Converting to dng files.. I have been using dng files for my 'working' copies in LR for a long time, but following some advice, I started converting my "original, do not edit" backup...

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

I have been using dng files for my 'working' copies in LR for a long time, but following some advice, I started converting my "original, do not edit" backup files to dng also. After processing most of my 2014 images, I noticed that the resolution of the dng files is reported in Irfanview as 1024x683, instead of the CR2 files 5184x3456...

Have I screwed up somewhere here? Am I throwing away resolution for the sake of future accessibility?

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

DNG are RAW files, what format were your originals files?

tsilva Loc: Arizona

I don't see where irfanview can read dng. it is probably picking up the size of the embedded jpg.

use a better program and see what size the file is showing as.

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

Bultaco wrote:

DNG are RAW files, what format were your originals files?

I said that... They were CR2, Canon raw files.

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

tsilva wrote:

I don't see where irfanview can read dng. it is probably picking up the size of the embedded jpg.

use a better program and see what size the file is showing as.

Ok, thanks, that works. Opened on in PS and it is still full size. I normally use Irfanview for general file viewing, and it can handle most formats. It reads the CR2 files correctly, and unlike windows explorer, it *does* display the contents of the dng file. I suppose you are right, in that it must be reading the jpg preview or something.

Thanks for the suggestion!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Bloke wrote:

Am I throwing away resolution for the sake of future accessibility?

"Future accessibility"?
What you're actually saying is that Canon may go belly up before Adobe?!
Yes, Adobe has declared DNG, public domaine and I think I've read that some of the smaller companies are using it, I'm sure it's cheaper than writing their own program.
I'm also sure that Adobe would like to have as much of the imaging world dependent entirely on them as they can possibly corral!!
Personally I NEVER change my CR files. Even if I had DNG's, I'd have both.
Maybe it's that at at such a young age I learned not to trust, "The Man"!!! :lol:
SS

Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania

SharpShooter wrote:

"Future accessibility"? br What you're a... (show quote)

It's not that Canon will go belly-up, but what if they introduce a new raw format somewhere down the road... What happened to CR1, I wonder? How long would it be before CR2 files were unreadable by whatever the current software is at the time? I don't know, but that was the reasoning in the book I read, and he made a good case for it...

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

Bloke wrote:

I have been using dng files for my 'working' copies in LR for a long time, but following some advice, I started converting my "original, do not edit" backup files to dng also. After processing most of my 2014 images, I noticed that the resolution of the dng files is reported in Irfanview as 1024x683, instead of the CR2 files 5184x3456...

Have I screwed up somewhere here? Am I throwing away resolution for the sake of future accessibility?

It sounds like you are converting them at a crop size?

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

SharpShooter wrote:

"Future accessibility"? br What you're a... (show quote)

Well said. The history of Adobe is that they are always moving to increase our dependency on Adobe--hence the cloud thing. I don't trust Adobe to maintain their integrity in the future. Canon and Nikon have both demonstrated a long-term commitment to the customer. I'm not worried about my NEF files being obsolete or my CR files. But even if they do, there are so many out there that someone will write a way to read them. That is not true for DNG.