Need to ask (possibly again, sorry): DNG vs native RAW files

[sirhawkeye64]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software) and so I'm considering using DXO Photolab to strip out the lens correction data and then dump a DNG that I can then import into LR to bypass the built-in lens profiles. I've done some tests, and while this does add a step, I feel that in half the cases, it gives me a better starting point.

Just wanted to make sure that by doing this, I'm not introducing a potential problem down the road (obviously I'll keep my original RAW files but mostly use the DNGs for editing and importing into LR).

Thoughts / considerations I might be missing? I don't quite care so much about the additional disk space, as I don't shoot as much as I used to, and have a 4TB SSD that I'm using for Photo editing which has proven to be plenty for at least the next few years, so additional file sizes is not a concern to me. Not to mention I planned on keeping both sets of files on the SSD just in case, but mostly working only with the DNGs.

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..

 

[dj_paige]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software)

You didn't say which camera you are using, but for newer Nikon Z camera, you can disable the lens profile that is built-in and apply a different lens profile if you would like. (sorry I am not aware of a list that says which cameras allow this, but you can easily give it a try).

For my Nikon Z6 II with the 14-30 lens, you can choose a different lens profile right inside Lightroom Classic.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software)

You didn't say which camera you are using, but for newer Nikon Z camera, you can disable the lens profile that is built-in and apply a different lens profile if you would like. (sorry I am not aware of a list that says which cameras allow this, but you can easily give it a try).

For my Nikon Z6 II with the 14-30 lens, you can choose a different lens profile right inside Lightroom Classic.

I'm using the Z5, Zf and Z8. T he only "pro" lens I have is the 50 1.8 and the 24-70 2.8, and from what I know, at least on the 24-70 it can be turned off ,but others, like the 24-120 I also use and 14-30, it cannot be (from Lightroom) no matter which body I use them on, so it depends, but that is mostly what I'm using that I have concerns with.

I think the 70-200 2.8's profile can also be turned off in LR and possibly others, but the mid-range lenses like the 24-120 and 14-30 doesn't appear that you can and I'd say those are the ones (especially the 14-30) that probably need the most correction.

 

[dj_paige]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software)

You didn't say which camera you are using, but for newer Nikon Z camera, you can disable the lens profile that is built-in and apply a different lens profile if you would like. (sorry I am not aware of a list that says which cameras allow this, but you can easily give it a try).

For my Nikon Z6 II with the 14-30 lens, you can choose a different lens profile right inside Lightroom Classic.

I'm using the Z5, Zf and Z8. T he only "pro" lens I have is the 50 1.8 and the 24-70 2.8, and from what I know, at least on the 24-70 it can be turned off ,but others, like the 24-120 I also use and 14-30, it cannot be (from Lightroom) no matter which body I use them on, so it depends, but that is mostly what I'm using that I have concerns with.

I think the 70-200 2.8's profile can also be turned off in LR and possibly others, but the mid-range lenses like the 24-120 and 14-30 doesn't appear that you can and I'd say those are the ones (especially the 14-30) that probably need the most correction.

I am surprised that the Z8, which is newer than my Z6 II, does not allow the built-in lens corrections to be disabled and replaced by a different lens profile. I would ask you to double check.

As far as drawbacks to converting to DNG and stripping the metadata out, I have never tried, but the easiest answer, as far as I'm concerned, is for you to try it and see.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software)

You didn't say which camera you are using, but for newer Nikon Z camera, you can disable the lens profile that is built-in and apply a different lens profile if you would like. (sorry I am not aware of a list that says which cameras allow this, but you can easily give it a try).

For my Nikon Z6 II with the 14-30 lens, you can choose a different lens profile right inside Lightroom Classic.

I'm using the Z5, Zf and Z8. T he only "pro" lens I have is the 50 1.8 and the 24-70 2.8, and from what I know, at least on the 24-70 it can be turned off ,but others, like the 24-120 I also use and 14-30, it cannot be (from Lightroom) no matter which body I use them on, so it depends, but that is mostly what I'm using that I have concerns with.

