charles brown Loc: Tennesse

This is a follow-up to my earlier question concerning opening NEF files taken by my new Nikon D7500 using PSE14. That issue was resolved. However, I compared the size of the NEF file to that of the converted DNG file and found a difference. Using four different photographs I found that the DNG file was consistently smaller than the NEF file. The reduction in size ranged from a low of 10.8% to a high of 16.3%. I did a search and found lots of discussion about the pros and cons of converting from NEF to DNG but found nothing directly addressing this issue. Supposedly there is no loss of data when converting a NEF file to DNG. If that be true, why then are the files so different in size? Also, has Nikon or Canon ever said anything publicly about converting their RAW files to DNG? My search couldn't find anything.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Adobe strips EXIF data from the image file. The image data remains unchanged. Depending on the camera and / or the image, the removal of EXIF data will vary as a percentage of the original file. I provided an analysis earlier this summer. Let me see if I can still find.

EDIT -

View my comments and attachment on pages 1 & 2 of this discussion:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-547410-1.html

Bill_de Loc: US

There are features in your camera which may only be recognized by the software provided by the camera manufacturer. In some cases it allows the software, including raw files, to apply camera settings when you open the image. Since Adobe doesn't use this information, giving preference to your default settings in their software, they strip it out during the conversion to DNG.

I don't know how PS works today, but in the past even when you were able to open your original raw files in Adobe software it only used the same information that they include in a DNG file.

--

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Yes. I was originally surprised to find that my RAW and high resolution JPEG files were nearly the same size. I’ve decided file size is just magic.

Andy

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Two different file formats of the exact same image can be different sizes because of the way the code is written. If you converted your RAW to TIFF the files would get bigger.

Larryshuman

Last January I went to Lock and dam 14 with a Nikon D5. I am stand alone photoshop CS6 so I'm NOT adobe updated for the D5 images. So I used Adobe free DGN converter and run it on my Lock and dam 14 Nef's. There was only a 1.55MB difference between the a NEF and a DGN file. For all purposes they are equal. I ran the DGN's through my stand alone CS6 and everything worked perfectly. So I do not see any reason for not converting new camera NEF's to DNG files. Its almost too easy.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

There's lots of data in a file that does not affect what you see in the photo. Perhaps that's the difference, one format doesn't need it, the other does.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

These are a few years old now, but I don't know that they are out of date or anything has changed:

https://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng

https://petapixel.com/2015/12/08/dng-the-pros-cons-and-myths-of-the-adobe-raw-file-format/

Larryshuman

I saved my nef's from the Lock & Dam 14 D5 shoot to a external hard drive. I've made prints from the dgn files and it was done exactly like the work on my nef files. My workflow has NOT changed at all. The DGN file opens in my ACR screen. My DGN files don't look any different than my NEF files, only 1.55MB smaller. I use the same changes on a NEF file that I use on a DGN file. The only way to not use DGN's on newer camera is to be on the cloud. I choose not to pay $10 a month. So I download the Adobe DGN converter for free and now I can open D5, D500, D7500 and D850 on CS6 just like I have for years.