Reading mode: Light Dark

Advantages/ disadvantages of DNG vs RAW or JPG

Go to last post
Why convert to JPG for printing?

Why not print direct from LR?

For 98% of photos I never convert other than export to the Web or other.

All processing generally done in LR so RAW (native or DNG) is perfect.
 
BSHolland said:
Skipper494 said:
You should save the original untouched RAW file, convert to tif and process that, then produce whatever jpgs you need from the final tif image. Don't waste time with other types of files.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I also think that MY workflow is the ONLY one that's right. There are NO other workflows worth considering besides MINE, because I was spoon-fed EVERYTHING there is to know about file types.
Click to expand...
Well said

I notice Skipper in a couple of threads seems to be solid in his PP stance and has not looked at the LR approach.

But I think we all become a little set in our ways sometimes. I know I certainly am guilty of having blinkers on sometimes.
LOL
 
goanna said:
BSHolland said:
Skipper494 said:
You should save the original untouched RAW file, convert to tif and process that, then produce whatever jpgs you need from the final tif image. Don't waste time with other types of files.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I also think that MY workflow is the ONLY one that's right. There are NO other workflows worth considering besides MINE, because I was spoon-fed EVERYTHING there is to know about file types.
Click to expand...
Well said

I notice Skipper in a couple of threads seems to be solid in his PP stance and has not looked at the LR approach.

But I think we all become a little set in our ways sometimes. I know I certainly am guilty of having blinkers on sometimes.
LOL
Click to expand...
Same here – I'm kind of set in my way for now. At least for the moment, as 99% of the time I'm shooting travel, most of which is stock. DNG saves me 10-20% of hard drive space, and I still have to find someone to demonstrate to me that DNG is compromising image data.

Don't get me wrong: I also use RAW sometimes – mainly for commissions where the client wants to do the conversion to JPG or TIF.

A friend of mine is shooting sports/news – so for deadline reasons alone he has to shoot JPG (time is more important than image quality in this line of business).
 
And.. that's another reason to use DNG - you can update the previews so what you see INSIDE of LR ALSO appears OUTSIDE of LR... although you might be really into LR right now.. who knows what tomorrow will bring. I prefer to know that ANY software I use that can read DNG files will show me the actual way the file looks... not the original which isn't even close to what is currently stuck only in LR.
 
In the practical aspects of what I am currently doing, XMP works better for me. If I was doing something different, DNG might of course be better and I have that option at any time should I choose to follow it.

When you archive your LR images to DNG including the metadata, as you might do if you were about to stop using LR, it embeds an up-to-date image preview then. But in the meanwhile, LR already caches internal previews of everything, which do not need to be extracted from the source file.

Since I do not browse the Raw images directly, and more or less never move or rename files, having an up-to-date preview and metadata in a selfcontained file would just mean extra processing for no benefit. If I do move some files around I can either do so as an entire folder, which includes all XMPs automatically, or more usually do that inside LR, which includes all XMPs automatically. It works fine, I have never "lost" an XMP, nor would it greatly matter to me if I did .

And remember that I may have several sets of differing metadata and correspondingly differing image previews relating to just one Raw file. Only one of these can be written to the file anyway. If I want to browse those differing versions, under my current setup, I either use LR directly (this is preferable, in that I can immediately change anything I don't like) or else I browse exported JPGs or TIFFs that I may have made reflecting these different treatments.

RP
 
Very good point.. and something to certainly point out. It really all depends on how you are using the product and what your intended plans down the road are.

I rather have all data embedded within the DNG - I can easily review the images even in Windows if I'd like and ensure that all software I use is seeing the "finished" product.

Thx for keeping the discussion going.... nice to have a disagreement with civil back and forth here on dpreview for once :)
 
EJ Fudd said:
What are the advantages/ disadvantages of converting my files to DNG from RAW or JPG (if possible) formats
Click to expand...
My understanding is that "currently" there is NO advantage in converting RAW files to DNG. There is an obvious disadvantage in requiring extra storage space (assuming you also keep your RAW files).

