Dng?

[someothername]

I was a bit surprised that "DNG" in the search here brought back no results.

So far every place I've been on line that mentions DNG thinks it is the coming thing. Some folks even advocate always converting to DNG first thing and storing that as your archival backup.

Would it be wise to delete the raw and simply go with the DNG as the working original in Lightroom?

 

[DonRicklin]

Not the recommended by some. Many advocate backing up the original Raw somewhere, as a 'what if, back-up' and then only deal with the DNG and your usual back-up schema.


(Not doing DNG, yet, myself.)

Don

 

[Victoria Bampton]

DNG is probably a bit short for the search facility. There are plenty of threads on it, believe me!!! Try this one for a start: http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?t=1'54&highlight=digital+negative

 

[Ralph Tomaccio]

You probably searched everywhere, except where DNG originated - ADOBE:

http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/

 

[someothername]

I'm a bit surprised that DNG by itself wouldn't bring up some threads. "dng files" brought up a whole bunch. I was looking to see how lightroom users are moving toward or away from using a non-proprietary format. It appears the jury is still out.

 

[Brad Snyder]

It appears the jury is still out.

Yes, I think they're out back by the creek, flinging mud at each other. :cheesy: (There're some very strong feelings voiced on this topic.)

 

[someothername]

Yes, I think they're out back by the creek, flinging mud at each other. :cheesy: (There're some very strong feelings voiced on this topic.)

I suspect $$ will tell in the end. For all the talk about cheap memory and disk space, it adds up. A typical xmp file runs around 7kb, not much, but when multiplied by 1',''' it begins to add up. Plus the operating system grabs something on the order of 1 KB for every file in the file system. In addition, the typical low level file handling grabs chunks of disk space in 4KB increments. So that the 7KB xmp actually takes up 8KB on the media. On top of that, if DNG lossless compression in fact doesn't lose any quality, there's another savings of 2 to 3 mb or more per image. And megapixels keep growing...

As someone whose day job is programming, I am very confident that there will be no changes to the in camera raw processing software for cameras older than two or three years. The kind of skill set needed to do this kind of programming means the manufacturers are not likely to do anything other than fix a bug in raw processing software -- they will want the bulk of their programmers working on the next generation. How many firmware updates have there been for older cameras?

To me, the killer argument is that Hasselblad uses DNG as it's native raw format. I used to own one, and if I thought I could afford a second mortgage on my house, I might get another one.

 

[KED]

I was a bit surprised that "DNG" in the search here brought back no results.

So far every place I've been on line that mentions DNG thinks it is the coming thing. Some folks even advocate always converting to DNG first thing and storing that as your archival backup.

Would it be wise to delete the raw and simply go with the DNG as the working original in Lightroom?

I've posted recently about a related topic, but I'd like to turn your question on its head: what are we gaining by converting to DNG in the first place, vs whatever raw format we are in? Along the way something persuaded me to make the DNG election, but now I'm not so sure.

 

[Ian Farlow]

I have added a poll to this Topic. Curious what the results will be.

 

[Andrew Hayton]

I use DNG sometimes. I tend to use RAW to start with and then after a year or so I then convert my personal photos to DNG but keep the RAW files of commercial work.
I guess until Adobe or anyone else decide to drop support for the RAW format then I will keep doing what I am doing. HD space is not as much of a problem as it used to be with drives being so cheap.

Andrew

 

[someothername]

I've posted recently about a related topic, but I'd like to turn your question on its head: what are we gaining by converting to DNG in the first place, vs whatever raw format we are in? Along the way something persuaded me to make the DNG election, but now I'm not so sure.

The only three things I can think of are a possible reduction in file size, the ability to store the XMP data inside the same file the adjustments were made to and the archival argument.

I found a very enlightening discussion at
http://www.openraw.org/node/1482/531 (against)

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/commentary1.htm (pro with qualifications)

I found these through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_(file_format)

 

[Sverre]

I used DNG for a time but are now back to NEF. My new camera (D3'') came with a free copy of Capture NX and even if I use LR it is nice to have an option. NX can't use a DNG file.

 

[Richard Earney]

My rationale is that managing XMP is very annoying, and that while the space saving is nice it is not that essential in these days of cheap disks. So I do keep and backup the Raw files but I use ImageIngester to import and convert to DNG. It can also bung the Raw filename in an XMP field for added convenience.

 

[dbump]

Ditto Richard's rationale. It's really convenient to not deal with XMP files, and edit a DNG with either LR or PS without thinking about it.
As others have mentioned, I use Lightroom's option to make a backup copy of the original raw files, and use the DNG as my working copy. The backup goes to a separate disk, so even if I lose a drive, I retain my original image files.

And I'm paranoid, so I make weekly backups of both the originals and the DNGs to a monthly A/B rotation on external drives, keeping one on the network and one in a firesafe. No offsite yet.

 

[Victoria Bampton]

Oh, I don't know, I'm quite fond of XMP files myself! It makes it really easy to transfer settings between computers without having to send massive amounts of image data back and forth.

 

[Mark Sirota]

Me too, Victoria -- for the first time in a very long time, I've been using XMP sidecar files as I experiment with LR 2.' Beta. I use the XMP files to transfer edits from 1.4.1 to 2.' Beta and back.