Import question - file handling options

[ARH18]

Lightroom Version Number

Classic 9.3

Operating System

1. macOS 10.15 Catalina

Hi - I use Nikon NEF raw files and I have been reading an article that states Lightroom could work faster with DNG files and as I've been having issues with performance I'm trying various things to improve it.

If I import and convert to DNG I end up with my original NEF file and anew DNG in the hard drive folder, but only the DNG in the catalogue. This almost doubles my hard drive space so what's the advice - do I delete the NEF file from the hard drive, or is there any significant benefit in using DNG at all?

Thanks,

Andy

 

[BarrySchwartz]

I can't speak to the speed of working with DNG files, other than to say they are the only files I ever work with. My workflow is this: I import the RAWs as they are, do my initial edit to remove all the images I don't want to use, and then export as DNGs while renaming and categorizing, backup, and import those. There are a lot of reasons I do it this way, particular to my needs. I think a lot of people prefer to convert to DNG as they import (without also including the original RAWs), which is certainly a great way to do it, and if you do that, you don't have to worry about keeping your original NEFs.

As for the benefits of DNG, there are several: you can put vast amounts of metadata into the files (I used to put entire contracts into the IPTC fields); copying from one drive to another, DNG makes it easier for software to insure there are no errors; they are a bit smaller than imported RAW files; and, most important, DNGs will always be able to be read by software in future years. The format is open source, invented by Adobe specifically to answer a particular problem that started to occur once photography became primarily a digital medium, which was that proprietary RAW formats coming from some camera manufacturers stopped being supported when those companies went out of business; this is still happening on occasion - Olympus has just been sold off, so who knows what the future holds for them. I don't see Adobe going out of business any time soon, so I feel safe with my DNGs. Plus, the format is so common now it is supported across the industry. RAW files out of Leicas and Hasselblads are produced as DNGs, so they understand the benefits (why other companies don't is beyond me, but that's for another discussion thread...).

 

[clee01l]

Hi - I use Nikon NEF raw files and I have been reading an article that states Lightroom could work faster with DNG files and as I've been having issues with performance I'm trying various things to improve it.

If I import and convert to DNG I end up with my original NEF file and anew DNG in the hard drive folder, but only the DNG in the catalogue. This almost doubles my hard drive space so what's the advice - do I delete the NEF file from the hard drive, or is there any significant benefit in using DNG at all?

Thanks,

Andy

Lightroom works with an RGB image and only accesses the RAW file on import, when printing or when exporting. DNGs are a little smaller but this is not much help if you are not saving space by keeping the RAW NEFs.

You might archive the existing NEFs for future technology and from this point do not convert NEFs to DNG.

There will be people that post after me that will recommend stating the DNG route because there is a checksum used to verify the integrity of the file. But sufficient backups of the originals will provide that security as well.

It is a matter of preferences. Keeping the NEF has it advantages and does keeping only the RAW DNG.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ARH18]

OK thanks, sounds like regardless of performance it may be beneficial to use DNG rather than NEF. I guess I'd be better off starting from now with DNG files and leaving the old NEF files rather than convert them, I expect I'd lose my editing and keyboarding etc.?

 

[Califdan]

1) XMP data stored inside DNG files rather than in a seperate XMP file (+ for DNG - fewer files to worry about and clutter up file system)
2) Each time you change anything on an image (eg. number of stars), it updates the BIG DNG rather than a LITTLE XMP (+ for NEF)
3) Each time a file is changed on disk it should be backed up locally and to the cloud. with DNG (and depending on the technology you use) you will be baking up BIG DNG's rather than SMALL XMP's. Do a bulk change on 2000 images and it may take a day to get those DNG's backed up a cloud location but only and 30 minutes for XMP's (+ for NEF)
4) DNG's tend to be 20% or so smaller than equivalent NEF's. (+ for DNG unless you also keep the NEF in which case it's a + for NEF only)

