Proprietary RAW or Adobe DNG?

[CNelson]

I am a Canon shooter and shoot in RAW file format using whatever proprietary RAW format that comes with the camera version. I am looking at converting everything to DNG (Adobe's open platform RAW file format). I have read a number of pro's on it but found no con's yet. I'm interested in the experiences and opinions of others who are familiar with this "debate" and especially those with experience using DNG.

Chuck

[Colin Southern]

Hi Chuck,

I'm possibly the biggest DNG convert here - for me it's worth it just for the batch rename and no sidecar files.

The downside is if you delete the CR2 files and then want to open them in a program like DXO Optics that won't take a DNG file as an input (although you can write one as an output file). There IS one way around this - but - it means embedding the original RAW file in the DNG file, but of course it doubles it's size.

Other than that, no downsides that I know of -- I've used DNG for many years and couldn't be happier. Well - ok - perhaps if I won the lottery I'd be happier, but you know what I mean!

[CNelson]

I was hoping you would chime in Colin. You are more technically inclined than I am and I value your thoughts. You came down about where I thought you would on this subject so I will likely start converting to DNG going forward. I've ordered Lightroom and will start when it's installed and I'm up to speed. Once I am comfortable with DNG I may go back to earlier archived RAW files and convert them to DNG.

Thank you

Chuck

[Colin Southern]

I was hoping you would chime in Colin. You are more technically inclined than I am and I value your thoughts. You came down about where I thought you would on this subject so I will likely start converting to DNG going forward. I've ordered Lightroom and will start when it's installed and I'm up to speed. Once I am comfortable with DNG I may go back to earlier archived RAW files and convert them to DNG.

Thank you

Chuck

No worries Chuck,

I'd suggest just doenloading the latest converter and having a play with it - it's all pretty painless.

[PopsPhotos]

if you delete the CR2 files

I'm going to say here what I pound into my students (and myself.) ALWAYS save your pictures to a removable medium before you do anything to them. Sorry for the shout, but it is that important, in my experience.

Pops

[CNelson]

I'm going to say here what I pound into my students (and myself.) ALWAYS save your pictures to a removable medium before you do anything to them. Sorry for the shout, but it is that important, in my experience.

Pops

No problem with the "shout" Pops...I didn't take it that way. I don't delete the files on the CF card until they are downloaded to my PC. My PC then backs them up to a remote storage source. I retain the RAW files on my PC for about a year then I copy them to a DVD before deleting them to make room on the PC. If it's a "special" image, I may keep the RAW file on my PC as well as on DVD backup.

My thinkiing is that I will convert my Canon RAW files to DNG upon importing them from the CF card to my PC vial Lightroom. Once I have done a preliminary check of each DNG file and my off line backup is complete, I will reformat my CF card. I don't propose to keep both the Canon RAW and the DNG files. I don't think you were proposing that.

Chuck

[Colin Southern]

Not sure if pops was meaning "always keep the originals" or not.

My suggestion is to always keep the RAW files, but whether they're in a native RAW format (eg CR2 or DNG) or a standardised format such as DNG (which is most definately still a RAW file), it doesn't make any difference PROVIDING THAT you accept that if you only have them in DNG format then you won't be able to open them with any program (like DxO) that can't handle DNG as an input file (which for me - being a total Adobe user - isn't an issue).

[CNelson]

I think I'll be fine with DNG. I don't use DxO and know almost nothing about it but I suspect DxO and others may need to accommodate DNG in the future if it continues to catch on. I presume DxO can handle JPEG or TIFF after conversion from RAW so its resources would be available to DNG users after conversion.

To this point I have used Canon's proprietary DPP to convert from Canon RAW to JPEG or TIFF but I recently used Adobe camera RAW to convert from Canon RAW to JPEG and I like it a lot. I currently see myself importing and converting Canon RAW to DNG in LR and from there to JPEG or TIFF. This will keep me on an Adobe path most of the time from RAW to final edit.

Chuck

[Henrik]

I currently see myself importing and converting Canon RAW to DNG in LR and from there to JPEG or TIFF. This will keep me on an Adobe path most of the time from RAW to final edit.

Hi Chuck,
Could you try to explain to me, why you find it interesting to "keep on an Adobe path"?

I am right now considering investing in DxO (before the end of the year). I am also beta-testing the Lightroom3, and I meant to start my workflow importing to Lightroom, thus via the DxO as an external editor implemented in Lightroom. Then I would export the photo back to Lightroom (via the Lightroom icon in the project pane = the DNG output file, Colin mentions?), Photoshop Elements, Photomatix etc. to do some more PostProcessing.

Colin points out, that DxO is not (for now) capable of handling DNG files as input. So if DxO could be an interesting option, why the converting to DNG?

Regards, Henrik

[Colin Southern]

Hi Chuck,

My understanding is that DxO can ONLY handle native RAW files. I'm sure that it can spit them out in a variety of formats, but that wouldn't help anyone who only had the DNG file at that point.

I found DxO useful for some lens corrections, but I find ACR far more powerfull for all the other stuff. And generally lens corrections are minimal if you choose the correct lens and use it properly anyway. A wee bit of "a solution in search of a problem if you ask me". Just my opinion though.

[Dave Humphries]

A wee bit of "a solution in search of a problem if you ask me". Just my opinion though.

For the skilled and well equipped semi-pro, I would agree.

There are a lot of people who don't know how to use their kit lens to best advantage and cannot afford a decent (read "L series") lens, for them one solution to their problem is DxO and the like

Just my opinion though.

[CNelson]

Hi Chuck,
Could you try to explain to me, why you find it interesting to "keep on an Adobe path"?

I am right now considering investing in DxO (before the end of the year). I am also beta-testing the Lightroom3, and I meant to start my workflow importing to Lightroom, thus via the DxO as an external editor implemented in Lightroom. Then I would export the photo back to Lightroom (via the Lightroom icon in the project pane = the DNG output file, Colin mentions?), Photoshop Elements, Photomatix etc. to do some more PostProcessing.

Colin points out, that DxO is not (for now) capable of handling DNG files as input. So if DxO could be an interesting option, why the converting to DNG?

Regards, Henrik

Hi Henrik: It sounds to me that you will be fine staying with the native RAW file rather than converting to DNG since you are going with DxO. I think the option to convert your native RAW files to DNG will always be there if there is an advantage for you to do that in the future. My advantage of staying with Adobe and possibly going DNG is merely to streamline my workflow a bit by not having to convert RAW through Canon's DPP then moving into my Adobe products for further processing.

Chuck