Keep Raw files after converting to Dng?

They are DNGs from the camera - same with my Ricoh GRII. Some software that does not support converted DNGs support this type (for example, DxO supports the Ricoh files). Such are the vagaries of the DNG workflow.

It is not that a DNG does not contain all of the raw data from the original, it is that the raw file can no longer be reconstructed or extracted to its original form from a DNG unless you explicitly embed the original raw file in the DNG.

Kirk

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18686162
What about Leica M files? They are DNGs. They are raw and contain all the info that was captured.

Here's a conversation of at dpreview about RAW and DNGs. See marshalGs response. I think it's response #4. Gregm further down to.

https://www.dpreview.c​om/forums/thread/42491​38

I see no reason to convert from CR2 to DNG because they are the same. Just keep them as CS2.

One more

https://theblog.adobe.​com/dng-pros-cons-and-myths/

The problem is support, new cams not supported in old Lightroom

Charlie wrote in post #18686358
The problem is support, new cams not supported in old Lightroom

Cams released prior to January 2018 are. Post are not.

Isn't that whats cool about DNGs? It doesn't matter, photoshop supports them one and all. A great reason why Leica went that route.

digital paradise wrote in post #18685855
DPP won't open a DNG. Where are you currently viewing AF points? I had an LR 3rd party viewer but got rid of it as I really didn't like it so I can't it. Not sure if there is a PS solution for this.

https://www.creative-photographer.com …-points-plugin-lightroom/

I've only ever used DPP to view AF points before but have had the 1Dx camera only a couple of weeks so hadn't discovered that DPP won't open the dng files.

Suspect the long term answer at some stage will be to update Photoshop (against my Scottish heritage values) but in the interim to convert to dng & edit from there, plus keep the raws.

kirkt wrote in post #18685870
If you are holding off updating your software because you do not want to be beholden to the Adobe subscription machine, be aware that you already are beholden to Adobe because you depend upon their (free) conversion tool to use the software you do have.

kirk

Understood - but at this stage I'm not required to spend any more than my original Photoshop purchase cost
I think I'd rather use MS Paint to edit my photos than sign up for subscription based software! (exaggerating but you get the idea...)

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18686389
Isn't that whats cool about DNGs? It doesn't matter, photoshop supports them one and all. A great reason why Leica went that route.

Not really true for converted DNG's at least from Adobe's converter. You do have to specify which version of ACR you want the file to be compatible with. So it looks like you can have a DNG file that is not backwards compatible with older versions of the software. Not really having used it I don't know what you lose when working with newer versions of the software if picked the file format that supported the oldest possible version of ACR. I assume that you must lose something, or you wouldn't get the option to pick and chose.

In camera generated DNG files do seem to be different to those created by conversion too. They have wider support, in DXO Optics Pro for a start, as well as other conversion software.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18686531
Not really true for converted DNG's at least from Adobe's converter. You do have to specify which version of ACR you want the file to be compatible with. So it looks like you can have a DNG file that is not backwards compatible with older versions of the software. Not really having used it I don't know what you lose when working with newer versions of the software if picked the file format that supported the oldest possible version of ACR. I assume that you must lose something, or you wouldn't get the option to pick and chose.

I think the price for more compatibility is greater file size (more metadata). But the minimum compatibility goes back to LR 4.1 from 2012. I would imagine that the number of people using using LR 3 or older is pretty small.

I remember a couple years ago when I was using (and failing to like) Capture 1 it would edit DNGs from CR2s but several "gurus" commented that its conversions from a CR2 were better than those from from an equivalent DNG (used a better color profile). Apparently part of the "business politics" between Phase One and Adobe.

Not sure if you remember shortly after LR went subscription C1 made a video and posted it here to say how much better C1 looked out of the box. It does look more punchy compared to Adobe Standard. A few months later Adobe introduced Adobe Colour and bumped default detail sharpening up from 30 to 40