Lightroom Convert to DNG

John Friar said:

There are several reasons why one would do this,

Click to expand...

I don't see any even single reason to do this. Can you please share a hidden underlying wisdom?

John Friar said:

as well as good reasons not to (loss of some metadata and increase in file size). So certainly not loose-loose.

Click to expand...

It's certainly exactly the loose-loose. You spend time, effort, disk space, you loose authenticity of your digital assets, you accept risk of Adobe disappearing in a few years together with their proprietary software and their proprietary variations of DNG format... But what do you gain in exchange?

FujiShooterCY said:

John Friar said:

There are several reasons why one would do this,

Click to expand...

I don't see any even single reason to do this. Can you please share a hidden underlying wisdom?

Click to expand...

As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, not having a sidecar file is a benefit. At least to me. Maybe not to you.

FujiShooterCY said:

FujiShooterCY said:

as well as good reasons not to (loss of some metadata and increase in file size). So certainly not loose-loose.

Click to expand...

It's certainly exactly the loose-loose. You spend time, effort, disk space, you loose authenticity of your digital assets, you accept risk of Adobe disappearing in a few years together with their proprietary software and their proprietary variations of DNG format... But what do you gain in exchange?

Click to expand...

We all risk Fuji going away, too. I don’t spend extra time as ‘Copy to DNG’ on input is preselected as an option. The time spent repackaging to DNG is not significant to me. And, if what I observe is correct, I don’t loose any information (other than, possibly, some meta data).

This feels like pulling teeth, but I just want to confirm that what I’m observing is correct. Can you confirm that the original raw xtrans information is preserved by Lightroom?

John Friar said:

As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, not having a sidecar file is a benefit. At least to me. Maybe not to you.

Click to expand...

Let's separate flies from cutlets.

You have your original authentic RAF files, with all their metadata in - whatever your camera had put inside (with your own additions).

And for each original RAF, you have an LR-generated sidecar file which stores the history of your edits made before exporting the processed results.

Your each new attempt on editing/post-processing the RAF, may (or will) result in a new version of the sidecar file, while leaving your original RAF intact.

So it's up to you to decide, are sidecar files of any value to you. Yes, given the same (or compatible) LR version, the presence of the sidecar file will allow you to recreate the history of your past (and forgotten) post-processing actions in the future. On the other hand, LR sidecar files may well become incompatible with any other processing software and even with the newer version of LR.

So the benefit of storing sidecar files alongside the original authentic RAFs is completely up to you. For me personally, I don't care much about them. After a few years while returning to the same RAF, I will definitely re-evaluate it from scratch and perform some post-processing on it from scratch, too.

John Friar said:

We all risk Fuji going away, too.

Click to expand...

Yep, sure. But Fuji (supposed) escape from the market won't immediately destroy all the assets created with Fuji cameras.

John Friar said:

I don’t spend extra time as ‘Copy to DNG’ on input is preselected as an option. The time spent repackaging to DNG is not significant to me. And, if what I observe is correct, I don’t loose any information (other than, possibly, some meta data).

Click to expand...

But metadata really is the crucial part of authentic information...

John Friar said:

This feels like pulling teeth, but I just want to confirm that what I’m observing is correct. Can you confirm that the original raw xtrans information is preserved by Lightroom?

Click to expand...

No I can't. I can also guess that LR (following the policy of other Adobe products) tends to loose or destroy/distort whatever original metadata in your RAF was. So once again I am telling you: only original authentic RAFs with original authentic metadata matter. Anything else may be reproduced / reprocessed, given the original is preserved intact.

John Friar said:

John Friar said:

1. Kaoticphoto wrote:

I think you will always have raf to dng converter in the future.

So I don't see the reason to use dng now, if you don't need a better demosaicing .

Even because dng usually take 3x more disk space than a compressed raf.

Click to expand...

That’s a good point. With files from my XPro2, I’m seeing the size go from approximately 20mb (raf) to 30mb (dng).

Click to expand...

in my case (XT3, so same files as yours) a demosaicized (Iridient or DXO) DNG are 80/100 MB vs 20/30 MB of RAF compressed.

Kaoticphoto said:

John Friar said:

Member said:

1. Kaoticphoto wrote:

I think you will always have raf to dng converter in the future.

So I don't see the reason to use dng now, if you don't need a better demosaicing .

Even because dng usually take 3x more disk space than a compressed raf.

Click to expand...

That’s a good point. With files from my XPro2, I’m seeing the size go from approximately 20mb (raf) to 30mb (dng).

Click to expand...

in my case (XT3, so same files as yours) a demosaicized (Iridient or DXO) DNG are 80/100 MB vs 20/30 MB of RAF compressed.

Click to expand...

In X-Transformer, if file size is a major concern, there are various options for bit depth and compression of the DNG on the "DNG Options" panel. With lossy compression you can get the demosaiced DNG down to 10-15MB, smaller than the original RAF. The lossy compressed DNG still offers far more editing flexibility and quality than a lossy JPEG would, often you won't notice much, if any, notable quality difference between a lossy and lossless compressed DNG from X-Transformer.

