Reading mode: Light Dark

Another 'convert to DNG or not' question

Go to last post
digidog said:
42andreas said:
For me Dan Marchant hit the point.

Since now raw-format ist supported well, why transfer in another format not knowing its future? You can do that when and of your raw-support is in sight. Maybe lightroom has to work a wee or two two convert those thousands of files, but who cares?

Additionally: I always reccomend jpg+raw workflow.
Click to expand...
Too bad only one is optimized in terms of exposure.
Click to expand...
I don not understand this. I choose the exposure, not my camera....

Furtheron I think in raw+jpg my alpha 6000 takes a raw-image (as even in only-jpg-mode) and then generates the jpg with the internal "jpg-optimisation" out of the raw. In jpg-only-mode the process should be same with the difference, that the raw data will not be saved...
Member said:
Member said:
Ou-of-cam jpgs are better then unedited raws, you always can use all your pics on any device (I do not know one not able to hand jpg..) and if you edit/process an raw-image simply update the jpg.With that you have you "estimated" / most likely future proof format all the time...
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as an unedited raw. It has to be rendered!
Click to expand...
Maybe I choose the wrong words, english is not my native language. For sure every raw is somehow rendererd/processed to be viewable. With unedited raws I meant pictures imported with e.g. lightroom with standard presets without further optimisation. In my setup (alpha 6000, LR 6.x, standard import with only "lens correction"/renaming and so) they are regularry not as good as ooc-jpgs.
Member said:
This IS yet to be rendered (really unedited) raw:

raw.jpg


--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
Click to expand...
 
42andreas said:
digidog said:
42andreas said:
For me Dan Marchant hit the point.

Since now raw-format ist supported well, why transfer in another format not knowing its future? You can do that when and of your raw-support is in sight. Maybe lightroom has to work a wee or two two convert those thousands of files, but who cares?

Additionally: I always reccomend jpg+raw workflow.
Click to expand...
Too bad only one is optimized in terms of exposure.
Click to expand...
I don not understand this. I choose the exposure, not my camera....
Click to expand...
IF for JPEG, the raw is under exposed.
42andreas said:
Furtheron I think in raw+jpg my alpha 6000 takes a raw-image (as even in only-jpg-mode) and then generates the jpg with the internal "jpg-optimisation" out of the raw. In jpg-only-mode the process should be same with the difference, that the raw data will not be saved...
Click to expand...
Think what you like, the facts are, if you shoot raw+JPEG, one suffers in terms of optimal exposure! Easy to test this if you desire to see the facts.

Check out the web site for rawdigger! Lots of info about this fact:

https://www.rawdigger.com
42andreas said:
42andreas said:
42andreas said:
Ou-of-cam jpgs are better then unedited raws, you always can use all your pics on any device (I do not know one not able to hand jpg..) and if you edit/process an raw-image simply update the jpg.With that you have you "estimated" / most likely future proof format all the time...
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as an unedited raw. It has to be rendered!
Click to expand...
Maybe I choose the wrong words, english is not my native language.
Click to expand...
Good to know, yes, the raw is unedited. It is 'read only'.
42andreas said:
For sure every raw is somehow rendererd/processed to be viewable.
Click to expand...
Not below. But it isn't what many would consider an image... yet.
42andreas said:
With unedited raws I meant pictures imported with e.g. lightroom with standard presets without further optimisation. In my setup (alpha 6000, LR 6.x, standard import with only "lens correction"/renaming and so) they are regularry not as good as ooc-jpgs.
Click to expand...
They are processed. How is the question. If a preset doesn't produce a desired rendering, it's not a good preset.



It is an image, just not one anyone would want to view. It has to be rendered.

It is an image, just not one anyone would want to view. It has to be rendered.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
Last edited:
42andreas said:
...

Additionally: I always reccomend jpg+raw workflow...
Click to expand...
While many people are quite happy with the RAW+JPEG workflow, it does involve a compromise.

It turns out that if you want to squeeze the very best possible quality out of your camera you probably want to use a technique called "Expose To The Right (ETTR)". This tends to result on out-of-camera JPEGs that are overly bright and not that good. ETTR RAW files need to be adjusted in post production to yield an image of the desired brightness.

If you are shooting in challenging situations (perhaps very high dynamic range subjects where you want to preserve both highlight and shadow detail) then ETTR and post processing can give you a noticeably better result than what you can get if you exposed for a good in-camera JPEG.