I kept only my camera raw files (CR2's in my case) for many years and let LR create XMP files when needed. Then I switched to converting to DNG upon import and deleting the CR2's as I didn't like all those XMP files floating around. Stayed with this mode for several years but was finding that my cloud backup could never catch up dealing with the changed DNG files. So, I went back to keeping the CR2's and stopped converting to DNG's and am much happier. However, even today, 5 or more years after I stopped converting to DNG, every now and again something (I don't know if it is something in LR or outside of LR) does something to the DNG's that my cloud backup system interprets as them all needed to be re-backed up to both my local back up and the cloud. The last time this happened it took my local back up 18 days running 24 by 7 to re copy all the DNG's from my main photo storage drive to my backup drive and I had to keep emptying the recycle bin to keep the backup drive from becoming full.

I would not go back to DNG's unless Adobe provided a way for LR to use XMP files instead of updating the big DNG file with each update in LR

.

 

[clee01l]

OK thanks, sounds like regardless of performance it may be beneficial to use DNG rather than NEF. I guess I'd be better off starting from now with DNG files and leaving the old NEF files rather than convert them, I expect I'd lose my editing and keyboarding etc.?

Actually, my suggestion was just the opposite. I see no reason fro creating DNGs though others don’t have a problem converting to DNG. Converting to DNG is an extra step on import. Why spend the time doing that?.
For those imported images that have the DNG as the source, I would simply leave them as is and move the NEFs associated with them to an archive so that is there are technical advances that Nikon develops or some third party editor app, you can take advantage of this later when the DNG may not contain the necessary metadata to take advantage to the technical advances.

From this point forward, I would recommend simply importing the NEFs and using those in Lightroom.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Conrad Chavez]

Hi - I use Nikon NEF raw files and I have been reading an article that states Lightroom could work faster with DNG files

It’s probably a good idea to review what exactly that article said about DNGs being faster to edit. The only way I am aware that might be possible is that they could load faster into the Develop module if saved with the DNG Fast Load Data option, but beyond that, I’m not sure if edits like spot healing or sliders would be any faster with a DNG.

DNG has many technical advantages, but for practical reasons similar to those stated above, I have also chosen to stick with raw files for now. One reason is (last time I checked) some raw processing applications don’t support editing DNG, so keeping original raws keeps options open as far as editing with other raw developers.

DNG would be of greatest benefit to us if camera makers would support it as an option for saving the file from camera to memory card, so we could just import that. This has happened on the smartphone side, where an OEM or third-party phone app that offers a raw option will typically save to DNG. If my cameras saved straight to DNG, I would import that and never look back. But for most regular non-smartphone cameras, having to add an extra step to convert raw to DNG negates many of the benefits.

I guess I'd be better off starting from now with DNG files and leaving the old NEF files rather than convert them, I expect I'd lose my editing and keyboarding etc.?

When you use the Lightroom Classic Convert to DNG command, it transfers metadata to the converted DNG, so you don’t lose your work. I didn’t check keywords, but it kept the Develop history.

 

[PhilBurton]

I am one of those people who uses the NEF RAW files rather than converting to DNG.

If you are a Nikon or Canon user, the idea that these companies will go out of business and orphan your RAW files is doubtful. In any case, there is such a large installed base of Nikon and Canon users that even if both of these companies both went out of business because of a "super pandemic" which devastated the entire industry their formats will continue to be supported. Those companies' formats will be supported industry-wide, just as Microsoft Office formats are de facto standards.

If you are a Pentax or Olympus or Panasonic (just as examples) maybe even a Leica user, DNG conversion is probably a good idea.

Even if you use DNG, you should probably retain your original RAW files, because if you ever need to switch from Lightroom to another RAW editor, there is no guarantee that DNGs will be supported. An "out of the camera" DNG might be supported, but a DNG with Adobe's edit instructions, maybe yes, maybe no.

I also subscribe to the theory that sufficient backups are excellent protection. I start a whole new backup of all my systems each year. For the price of a new backup hard drive, I have yearly backups for about 10 years now. Plus I'm now doing an offsite backup at a friend's house.

In addition, I run this plug-in periodically. Validator: A Lightroom Plugin for Verifying Image Files