Digital Negative Format

[zeddy]

Ive started shooting exclusively in raw recently and since switching from a 300d to a 30d ive noticed the 30d uses a different raw format (cr2).

This brings me to the question - Do you all use the digital negative format? Im thinking of converting my raws to digital negatives so i will be able to view them in years to come. Are they any disadvantages to the switch?

[davidcrebelxt]

Main "disadvantage" is you won't be able to use all Raw converters... specifically DPP. Which also means you can't use Canon's Picture Styles if that is important to you... and the following is just theroetical... but if Canon develops some great setting for DPP in the future, and you've converted all your images to .dng, you won't be able to use that new tool for your older images.

I don't think Adboe will be dropping support for .CR2 files for a long, long time.

But the fact that changes can non-destrucitvely be written directly into the RAW file without using sidecar files is a big plus for .dng.

[In2Photos]

Well there is no standard although Adobe wants you to think the DNG format is. The only downfall is the fact that you have to convert your CR2 files to DNG, which could be time consuming or an extra step in your workflow depending on your setup. I started using Lghtroom which will convert the files to DNG on Import. Otherwise they are great. I love the fact that I no longer have to worry about XMP files as DNG embeds the data directly into the DNG.

[zeddy]

Perhaps it something to do when i have to do it, conversion i mean.

[In2Photos]

Main "disadvantage" is you won't be able to use all Raw converters... specifically DPP. Which also means you can't use Canon's Picture Styles if that is important to you... and the following is just theroetical... but if Canon develops some great setting for DPP in the future, and you've converted all your images to .dng, you won't be able to use that new tool for your older images.

I don't think Adboe will be dropping support for .CR2 files for a long, long time.

But the fact that changes can non-destrucitvely be written directly into the RAW file without using sidecar files is a big plus for .dng.

Perhaps it something to do when i have to do it, conversion i mean.
If you are concerned about the previous statement you can always use the DNG convertor to extract the original RAW files from the DNG as long as you embed the original RAW into the DNG during the initial conversion.

[davidcrebelxt]

Yes, I forgot to mention that is an option.
Drawback to that is it can almost double the file-size.

- ie my 7.5mb RAW went to 14mb, when I just tried it.

[SWPhotoImaging]

I use ImageIngester Pro for my RAW file ingestion, and have it set to make a backup copy of the original RAW, renamed according to my standard format, convert to DNG (it calls out to Adobe DNG converter for this), embed a large JPG for previews, fill in my default IPTC data and save the final DNG to a second directory structure with file renamed and stored in directories named by year, date.

This way I will always have the original RAW in Canon format for any future need, but I do all work on the DNG and save modified files as derivatives (JPG, TIF, PSD) in another directory structure.

My routine is pretty much the same as outlined in the DAM book by Peter Krogh. This site has LOTs of info on DNG, digital asset management (DAM), Image Imgester, etc.
http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php