On the other hand, if your conditions are such that you are happy with your quality when exposing for the JPEG, then there may be no need to try to grab that last little bit of improvement. After all, if there is no visible noise in your final image, there may be no need to try to reduce it further.

This turns out to be a controversial suggestion. Some people are of the opinion that you are wrong if you are happy with exposing for the JPEG (or are happy using camera produced JPEG images). I'll leave it to others to explain why those who are happy with their workflow are wrong.
 
Michael Fryd said:
42andreas said:
...

Additionally: I always reccomend jpg+raw workflow...
Click to expand...
While many people are quite happy with the RAW+JPEG workflow, it does involve a compromise.

It turns out that if you want to squeeze the very best possible quality out of your camera you probably want to use a technique called "Expose To The Right (ETTR)". This tends to result on out-of-camera JPEGs that are overly bright and not that good. ETTR RAW files need to be adjusted in post production to yield an image of the desired brightness.

If you are shooting in challenging situations (perhaps very high dynamic range subjects where you want to preserve both highlight and shadow detail) then ETTR and post processing can give you a noticeably better result than what you can get if you exposed for a good in-camera JPEG.

On the other hand, if your conditions are such that you are happy with your quality when exposing for the JPEG, then there may be no need to try to grab that last little bit of improvement. After all, if there is no visible noise in your final image, there may be no need to try to reduce it further.

This turns out to be a controversial suggestion. Some people are of the opinion that you are wrong if you are happy with exposing for the JPEG (or are happy using camera produced JPEG images). I'll leave it to others to explain why those who are happy with their workflow are wrong.
Click to expand...
The only controversy is do you wish to produce optimal quality data for raw or JPEG.

Pick one when shooting raw+JPEG. There should be nothing controversial about the facts and those are the facts. You can be happy or unhappy but those are the facts.
 
digidog said:
42andreas said:
digidog said:
42andreas said:
For me Dan Marchant hit the point.

Since now raw-format ist supported well, why transfer in another format not knowing its future? You can do that when and of your raw-support is in sight. Maybe lightroom has to work a wee or two two convert those thousands of files, but who cares?

Additionally: I always reccomend jpg+raw workflow.
Click to expand...
Too bad only one is optimized in terms of exposure.
Click to expand...
I don not understand this. I choose the exposure, not my camera....
Click to expand...
IF for JPEG, the raw is under exposed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I do not get that even with your latest answer. How can one of jpg/RAW could be under exposed???

Maybe it's a language barrier, but for me exposure is the combination of shutter, aperture and more or less iso. How can one of the images be under exposed by the camera if I choose this settings??? The only one who could under expose is me, the photographer, and that effect both images.....
 
42andreas said:
digidog said:
42andreas said:
digidog said:
42andreas said:
For me Dan Marchant hit the point.

Since now raw-format ist supported well, why transfer in another format not knowing its future? You can do that when and of your raw-support is in sight. Maybe lightroom has to work a wee or two two convert those thousands of files, but who cares?

Additionally: I always reccomend jpg+raw workflow.
Click to expand...
Too bad only one is optimized in terms of exposure.
Click to expand...
I don not understand this. I choose the exposure, not my camera....
Click to expand...
IF for JPEG, the raw is under exposed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I do not get that even with your latest answer. How can one of jpg/RAW could be under exposed???

Maybe it's a language barrier, but for me exposure is the combination of shutter, aperture and more or less iso. How can one of the images be under exposed by the camera if I choose this settings??? The only one who could under expose is me, the photographer, and that effect both images.....
Click to expand...
"Under" or "over" exposed are relative terms. They refer to how the actual exposure relates to what you intended. Different photographers may have different goals, therefore the same image may seem overexposed to one, and underexposed to another.

Assume you were taking a photo of a grey wall with some black graffiti.

If your goal was to have the camera-produced JPEG look good, you could use an incident light meter to guide your exposure. Your camera produced JPEG would show a grey wall, and there might some visible noise in the deep shadows.

If you use the ETTR technique, you will use a higher exposure (perhaps a longer shutter speed). Your camera produced JPEG might now show a white wall with grey graffiti. However when you process the raw file, you can adjust the parameters so that you end up with a grey wall with black graffiti. While the result will look a lot like the first JPEG, the shadow noise will be less.

