raw vs. DNG

when i import into LR, i generally leave raw as is. is there any downside to converting to DNG? i have a 500GB HD that carries my pics, and i am not struggling for space with my raw files (yet), so the smaller footprint of the DNG vs. that of raw is not much of a concern.

are there any other advantages to using DNG format other than smaller footprint and embedded metadata? are there any major flaws/downsides to using DNG over raw?

thanks

Downside to DNG: DPP can not read them
Advantages: Smaller, no sidecar file, built in (updated) preview.

Watching this thread with interest.

How much smaller are DNG? For those that use DNG do you delete the original RAW?

I convert to DNG after editing in LR. (That way the thumbnail is the edited version of the image). I the backup both CR2 and DNG.

DNG is about 10-15% smaller IIRC.

The other advantage that people commonly use DNG for is that you can open a file that has been converted with a compatible converter to an older version of Camera Raw, either Photoshop CSx or Elements. This would be handy if, say, you had Photoshop CS3 and a newer camera that was not supported by CS3.

That being said, my camera bodies/Raw files are all suppoted by my CS3, and I don't have a problem with the occasions when I want to "export" my metadata to CS3 or (more often) working on a Raw file in my laptop as well as my desktop. So, I don't bother with DNG. I' happy with just the one Raw format.

Of course if I do end up with a newer body I might reconsider, but in the case of me having the financial wherewithall to do that, I'd likely want to update Photoshop as well...so in that case I'd likely just take the same approach....

René Damkot wrote in post #13030245
Downside to DNG: DPP can not read them
Advantages: Smaller, no sidecar file, built in (updated) preview.

Rene, i've considered the lack of DNG support in DPP, but the question begs - if one uses LR, is there any need for going back to DPP?

René Damkot wrote in post #13030548
I convert to DNG after editing in LR. (That way the thumbnail is the edited version of the image). I the backup both CR2 and DNG.

DNG is about 10-15% smaller IIRC.

So when you import to LR, you keep the original CR2, and export to DNG after making changes? What is the advantage over converting to DNG during the initial import (and also, what is benefit of keeping both files?... hope this doesnt sound like critique, i am just curious what is the reason to keep both, if DNG is the same file, just smaller?)

tonylong wrote in post #13031102
The other advantage that people commonly use DNG for is that you can open a file that has been converted with a compatible converter to an older version of Camera Raw, either Photoshop CSx or Elements. This would be handy if, say, you had Photoshop CS3 and a newer camera that was not supported by CS3.

That being said, my camera bodies/Raw files are all suppoted by my CS3, and I don't have a problem with the occasions when I want to "export" my metadata to CS3 or (more often) working on a Raw file in my laptop as well as my desktop. So, I don't bother with DNG. I' happy with just the one Raw format.

Of course if I do end up with a newer body I might reconsider, but in the case of me having the financial wherewithall to do that, I'd likely want to update Photoshop as well...so in that case I'd likely just take the same approach....

lucklily, i am not in a position to purchase PS/CS, so this is not a concern

ekinnyc wrote in post #13031574
Rene, i've considered the lack of DNG support in DPP, but the question begs - if one uses LR, is there any need for going back to DPP?

ekinnyc wrote in post #13031580
lucklily, i am not in a position to purchase PS/CS, so this is not a concern

OK, so compatibility with Camera Raw is not an issue with you. So then it's down to the question of whether you ever want to be able to open your Raw files in an app other than Adobe or one of the few that currently support the DNG format. I can't name the ones that currently do offer that support -- I know there are a few, I just don't know how many.

So, the question is do you or will you want to make use of a third-party app, or of DPP, that does not support DPP, or will you just not care?

Well, I care because for one I have over the past year or so been enjoying spending time wth DPP for two reasons:

First, it's a great app for bringing in photo shoots that require little "serious" post-processing and, after maybe a few tweaks, tossing out some quick conversions! It's actually fun to play with DPP because it has settings that "mimick" our in-camera settings and with these you can make some quick changes that can quickly affect the "pop" of an image. Now, I'm not a jpeg shooter but it can be fun to quickly get a "jpeg-like" image and, if that's all you want/need with a shot, then you are good to go!

Second, a reason I spend time with DPP is related directly to POTN: I'm here to learn, and also here to help others in whatever limited way I can.

Since I had jumped into Raw shooting and eventually into a Lightroom-centered Raw workflow, I never had any interest or experience with DPP -- it was Canon Raw and then Lightroom all the way for me. So, when I joined POTN I had that "narrow" range of experience and viewpoint regarding my ability to discuss this whole thing and regarding any ability to give useful advice to others, especially people who were getting into Raw shooting and didn't have Lightroom or Photoshop Camera Raw in their toolset.