I think the 70-200 2.8's profile can also be turned off in LR and possibly others, but the mid-range lenses like the 24-120 and 14-30 doesn't appear that you can and I'd say those are the ones (especially the 14-30) that probably need the most correction.

I am surprised that the Z8, which is newer than my Z6 II, does not allow the built-in lens corrections to be disabled and replaced by a different lens profile. I would ask you to double check.

As far as drawbacks to converting to DNG and stripping the metadata out, I have never tried, but the easiest answer, as far as I'm concerned, is for you to try it and see.

Well, I haven't checked all of them on the Z8, those are just the cameras I shoot with along with the lenses. I was able to verify recently that the 24-70 2.8 and Z7 II could be turned off, but not the 14-30 and the Z7 II (same with the 24-120). I haven't really looked much into the Z8, but most of my photos to date were with the Z7 II (at least 3/4 of them, and maybe another 10% with the Z8, although sometimes the auto distortion control option is disabled in the menu so that makes me thinks when that's the case -- disabled -- it will use an embedded profile instead). I have to play around more with the Z8 but there are some combos where that cannot be turned off. I do really wish Nikon/Adobe would just let the user decide, and not force it upon the user.

 

[dj_paige]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software)

You didn't say which camera you are using, but for newer Nikon Z camera, you can disable the lens profile that is built-in and apply a different lens profile if you would like. (sorry I am not aware of a list that says which cameras allow this, but you can easily give it a try).

For my Nikon Z6 II with the 14-30 lens, you can choose a different lens profile right inside Lightroom Classic.

I'm using the Z5, Zf and Z8. T he only "pro" lens I have is the 50 1.8 and the 24-70 2.8, and from what I know, at least on the 24-70 it can be turned off ,but others, like the 24-120 I also use and 14-30, it cannot be (from Lightroom) no matter which body I use them on, so it depends, but that is mostly what I'm using that I have concerns with.

I think the 70-200 2.8's profile can also be turned off in LR and possibly others, but the mid-range lenses like the 24-120 and 14-30 doesn't appear that you can and I'd say those are the ones (especially the 14-30) that probably need the most correction.

I am surprised that the Z8, which is newer than my Z6 II, does not allow the built-in lens corrections to be disabled and replaced by a different lens profile. I would ask you to double check.

As far as drawbacks to converting to DNG and stripping the metadata out, I have never tried, but the easiest answer, as far as I'm concerned, is for you to try it and see.

I do really wish Nikon/Adobe would just let the user decide, and not force it upon the user.

As I understand things, when the first Z camera were introduced, many people complained "let the user decide" and so newer Z cameras now allow this.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software)

You didn't say which camera you are using, but for newer Nikon Z camera, you can disable the lens profile that is built-in and apply a different lens profile if you would like. (sorry I am not aware of a list that says which cameras allow this, but you can easily give it a try).

For my Nikon Z6 II with the 14-30 lens, you can choose a different lens profile right inside Lightroom Classic.

I'm using the Z5, Zf and Z8. T he only "pro" lens I have is the 50 1.8 and the 24-70 2.8, and from what I know, at least on the 24-70 it can be turned off ,but others, like the 24-120 I also use and 14-30, it cannot be (from Lightroom) no matter which body I use them on, so it depends, but that is mostly what I'm using that I have concerns with.

I think the 70-200 2.8's profile can also be turned off in LR and possibly others, but the mid-range lenses like the 24-120 and 14-30 doesn't appear that you can and I'd say those are the ones (especially the 14-30) that probably need the most correction.

I am surprised that the Z8, which is newer than my Z6 II, does not allow the built-in lens corrections to be disabled and replaced by a different lens profile. I would ask you to double check.

As far as drawbacks to converting to DNG and stripping the metadata out, I have never tried, but the easiest answer, as far as I'm concerned, is for you to try it and see.

I do really wish Nikon/Adobe would just let the user decide, and not force it upon the user.

