burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Lightroom is just an image management database. EVERYTHING IT DOES is just a database entry — Everything you SEE is just a proxy image — Whether raw or DNG or JPEG or whatever, your original image is untouched... until you Export or Print or Post to Web. THEN, it is rendered as a new file. This is UNLIKE Photoshop and other true image editors, which make actual changes to the file you open, destroying data when you convert from raw or DNG and save in any other format.

Lots of new users miss this point. Keep records of where you saved your original images!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The camera manufacturers who use proprietary formats have valid reasons for using them. Many of them are economic — they want their own secret sauce that can't be duplicated — or they want to keep competitors from opening their images in their software. Canon DPP does not read NEFs, for example.

I THINK DNG is a perfectly viable, usable file format for raw images, for all the reasons Adobe created it and put it in the public domain. But I also know from personal experience, that when I have a VERY MARGINAL file, I can eke out the best color from it by using the camera manufacturer's own software. I've seen this with Nikon, Canon, and Panasonic images, time and again. Nobody knows their cameras quite like the creators.

That's why I KEEP my old NEF and CR2 and current RW2 files (and all original, unedited, SOOC JPEGs), regardless of whether I generate DNGs from my raw files.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Mark, the statement that 'I know of no one regretting converting' is not a valid statistical argument. Whether you know anyone or not is irrelevant. It is a Trump like statement, where only his opinion matters, regardless of any factual information to the contrary.

Now, there is nothing wrong with DNG, but it is just another proprietary format at this point, proprietary to Adobe. It is an open format, it has been proposed as a formal standard, but not yet adopted by a standards organization.

The issue is that some information is lost or not transferred when converting to DNG. Whether a Nikon Nef or Canon CR2 or other vendor specific file, there is information that DNG does not retain. These new developments simply aren't part of the DNG specification.

A good example is the new Canon 5D mk IV. It has a new technology - dual pixel raw - which nobody other than Canon supports yet. Adobe will now process raw files from the 5D mk IV, but not the dual pixel raw information.

If DNG works for you, or for anyone else, then by all means use it, but it is still just another proprietary format at this point and information may be lost by converting.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Eyes wide open... Keep your NEFs, CR2s, and other raw files, even if you convert them.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

The DNG is NOT "universal". It is owned and operated by Adobe. One little piece at a time, Adobe would like to rule the camera image world.
Adobe makes DNG available to anybody that wants to use it.
I'm sure for the few camera companies that capture in it, it saves them a ton of money so they don't have to write their own programs.
Make no mistake, it's NOT a universal std. like JPEG is.
Let's see who goes belly-up first, Canon or Adobe!!!
SS

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative

It is INTENDED as Universal. Adobe would be tickled pink if ISO adopted it. In fact, they've submitted it to them for consideration. See the second paragraph of the link. Meanwhile, it is royalty free to use, so it is effectively in the public domain.

All that said, I use it sparingly. It seems redundant in my workflow.

Singinman Loc: Newport News, VA

I have not studied DNG to the extent some of you have, but I have been shooting in DVG on my Pentax since it first came out and have not had any problems.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

It is proprietary, it is open, it has been proposed as a formal standard (which JPEG and TIFF are) but has not yet been accepted.

It is certainly not universal but does have its uses. Certainly not a replacement for proprietary raw formats but a useful adjunct. Bear in mind that there are lossless JPEG standards also, they just haven't been adopted widely. Even though DNG is a proprietary format, it is widely adopted as a 'defacto standard'.

Sure, nobody should be deleting their NEF or CR2 files if they have a grain of sense, but DNG is useful.

This is even worse than the camera brand wars or the OS wars. Use it or not, your choice. There is no need for a dick measuring contest over things like this.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Peter, of course there is!!!
Get out the yard stick will ya!!!!!
SS

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Always assuming too much? A yard stick??? How about a 6 inches ruler?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I think I need a plumb line measured in fathoms! Mark twain for Canon users!

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

DNG means "digital negative" and was, as I recall, an Adobe convention originally for digital cinema files.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

'Digital Cinema'? That's interesting!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Wrongy, your finally right.
The six incher is easier to wield and it can always be doubled up!!!
SS

JohanneT Loc: South Africa

DNG can not be recognized by all programs and are supposed to be smaller files but that is not always the case. It was developed to save storage space, but the saving is about 10% and storage is not that expensive any more. I have been converting my NEF files DNG for a long time but stopped doing it about a year ago because it is time consuming and no real benefit.
-JT-