Many people who shoot RAW+JPEG pick an exposure that yields a good looking JPEG. Some people that shoot RAW, pick an exposure that absolutely minimizes image noise, but results in a poor looking camera produced JPEG.

Those who are shooting RAW+JPEG typically are making a slight compromise in that there are trading that last bit of possible quality, for the convenience of good looking out-of-camera JPEGs.

If your quality is good enough when you expose for the JPEG, then there may be no need to use ETTR. If you are not getting sufficient dynamic range, or you have too much shadow noise, then you might benefit from ETTR.

Suggesting that everyone needs the absolute maximum quality is just silly. At some point you have enough pixels, at some point the noise is no longer visible, at some point the focus is good enough.

Remember, the entire concept of "Depth of Field" is based on the fact that at some point the focus is "good enough" and you won't see a visible difference between that out of focus area and a perfectly focused area.
 
42andreas said:
digidog said:
42andreas said:
digidog said:
42andreas said:
For me Dan Marchant hit the point.

Since now raw-format ist supported well, why transfer in another format not knowing its future? You can do that when and of your raw-support is in sight. Maybe lightroom has to work a wee or two two convert those thousands of files, but who cares?

Additionally: I always reccomend jpg+raw workflow.
Click to expand...
Too bad only one is optimized in terms of exposure.
Click to expand...
I don not understand this. I choose the exposure, not my camera....
Click to expand...
IF for JPEG, the raw is under exposed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I do not get that even with your latest answer. How can one of jpg/RAW could be under exposed???
Click to expand...
We've been over this multiple times.
42andreas said:
Maybe it's a language barrier, but for me exposure is the combination of shutter, aperture and more or less iso.
Click to expand...
ISO isn't a part of exposure.

You can target exposure for a raw. You can target an exposure for a JPEG. You can't target an optimal exposure for both at the same time.
42andreas said:
How can one of the images be under exposed by the camera if I choose this settings???
Click to expand...
We've been over this multiple times.
42andreas said:
The only one who could under expose is me, the photographer, and that effect both images.....
Click to expand...
We've been over this multiple times.
 
rolfaalders said:
rolfaalders wrote: [...] Can you share your thought on this topic? To convert to DNG, or not?
Click to expand...
Since you asked, here are my thoughts:

All camera make/model specific sensor readout file formats will be of no use whatsoever to anybody but me, and even to me for a limited time only. (i.e., years, not decades). The same holds for DNG, a noble but failed experiment.

My children will have very little interest in my photo archives, but my grandchildren probably will, provided it somehow gets into their hands is is reasonably well organized.

There is some distant possibility general public 50-100 years from now might also have some interest in my photo-archives.

Of all the image file formats I deal with today, only vanilla .jpeg and ascii text and spartan .html files will be capable of being used on the devices and by the software my grandchildren or the general public will be using. When I say "capable of being used" I also mean "without heroic measures" which nobody sane will expand just to be able to view my photographs.
 
Nansen said:
Of all the image file formats I deal with today, only vanilla .jpeg and ascii text and spartan .html files will be capable of being used on the devices and by the software my grandchildren or the general public will be using. When I say "capable of being used" I also mean "without heroic measures" which nobody sane will expand just to be able to view my photographs.
Click to expand...
Your logic is as faulty as your spelling.

For a long time now you can run emulators for 1980s computers on your PC. That's 35 years ago.

Imagine if in 35 years the computer platform is different and you have to run a Windows PC emulator running a 1980s computer emulator. So what. That kind of effort is nothing.
 
So 50 or 100 years from now someone will have to run an emulator on which he can install an appropriate version of an operating system that you use today, and then find installation media and install a piece of application software capable of processing your raw files, where both the operating system and the application software would have to be installable and operational without any network support or activation by their respective vendors, and all that in order to view your photographs?

Some of us believe their photographs will merit such an effort, some don't.
 
fishy wishy said:
Nansen said:
Of all the image file formats I deal with today, only vanilla .jpeg and ascii text and spartan .html files will be capable of being used on the devices and by the software my grandchildren or the general public will be using. When I say "capable of being used" I also mean "without heroic measures" which nobody sane will expand just to be able to view my photographs.
Click to expand...
Your logic is as faulty as your spelling.

