Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

Would like to hear if there is a downside to converting my nef files to the dng format, and I guess the upside of doing so.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

No. It's really the same as NEF or CR2. Just Adobe's version of raw sensor data.

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

Thanks David. So is there no loss of any information?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

.dng is a compromise type universal RAW file format for those not having the software to process the proprietary file formats that the camera uses. There is definitely a loss of digital data when converting to .dng from .nef or .cr2 files. How serious the data loss is depends on the files themselves.

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

I am brand new to pp as of this week. Have a new Macboook and I am learning Lightroom cc. I have a lot of past photos in jpg that I probaly won't be doing much to. Going forward I have been keeping raw files shot with a d7100 acquired in June and am wondering what to do.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Lightroom CC will process all your .nef files just fine, and retain all the Nikon file info in doing so. Saving .jpg file in .dng format is a total waste of time because the crucial info needed to process RAW files has already been discarded in camera and cannot be recovered.

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

Thanks Shooter. Will just be capturing raw from now on since I finally have computer and software to process. Just wondered if I should convert to dng.

doduce Loc: Holly Springs NC

MT is spot on--there is no advantage to importing as a .dng file. When you import in LR, just COPY, not COPY AS DNG, and you'll keep all the RAW data. After PP, when you export, you can decide then what file format to use.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

This couldn't be more incorrect. This might help.

http://www.natcoalson.com/blog/2011/11/29/my-adobe-dng-chat-with-eric-chan/

Chan makes the distinction that dng can be used to store either scene-referred image data (raw) or output referred data (jpg).

His final statement is the following:

" . . . the main point you really need to understand is that if you shoot with a DSLR and convert your raw files to DNG you are not losing any data or image quality (assuming you’re capturing raw not sRaw). And the advantages of DNG are significant; see the links below for more about this."

Eric Chan is a senior computer scientist at Adobe.

Bottom line, is there is no practical downside to converting a full 14 bit raw file to dng.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Nope!

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I love it when there are diametrically opposed views from apparently respectable sources.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

I guess you are one of those people who implicitly believes all the crap posted on the internet.
No problem, the data loss is easily proven if you care to try sometime rather than spout off total nonsense from a "company" source (an internet BLOG third party info? Come on already, thats the best you can do?).
Any .nef file converted to .dng comes out significantly smaller. A typical D800 .nef file at around 45MB, when converted to .dng will end up around 39MB is size. (Anyone can prove this for themselves, just do it.) No data loss??? Yeah, right. And Ford has a better idea! Welcome to the real world.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Smaller file size is probably due to lossless compression and different compression methods. Can you show me the specific IMAGE data loss? It's a known fact that dng ignores camera settings data, and will not recognize and store sraw, Dlighting, and some other proprietary information in a raw file which would also make a file smaller.

BTW, if you convert them correctly (with large jpg preview), a dng file can actually be bigger - check out the screenshot.

So I am looking forward to a better explanation of how and why dng is somehow less than the original raw files, with the exceptions noted. The explanation should include a practical example of how the image processed from raw "looks" different (not as good actually) than the exact same image processed from a raw properly converted to dng.

If I am wrong, I stand corrected. But it is always easier to discredit a source, particularly if it disagrees with an opinion you've written.

Here are some more "easy to discredit" sources:

http://www.mosaicarchive.com/2013/05/01/the-raw-truth-about-dng/

Where is states "The .DNG format, while retaining all the original image data, does dispose of some of the metadata that accompanies raw files, but does not affect image quality, such as camera settings and focus points. That means that a .DNG file will be about 15% smaller than an identical raw file. However, the image quality of the photographs themselves are identical. This helps improve the one big drawback of shooting in raw – the larger file size of these formats compared to .JPG or .TIFF."

Or here:

http://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw

or even here:

http://www.bythom.com/dng.htm

This article points out some downside, most of which has been addressed by Adobe.

Hasselblad, Leica, Pentax, Sinar, Ricoh, Capture One and other cameras/digital backs now support dng as their native raw format in some of their cameras, and dng files are supported by 200 applications - 5 years ago no one other than Adobe supported it.

So, get your morning coffee, take a deep breath, relax and do your homework. Again, if I am wrong, you need to show me where and how, and I will accept it and with that acceptance I will offer you a full apology. It's not about you or me, but the pursuit of accurate, fact based knowledge - don't you agree?

BTW - I see absolutely no difference in the results, working from a raw D800 file vs using a dng of the same file. None. Can you explain that maybe?

(Download)

Pappy519 Loc: Allen, TX

In my experience as a software person and enthusiast photographer, when ever you change file formats you are changing the information in the file, might not be much of a change but you will change it with the potential for the loss of some information.

A best practice is, if you do not need to change the file format, then do not. LR will already open you RAW file, no reason to change.

This is a lesson I have learned the hard way :)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

This begs the question - where are YOU getting your info from - you do realize I had to ask that after your attempt at a flame. Do tell.