As I understand things, when the first Z camera were introduced, many people complained "let the user decide" and so newer Z cameras now allow this.

I'll go back and check (I may have some shots with the Z8 and Zf with the 14-30 and 24-120 I can see if I'm able to disable the profiles or not in LR, or in camera). But again, there are some cases (recently) where at least in camera, I am not able to turn off the in-camera distortion control even on the Z8.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software)

You didn't say which camera you are using, but for newer Nikon Z camera, you can disable the lens profile that is built-in and apply a different lens profile if you would like. (sorry I am not aware of a list that says which cameras allow this, but you can easily give it a try).

For my Nikon Z6 II with the 14-30 lens, you can choose a different lens profile right inside Lightroom Classic.

I'm using the Z5, Zf and Z8. T he only "pro" lens I have is the 50 1.8 and the 24-70 2.8, and from what I know, at least on the 24-70 it can be turned off ,but others, like the 24-120 I also use and 14-30, it cannot be (from Lightroom) no matter which body I use them on, so it depends, but that is mostly what I'm using that I have concerns with.

I think the 70-200 2.8's profile can also be turned off in LR and possibly others, but the mid-range lenses like the 24-120 and 14-30 doesn't appear that you can and I'd say those are the ones (especially the 14-30) that probably need the most correction.

I am surprised that the Z8, which is newer than my Z6 II, does not allow the built-in lens corrections to be disabled and replaced by a different lens profile. I would ask you to double check.

As far as drawbacks to converting to DNG and stripping the metadata out, I have never tried, but the easiest answer, as far as I'm concerned, is for you to try it and see.

I do really wish Nikon/Adobe would just let the user decide, and not force it upon the user.

As I understand things, when the first Z camera were introduced, many people complained "let the user decide" and so newer Z cameras now allow this.

Couldn't edit my other comment. I did some testing and found the following, which is probably pretty obvious in some respects.

When Auto distortion can be turned off in camera, you can turn it on/off in post processing. When it is disabled (forced on) you cannot. In both cases it does say it's using the Camera's profile (assuming the lens profile in the camera).

It does seem that for the "pro" lenses and primes, you can turn distortion control (and thus lens profiles) on/off (so in my case, the 24-70 2.8, 85mm and 50mm and 40 f/2). On the 14-30 and 24-120 you cannot and it "forces" the profile (and you cannot turn it on/off in LR).

So I'd say yes, they have likely made this change, but it seems only with certain lenses (I tested all lenses on the Zf and Z8 and had the same results).

The only lenses where this is more of a problem is the 14-30 and sometimes the 24-120, as their built-in profile seems to crop out some edge pixels that may be useful or that I can still retain doing my own lens corrections manually.

I guess this is a good test to know for myself so I know now that only the 14-30 and 24-120 are forced, and only those would need to be run through something like DXO to strip out the lens correction tags, as the others can be turned on/off within LR. I didn't test the Z5 because it's a camera I don't use that often (but will probably check some day when I have more time, but my guess is it is now behavior the same as the Zf and Z8).

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..

 

[davidedric]

It's what I do, and I haven't found any obvious downsides. It also allows you make use of DxO's denoising if you need it.

The DNG out of DxO is a linear DNG, i.e. it is demosaiced, but again I don't think there are any real disadvantages.

 

[mclewis]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software) and so I'm considering using DXO Photolab to strip out the lens correction data and then dump a DNG that I can then import into LR to bypass the built-in lens profiles. I've done some tests, and while this does add a step, I feel that in half the cases, it gives me a better starting point.

Just wanted to make sure that by doing this, I'm not introducing a potential problem down the road (obviously I'll keep my original RAW files but mostly use the DNGs for editing and importing into LR).

The DNG files DxO generates are not raw files. They are demosaiced. The DNG format can hold raw or non raw image data.

Whether that could cause an issue for you would have to be determined via testing.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

It's what I do, and I haven't found any obvious downsides. It also allows you make use of DxO's denoising if you need it.