For a long time now you can run emulators for 1980s computers on your PC. That's 35 years ago.

Imagine if in 35 years the computer platform is different and you have to run a Windows PC emulator running a 1980s computer emulator. So what. That kind of effort is nothing.
Click to expand...
NASA has a problem reading and processing the data from the 1969 moon landing. That's only about 50 years ago. I have some videos on VHS tape. They stopped making VHS players a few years ago. Scanners for actual APC format film are a rarity.

I have data on Syquest drives. Once the premiere format for removable storage. Good luck finding a working drive that can read Syquest media, and if you find one, it likely will have a SCSI interface. Good luck in finding a computer that has one of those.

The real challenge to maintaining images is that you have to actively work to move the data to new generations of storage media. In 35 years, finding a computer that can connect to USB 3 or SATA will be the real challenge.

Unless your children are going to actively keep moving your archives to new and better media every few years, it won't matter what kind of files you use.
 
Michael Fryd said:
fishy wishy said:
Nansen said:
Of all the image file formats I deal with today, only vanilla .jpeg and ascii text and spartan .html files will be capable of being used on the devices and by the software my grandchildren or the general public will be using. When I say "capable of being used" I also mean "without heroic measures" which nobody sane will expand just to be able to view my photographs.
Click to expand...
Your logic is as faulty as your spelling.

For a long time now you can run emulators for 1980s computers on your PC. That's 35 years ago.

Imagine if in 35 years the computer platform is different and you have to run a Windows PC emulator running a 1980s computer emulator. So what. That kind of effort is nothing.
Click to expand...
NASA has a problem reading and processing the data from the 1969 moon landing.
Click to expand...
You think?

https://www.wired.com/2014/04/lost-...-feats-of-hackerdom-developed-at-a-mcdonalds/
Michael Fryd said:
I have some videos on VHS tape.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a very bad idea.
Michael Fryd said:
Scanners for actual APC format film are a rarity.
Click to expand...
But they exist.
Michael Fryd said:
I have data on Syquest drives.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a very bad idea.
Michael Fryd said:
Once the premiere format for removable storage.
Click to expand...
I've got floppies. I can read em in a USB Floppy drive.
Michael Fryd said:
Good luck finding a working drive that can read Syquest media, and if you find one, it likely will have a SCSI interface. Good luck in finding a computer that has one of those.
Click to expand...
Good luck indeed; bad idea having data on them today!
Michael Fryd said:
The real challenge to maintaining images is that you have to actively work to move the data to new generations of storage media. In 35 years, finding a computer that can connect to USB 3 or SATA will be the real challenge.
Click to expand...
Maybe. Maybe not. I've got Mac's (at least one) that can run Photoshop 1.0.7
Michael Fryd said:
Unless your children are going to actively keep moving your archives to new and better media every few years, it won't matter what kind of files you use.
Click to expand...
No kids; I'll train the dogs to do so.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net
 
Last edited:
rolfaalders said:
Currently my workflow in lightroom is set to 'convert to dng' (from Fuji RAF). I've set it like that in 2013 or so. The reason that I've set it to that is to make sure that the files can be used in the distant future.
Click to expand...
Has there been any evidence that a current raw format wouldn't be supported in the future? Have any past formats been abandoned by the major software vendors?
rolfaalders said:
My requirements:
  1. Future-proof: I want to ensure my photos can be used in the distant future. Not because I think my photos are that great, but just for the purpose of being able to hand them over to my kids (heritage)
Click to expand...
Again, this is reasonable concern, but where does it come from?
rolfaalders said:
  1. No vendor lock in: I want to be able to be as independent of the platform as possible. Currently I use Lightroom for years and I'm pleased about it. But what will be available in the future? I don't like the subscription based service. My catalog is setup OK, using tags and smart albums, so in that way I already have a vendor lock in. For now: fine.
    Post processing steps are included in the DNG, but what if I want to switch to another party? I want to continue using Lightroom, but if there is a need to switch in the future, I want it to be able to.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I am locked into Lightroom due to all of the edits I have made on my photos that I would never want to repeat in another piece of software. The source format is less relevant when it comes to switching for me. At least in the case of .arw, there are a number of good choices, including some free ones.

Further, why not just store a working copy of the DNG converter that you would use now. If somehow the format is no longer supported, just convert them to DNG when you need to.
 
