

[Brian G]

Adobe have admitted their sole reason for trying to get camera manufacturers to adopt DNG is to remove the need for the Adobe software engineers to rewrite their software every time a new camera is introduced. To call DNG an "open format" is very misleading, since a lot of people seem equate this to be the same as "Open Source" which it is not. Although the structure of the format may be published, the only people who may legitimately alter the software are Adobe themselves, whereas "Open Source" is available for anyone to add to modify and rewrite as they see fit. When this happens you finish up with the "Linux syndrome", where there are 50+ variations of the "same" program.
Adobe would love to tie everyone into using their software, but camera makers (with a few exceptions) are never going to adopt it as a "standard" so it will remain another (IMHO unnecessary) step in the processing chain. With storage being so cheap there is no attraction in having smaller data files and if you can see a difference in processing speed between DNG and native format raws, then you need to update your computer. For those that convert to DNG but archive their original raw files, the data storage is nearly doubled anyway, so the storage argument doesn't apply.
Although some (many?) raw files will support embedded xmp data, about the only advantage I can see of using DNG is to have the xmp data contained within the image file and not in a separate "sidecar" file.
Personally I prefer to keep my original raws exactly as they came out of the camera, although I always add Metadata (title, keywords etc) in an xmp sidecar, before I archive them.

BTW, Scott Kelby is paid by Adobe so he's bound to endorse anything they tell him to.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

Scott Kelby is paid by Adobe so he's bound to endorse anything they tell him to.

•
+1
…and he switched from Nikon to Canon because he will be supplied
by the latter at no charge… he confesses that in a video on the web!

I think a tutor / mentor should be devoted to photography not to a brand!

 

[Harlequin565]

One advantage of RAW I haven't seen mentioned here is backing up. If you do a lot of changes that require Metadata updates, the backup will be quicker as only the smaller sidecar file is updated, whereas with DNG the whole, much larger, file is updated. Not an issue for me, but it might be for some.

I use DNG because of portability (I seem to be the one vote there) and because I teach with the files. They are moved to college computers that I have no control over updating (ACR, Photoshop & Lightroom) Faffing around at home is fine - if a little tedious - but I can't faff with the locked down college computers. DNG just works on anything.

 

[Brian G]

•
+1
…and he switched from Nikon to Canon because he will be supplied
by the latter at no charge… he confesses that in a video on the web!

I think a tutor / mentor should be devoted to photography not to a brand!

The thing is, would Nikon match the same deal as Canon for him? If so, and he still chose to change, there must be some other factor at work?
The amount of money involved must be trivial for either company.

If he's teaching photography he's got to use something, and if it's Canon or Nikon (or another brand) he's bound to be vilified by the "opposition."
From the limited amount that I've seen, he does tend to talk about photography rather than equipment,

(Not that I'm a fan and I'm not trying to defend him - I remain neutral on the subject)