Any negatives to DNG?

Thinking about converting my Raw files to dng and deleting the originals. Good idea or not?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you wouldn't have to worry about a catalog in lightroom 3 saving all the presets in the sidecar in the event your catalog became corrupt or lost in an upgrade.

Anyone with the pros/cons to dng vs cr2/raw?

I convert on import in part to avoid the whole .xmp file issue but I save the .CR2 file with the same name so I can always get back to it if I need to.

Is there any quality loss by going to DNG? Are there different options for converting.

No, the original file data is maintained. I use the Adobe converter automated with DownloaderPro. DLP automates my file naming, folder structure and archiving of CR2s.

I don't "do" DNGs, but if I did I'd still keep my CR2s in a safe backup.

As to quality, as far as I know the DNG is all the Raw data but with a format that is open -- Adobe apps and some others support it, although some apps, including DPP, do not support it which is one reason why I don't convert.

As to options, the main option to pay attentions to is the compatibility option with which versions of Adobe Camera Raw will work with the DNG file. If, for examply, you use Photoshop CS3 it uses Camera Raw 4.6. Your DNG conversion would have to be set to be compatible with ACR 4.6 or later.

I like xmp files. It means if I send files away to be culled or edited they can just email tiny xmp files back, not huge raw files. I also edit the xml inside the xmp files directly occasionally. It also means backups run more quickly, copying xmp files not dng files.

I don't understand people who don't like them. I only ever look at image directories with bridge anyway, so it's not like I see them. Even if I do what do I care? I have tens or hundreds of thousands of files, what's a few thousand more.

Tim, that's an interesting point about clients sending back xmp files -- does that mean they are looking at the files with Photoshop/Lightroom?

Are you talking to Tom or me? If you send raw images out to be edited the editor has to use Bridge/LR for the editing, or have some way to export xmp files. Most editing places seem to use LR.

tim wrote in post #11839167
Are you talking to Tom or me? If you send raw images out to be edited the editor has to use Bridge/LR for the editing, or have some way to export xmp files. Most editing places seem to use LR.

Oops, I meant you, Tim! I'll promply edit my post!!!

tim wrote in post #11838232
I like xmp files. It means if I send files away to be culled or edited they can just email tiny xmp files back, not huge raw files. I also edit the xml inside the xmp files directly occasionally. It also means backups run more quickly, copying xmp files not dng files.

This!