Possibly dumb question Re LR and RAW

Hertsman

Hertsman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,243
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently import directly from the D500 to LR and then LR converts the images into DNG.

Am I doing it right or should I change my method ?
 
You can also do the convert during the import so you don't end up with 2 copies of each file, the raw and the dng. Saves you a great deal of disk space.
 
Ploddles said:
You can also do the convert during the import so you don't end up with 2 copies of each file, the raw and the dng. Saves you a great deal of disk space.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry, thats what I should have said I do.

andrewc said:
Why convert to DNG?

I import a Canon CR2 RAW file into Lightroom and work with the CR2 RAW file rather than convert it to a DNG.
Click to expand...

I dont get any options. I plug the camera in, fire up LR and then it just does it....
 
Hertsman said:
I dont get any options. I plug the camera in, fire up LR and then it just does it....
Click to expand...

I believe you do have an option, depending on how you set your import options in the "Import" window. You can copy as DNG, Copy or Add, depending on the source of the files. I don't connect a camera, as I prefer to read the files from the SD card straight into the computer.
So you should have a choice if you did not want to use the dng format. However I convert all my files to dng.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hertsman said:
I currently import directly from the D500 to LR and then LR converts the images into DNG.

Am I doing it right or should I change my method ?
Click to expand...
To me, converting to dng is an unnecessary extra step.
 
Mine get imported as a dng file! More information
 
DNG is an open format so years down the line will still be able to open them in any editing software
 
Mark twiglet said:
DNG is an open format so years down the line will still be able to open them in any editing software
Click to expand...
Not quite true.
DNG is an ADOBE format, so it will be able to be opened by Adobe editing software.
An "Open format" is one where the details are published and freely available, which is definitely not the case with Adobe, who keep the details of DNG a closely guarded secret.
 
Brian G said:
Not quite true.
DNG is an ADOBE format, so it will be able to be opened by Adobe editing software.
An "Open format" is one where the details are published and freely available, which is definitely not the case with Adobe, who keep the details of DNG a closely guarded secret.
Click to expand...

Not quite true either.

Adbode licence the format (free of charge) for hardware and software manufactures to read and write to the DNG format. It can't be a closely guarded secret if anybody can read and write to the format.
 
The only advantage, to me, of DNG is to save disk space / improve load times. But it's very marginal, so I just keep, the Nikon RAW files. If I ever wanted to archive more efficiently, I suppose I could convert to DNG at that stage, but disk space is quite cheap so don't think I'll ever do it.
 
If you put into context I transferred 72,000 dng files this week!
 
Ploddles said:
Not quite true either.

Adbode licence the format (free of charge) for hardware and software manufactures to read and write to the DNG format. It can't be a closely guarded secret if anybody can read and write to the format.
Click to expand...
That's the difference between "Open Source" and open format. True Open Source files are published and available for update and modification by anyone.
Adobe do NOT publish the source code for DNG, and have said they have no intention of doing so, since they want to retain full control of the software (their words.)
That does not make it "open" by any stretch of the imagination.

johnnypanic said:
The only advantage, to me, of DNG is to save disk space / improve load times. But it's very marginal, so I just keep, the Nikon RAW files. If I ever wanted to archive more efficiently, I suppose I could convert to DNG at that stage, but disk space is quite cheap so don't think I'll ever do it.
Click to expand...
Me too.
I maintain multiple backups of my OOC raw files. If I add another format then it's more time wasted doing more backups.

SsSsSsSsSnake said:
https://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng
Click to expand...
Some good points there, especially section 4.
 
Last edited:
I consider dng to be as future-proof as any proprietary camera-maker's format. So that's not an issue.

I see the value of dng as being a workaround for when your camera model's raw output has leapfrogged the iteration of your raw processing software. Thus you can bypass the retail tyranny of repeated upgrades for a generation or two.
 
I try to avoid DNG mainly because an improved RAW converter in the future might do a lot better job with the originals. We already saw that going from LR[1..3] to v4 and above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top