RAW shooters.....Stay in Camera RAW, or convert?

Marcel

Marcel

Kim Jong Bod
Admin
Messages
29,411
Name
Marcel
Edit My Images
Yes
Just watching the Lightroom tutorial posted by Brains the other day, and he was talking about converting an image from NEF to DNG (and deleting the original).

I keep all my raws as CR2 (Canon RAW).

Anyone else prefer to convert to DNG and delete their original?
 
Can't say I've had the need to. Not sure what benefits it gives though.
 
I always keep the original and the final jpg. I do delete all the ones in between i.e. the big tiffs.
 
I always save the raws untouched and saved on an external hard drive,then save as a psd and then make a jpeg and save all 3,belt and braces!
its not like you cant get cheap storage .:thumbs:
 
Yeah I'm all for keeping RAW, but in which format.

Camera Native, or the supposed 'generic' RAW....DNG..?
 
Looking through the options in Lightroom, embedding the original RAW is an option....so not crucial I don't think.

Oh dear lord its so confusin :p
 
My understanding of DNG is that it converts the RAW data to the DNG format without making any alterations or any compression. Essentially it's still a RAW file with a different file extension. The idea is that Adobe think camera makers will change RAW formats and in years to come software won't support the current file formats. Adobe want you to convert to DNG (Digital Negative for those unaware) which Adobe will support forever more (or until bill Gates launches a hostile takeover in his bid for world superiority).
 
Maybe I'm a bit paranoid but who's to say that the DNG format is any less proprietary than CR2 or CRW? We're faced with a major problem when it comes to dealing with digital media. Just ask the British Library, who are currently petitioning the EU for an exemption from copyright legislation. At the moment they cannot archive material from obsolete sources without breaking the law.

Personally I can see a day when RAW converters stop supporting the original Canon RAW format and my D60 images become unreadable, therefore everything I do gets saved to 8 bit uncompressed TIFFs as well as the original RAW. Sure it takes a huge amount of space but it's the nearest thing I have to a guarantee that at least the processed copy will be readable (media permitting) in the long term.
 
Thats pretty much what I was getting at mate :)

Which is the better for archiving? Basically I think upon reflection I will stick with my Canon RAW / CR2.
All my images that get processed get saved as layered 16 bit TIFFS, aswell as the original RAW :D
Again, for the exact same reason you describe.
 
my own opinion is its not worth converting a RAW file to any other type of RAW file format until we get an Open RAW format which is adopted and supported by everyone.

Here is the Website that explains all about it, It makes some good reading and is very relevant to everyone who shoots RAW

http://www.openraw.org/
 
I can't see nikon or canon abandoning their RAW formats...

It'd be like all labs, cameras, enlargers etc changing to some bizarre format 20 years ago.

You'd so royaly screw everyone it'd be untrue. And why bother? It certainly aint broke so what's the point of fixing it?

All it means is people like adobe would save a few quid not having to patch their software, sounds like profiteering to my mind!
 
Gandhi said:
I can't see nikon or canon abandoning their RAW formats...

It'd be like all labs, cameras, enlargers etc changing to some bizarre format 20 years ago.

You'd so royaly screw everyone it'd be untrue. And why bother? It certainly aint broke so what's the point of fixing it?

All it means is people like adobe would save a few quid not having to patch their software, sounds like profiteering to my mind!
Click to expand...

hmm, your not aware that Canon has changed its RAW file format a number of times then from .CRW to .TIF to .CR2 and there is more than one flavour of .CR2. It wont be long before Canon drop support for its .CRW and .TIF formats, as soon as the cameras are deemed to be non repairable (ie. no more spare parts are available from Canon) the format will be dropped from their new software developments.

It is in our interests to get a common open file format.
 
I think that's the point of DNG isn't it? Admittedly it's only going to work on Adobe programmes but if in 20 years time Adobe stop supporting CRW etc then you won't be abe to open your old RAW files. DNG is the format they are promising to support forever.
 
Kev M said:
I think that's the point of DNG isn't it? Admittedly it's only going to work on Adobe programmes but if in 20 years time Adobe stop supporting CRW etc then you won't be abe to open your old RAW files. DNG is the format they are promising to support forever.
Click to expand...

.DNG is not an open format its owned by Adobe and anyone who wants to use it must pay Adobe licensing fees.
 
Yeah I wasn't confusing DNG with open source I was just pointing out that Adobe have said that in however many years in the future they will support DNG while they may not be supporting the current RAW formats specific to individual manufacturers as they're superceeded by newer manufacturer specific formats.
 
I think you are all kind of missing the point here with the DNG conversion. Storing the file as DNG after editing in lightroom, stores the raw file with the Lightroom edits APPLIED (including keywarding I believe), and not in a sidecar XML file. You can still make further edits to it later on, but can be a convenient way of archiving files.
 
Hmm, several valid points. I have started shooting in RAW a lot more frequently recently, saving the original Nikon RAW file as well as the tiff or jpg conversion, then the edited finals. Yes this takes up loads of space, but as has already been pointed out, storage isnt expensive these days. Certainly never tried using DNG files, I don't have lightroom, or a version of CS that will read NEF files... :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top