Poll - DNG Usage

I am curious to know how everyone is using DNG. Please post comments to support your poll responses so we can all learn from your decisions.

Nope - I save my RAWs and don't even really think much about DNG.

I keep the original RAW files as:

1. I still use DPP for a number of things and it doesn't support DNG.
2. I can always re-evaluate and convert to whatever "standard" there is when I re-burn an archive.

e-k

E-K wrote in post #4956002
I keep the original RAW files as:

1. I still use DPP for a number of things and it doesn't support DNG.
2. I can always re-evaluate and convert to whatever "standard" there is when I re-burn an archive.

e-k

Ditto.

Thanks, all. Keep 'em coming!

I have been watching some CS3 tutorials and the instructors do convert to DNG. Of course I am sure there is a bias since they are tutorials for Adobe products.

Once good point made is that the DNG is able to keep RAW and metada edits within the file itself instead being drug around in a side car file or database.

Seemed like a lot of hassle for marginal benefit. I'm fine with Lightroom and my original RAW files.

The nice thing about DNG is the embedded thumbnail that updates (set the options in ACR) when you make changes, no sidecars, and it's a more universal form of file. I am learning to be more proactive in deleting bad pics while they are still in the camera.

I like the idea of DNGs, but drive space is cheap and I'm a pack rat.. when importing to Lightroom I let it convert to DNG with the RAW embedded, but I also keep my RAW files separately.

DNG is totally the way to go if for no other reason that you don't need those stupid xml sidecar files.

As far as importing and backup etc.. Go look at ImageIngestor:

http://www.imageingest​er.com/ImageIngester/i​ndex.php

Simplifies the import, adding metadata, the DNG creation and the backup of the RAW files. Best part of the RAW backup is that it also stores it with the xml sidecar so your raws are now searchable.

J.

I did some stats on the disk space saved. I used 100 1DMKIII and 100 1DsMKIII files and converted them to DNG. The average saving on disk space was 21.3%. This is nothing to sneeze at but I am still staying with just the raw files.

I listened to Terry White's podcast Why DNG. You have to take this with a grain of salt in that he works for Adobe. IMO, they are only trying to make their job easier of supporting new cameras and one can hardly blame them for that. When Terry says that it is possible that the RAW files we have may not be supported by our camera manufacturer in the future it is a bit of fear mongering to serve their own purposes. Quite frankly I cannot see any of the big camera companies not supporting their own file types any time in the future. I think that Canon has about as much chance of going out of business as Adobe does.

It really boils down to a personal choice. The one upside of the DNG is not having to save sidecar files if you want to save your changes that you made to the image.

ssim wrote in post #4961788
When Terry says that it is possible that the RAW files we have may not be supported by our camera manufacturer in the future it is a bit of fear mongering to serve their own purposes.

That was my assessment as well. History shows that image processing programs tend to only increase the number of file formats they support. GIF, BMP, TGA (or TARGA), and many other graphic formats are all still supported just fine decades later. Besides which, it's not like I'd ever move to a new platform that didn't support all of my photo archives.

Thanks, all, for the input. It hs been an interesting exercise.

Frankly, after watching the Adobe tutorials I assumed that the number of DNG converts was bigger and I was missing the boat.

My personal opinion has been not to use DNG for a lot of the reasons given above, although I am a bit bothered by the xmp files...

E-K wrote in post #4956002
I keep the original RAW files as:

1. I still use DPP for a number of things and it doesn't support DNG.
2. I can always re-evaluate and convert to whatever "standard" there is when I re-burn an archive.

e-k

Ditto.

Once DPP supports DNG (if ever), I'll switch to 100% DNG.

when I first import my pics in LR I have it convert them to DNGs, so I never even have to deal with cr2 files.

I've always been using cr2 files and the xmp sidecar files. What are the advantages to using dng (whats the difference between it and a cr2)? Can I still do all the raw conversions I want.. and does it create sidecar files or does it save those changes inside the dng file? What are the disadvantages?

I've never really heard of dng...