Wow, seems like converting to DNG is pointless to a lot of people.


I convert to dng because my camera can only shoot lossy compressed or lossless uncompressed. When I shoot lossless uncompressed and convert the raw to DNG the file size is halfed.


If DNG is turning obsolete I'll just convert it to a newer format.
 
LoneReaction said:
...

I convert to dng because my camera can only shoot lossy compressed or lossless uncompressed. When I shoot lossless uncompressed and convert the raw to DNG the file size is halfed.
Click to expand...
Are you converting to DNG with lossy compression or lossless compression?

What type of camera are you using? Are you maintaining the raw sensor data, or is it being demosaiced before going into the DNG file?

How much time do you spend doing the conversion and how much does disk space cost you? I would be interested in how much time you spend vs. how much you are spending.

A 5TB drive costs me about $120 form Amazon, that's $24 for a TeraByte of storage, which works out to about 2.4¢ for a gigabyte of storage. Assuming your uncompressed raw files are about 50MB each, that's about 0.12¢ to store one uncompressed raw file. Assuming you shoot about 500 images in a photo shoot, that's 60¢ to store all 500 50MB raw files. If converting them to DNG cuts the storage space in half, that's a savings of 30¢. The savings is even less if your uncompressed raw files are smaller than 50MB. If your original raw files are only 25B, then compressing 500 of them saves you 15¢ in storage.

For me, the tiny savings would not justify the extra effort. But that's just my personal taste.

How big are your uncompressed raw files and how long does it take you to convert them to DNG?
 
Michael Fryd said:
LoneReaction said:
...

I convert to dng because my camera can only shoot lossy compressed or lossless uncompressed. When I shoot lossless uncompressed and convert the raw to DNG the file size is halfed.
Click to expand...
Are you converting to DNG with lossy compression or lossless compression?
Click to expand...
Lossless compression.
Michael Fryd said:
What type of camera are you using? Are you maintaining the raw sensor data, or is it being demosaiced before going into the DNG file?
Click to expand...
I'm using the A7rii. I'm not sure how to answer this question..
Michael Fryd said:
How much time do you spend doing the conversion and how much does disk space cost you? I would be interested in how much time you spend vs. how much you are spending.A 5TB drive costs me about $120 form Amazon, that's $24 for a TeraByte of storage, which works out to about 2.4¢ for a gigabyte of storage. Assuming your uncompressed raw files are about 50MB each, that's about 0.12¢ to store one uncompressed raw file. Assuming you shoot about 500 images in a photo shoot, that's 60¢ to store all 500 50MB raw files. If converting them to DNG cuts the storage space in half, that's a savings of 30¢. The savings is even less if your uncompressed raw files are smaller than 50MB. If your original raw files are only 25B, then compressing 500 of them saves you 15¢ in storage.
Click to expand...
I was using a 3TB and 2TB hard drive on my local machine. They were full so I Just upgraded to a 10TB hard drive. My storage needs need to be mutiplied by at least 4. The first copy of the photo is on my local drive. Second copy on my NAS. Third copy on my portable external drive. Fourth copy on another NAS outside my home.
I have a fith and sixth copy on unused old hard drives kept in another country. They are only updated once a year.
Michael Fryd said:
For me, the tiny savings would not justify the extra effort. But that's just my personal taste.

How big are your uncompressed raw files and how long does it take you to convert them to DNG?
Click to expand...
My A7rii makes 83MB raw files. After conversion to lossless DNG it becomes 40-50MB. I've never noticed the time it took to convert the raw files, because I always generate full-image previews on import and that is what is taking most of the time. I just click import and Lightroom does the conversion in the background. I've never actually had to slow down whatever I was doing because of DNG conversion.

I bought this camera in Feb 2016 and have saved around 225GB because of conversion since then. It's actually not much. But converting to DNG actually saves me time. The DNG conversion is automatic and I don't have to do anything. I use a program to do my backups but it still requires me to double click on a backup script. (I don't want to automatically schedule the backups at the moment.) The space saved means backups happen faster.

--
Flickr photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tylclement/
 
Last edited:
LoneReaction said:
Michael Fryd said:
LoneReaction said:
...