The DNG out of DxO is a linear DNG, i.e. it is demosaiced, but again I don't think there are any real disadvantages.

OK I was playing around with it a bit more, and depending on the settings used (particularly, Keep Aspect Ratio -- as it relates to distortion control) it produces a very similar result to the built-in profile, although I do feel in some cases the embedded profile in the RAW is a bit bulged in some photos (taken at extremely wide angles particularly). But yes the NR is also helpful, and will use PL for that. Still on the fence on whether the lens corrections or removing them has much benefit after playing around with it a bit more.

There is kind of a workaround in LR (where you use the Manual tab within the Lens Profile section where you can increase/decrease the distortion to tweak.)

--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..

 

[Jacques Cornell]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software) and so I'm considering using DXO Photolab to strip out the lens correction data and then dump a DNG that I can then import into LR to bypass the built-in lens profiles. I've done some tests, and while this does add a step, I feel that in half the cases, it gives me a better starting point.

Just wanted to make sure that by doing this, I'm not introducing a potential problem down the road (obviously I'll keep my original RAW files but mostly use the DNGs for editing and importing into LR).

Thoughts / considerations I might be missing? I don't quite care so much about the additional disk space, as I don't shoot as much as I used to, and have a 4TB SSD that I'm using for Photo editing which has proven to be plenty for at least the next few years, so additional file sizes is not a concern to me. Not to mention I planned on keeping both sets of files on the SSD just in case, but mostly working only with the DNGs.

Why not just do all your RAW processing in PhotoLab and export to Lightroom whatever file format you need for the next steps? I process RAWs in PhotoLab and export finished JPEGs to Lightroom. I use Lightroom mainly for DAM and some minor post-production, such as stripping backgrounds, merging panos and HDR, watermarking, and exporting lower-rez versions.

--
Event professional for 20+ years, travel & landscape enthusiast for 30+.
http://jacquescornell.photography
http://happening.photos

 

[sirhawkeye64]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software) and so I'm considering using DXO Photolab to strip out the lens correction data and then dump a DNG that I can then import into LR to bypass the built-in lens profiles. I've done some tests, and while this does add a step, I feel that in half the cases, it gives me a better starting point.

Just wanted to make sure that by doing this, I'm not introducing a potential problem down the road (obviously I'll keep my original RAW files but mostly use the DNGs for editing and importing into LR).

Thoughts / considerations I might be missing? I don't quite care so much about the additional disk space, as I don't shoot as much as I used to, and have a 4TB SSD that I'm using for Photo editing which has proven to be plenty for at least the next few years, so additional file sizes is not a concern to me. Not to mention I planned on keeping both sets of files on the SSD just in case, but mostly working only with the DNGs.

Why not just do all your RAW processing in PhotoLab and export to Lightroom whatever file format you need for the next steps? I process RAWs in PhotoLab and export finished JPEGs to Lightroom. I use Lightroom mainly for DAM and some minor post-production, such as stripping backgrounds, merging panos and HDR, watermarking, and exporting lower-rez versions.

The issue that would arise is that I already have probably 100k images in LR so I've sort of made it my home base for editing, so as far as other programs go, I normally just do what I need to do and send them to LR and finish my processing there so while it wouldn't necessarily be starting over, there are some benefits to the Library module in LR wh ich seems to be a bit more work in PL or parts are just not available.in PL. I mainly got PL for the denoising, but later starting using some other features that I couldn't do in LR (like removing embedded lens profiles or overriding them).

The other thing is that I've found it harder to have a mobile / desktop workflow with PL (a little easier with LR Classic).

 

[Jacques Cornell]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software) and so I'm considering using DXO Photolab to strip out the lens correction data and then dump a DNG that I can then import into LR to bypass the built-in lens profiles. I've done some tests, and while this does add a step, I feel that in half the cases, it gives me a better starting point.

Just wanted to make sure that by doing this, I'm not introducing a potential problem down the road (obviously I'll keep my original RAW files but mostly use the DNGs for editing and importing into LR).

