Convert to DNG?

I'm going to guess this topic has been covered to death, but I wasn't really able to find the answer doing a search.

While I've been using light room since it's release, i've always left my raw images in the native canon format, atleast up until my last lightroom update.

I hadn't noticed that the the setting for converting raw to dng during image import had been selected. I guess my question is, what are the pro's and cons to doing this. Do i continue to import and convert to dng and convert all my legacy images as well, or do i stop where I'm at and go back to canon raws. I would love to hear some opinions.

This non-proprietary open file format will stand the test of time even if a camera manufacturer isn't around one day to support their legacy formats. One of the benefits is the fact that you'd be able to use your raw files 50 years from now even if your camera manufacturer wasn't around or decided not to support their file format anymore.

The other added benefit of DNG is that the file size is about 20% smaller than its corresponding Raw file. There is no loss of quality in the DNG file.

Also DNG files store all of your metadata and raw settings with the file itself - it doesn't need a sidecar XMP file like raw files do.

As for Cons: Lightroom doesn't automatically update the DNG file if you make changes. You still manually need to go to the Photo menu to save the settings.

>>As for Cons: Lightroom doesn't automatically update the DNG file if you make changes. You still manually need to go to the Photo menu to save the settings.

Hmm? What do you mean? I've never had to save settings manually to a DNG in Lightroom.

I do agree with the benefits you've listed. And think about which company knows more about file formats and keeping them compatible -- Canon or Adobe? Canon's software routinely sucks (look at the DPP interface or that it takes 3 downloads and installs and restarts to use a printer driver wirelessly). Adobe has kept their PSD format relatively stable (except for one change at v6). I trust Adobe with software and file formats much more than I trust Canon.

I just recently started converting to DNG and am giving it a shot. I guess the future readability of RAW is a concern for me. But, hopefully, I'll be dead in 50 years.

TheHoff wrote in post #9370627
>>As for Cons: Lightroom doesn't automatically update the DNG file if you make changes. You still manually need to go to the Photo menu to save the settings.

Hmm? What do you mean? I've never had to save settings manually to a DNG in Lightroom.

You're right my mistake. Yes, there is a setting that will let you write your changes automatically to the file. Its in the Catalog Settings (Lightroom menu on Mac, and Edit menu on PC). But this option is off by default. So if you're editing DNG files in Lightroom your changes are not being saved automatically. Just like raw files, you either need to turn this option on or manually save changes in the Photo menu.

DNG has following advantages:

- usable even if the camera is not supported by the software, like 5d2 and 7D in CS2, CS3

- MD5 digest for verification of the validity

- the raw adjustments can be stored in the file (if someone prefers this crooked way)

- the adjustments affect the embedded JPEGs (thumbnail, preview)

The file size advantage is tiny compared to CR2s; in case of sRaw or mRaw the file size in DNG will be MUCH greater than in CR2.

Those, who convert the native raw in DNG and discard the native raw, may have a surprizing experience (and they deserve it). Those, who save the native raw inside the DNG are... well, laypeople.

I've still not seen any good reason to keep the native RAW except in the case where you have a new camera and the DNG conversion may not be finalized.

DPP won't convert DNG

I don't have to use DPP? Bonus!

I've got no interest in DPP; I make my own camera profiles

Thanks for all the replies. I'm still getting my hands around the whole thing. I believe I understand DNG from about the 40000 foot level. What I have is about a months worth of photo's that I do not have the original raw files saved, because I didn't realize I was converting them.

I did try DPP but the work flow made me throw up a little bit in my mouth. Probably just not used it and in all fairness, I only played with it for 15 minutes while watching a B&H tutorial video on it. I didn't really notice that my images looked any better than with lightroom, so I parked it.

I like the idea of DNG's and this may be the way forward for me.

>>I did try DPP but the work flow made me throw up a little bit in my mouth.

Yup that is Canon's approach to software and interfaces. As long as you don't puke too much, it's OK.

Are all of you currently converting your raw's do dwg?

zore wrote in post #9371738
Are all of you currently converting your raw's do dwg?

Nope -- it's purely a matter of preference.

zore wrote in post #9371738
Are all of you currently converting your raw's do dwg?

I convert all of mine to DNG and haven't ever looked back.

zore wrote in post #9371738
Are all of you currently converting your raw's do dwg?

Me neither.

For me it would just be an added unnecessary step in my workflow I suppose if I carried the file back and forth, and somehow was frustrated with .xmp sidecars it might be useful...

But for me, the big hassle/drawback would be all the converters I MAY want to try out there that DO NOT support .DNG. (DPP, among others.)

Remember that not only would Canon have to stop support of their format, but Adobe and others would too before that file would be obsolete. Adobe would also have to strip that support from their .dng converter.

If need be, I could batch convert using a supporting .dng converter should that time ever come. (I've archived one that supports my camera... though I'm sure old versions could be found online.)

As said, its a matter of preference... if you see the benefit, use it. If for you it adds headache and hassle, don't.