I convert to dng because my camera can only shoot lossy compressed or lossless uncompressed. When I shoot lossless uncompressed and convert the raw to DNG the file size is halfed.
Click to expand...
Are you converting to DNG with lossy compression or lossless compression?
Click to expand...
Lossless compression.
LoneReaction said:
What type of camera are you using? Are you maintaining the raw sensor data, or is it being demosaiced before going into the DNG file?
Click to expand...
I'm using the A7rii. I'm not sure how to answer this question..
LoneReaction said:
How much time do you spend doing the conversion and how much does disk space cost you? I would be interested in how much time you spend vs. how much you are spending.A 5TB drive costs me about $120 form Amazon, that's $24 for a TeraByte of storage, which works out to about 2.4¢ for a gigabyte of storage. Assuming your uncompressed raw files are about 50MB each, that's about 0.12¢ to store one uncompressed raw file. Assuming you shoot about 500 images in a photo shoot, that's 60¢ to store all 500 50MB raw files. If converting them to DNG cuts the storage space in half, that's a savings of 30¢. The savings is even less if your uncompressed raw files are smaller than 50MB. If your original raw files are only 25B, then compressing 500 of them saves you 15¢ in storage.
Click to expand...
I was using a 3TB and 2TB hard drive on my local machine. They were full so I Just upgraded to a 10TB hard drive. My storage needs need to be mutiplied by at least 4. The first copy of the photo is on my local drive. Second copy on my NAS. Third copy on my portable external drive. Fourth copy on another NAS outside my home.
I have a fith and sixth copy on unused old hard drives kept in another country. They are only updated once a year.
LoneReaction said:
For me, the tiny savings would not justify the extra effort. But that's just my personal taste.

How big are your uncompressed raw files and how long does it take you to convert them to DNG?
Click to expand...
My A7rii makes 83MB raw files. After conversion to lossless DNG it becomes 40-50MB. I've never noticed the time it took to convert the raw files, because I always generate full-image previews on import and that is what is taking most of the time. I just click import and Lightroom does the conversion in the background. I've never actually had to slow down whatever I was doing because of DNG conversion.
I bought this camera in Feb 2016 and have saved around 225GB because of conversion since then. It's actually not much. But converting to DNG actually saves me time.
Click to expand...
Enough said; stick to the plan!
LoneReaction said:
The DNG conversion is automatic and I don't have to do anything. I use a program to do my backups but it still requires me to double click on a backup script. (I don't want to automatically schedule the backups at the moment.) The space saved means backups happen faster.
Click to expand...
 
LoneReaction said:
Michael Fryd said:
LoneReaction said:
...

I convert to dng because my camera can only shoot lossy compressed or lossless uncompressed. When I shoot lossless uncompressed and convert the raw to DNG the file size is halfed.
Click to expand...
Are you converting to DNG with lossy compression or lossless compression?
Click to expand...
Lossless compression.
LoneReaction said:
What type of camera are you using? Are you maintaining the raw sensor data, or is it being demosaiced before going into the DNG file?
Click to expand...
I'm using the A7rii. I'm not sure how to answer this question..
LoneReaction said:
How much time do you spend doing the conversion and how much does disk space cost you? I would be interested in how much time you spend vs. how much you are spending.A 5TB drive costs me about $120 form Amazon, that's $24 for a TeraByte of storage, which works out to about 2.4¢ for a gigabyte of storage. Assuming your uncompressed raw files are about 50MB each, that's about 0.12¢ to store one uncompressed raw file. Assuming you shoot about 500 images in a photo shoot, that's 60¢ to store all 500 50MB raw files. If converting them to DNG cuts the storage space in half, that's a savings of 30¢. The savings is even less if your uncompressed raw files are smaller than 50MB. If your original raw files are only 25B, then compressing 500 of them saves you 15¢ in storage.
Click to expand...
I was using a 3TB and 2TB hard drive on my local machine. They were full so I Just upgraded to a 10TB hard drive. My storage needs need to be mutiplied by at least 4. The first copy of the photo is on my local drive. Second copy on my NAS. Third copy on my portable external drive. Fourth copy on another NAS outside my home.
I have a fith and sixth copy on unused old hard drives kept in another country. They are only updated once a year.
LoneReaction said:
For me, the tiny savings would not justify the extra effort. But that's just my personal taste.

