Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: After converting to DNG should I keep the RAW files?  (Read 3981 times)
Philmar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 354


WWW
« on: January 25, 2013, 04:19:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I recently upgraded from my ol' trusty 30d to a 5DIII. I have not upgraded to LR4 yet (still using 3.6) because my PC will need to be upgraded before I do that.
In the meantime I have been converting my 5DIII CR2 RAW files to DNG so that I can process them on LR3.6 (LR 3.6 not compatible with 5DIII RAWs).  Eventually I plan to upgrade to LR 4 after Iíve upgraded my PC.

So I have been converting to DNG out of necessity and really donít know a lot about the format.

Storing both the RAW and DNG files is taking up double the disk space. I am wondering if I should delete the RAW files and keep the DNG files or is there a compelling reason why I should hold on to them both.
Although I love LR it is not beyond the realm of possibility (remote that it may be) that Canon may improve their DPP software to make it the program of choice. It appears to me that keeping only the DNG file locks me in to using Adobe products for RAW conversion of the DNG files.
Also, it seems like the DNG files are a bit smaller that the CR2 files Ė do I lose any useful (or potentially useful in the future) information by converting to DNG.

Thanks in advance for all your help.
Logged

An office drone pension administrator by day and a photo-enthusiast by night, week-end and on vacation who carries his camera when traveling the world:
Please have a chew on my photos:
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/phil_marion/sets
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2136


« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2013, 07:00:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Keep your RAW files.

You may read varying views.
We all (most?) like DNG but it has not yet been integrated as a universal format.

Tony Jay
Logged
elied
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2013, 12:52:32 AM »
ReplyReply

For me the solution is simple because I keep two backups of my files, one on my desk and one stored off-site. The former is DNG and the latter is CR2.
Logged

Roll over Ed Weston,
Tell Ansel Adams the news
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2828



WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2013, 01:06:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Same here.

John
Logged

Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2013, 01:44:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I recently upgraded from my ol' trusty 30d to a 5DIII. I have not upgraded to LR4 yet (still using 3.6) because my PC will need to be upgraded before I do that.
In the meantime I have been converting my 5DIII CR2 RAW files to DNG so that I can process them on LR3.6 (LR 3.6 not compatible with 5DIII RAWs).  Eventually I plan to upgrade to LR 4 after Iíve upgraded my PC.

So I have been converting to DNG out of necessity and really donít know a lot about the format.

Storing both the RAW and DNG files is taking up double the disk space. I am wondering if I should delete the RAW files and keep the DNG files or is there a compelling reason why I should hold on to them both.
Although I love LR it is not beyond the realm of possibility (remote that it may be) that Canon may improve their DPP software to make it the program of choice. It appears to me that keeping only the DNG file locks me in to using Adobe products for RAW conversion of the DNG files.
Also, it seems like the DNG files are a bit smaller that the CR2 files Ė do I lose any useful (or potentially useful in the future) information by converting to DNG.

Thanks in advance for all your help.


1)  In time  you will upgrade the computer.  The difference between LR3 and LR4 is quite remarkable - I think it is well worth the upgrade (both the software and hardware).

2)  I use only LR (no CS and no PSE), and I don't use DPP.  I doubt that DPP will ever get to where LR is (perhaps working on the sensors would be effort put to better use).  Wink

3)  Since I use LR only, there seems to be no advantage for me to convert CR2 files to DNG.  It would just take more time.

4)  I do convert some CR2 files to TIFF, but that is just for focus stacking (which Zerene Stacker requires).

5)  I presently hold the very faint hope that there may be improvements in DPP or LR that will enable more to be extracted from the RAW file.  The best candidate for this would be DPP, and it surely won't be extracting this extra information (if it's there) from a DNG.  However, see point 3) above.  Grin

7)  Interestingly your last question did hint at what I noted in 6).  However this is not why I don't convert to DNG.

Keep the CR2 files if you can afford the space.

Glenn
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7630


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2013, 02:19:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

You can embed the original raw file in the DNG. The original raw files can be extracted by DNG-converter.

I don't think you loose info when converting to DNG, but many raw converters don't handle DNG.

I definitively think LR4 is worth the upgrade, too.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2013, 12:43:12 PM »
ReplyReply

I do both.  I convert my camera raws (NEF) to DNG when I copy them off of my camera card into my working folders via Lightroom.  During the import I make a copy of the original NEF into an archive on an external HD.  Only when I verify that the archive of the NEFs is complete with files intact do I erase the card by reformatting it in the camera and use it for new images.  The Lightroom working folders themselves are periodically backed up to a second external HD.  That way I end up with double redundancy - Working folders with DNGs and LR catalog on primary HD, backup of working folders / DNG / catalog on secondary HD, and archive of camera original NEF on tertiary HD.  There are two kinds of computer users - those who have had a HD fail catastrophically and those who are going to have a HD fail catastrophically! Storage is cheaper than dirt these days - I remember the days when a 10 megabyte HD cost over a kilobuck -  and there's no reason not to maintain multiple backups.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4053



« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2013, 01:41:41 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, here's a follow-up. I understand Philmar's problem with LR3/5D3. But for those of us who use cameras which produce raw files which LR can read, why convert to DNG at all? What advantages does it offer?