X-Transformer also offers 8/10/14/16 bit depth options for lossless DNG compression giving a wide range of file size options.

If bit depth and compression options are the same between a demosaiced DNG and the RAF the DNG will be roughly 3x the size due to the demosaiced file having 3x the image data. The original RAF contains just a single channel of color filter (CFA) data and a demosaiced DNG will contain a full 3 channel R,G,B image. A non-demosaiced, CFA DNG will basically be the same size as the RAF (again given basically the same bit depth and compression used) as it just contains the same 1 channel of CFA image data.

Brian Griffith

Iridient Digital

John Friar said:

FujiShooterCY said:

John Friar said:

There are several reasons why one would do this,

Click to expand...

I don't see any even single reason to do this. Can you please share a hidden underlying wisdom?

Click to expand...

As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, not having a sidecar file is a benefit. At least to me. Maybe not to you.

John Friar said:

John Friar said:

as well as good reasons not to (loss of some metadata and increase in file size). So certainly not loose-loose.

Click to expand...

It's certainly exactly the loose-loose. You spend time, effort, disk space, you loose authenticity of your digital assets, you accept risk of Adobe disappearing in a few years together with their proprietary software and their proprietary variations of DNG format... But what do you gain in exchange?

Click to expand...

We all risk Fuji going away, too.

Click to expand...

I think Fujifilm going away is very unlikely. Even if they stopped supporting their current Raw format, the recipie to open them is known -- so why would any company that supports Raw conversion software leave that out?

As an example, I've recently been using a Sony Cybershot R1, an APS-C camera from the mid 2000s. It uses a Raw format (SR2) that hasn't been in use since (Sony switched to ARW after taking on KMs camera business). SR2 files open up fine in all my RAW conversion software.

All you are doing by converting to DNG is giving yourself another copy that is going to occupy space on disk.

John Friar said:

I don’t spend extra time as ‘Copy to DNG’ on input is preselected as an option. The time spent repackaging to DNG is not significant to me. And, if what I observe is correct, I don’t loose any information (other than, possibly, some meta data).

This feels like pulling teeth, but I just want to confirm that what I’m observing is correct. Can you confirm that the original raw xtrans information is preserved by Lightroom?

Click to expand...

A cautionary tale about DNG. DNG is a "standard." It is owned and managed by Adobe.

In the early 1990's there was a desire to have a WYSIWYG editor for technical publications. There was a big push in industry and was being pushed by the US Department of Defense to get the cost down for generating and maintaining of technical publications and documentation for technical developments and for S/W and H/W maintenance documentation in an electronic form.

At the time I was involved in a large DOD technology development effort while at FCI. A product was developed known as FrameMaker. The company up start company Frame took it's produce to the DOD and wanted to work with them. In the late 1990's FrameMaker proved to be a much better desktop publishing platform than anything else. It was decided that the DOD would move to make Frame it's standard for desktop publishing and all documentation would be developed in a Frame platform and current important paper and PDF documentation would be reposted in a Frame format. The estimated cost saving was quite significant.

So our programs adapted FrameMaker. Like any start up, the founders wanted to cash in and Adobe came calling. The DOD considered blocking the Adobe buy out of Frame but Adobe assured the DOD - even the secretary of defense - that they would maintain and grow Frame although it did compete with its current desktop publishing offerings.

To make a long story short - they didn't. They left the DOD high and dry in a couple years as they slowly dropped most of the advantages and innovation of the original FrameMaker. In other words - while there are issues with company unique raw formats, DNG may not be the answer. Personally have the bad taste left in my mouth as we had to recover from Adobe pulling the rug out from under FrameMaker - I'm not going to rush to convert my raws to a Adobe owned and managed "standard" which takes up more disk space and might not be that much of a standard at all.

There is there is always the risk that some raw formats might become obsolete over time. If Sony bought Nikon - they might phase out NEF. On the other hand there is no guarantee that DNG will not change over time dropping some features while adding others. I have a filing cabinet full of real negatives and those will last as long as the materials last. In the digital world - it's not that simple.

Bob Janes said:

John Friar said:

FujiShooterCY said:

John Friar said:

There are several reasons why one would do this,

Click to expand...

I don't see any even single reason to do this. Can you please share a hidden underlying wisdom?

Click to expand...

As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, not having a sidecar file is a benefit. At least to me. Maybe not to you.

Bob Janes said:

Bob Janes said:

as well as good reasons not to (loss of some metadata and increase in file size). So certainly not loose-loose.

Click to expand...

It's certainly exactly the loose-loose. You spend time, effort, disk space, you loose authenticity of your digital assets, you accept risk of Adobe disappearing in a few years together with their proprietary software and their proprietary variations of DNG format... But what do you gain in exchange?

Click to expand...

We all risk Fuji going away, too.

Click to expand...

I think Fujifilm going away is very unlikely. Even if they stopped supporting their current Raw format, the recipie to open them is known -- so why would any company that supports Raw conversion software leave that out?

As an example, I've recently been using a Sony Cybershot R1, an APS-C camera from the mid 2000s. It uses a Raw format (SR2) that hasn't been in use since (Sony switched to ARW after taking on KMs camera business). SR2 files open up fine in all my RAW conversion software.

