Do you DNG?

[brian.austin]

Lightroom Journal: DNG in the News

I've been going back and forth with converting to Digital Negative (DNG) format in Lightroom. At the moment, I've been keeping my RAW files and copying to TIF or PSD when doing any PS work.

If you've moved to DNG, what do YOU see as the advantages, beyond Adobe's marketing literature? Or if you haven't, have you considered it and decided to wait? Why or why not?

[peterst6906]

Firstly, I wonder where he gets the 40% of Lightroom users are converting on import figure from.

I'm not sure of the market penetration of Lightroom, but I think it has met Adobe's expectations for it's first year, so 40% seems like it would be a good number of photographers who are converting at import (if the figure is correct).

For my own workflow, I leave everything as a NEF file in Lightroom and produce virtual copies for different processing. When I go to Photoshop, I send it to Photoshop as a 16 bit TIFF.

My Master File is stored as a 16 bit TIFF in a different folder, with all layers intact and then I use the master to produce various output files in jpeg format.

I've flirted at different times with DNG, but on the whole, I don't find that it currently offers me more long term protection than my NEFs; and TIFF is a non-proprietary format that suits my workflow better for my master files.

DNG doesn't actually keep all the data in the NEF, it keeps all the image data though. What it leaves behind, such as in camera settings, may be useful if I want to jump over to Capture NX, so the NEF is useful for me to keep.

I'll probably continue to play with DNG in the future, but at the moment I keep al my NEFs and the TIFFs and the DNGs that I already have, so it doesn't save me any space, just takes up some additional storage.

Regards,

Peter

[prometeus]

Yes, my camera does DNG natively (K10D) so for me there is no reason not to use it.

[blumesan]

I convert to DNG on import from the memory card. Two reasons: you will immediately see if you have a corrupted image and attempt to recover it before you reformat the card. Second it does away with the sidecar files so if I move an image file around the data doesn't get lost.

[Rick Evans]

I have CS2 and a Nikon D40x so I have to convert to DNG due the cut over with adobe's RAW conversion. I am saving for CS3, and other than adding another step to getting my final result I find DNG just as good as TIFF, but I am still rather new so for what it is worth. I also used the 30 day free trial of Lightroom and just love that program because of the batch conversion of NEF's to DNG, that I had to do, well batch processing in general. I am no pro, but I can see why it is a great program for a pro due to batch and meta tag file structure, making searching through a ton of pics a time saver.

[Mr. Pickles]

I have used DNG for years. I see no downside to it. Some claim Adobe will abandon it someday. I don't think so. Gamble? Maybe. But I don't see the need to save the original, a TIFF, or more files. Yes, they say hard drive space is cheap. But that isn't the point.

Some don't use DNG because it is Adobe's format. But they use TIFF. Haven't figure that one out yet.

[jfrancho]

Maybe I'm missing something. I have my ACR settings stored in the sidecar, or my DPP settings saved right in the raw file. My editing in Photoshop is saved in the psd file. What part of DNG benefits me? I'm really not being facetious here, I'm willing to give it a chance, but it offers no advantage to me as I understand it. Am I correct?

[Mr. Pickles]

Yes, you are correct. If you are used to that method, then stick to that method.

[nyschulte]

Nikon D200 and D300 shooting raw
i convert during import from the cf cards.
i Backup original NEF's (2 x DVD, 2 external HD NTFS and HFS)
Export to PSD for PP in PS
from PS export as jpeg and import back into lightroom so i have original DNG and jpeg

i don't keep the intermediate PSD except if PP takes more than 30 min to do


Nicolas

[craftysnapper]

Been converting to DNG for a long while now, I see no difference in quality and the advantage of being able to embed captions, keywords and copyright in the raw image itself is a usefull plus for me.

[PhotoGuy74]

I shoot in RAW with my D50, import my NEF images into Apple's Aperture program and then backup my original NEF files to an external DVD burner.

If I have to do some quick 'n dirty editing, then Aperture suits me just fine. If I need to work with Layers, etc... then I push my photos into Photoshop CS3 (via Aperture), do what I need to get done and it gets pulled back into Aperture.

I've played around with Lightroom and so far, I'm not overly impressed by the way it handles... (but I may need to spend more time with it, which in fact is counter-point of what I want... spend less time editing photos... hmmm...)

So for me as of right now, there is no significant advantage of converting my images to the DNG format. But that may change in the future, who knows?

[f-stop]

Having fiddled with DNG's a bit, not long ago I was forced into using DNG due to a temporary incompatibility problem with my cataloging software and the then new D300. My main gripe was twofold, added step to workflow (conversion) and the Adobe converter is sloooow. However, Blumesan's post above has me straightened out now. Not sure why I never considered converting on import from card. This single comment has me reconsidering now.

Actually, come to think about it, my weeks of frustration re the NEF file handling problem with D300, that in itself is a reason to at least consider using DNG across the board. No worries with new camera with a brand new RAW format (again )

I sometimes wonder how many folks are currently using DNG because Peter Krogh almost insists on in his "The DAM Book".

So here I sit....back on the fence again.

-Greg

PS; first post in this section, thank y'all for having me.

[Mr. Pickles]

Part of what you say is true. I had a mountain (small hill) of images from a Canon DSLR and more from my current Olympus crop. All are in DNG format. So I am streamlined. Could have used TIFFs, but the DNG's were/are smaller for me, and are more "raw" than a TIFF.

[Waleed]

I've recently started converting my Canon RAW files to DNG, using Adobe DNG Converter. My main reason was to be able to open my photos (and archives) for as long as possible. As a bonus, I discovered that DNG files are less in size and has no sidecar hassles.

[jfrancho]

If DNG could hold my original raw file, any and multiple raw settings (LR or ACR), and my edits in Photoshop, all in one file I'd be all over it. Maybe I'm asking too much? If it offered a bit of lossless compression, that would be cake. That way, I could simply open the file in Photoshop, change the raw settings, make edits after that, and out put jpegs or whatever for print, and just delete them. It would all be in one place. Dare to dream.

[LMGotts]

I convert immediately, primarily to avoid the sidecar xmp issue. The only dislike I have is that I cannot use Canon's software after conversion to check on focus point/s - woe is me, I have to actually look and see if an image is in focus.

[Paul Shields]

I convert to DNG on import. I spent a long time going back and forth between proprietary RAW formats and DNG, and in the end the benefits for me outweighed the cons. For some of my RAW files there's a 50% saving in file size, for others there's the benefit that I can use the DNG in editors that still have not caught up with latest RAW formats (a constant annoyance for me). I like how everything is contained within the DNG file and as I'm a Lightroom/ACR/Photoshop user it all makes sense for my workflow.

[ncrohozen]

I've just started using DNG and not having the sidecar file is really nice. I can't tell you how often I used to forget to move the sidecar file when I would back stuff up.

[jfrancho]

Instead of micromanaging your backups one file at a time, try one of the many utilities out there, and think in terms of backing up whole directories and drives. Even the Windows native backup works fine.

[sfinkernagel]

I am another who was "forced" to use DNG when I discovered that CS2 would not read my 40D RAW files. I found that the easiest way for me is to use the Adobe DNG Converter to transfer the files from the card to the folder on my hard drive that I want to work from. The process is a little slow, but I can start editing the first file in just a few seconds, then work while the conversion/transfer goes on in the background. While I can't say that the process is any better than having CS2 read the RAW file, I certainly don't miss all the .xmp files cluttering up the screen in Bridge.