Should I convert RAW to DNG

JimNYUK · #1 February 8th, 2010, 01:14 PM

Over the last few years I have used five different digital camera's each with it's own RAW format. I use Lightroom to keep all the files organised and one of it's features is to convert to Adobe DNG.

Would it be best in the long term to convert all my RAW files to DNG so that they were standardized? What are the pro's and con's? Can anyone advise? What do you do?

Jim.

Streetshooter · #2 February 8th, 2010, 01:18 PM

Since the advent of DNG, that's what I do.
I use the stand alone DNG converter. I convert everything then import to LR.
I use to keep the raw files but now I don't. It's been around 5 years and I haven't needed a raw yet...

It makes the LR library easier to manage also.....
shooter

stickan1 · #3 February 8th, 2010, 01:31 PM

I always convert to DNG to keep it simple to maintain in the long run. I also use a Sony a900 which gives rather large files and they get smaller after conversion when you shot in full RAW. There has been several discussions on this issue on the Sony forums that I follow and the risk to loose quality seems negligible.

I have just checked the size of the files from the GF1 and the DNG are rather large, 14-15 Mb. My a900-files are normally around 20 Mb as DNG, but the a900 is a FF-camera with a 24,6 Mb sensor, more than twice the size of the GF1. Strange that the GF1 files grows.

Brian Mosley · #4 February 8th, 2010, 01:40 PM

I think that I'll leave my raw images alone - at least until it becomes clear they won't be supported by future raw converters.

Cheers

Brian

ckw · #5 February 8th, 2010, 06:22 PM

I went completely DNG some time back - no regrets since. One big plus is it gives you a certain independence from software updates (eg. PS3 Adobe RAW won't support GF1 Raw, but converting to DNG bypasses the problem). As we can't assume support for new cameras in your favorite software. upgrading the hardware can add a significant extra software cost unless you can be independent of proprietary RAW formats.

I'd be curious to know how many didn't feel the need to upgrade to PS4 thanks to DNG.

Also with Canon RAW I was saving about 10% on file size (it adds up over thousands of images) - haven't checked the difference with the GF1

Cheers,

Colin

Streetshooter · #6 February 8th, 2010, 06:43 PM

Colin,
Your right. I didn't feel the need to upgrade but I did anyway.
Another big advantage to DNG is getting rid of those stupid sidecar files.
Shooter

JimNYUK · #7 February 9th, 2010, 04:23 AM

Thanks to everyone for your views. http://www.mu-43.com/images/smilies/...ve/2thumbs.gif

It's comforting that some of you have been doing this for a few years and never found the need to go back to the original RAW file. I'm going to take the plunge and convert, watch this space for a post entitled 'DNG Disasters'.

Just a further thought which may be a sign of my age, it'll be easier for my descendants to access my collection if it's in a common format. Assuming that they are interested of course.

Jim.

Streetshooter · #8 February 9th, 2010, 06:14 AM

Brian Mosley · #9 February 9th, 2010, 06:19 AM

Jim, just make sure you have multiple backups, and keep at least one copy at a separate location (preferably another country, I may set up an exchange facility

)

Cheers

Brian

ckw · #10 February 9th, 2010, 08:46 AM

Just to emphasis the backup thing - whatever format you use!

Remember the adage - its not a question of IF your hard disk will fail, just a matter of WHEN.

Personally (having gone through a variety of backup media), I think external hard drives are probably the best bet in terms of cost effectiveness and, reliability and ease of recovery.

Whether you keep a single backup or multiple backups I guess depends on your paranoia. I keep 2, and on different makes of disk as I figure many failures are due to an inherent weakness in a particular brand's materials or manufacture

Cheers,

Colin