All you are doing by converting to DNG is giving yourself another copy that is going to occupy space on disk.

Click to expand...

I agree, Fujifilm going away is very unlikely. I guess, the point I was making is that Fuji and Adobe are both likely to be around for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't be concerned if either or both went away, as it pertains to reading/viewing/editing my files. DNG is an open standard, that extends the TIFF/EP standard. RAF is proprietary, but has been reverse engineered and is well understood.

It should be relatively easy to convert from .raf to .dng and back again to .raf. Some have said that the Adobe conversion loses meta data. I don't doubt that but, whatever the loss, it hasn't impacted my workflow.

"Copy to DNG" on input simply converts the .raf from the source (SD card etc.) to .dng on your disk. There isn't a second copy to occupy space on disk.

Bob Janes said:

Bob Janes said:

I don’t spend extra time as ‘Copy to DNG’ on input is preselected as an option. The time spent repackaging to DNG is not significant to me. And, if what I observe is correct, I don’t loose any information (other than, possibly, some meta data).

This feels like pulling teeth, but I just want to confirm that what I’m observing is correct. Can you confirm that the original raw xtrans information is preserved by Lightroom?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

John Friar said:

Bob Janes said:

John Friar said:

FujiShooterCY said:

John Friar said:

There are several reasons why one would do this,

Click to expand...

I don't see any even single reason to do this. Can you please share a hidden underlying wisdom?

Click to expand...

As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, not having a sidecar file is a benefit. At least to me. Maybe not to you.

John Friar said:

John Friar said:

as well as good reasons not to (loss of some metadata and increase in file size). So certainly not loose-loose.

Click to expand...

It's certainly exactly the loose-loose. You spend time, effort, disk space, you loose authenticity of your digital assets, you accept risk of Adobe disappearing in a few years together with their proprietary software and their proprietary variations of DNG format... But what do you gain in exchange?

Click to expand...

We all risk Fuji going away, too.

Click to expand...

I think Fujifilm going away is very unlikely. Even if they stopped supporting their current Raw format, the recipie to open them is known -- so why would any company that supports Raw conversion software leave that out?

As an example, I've recently been using a Sony Cybershot R1, an APS-C camera from the mid 2000s. It uses a Raw format (SR2) that hasn't been in use since (Sony switched to ARW after taking on KMs camera business). SR2 files open up fine in all my RAW conversion software.

All you are doing by converting to DNG is giving yourself another copy that is going to occupy space on disk.

Click to expand...

I agree, Fujifilm going away is very unlikely. I guess, the point I was making is that Fuji and Adobe are both likely to be around for the foreseeable future. I wouldn't be concerned if either or both went away, as it pertains to reading/viewing/editing my files. DNG is an open standard, that extends the TIFF/EP standard. RAF is proprietary, but has been reverse engineered and is well understood.

It should be relatively easy to convert from .raf to .dng and back again to .raf. Some have said that the Adobe conversion loses meta data. I don't doubt that but, whatever the loss, it hasn't impacted my workflow.

"Copy to DNG" on input simply converts the .raf from the source (SD card etc.) to .dng on your disk. There isn't a second copy to occupy space on disk.

Click to expand...

If you would delete the original in favour of an untested converted copy you are a braver soul than I am. It seems to me that all that is being added is risk.

John Friar said:

John Friar said:

John Friar said:

I don’t spend extra time as ‘Copy to DNG’ on input is preselected as an option. The time spent repackaging to DNG is not significant to me. And, if what I observe is correct, I don’t loose any information (other than, possibly, some meta data).

This feels like pulling teeth, but I just want to confirm that what I’m observing is correct. Can you confirm that the original raw xtrans information is preserved by Lightroom?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Bob Janes said:

If you would delete the original in favour of an untested converted copy you are a braver soul than I am. It seems to me that all that is being added is risk.

Click to expand...

Brave or foolhardy! Actually, I have tested many times and haven't experienced any issues. I think the highest risk of corruption is during the copy from SD card to disk, whether conversion to .dng takes place, or not. I don't reformat my SD card until I have checked the imported images.

I also recall the hype around the FrameMaker software, and how it somehow has become dissolved into nothing with time... That's what I am saying (see disclaimer below) - never trust Adobe.

FujiShooterCY said:

I also recall the hype around the FrameMaker software, and how it somehow has become dissolved into nothing with time... That's what I am saying (see disclaimer below) - never trust Adobe.

Click to expand...

When Adobe pulled the rug out and DOD decided to dump FrameMaker we had to endure a significant overrun to redo a lot of work (oh we got paid for it ) but our engineers could have been doing productive work instead of recovering from Adobe's flat out lie. FrameMaker was developed on a Sun Workstation and support 13 different Unix based systems. The first thing Adobe did in the first year was start dropping support for Unix including Sun, NexTStep, Apple, etc. But I must say Adobe accomplished what they started out to do, buy off the competition and shut them down.

As an aside when Adobe came calling to the new consolidated DOD imagery organization a few years later - they found the door slammed in their face.