DNG file in lightroom

[Ellbee99]

OK I know this stands for digital negative but, what are the benefits and when should it be used or not used? Should I save in this not tif?

Any suggestions on this?

Thanks!
Lori

[ohenry]

DNG is simply an attempt to standardize RAW files. You can convert your RAW files to DNG for archival purposes if you wish. There are some benefits (or detriments depending on how you view it) with regards to sidecar files and I believe the files are a bit smaller (but I'm not fully certain of that).

In Lightroom, you can import your files as native RAW or convert to DNG. You don't save to DNG, per se. When you export a file or edit it in PS, you convert it to TIFF (or jpg, as you see fit).

[brian.austin]

There are advantages to converting to DNG. Honestly, I haven't seen any disadvantages since making the move but it's still fairly early in the process for me.

Importing & converting to DNG takes considerably longer, though. That would count as a disadvantage if I actually cared about it. I don't.

More on DNG format here: Adobe - Digital Negative (DNG)

[Mr. Pickles]

What OHenry and Brian said.

To add to it, DNG files are compressed, but no data is lost in the compression (JPG's for example loss data). Some cameraa RAW format is NOT compressed. The older Olympus ORF files is a good example. The ORF file would be over 10mb per, but if you converted to DNG it became 4 to 5mb. That was roughly a 50% savings. Huge to some.

Adobe created the DNG format to standardize the RAW world. It is slowly taking some shape. Some don't like DNG just because it an Adobe invention or "product". But they use TIFF files, and Adobe actually "owns" that.

Some camera makers have gotten "smart" and decided to not have their own RAW format. They simply write a DNG file as the RAW. Smart move to some because they don't have to worry about software and a proprietary format that they have to maintain. They let Adobe do it. On the minus side, they could loose control over what the image should actually "look like", but if they work with Adobe, that could be a moot point and problem solved.

Another benefit for a lot of folks is that older versions of Photoshop, that can't read the camera's RAW format (camera came out after support for that version of PS was dropped), can use the DNG Converter program (FREE form Adobe's site). Their older version of PS will open the DNG file. No immediate need to update PS this way.

I have been using DNG for probably 2 years or more. And I don't typically save the camera's RAW format either. Convert and keep the DNG. Some think that is nuts, but I'll bank on the fact that Adobe isn't going to ditch the format. More programs come along that read it, and more are writing (converting) to it, so if that trend continues, it will be better. The big two (Canon and Nikon) may never "drop" their proprietary RAW format because they have some "intelligent" color data in it that they don't want others to know about, but once you know how to "develop" your cameras colors in Lightroom or something, you don't have a huge need to use their software...