Why convert to dng

A

aerialshot

Suspended / Banned
Messages
34
Name
steven
Edit My Images
Yes
I know that DNG are slightly smaller in size but what are the advantages and disadvantages converting to DNG from RAW. Also is there an option in lightroom 2 to import as DNG.
Regards Steve
 
Lightroom edits are stored inside a DNG, so there's no lost xmp to worry about.

I started converting all my pictures to DNG when I got fed up with trying to keep the xmp files together with them. When I renamed pictures I had to rename the xmp. Move the picture - move the xmp....... And to do all these I have to have my ACDSee viewer set to view the xmps too, which means a third of my thumbnails are xmps. I have converted all my old RAWs too.

I cannot think of any significant disadvantages of DNG over RAW.

I have found that using the standalone DNG converter is much quicker than getting Lightroom to do it when you have a large batch to do. If the xmp files are with the photos then any previous edits are integrated in to the DNG.
 
One big advantage, especially with large megapixel cameras is the reduction in file size.

The onboard processor in the camera has a finite amount of time to process the raw data and save it losslesly. Allowing the DNG converter, to do this, either as a stand alone or as part of Lightroom, can seriously reduce the file size. The reason for this I understand is the software has more processing capacity from the computer and not the same time constraints.
 
The are no disadvantages to converting (unless you embed the original RAW and make MASSIVE files).

To convert on import to Lightroom you need to select it from the "File handling" drop down in the import window.
 
One disadvantage is the limited number of programs that can read DNG, in the event of Adobe going belly up you could find it difficult to find software to open your DNG's in the furure. Theres also talk of a new DNG, how compatable that will be is anybodies guess. For archival storage you may be wiser to save your cameras native RAW, and TIFFs as well as DNG, a belt and braces approach. Wayne
 
Craikeybaby said:
The are no disadvantages to converting (unless you embed the original RAW and make MASSIVE files).

To convert on import to Lightroom you need to select it from the "File handling" drop down in the import window.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree.

If you convert to DNG always embed the original raw (Or keep it backed up elsewhere) or you may find yourself falling foul of the main disadvantage. Compatibility.

Otherwise you may find yourself in a situation where you cannot open some of your DNG files in anything other than adobe products.
 
need to make my library smaller so intruiged by this,

surely if you have the adobe software there's no issue richard especially if there are freeware standalone converters that could rebuild into whatever the dng was made from (if its truly lossless)

googling to find such a converter to put on usb key as backup
 
If you are happy to be tied to adobe software to guarantee future compatability then I suspect there will be no problem. Capture one fully supports DNG however I have a few shoots i converted to DNG where C1 cannot open them - and if you don't include the original raw then you cannot rebuild them to their original format. DNG simply doesn;t work that way as it strips some data out of the original raw.

Fortunatly I did have the presence of mind to embed the original raw so I was able to extract it.

Disk space is cheap, I would strongly advise against converting to DNG just to reduce space. I keep a seperate library of DNG files in addition to raw files for future compatibility and backup.
 
ADOBE said:
This release includes new DNG Compatibility conversion options. These choices help address the additional options available with an upcoming revision of the DNG Specification.
Click to expand...

So which version of DNG will Adobe be supporting ????

Remember if you want to use Adobe newest Camera Raw you'll need Adobes newest £500 bit of software. Personally I just would not trust Adobe DNG, but I'm darn sure Canon will always support thier raw format.
 
will69 said:
DNG is more likely to be supported in the future than the myriad number of camera RAW file formats.
Click to expand...

At last, someone talks sense... :clap:
 
will69 said:
DNG is more likely to be supported in the future than the myriad number of camera RAW file formats.
Click to expand...

Why? DNG doesn't support all the raw features so it's lightly to undergo change, Adobe have already mentioned a newer version. And lets face it people are not exactly falling over themselves to support it now.
If Adobe were to close (and lets not forget they laid off staff recently) theres precious little other support for it, and once adobe went under there would be little incentive to support it then.
I'd keep your own camera raw, plus TIFF, just about everything will open the tiff if all else fails, fine use DNG as another back-up but theres no way i'd replace my own raw with it. Wayne
 
whiteflyer said:
It's Adobe, of course the old version will not be compatible and a newer version of CS will not read the older DNG.
Click to expand...
Some people seem to be taking this as a serious comment - I'm pretty sure Whiteflier had his tongue in his cheek when making this post.

An open-source developer recently gave a bit of a rant about what a mess Photoshop files are, and how difficult they are to read.

Adobe's response is basically that their insistence on maintaining compatibility with older versions is the cause of all his criticisms. I thought I had seen it stated in Adobe's reply - apparently I'm mistaken - but I would suspect that .psd files created in versions of Photoshop released over a decade ago could be opened by the current version of Creative Suite.

I'm not saying DNG will have true longevity - as photographers we should be thinking in terms of film negatives & transparencies, and unfortunately the digital age is too young to really know how long our data will be readily readable - but the new versions of DNG will probably be little different from the current ones, and the current versions will surely be supported by Adobe for some years. After all, Adobe are somewhat staking their reputation of DNG as an archive format, and it would not do their credibility any good if they abandoned this position so quickly.

Stroller.
 
I did think that Adobe hoped that DNG would become a standard like .jpg or .tif

Things move on, but only incrementally. With the number of digital cameras in existence now, it would be foolhardy in the extreme to sideline any format.

I am sure it would be possible to convert a whole lifetimes worth of images in a couple of minutes with the supercomputers that we will all have on our desks in a couple of years.

I would be more worried about electricity running out :)

Graham
 
Well DNG 1.3 is on the way, and it seems it's not fully backwards compatable (haven't had all the details yet) so good luck with your "archival" format, I'm keeping my camera raws as well. Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top