1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Do you convert to DNG?????

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by Tom Swaman, May 29, 2011.

  1. Tom Swaman

    Tom Swaman Mu-43 Veteran

    This is probably an age-old question, but when yoiu import your RAW files into LR or CS5 do you first convert these to DNG files? If not, what are your specific reasons for not converting to DNG?

    Thanks, Tom
     
  2. I always convert, but then I have to. CS4 will not process a Panasonic RW2.
     
  3. Tom Swaman

    Tom Swaman Mu-43 Veteran

    Thanks, I understand.

    Would you convert if you did not have to convert?

    Best regards,
    Tom
     
  4. I convert to dng so that I have a virtually universal raw format that I can openly directly in PS regardless of which camera it came from. What I'm not sure of is if there is any real reason to keep the original raw file or even embed it in the dng.
     
  5. Pelao

    Pelao Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Feb 3, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    I do convert, and have done so for a few years now. I prefer it for a number of reasons, a simple one being that I don't have to deal with sidecar files etc: the data is embedded in the DNG file. I do not embed the original RAW file.
     
  6. sherlock

    sherlock Mu-43 Regular

    83
    Mar 31, 2011
    Yep, I convert as well, for the same reasons as Pelao. Single files that don't rely on side-car data are worth having.
     
  7. sprinke

    sprinke Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 5, 2011
    Pasadena, CA
    Debi
    I convert to DNG.
     
  8. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    I don't. I don't see a single reason to convert at this stage. Every raw converter I have can open every type of camera file I have from my first canon D30 (not 30D) to today. But very, very occasionally I'll process an image in DPP or other native program because I want to see the original interpretation as a reference and the native software doesn't read DNG's. For example. I'm processing some Olympus raws out in Studio at the moment because Lightroom and Capture 1 crop the 4:3 raw file if I set another ratio in camera (like 3:2), yet the Olympus software sees the entire file. LR and C1 won't let me view the entire raw file, only the cropped version even though the full sensor data is in the file ( how mindlessly, ridiculously, infuriatingly stupid an idea this is is best left to another thread.)

    So at this time you can actually loose functionality and raw data if you convert to DNG.

    Gordon
     
  9. That's a very good point about the Olympus ORFs, that you can retrieve the full 4:3 frame from the raw file in Master or Studio, even if you've chosen a different ratio in-camera.
     
  10. Gillymaru

    Gillymaru Mu-43 Veteran

    I converted to DNG when RAW support wasn't available in Aperture for my cameras, once the support became available I stopped converting.
    If I was more organised I would probably start to convert all my files to DNG and store them on a separate drive. Just as an insurance policy.
     
  11. Alanroseman

    Alanroseman Super Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 21, 2010
    New England
    Nope. I don't expect RAW to go away anytime soon. When it does we'll all have plenty of time to gnash our teeth and convert to DNG, or whatever might be heading down the road.

    I have not opened CS5, or any version of Photoshop since December. Aperture 3 / and the NIK suite are my weapons of choice... Non destructive, no scratch disk space.

    When the time comes.. I'll join in the conversion parade.
     
  12. robsonj

    robsonj Mu-43 Rookie

    14
    May 20, 2011
    Off tangent a bit, but how are the nik plugins considered non-destructive? I use them and love them also, but when used in conjunction with Aperture they're no more non-destructive than cs5.
     
  13. Alanroseman

    Alanroseman Super Moderator Emeritus

    Dec 21, 2010
    New England
    Aperture being my primary choice of weapons, Aperture is no destructive. I don't worry too much about the detritus created by NIK. The RAW like the song, remains the same.

    No Photoshop was part two of my New Years Resolution..... :smile:
     
  14. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    The full file is still there in LR. I think if you go into the crop tool, you'll see the full 4:3 frame.
     
  15. Tom Swaman

    Tom Swaman Mu-43 Veteran

    Interesting indeed and thanks for all of the feedback and comments. I have not been converting to DNG. If my understanding is correct, DNG is not, historically a consistent format and it is well known to have changed with time, i.e. Adobe has modified dramatically the conversion. Therefore, I decided to not worry about the extra memory and safe my RAW files. Upon editing, I used to safe as PSDs the edited files. Now, I save as TIFFs as this is a more universal format.

    I welcome any comments or suggestions.

    Have a super week,
    Tom
     
  16. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    I see not point of converting.
     
  17. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    I don't convert... not worried about being able to process RAWs in future. There are a great many various conversion apps and will be for as long as I'm concerned about the images. Those images that I have selected to work with, for whatever reason, have been processed and re-saved as PSDs and JPGs. Storage is so inexpensive these days... I have no qualms about storing back ups, duplicates, and original RAWs of my important images.
     
  18. Pelao

    Pelao Mu-43 Top Veteran

    959
    Feb 3, 2010
    Ontario, Canada
    I am not concerned about being unable to read my RAW files, although some people quote this as a reason to convert. I just prefer the simplicity of a single file type, and lack of sidecar files when moving files around.

    My files are converted on import, so it's not an extra step that I have to take.
     
  19. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    I don't understand the issue with sidecar files. They consume virtually no space. And for some reason, I haven't seen a sidecar file associated with any of my RAW files in many years. Perhaps the info is contained within the RAW? I don't know. All I do know is that sidecar files aren't even on my radar. They may exist invisibly, but it's of no impact on me.

    I process with LightRoom and, if need be, finish off in Photoshop for whatever reason might warrant that. Any image I want to print or post is converted to PSD, JPG or both. The printed/posted images and the unused images are kept in their RAW form on at three different drives, one of which is moved offsite periodically. I'd burn to disc as well, as I did for many years, if I was really worried about back up. But I'm not. No media is guaranteed to last, however. If some images are lost over time, so be it. Storage is cheap. Duplicates are nice and sometimes priceless. Everything is lost at some point, so I feel no need to go to extensive lengths to attempt to preserve forever. I'd prefer to live more in the moment at this point and not worry about forever.
     
  20. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    I have converted every single file since DNG was announced around 2004. I will continue to do so as I like the universal format.
    I do not save my Raw files once the DNG's are archived.