Thoughts / considerations I might be missing? I don't quite care so much about the additional disk space, as I don't shoot as much as I used to, and have a 4TB SSD that I'm using for Photo editing which has proven to be plenty for at least the next few years, so additional file sizes is not a concern to me. Not to mention I planned on keeping both sets of files on the SSD just in case, but mostly working only with the DNGs.

Why not just do all your RAW processing in PhotoLab and export to Lightroom whatever file format you need for the next steps? I process RAWs in PhotoLab and export finished JPEGs to Lightroom. I use Lightroom mainly for DAM and some minor post-production, such as stripping backgrounds, merging panos and HDR, watermarking, and exporting lower-rez versions.

The issue that would arise is that I already have probably 100k images in LR so I've sort of made it my home base for editing, so as far as other programs go, I normally just do what I need to do and send them to LR and finish my processing there so while it wouldn't necessarily be starting over, there are some benefits to the Library module in LR wh ich seems to be a bit more work in PL or parts are just not available.in PL. I mainly got PL for the denoising, but later starting using some other features that I couldn't do in LR (like removing embedded lens profiles or overriding them).

I use LRC's Library module for selecting, then round-trip to PhotoLab for RAW processing, which returns finished or nearly-finished JPEGs to Lightroom Classic. DxO's plugin for Lightroom Classic makes this super easy.

The other thing is that I've found it harder to have a mobile / desktop workflow with PL (a little easier with LR Classic).

 

[sirhawkeye64]

So, aside from the obvious downsides to DNG (possibly larger file sizes, loss of some brand-specific features like post focus for Panasonic files) what were the major downsides to using DNG over a camera's native RAW format?

Reason I'm asking is that LRC uses NIkon's built-in profile for lens corrections, and for the most part, this is fine, but on the 14-30, I have found the profiles that it uses to be less appealing (either embedded in the RAW file or one that perhaps Adobe applies that you cannot disable in the software) and so I'm considering using DXO Photolab to strip out the lens correction data and then dump a DNG that I can then import into LR to bypass the built-in lens profiles. I've done some tests, and while this does add a step, I feel that in half the cases, it gives me a better starting point.

Just wanted to make sure that by doing this, I'm not introducing a potential problem down the road (obviously I'll keep my original RAW files but mostly use the DNGs for editing and importing into LR).

Thoughts / considerations I might be missing? I don't quite care so much about the additional disk space, as I don't shoot as much as I used to, and have a 4TB SSD that I'm using for Photo editing which has proven to be plenty for at least the next few years, so additional file sizes is not a concern to me. Not to mention I planned on keeping both sets of files on the SSD just in case, but mostly working only with the DNGs.

Why not just do all your RAW processing in PhotoLab and export to Lightroom whatever file format you need for the next steps? I process RAWs in PhotoLab and export finished JPEGs to Lightroom. I use Lightroom mainly for DAM and some minor post-production, such as stripping backgrounds, merging panos and HDR, watermarking, and exporting lower-rez versions.

The issue that would arise is that I already have probably 100k images in LR so I've sort of made it my home base for editing, so as far as other programs go, I normally just do what I need to do and send them to LR and finish my processing there so while it wouldn't necessarily be starting over, there are some benefits to the Library module in LR wh ich seems to be a bit more work in PL or parts are just not available.in PL. I mainly got PL for the denoising, but later starting using some other features that I couldn't do in LR (like removing embedded lens profiles or overriding them).

I use LRC's Library module for selecting, then round-trip to PhotoLab for RAW processing, which returns finished or nearly-finished JPEGs to Lightroom Classic. DxO's plugin for Lightroom Classic makes this super easy.

I'll look into it. So far, I usually jsut start with PL for the ones I know I need to denoise or get rid of the lens correction, and then just import the resulting DNG (the LR -> PL -> LR round trip I think requires two imports to be done versus just importing the one DNG; ie. you import the original file, send it to PL, and then it imports the new DNG).

The other thing is that I've found it harder to have a mobile / desktop workflow with PL (a little easier with LR Classic).