However, I understand that in time the DNG format (which is basically just a shell file holding the RAW file) will be able to detect early file degradation and be able to reverse / correct this.
 
Doesn't everyone archive their original files wether convert to DNG or not?

I would geuss if they don't they should. HDD's are very cheap.

Besides, what is the difference, if you don't keep a native RAW file as archive if you process native RAW why would just because you converted to DNG? That reasoning seems a little strange to me.
 
What if Nikon changes to ZEF files? What if Nikon goes out of business? A lot of what if's around... truly - I think the big problem with digital is the maintenace of images not what format you use to convert/edit them... the days of film that storage in shoeboxes... today, its a HD... the issue remains the same though - finding a file and moving them with you when you go to a new place.
 
The idea that changes made to DNG files will be read by other software applications in the near future is unlikely IMO because adjustments made in one brand of software are not going to look the same in another app (assuming they even have the same features) unless they all offer the same adjustments and results. Only the basics like WB, contrast, brightness, exposure ect are likely to have some consistancy.

There will always be some kind of DNG or ? converters in the future in case your old cameras raw files are no longer supported.

When converting Jpegs to DNG just color tag them, I use green for Jpegs and Red for raw & yellow for Tiffs, something I do anyway.

--

Sincerely

Ron J
 
Its the EMBEDDED PREVIEW that displays in the other program which I am concerned about... that's just a JPG and will appear the same in any software I use that can read it... I'm not concerned about the "recipe" itself... of course that will not be readable by other software.
 
Gale Bizet said:
DNG is not a standard
What if Adobe stopped with the dng thing
For now that format is going nowhere
--
Best Regards
Gale
Click to expand...
C1 and some other raw converters read DNG as well. If I remember it right, some MF backs even WRITE DNG format as an option. That's enough of a standard for me.
 
Just another thought... what's a "standard" anyway? SCSI changed to Firewire/USB, and even these won't be around forever...

For me, storage space is the only thing that counts, because I'm travelling light & photographing a lot – I know HDs are cheap... still, I've yet got to find a real advantage of RAW compared to DNG.

In the end of the day, even IF some "standards" change, I don't think I'll be going back to files I've previously converted to TIF already:

Take the pictures, convert to DNG (smaller), edit, keyword, convert to TIF, retouch/adjust in PS, send out to customers/image libraries/etc... archive the keepers (retouched TIFs) – job done. Next shoot.

If Firewire/USB is on the way out, re-archive/buy new harddrives to new standard. DNG = less space = less new hard drives.
 
I think the only way most folks will go back to older images is if a "one-touch" soluton opens up in the future... then, you could batch your images through it and go from there... if NEF/DNG/C2 files are still even around then, I'll worry about it... right now, I'm just happy to review and share my files as they currently are.. In the end, it seems like RAW versions matter little but for me, DNG offers much more than NEF does and I enjoy that.
 
fuego6 said:
I think the only way most folks will go back to older images is if a "one-touch" soluton opens up in the future...
Click to expand...
This can happen any time that your Raw conversion software is updated, and improves - especially with Aperture or Lightroom or similar.

If you can open up the same image afresh, using the same saved conversion settings, IOW, and reach a technically better result.

This has happened several times in the period that I have been shooting RAW, starting in PS 7 through CS2 and then into Lightroom, most noticeably in the change from LR version 2 to 3. A minimal operation may be needed in order to make use of the newer process version, and that may require a slight adjustment of the settings - turning on automatic lens correction, disabling manual CA correction, adjusting capture sharpening, that kind of thing.

I see at least a one-stop improvement in ISO performance out of my older images - the ones I originally took at ISO 800, now look more like 400, and 400 looks more like 200. And once the lens is accurately corrected for via a profile, it gets to look like a slightly better lens too.

RP
 
Some Manufacturers (Leica Being One) use DNG for their RAW format!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top