RAW to DNG

[KrazyPete]

I started to experiment with shooting RAW today. I opened Lightroom and it gives me the option to "Copy photos as digital negative (DNG) and import."

My question; is there any change to the information in converstion from RAW to DNG that would effect the photo's color or quality? Are there any real benefits of one format over the other?

Thanks.

 

[photo_chick]

Good question. I use Lightroom too, but I never work with DNG files. I have not been prompted with this in my work, but I have onyl been using lightroom for just over a month.

Mark??? Where are you?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

is there any change to the information in converstion from RAW to DNG that would effect the photo's color or quality?

Yes and no. The image data itself is copied over bit-for-bit. Camera makers also store lots of other metadata along with the image. The commonly used stuff is also carried over. The exotic stuff might or might not be. If you really want to use DNG and play it ultra-safe, you can set up the DNG to embed the RAW file in it. This results in doubled file sizes and I don't know anyone that does it. People seem to either stay with RAW or switch to DNG.

You can read more information from Barry Pearson's site. He's a DNG obsessed photographer.

Are there any real benefits of one format over the other?

RAW files are supported by the camera makers apps and some other apps that don't support DNG. Camera makers generaly keep their RAW file formats proprietary, so any conversion involves some risk.

DNG files are smaller. The standard is published, so it won't be orphaned in the future. Many apps support DNG files and some have the ability to add and edit metadata within the DNG files. When editing, that means you don't need sidecar files storing your metadata.

It's a really more complicated of a subject than I can adequately explain in a DIS board posting. I suggest that you either play it safe and stay with RAW or play it safe and stay with DNG.

 

[Anewman]

IMO most software today still supports the RAW files from the first few CANON DSLRs that have long been discontinued. So I am not worried about Current DSLR Raw files being abandoned by all the software packages.

When we start seeing this happen I am sure we would still have converters to DNG, I would wait till that happens and convert files as needed.

 

[0bli0]

DNG is an encapsulated format - not a true 100% standard raw format (because every manufacturer's sensors do not speak the same language).

for example: Mac OSX, where most common raw file formats are supported natively, does not support .ERF raw files from my rd-1 (without using a hack to the plist, but let's ignore that for now). if i use the Adobe tool that turns the .ERF into .DNG files, OSX (and all of the programs that use the core image support such as Aperture and iPhoto) still do not know how to handle the files.

i feel eventually everyone will ultimately decide on a raw format, and hopefully Adobe's efforts will help. as Anewman says, raw formats from the D30 and D60 are still supported by all programs that accept raw files.

 

[KrazyPete]

Thanks for all the help.

After taking your advice into consideration I think I will:
1) shoot RAW
2) bring the RAW file into Lightroom without converting
3) do my corrections
4) save as JPG
5) delete the RAW files

That gives me the best possible source for me to do my corrections on and leaves me with a small and very common filetype for my final version. I don't think I have the storage space available to be able to archive the RAW files. Would I be making a huge mistake to do it that way?

 

[Anewman]

4) save as JPG
5) delete the RAW files

NEVER DELETE the Raw file, IMO


I send the jpg to get printed and then delete the jpeg, settings will be saved with the raw file so I can convert to exactly the same image in seconds.

That is what I do.

Burn to DVD, get an external hard drive. But I would never purposely delete the raw file.

 

[boBQuincy]

Thanks for all the help.

After taking your advice into consideration I think I will:
1) shoot RAW
2) bring the RAW file into Lightroom without converting
3) do my corrections
4) save as JPG
5) delete the RAW files
Would I be making a huge mistake to do it that way?

In my opinion, yes. Always, *always* keep your originals!
Software keeps improving, I recently converted some old D30 RAW files with Adobe's latest converter and found some improvement over the ones I converted 5 years ago.

Find some way to keep your RAW files, external drive, DVDs, whatever, but don't delete them.

 

[Groucho]

Yes, definitely never delete the RAWs!

A few months after getting my DSLR, I switched to "normal" color mode instead of "vivid" for the more realistic colors. A week or two ago, I switched back to "Vivid". I was getting tired of photos being too realistic - it's been so gray and lifeless around here that "realistic" photos were also dull, gray, and lifeless! Vivid can an least add a little bit of punch, and if it's too much, I can process the RAW with natural colors.

I'm considering re-visiting my WDW photos and processing them again with the Vivid color set, just to add a little more "pop" and see how they look. If I did not have the RAWs... welllllllll..............

I say, always always always keep your originals, whether they be jpgs or raws. What you like today in a "final image" may not be what you like in a few months from now.

 

[Master Mason]

I always think of the RAW file as the negative. I have negatives going back to the 30's from my grandparents and parents.... when I went through all my parents pictures, I kept every single negative.

You can always recreate the picture if you have the negative, if you only have the picture, or if you lose that, then your basicly hosed.