How big are your uncompressed raw files and how long does it take you to convert them to DNG?
Click to expand...
My A7rii makes 83MB raw files. After conversion to lossless DNG it becomes 40-50MB. I've never noticed the time it took to convert the raw files, because I always generate full-image previews on import and that is what is taking most of the time. I just click import and Lightroom does the conversion in the background. I've never actually had to slow down whatever I was doing because of DNG conversion.
I bought this camera in Feb 2016 and have saved around 225GB because of conversion since then. It's actually not much. But converting to DNG actually saves me time. The DNG conversion is automatic and I don't have to do anything. I use a program to do my backups but it still requires me to double click on a backup script. (I don't want to automatically schedule the backups at the moment.) The space saved means backups happen faster.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Fryd said:
LoneReaction said:
Michael Fryd said:
LoneReaction said:
...

I convert to dng because my camera can only shoot lossy compressed or lossless uncompressed. When I shoot lossless uncompressed and convert the raw to DNG the file size is halfed.
Click to expand...
Are you converting to DNG with lossy compression or lossless compression?
Click to expand...
Lossless compression.
Michael Fryd said:
What type of camera are you using? Are you maintaining the raw sensor data, or is it being demosaiced before going into the DNG file?
Click to expand...
I'm using the A7rii. I'm not sure how to answer this question..
Michael Fryd said:
How much time do you spend doing the conversion and how much does disk space cost you? I would be interested in how much time you spend vs. how much you are spending.A 5TB drive costs me about $120 form Amazon, that's $24 for a TeraByte of storage, which works out to about 2.4¢ for a gigabyte of storage. Assuming your uncompressed raw files are about 50MB each, that's about 0.12¢ to store one uncompressed raw file. Assuming you shoot about 500 images in a photo shoot, that's 60¢ to store all 500 50MB raw files. If converting them to DNG cuts the storage space in half, that's a savings of 30¢. The savings is even less if your uncompressed raw files are smaller than 50MB. If your original raw files are only 25B, then compressing 500 of them saves you 15¢ in storage.
Click to expand...
I was using a 3TB and 2TB hard drive on my local machine. They were full so I Just upgraded to a 10TB hard drive. My storage needs need to be mutiplied by at least 4. The first copy of the photo is on my local drive. Second copy on my NAS. Third copy on my portable external drive. Fourth copy on another NAS outside my home.
I have a fith and sixth copy on unused old hard drives kept in another country. They are only updated once a year.
Michael Fryd said:
For me, the tiny savings would not justify the extra effort. But that's just my personal taste.

How big are your uncompressed raw files and how long does it take you to convert them to DNG?
Click to expand...
My A7rii makes 83MB raw files. After conversion to lossless DNG it becomes 40-50MB. I've never noticed the time it took to convert the raw files, because I always generate full-image previews on import and that is what is taking most of the time. I just click import and Lightroom does the conversion in the background. I've never actually had to slow down whatever I was doing because of DNG conversion.
I bought this camera in Feb 2016 and have saved around 225GB because of conversion since then. It's actually not much. But converting to DNG actually saves me time. The DNG conversion is automatic and I don't have to do anything. I use a program to do my backups but it still requires me to double click on a backup script. (I don't want to automatically schedule the backups at the moment.) The space saved means backups happen faster.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Michael Fryd said:
However, given your description of your workflow, the real issue is that your photo management solution involves a time consuming "import" process. As long as you need to run a background import process, there is little extra effort to converting from the native format to DNG. I think we already seen discussion on whether DNG is better or worse than the native format.

There are other photo management options out there. I like Photo Mechanic. It doesn't require a time consuming import process. It uses the previews embedded in the raw file (or the accompanying JPEG file) for previews. It's extremely fast.
Click to expand...
There's no other way around it, because the photos are 42MP, 1:1 view is really slow. I get annoyed when I have to wait a few seconds to look at the image at 1:1 (I'm using an intel 6700K overclocked to 4.6ghz, so it's not a slow CPU problem). To cull photos fast, for me ,full sized jpeg previews have to be created. I import, do some stuff and come back to Lightroom a while later.
Michael Fryd said:
Obviously, there are may reasonable workflows. I am happy with mine, and you are happy with yours. It's good to share workflows so that those who are unhappy can see various options available.
Click to expand...
This thread has been really interesting. Both sides have good arguments and it really depends on the user's needs/wants. I like DNG and it's features but I can see why most people don't really need it.
 
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