Interesting article for DNG vs raw debate

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by WestOkid, Jul 17, 2015.

  1. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Why I Stopped Using the DNG File Format

    BTW - I personally decided long ago to stick with raw when I ran into issues with DXO.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 3
  2. roundball

    roundball TalkEmount Legend

    Oct 8, 2013
    I don't dabble in that sort of PP sandbox but I can still appreciate a well written technical article, and IMO, that was very well written / interesting.
  3. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur Subscribing Member

    Nov 13, 2012
    Ad Dieleman
    I experimented the other day with converting raws to DNG for use in Lightroom, and I had all kinds of problems I don't care to try to remember. I wholeheartedly agree: convert to DNG as much as you like but NEVER EVER discard the original raw files!
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. HabsFan

    HabsFan TalkEmount Veteran

    Apr 10, 2013
    Ontario, CAN
    I converted to DNG for a few months when I had my A35 a few years ago. My DNG files where actually larger than the Sony RAWs. I also remember having issues opening them in some 3rd party software and it also did some funny stuff with the metadata so I stopped using them. Unfortunately I deleted the original RAW files. Not the end of the world I guess but I agree, I just use the Sony raw files. With Windows 8.1, you even get the JPEG previews showing up and if you use FastStone image viewer, you can quickly export the imbedded JPEGS from your RAW. I see no use for DNG conversion.
  5. pbizarro

    pbizarro Guest

    Well, storage is cheap, so what I do is to keep the original RAW files, plus the DNG conversion. At least, I am more or less sure that DNG is a future proof format, whereas say my Canon Powershot Pro1 RAWs from 11 years ago, well, not sure if I can still open them in the future...

    As for the article, I am sorry, all it tells me is that the author does not fully know how to use LR...
  6. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    I used to be more or less sure about that too. But when I converted some .orf files from my old Olympus E-10 to .dng and then discovered to my dismay that I was unable able to open them in Aperture (this was a few years ago) whereas the .orf files opened without any problem, I changed my thinking.

    After all, why should any software company such as Capture One support a .dng file from a major competitor over a raw file from a camera maker? And given Adobe's "customer last" philosophy, my guess is that .dng files will become obsolete (or only accessible via subscription) long before any camera maker's raw files become defunct.

    As Niels Bohr said: Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. But my money is on the original raw files.
  7. HabsFan

    HabsFan TalkEmount Veteran

    Apr 10, 2013
    Ontario, CAN
    There is a free DNG converter to convert RAW files to DNG. It would probably take less room to archive a few versions of the converter so that you could convert RAWs to DNGs in the future than keeping RAW and DNG copies
  8. Bill

    Bill TalkEmount Veteran

    Oct 22, 2012
    Brisbane, Australia
    I'm a fan of DNG, but it's not without its problems.

    I talked about the advantages here:

    And, I talk about the disadvantages here:

    And, more recently, I talk about why I'm only converting my keepers to DNG, here:

    More generally, it seems to me that the PetaPixel article's author doesn't understand either RAW or Lightroom.

    Yes, these are non-destructive environments (Lightroom, Capture One, DXO), but every action you take in adjusting a RAW file limits your latitude for using other tools. Happily, the dynamic range of recent sensors affords enough latitude so that most photographers who aren't headed to high-quality prints won't encounter noticeable loss.

    Lightroom, however, simply ensures that the photographer decides what's required, not the program. Yes, Lightroom's freshly demosiaced images look more dull; and, yes, that requires more judgement by the user. I print and I'm unwilling to leave some elements of image quality on the floor.

    I don't dispute that Capture One is a great program. It's just not perfect -- and neither is Lightroom. And, I don't throw away my original raw files.

    (Lightroom users can if they wish just click "auto" and drop in a little clarity and vibrance. Sort of defeats the purpose of working in RAW.)

    Whichever ways we choose to go, good luck to us all.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.