One disadvantage is that the sidecar info is embedded in the DNG when it's saved, so backup software will back up the whole damn thing (unless there's a way to persuade LR to save that info in a separate file even if the raw file is a DNG, in which case I'd love to know about it).

Jeremy
Logged
Glenn NK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 302


« Reply #8 on: January 26, 2013, 02:07:54 PM »
ReplyReply

One disadvantage is that the sidecar info is embedded in the DNG when it's saved, so backup software will back up the whole damn thing (unless there's a way to persuade LR to save that info in a separate file even if the raw file is a DNG, in which case I'd love to know about it).

Jeremy

Not long ago, a "wise" person on another forum suggested that one could lose the XMP sidecar files in LR.  I haven't had my mittens attached to me with strings for many years, and I haven't lost them either.

Glenn
Logged

Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2828



WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2013, 02:42:17 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, here's a follow-up. I understand Philmar's problem with LR3/5D3. But for those of us who use cameras which produce raw files which LR can read, why convert to DNG at all? What advantages does it offer?

One disadvantage is that the sidecar info is embedded in the DNG when it's saved, so backup software will back up the whole damn thing (unless there's a way to persuade LR to save that info in a separate file even if the raw file is a DNG, in which case I'd love to know about it).
Not really. You just fine tune your backup strategy so you backup DNGs when they're new and routinely backup the catalogue. That gives 100% coverage. Don't forget that sidecars don't contain all your LR work and their backup value isn't as great as people like to think - they're a historical aberration because camera makers never agreed on a standard file format.

Other reasons for DNG include the long term value of having a publicly-documented file format, adjusted previews that can be used in other apps, embedded metadata being more universally readable than that in sidecar text files that are vulnerable to loss, data validation hashes. Sometimes there's also smaller file sizes, but that's more a by product than a reason (and space is cheap). I'd also recommend saving any JPEG originals as DNGs as a precaution against overwriting the original image data.

John
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 02:44:33 PM by johnbeardy » Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2013, 04:48:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Not really.

http://forums.adobe.com/message/1210133#1210133

says Eric Chan :

"...for archival purposes I recommend (and practice) safely storing the original raw files in the form that they came off the camera , whether they be DNG or non-DNG..."

"...To be clear, Adobe did __not__ create DNG in the hopes that photographers shooting non-DNG raw files would suddenly convert them all to DNG files and then throw away their original non-DNG raw files. Instead, Adobe created DNG has an example of a documented format (a set of TIFF extensions) that would improve interoperability among hardware and software vendors, as well as be suitable for archiving..."
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2828



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2013, 05:01:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, you're on my ignore list as I don't think you post here in good faith.
Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2013, 05:18:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, you're on my ignore list as I don't think you post here in good faith.

faith... hmm... oh, coincidentally = http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/index.html

"Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person"
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4053



« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2013, 04:57:25 AM »
ReplyReply

faith... hmm... oh, coincidentally = http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/index.html

"Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person"

I'm not sure what possible relevance that reference has to anything being discussed in this, or any other, thread here, and your posting it rather supports John's view of you.

Without embarking on a philosophical debate, though, and entertaining as it is to hear it argued by Catholics, the law as set out in the article is correct beyond any possibility of argument.

Jeremy
Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2013, 08:16:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Using DNG does not "lock you into" Adobe only products, there is other support for DNG.  That said I'd suggest you keep your original raw, storage is now cheaper than ever, and who knows what the future holds.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4890



« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2013, 08:37:45 AM »
ReplyReply

faith... hmm... oh, coincidentally = http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/us/colorado-fetus-lawsuit/index.html

"Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person"

Please stay on topic or be gone.

Michael
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #16 on: January 27, 2013, 03:51:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Please stay on topic or be gone.

Michael

absolutely, however - note that my opponent resorted to personal attack ("...I don't think you post here in good faith...") in response to me just quoting a well known remark from a person who contributed a lot to DNG instead of staying on topic - that is about merits of preserving the original raw files ... how about that  Cool ?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2828



WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 27, 2013, 04:22:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Huh? A personal attack? Sorry, but I was very careful to say it was the impression I have of you, deejjaaa....
Logged

Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2013, 11:26:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Huh? A personal attack? Sorry, but I was very careful to say it was the impression I have of you, deejjaaa....

I was supposed to be on your ignore list, right ? it is personal - you did not like the quote from Eric Chan of Adobe Labs and having no other argument against that opinion (which is well known and never reversed by Eric) resorted to personal attack... that is very simple
Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #19 on: January 28, 2013, 11:30:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure what possible relevance
very relevant in fact, when you profess somebody's teaching (Adobe, why DNG was created and what for) be sure to follow it exactly and not pick the parts that suits your agenda and try to shut the parts that you do not like... and note again - I said nothing about JB personally, my posting was just a quote about the true DNG purpose... he instead accused me of not posting in good faith... is not not a good faith to quote the source from Adobe ? shall the truth be hidden to suit JB's agenda ?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 11:32:58 AM by Vladimirovich » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad