DNG pros and cons
I have been using lightroom 3 to process Canon CR2 files. I import CR2 + JPEG. However, Lightroom 3 does not support Sony RX100 .ARW format. I convert the ARW files to DNG and import. It is an extra step but now I wonder if it is a good practice to convert camera vendors' proprietary format to DNG. DNG claims to be an open standard. What is the pros and cons of DNG vs. camera vendors' Raw formats if I only use lightroom and not the Raw professing software comes with the camera?
I'm a whole lot less sold on DNG now than I was prior to the new Adobe CC monthly plan...
We use it for everything and it's really nice for keeping all LR changes tucked inside the file itself versus the (IMHO) easily lost sidecar files, but my trust in Adobe is not that great at the moment. Makes me think that once you have years and thousands of images all archived in DNG, you're really gonna have to upgrade to CC and pay someday. Feels a bit like ransom.
Eric in Florida
+1 to what birdpix said but it isn't just DNG. If you save a layered TIFF or PSD from Photoshop you can't open the file with all the layers intact with non-Adobe editor programs.
Adobe has said that they don't have any plans now to make Lightroom and Photoshop Elements cloud based only but a few years ago they could have said the same thing about Photoshop CS.
What to do is the dilemma we are all facing.
Living and loving it in Bangkok, Thailand. Canon 7D - See the gear list for the rest.
I wonder if it is a good practice to convert camera vendors' proprietary format to DNG.
good practice is to archive original raw files as they were created by your camera's firmware and consider DNG just as a workflow option... better be safe than sorry.
Thanks for the feedback. It sounds like there is no 'open standards' and compatibility guarantee for DNG files. I guess I will stick with the .CR2 for Canon and convert RX100 .ARW to DNG for now, until I upgrade Lightroom. With the free DNG converter, I can always convert .CR2 to .DNG if I need to.