RAW vs. DNG

[Jddolbee]

I'm confused. Are RAW and DNG the same thing? Is there a difference between working with RAW files vs. DNG files? Is there any advantage one way or the other? Is it best to be working with DNG or RAW?

Thanks

Jim

 

[Victoria Bampton]

DNG files are normal raw data that has been repackaged into a DNG 'wrapper' instead of a CR2 wrapper or NEF wrapper, etc.

The DNG format is openly documented, so any DNG compatible program can read them even 1'' years from now, whereas the proprietary raw formats (i.e. CR2 or NEF) are not publicly documented.

Disadvantage of DNG - the manufacturer's own software (DPP for Canon, Capture NX for Nikon) can't read DNG.

Which is best.... there's a discussion!!!! There's a few threads around here, if you fancy reading the debates.

 

[Gene McCullagh]

And with the exception of Panasonic's LX3 RAW files, DNG files are usually smaller so you save some storage!

 

[Replytoken]

And with the exception of Panasonic's LX3 RAW files, DNG files are usually smaller so you save some storage!

Although wouldn't the size depend upon if the RAW file was embedded into the DNG?

--Ken

 

[johnbeardy]

Yes, though doing so doesn't make a lot of sense. Better to save the raw files separately as another backup store.

The space saving varies depending on camera. Typically DNGs from Nikons are 7'% smaller than the original raw files, but with Canon you don't save much. In any case, disc space is cheap and the space saving is really a pleasant by-product of using DNGs, not a reason for doing so. There are better reasons such as having a documented format, saving metadata inside the file, containing adjusted previews.

John

 

[Replytoken]

Yes, though doing so doesn't make a lot of sense. Better to save the raw files separately as another backup store.

John

That's my usual MO, but I know that a lot of people like to embed their RAW files, and I did not want readers new to the topic to be given the wrong impression.

--Ken