But, over time, I saw things added to DPP that got my interest, that signalled that DPP was finally coming to the place where, conceivably it could be used by someone to not only do all their Raw processing, but actually could be used to put out a "finished product" without resorting to an app like Photoshop!

The one addition that finally "tipped me over" to seriously trying DPP as an alternative to Lightroom was adding the rotate/level tool to the Trimming/crop tool, meaning that I no longer needed to depend on Lightroom/Camera Raw for horizon leveling in my Raw workflow!

So, I installed DPP/EOS Utilities and ZoomBrowser and have been enjoying the software ever since, and EOS Utilities with the tethered shooting utility is really value added.

But furthermore, I now can intelligently discuss DPP with the users here, and actually give a bit of informed help on occasion, although I'm no expert with the app.

And further, if a photog pops up who is wanting to get into shooting Raw, or who is struggling because they have Lightroom and Photoshop but don't see the "pop" in their shots that they do with jpegs, then I am quite enthusiastic about advising/encouraging them to install DPP, if nothing else as a "starting kit" and then a referece point, but also, hey use it for those quick conversions.

And, well, none of that would be possible if I had converted to DPP right off the bat, especially if I had discarded the Raw files or stuck the on my backup drive that is not usually plugged in.

So for me if I did the conversion I'd still want to have the Raw files handy for anything quick I wanted to do with DPP. But as I said earlier, I have yet to take up the DNG workflow!

Downside to DNG: change a single thing (eg bump the exposure) and you back up a 15MB file instead of a 10kb metadata file. DNG from mRaw are also quite large, same as full size raw, not the same size as mRaw/sRaw.

I keep CR2/NEF on my onsite archive, but I keep DNG and jpeg in my two offsite copies. I'm just hedging my bets.

tony, great argument for keeping CR2 files for use with DPP
tim, thanks for shedding some light on the downside of DNG. i hadnt thought of this con to internalizing metadata!!

i think i am going to stick to using CR2 in LR (and tony, maybe in DPP as well!!)

ekinnyc wrote in post #13033444
tony, great argument for keeping CR2 files for use with DPP
tim, thanks for shedding some light on the downside of DNG. i hadnt thought of this con to internalizing metadata!!

i think i am going to stick to using CR2 in LR (and tony, maybe in DPP as well!!)

Heh! Well, I hope I wasn't a bad influence on you -- wouldn't want to corrupt you and stuff!

I've been tossing up whether to use DNG instead of raw for some time now. Been reading "The DAM Book" by Krogh, and he sells DNG pretty heavily. One of his big reasons is that it has a built-in checksum system, so can detect data corruption as well.

A quick comment on filesizes, the smaller filesize would be if you didn't include the original raw file in the DNG file. There is an option to embed the orig as well, which would almost double the DNG filesize. Sounds like not many here are using that feature?

troypiggo wrote in post #13033935
I've been tossing up whether to use DNG instead of raw for some time now. Been reading "The DAM Book" by Krogh, and he sells DNG pretty heavily. One of his big reasons is that it has a built-in checksum system, so can detect data corruption as well.

A quick comment on filesizes, the smaller filesize would be if you didn't include the original raw file in the DNG file. There is an option to embed the orig as well, which would almost double the DNG filesize. Sounds like not many here are using that feature?

Not much point detecting corruption if it can't correct it, unless you have non-corrupt backups.

Few people embed the raw file within the DNG.

troypiggo wrote in post #13033935
I've been tossing up whether to use DNG instead of raw for some time now. Been reading "The DAM Book" by Krogh, and he sells DNG pretty heavily. One of his big reasons is that it has a built-in checksum system, so can detect data corruption as well.

A quick comment on filesizes, the smaller filesize would be if you didn't include the original raw file in the DNG file. There is an option to embed the orig as well, which would almost double the DNG filesize. Sounds like not many here are using that feature?

You know, "The DAM Book" is good, and I've recommended it, because it layed out (some years ago) the whole concept of managing your digital files, and believe me that was back then and still is an important and valuable concept, the same as the original "Understanding Exposure" book has a ton of valuable stuff.

That doesn't mean that everything in either book has to be taken as "gospel", thought -- we each make our choices!

ekinnyc wrote in post #13031574
Rene, i've considered the lack of DNG support in DPP, but the question begs - if one uses LR, is there any need for going back to DPP?

Sometimes. (Not very often though)
http://www.getcolorman​aged.com …t/problems/rawc​onverters/


Then again, for some tasks / images, I simply prefer the output of DPP.