Shall I convert all my RAW files to DNG

ShawWellPete

ShawWellPete

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,699
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
I have just noticed how easy it is to change my RAW files to DNG using Lightroom. My files sizes go from about 8 to 5 MBytes and seem to lose no quality. I am considering doing it to my entire library.

Is there any reason why I shouldn't?
 
The short answer is:
Keep the originals or both.

The reason would be that the software from the manufacturer of your camera tends to get better over time, like one guy on dpreview has noted - to his surprise, the Canon DPP got much better and in his opinion surpassed Adobe's Lightroom, but since he had almost all of his raws converted into dng, he couldn't use it on the old ones.
 
IMO there's no reason to do that, and you may lose some data embedded in the RAW which is not supported by the generic DNG format. Although DNG is being promoted by Adobe as a universal standard, in fact it is a proprietary format and there are several variations - e.g. the DNG files generated by some cameras are not the same as those converted from other formats.

The only time to consider conversion to anything else would be if/when the RAW files from an obsolete camera are no longer readable by the latest software.

Just my 2p. :)
 
Thanks Guys, It looks like I'll keep my trigger finger off. I may backup RAW files and then convert to DNG though as I keep all my photos on my laptop and disk space is an issue.
 
I asked the same question a couple of weeks ago, and I ended up deciding that I'm sticking with the manufacturer RAW.
 
Yes stick with RAWs. Back up everything you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top