montephoto

I didn't want to hijack a different thread, so I started this new one:

I have shot all of my images in RAW for many years as a pro.

I convert the files to DNG upon download. DNG file are "slightly" smaller than NEF.
However, I have found that is not necessarily true for Canon files.
I am seeing posts telling others to use the proprietary/native RAW setting over using DNG.

After years of use I don't know of any disadvantages of DNG, but I like the advantage of the sidecar (.xmp)
being incorporated inside the DNG format so that it isn't lost or disassociated.
Other than that, I don't know of the advantages.

What are the explicit advantages of using the proprietary RAW vs DNG? CHG_Canon has mentioned this before.

Let's all keep it civil.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

DNG is an overall waste of time. This was Adobe's effort to try to take over the market. It failed, mostly because Adobe was forced by the market to provide support for 'native format' RAW files from all the relevant camera manufacturers.

The idea that a DNG is smaller is true only until the Adobe software begins to write their edit instructions into the DNG. Then, these files will tend to get larger.

How does a DNG get smaller than the RAW? By Adobe striping the camera EXIF from the RAW and replacing with Adobe's own EXIF, a mixture of original data, the removal of some of the original camera data, and then Adobe's start-point for their Adobe-specific EXIF.

When you let Adobe remove camera EXIF, you tend to lose the ability to analyze the technical details of the AF configuration using the native camera software. This is especially true if you convert to DNG and discard the original RAW.

The fact that Adobe must support the original (aka native) RAW format, as well as all the players in the digital editor market, pretty much confirms the DNG conversion is a waste of time. The camera manufacturers flatly rejected the idea of outputting DNG from their cameras instead of RAW sensor data. Adobe is big, but not big enough to tell / force the digital camera industry what to do with their cameras.

If you convert to DNG and discard the RAW, well now you're locked-into Adobe and / or software that fully supports the DNG, pretty much only Adobe. That's what Adobe really wants....

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

Thank you this explanation makes some issues I have struggled with very clear.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I don't bother with DNG, I just work with the RAW and save as JPEG when done editing.
I don't need an extra intermediate step (or file).

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

I prefer to save the native file format in it's original form and edit from there.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

About a decade ago, there was a lot of noise about DNG. I was shooting raw at the time and thought I'd look into it to see if there was an advantage to doing so. I looked at several articles online about the subject and made a list of pros and cons. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=1419

My conclusion was that it was not worth the effort to take an existing raw file (NEF in my case) and convert it to dng. I have not updated the sources so the conclusions are from wayback, but I have not seen anything recent that would change my mind.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Why save as jpg when done? Unless you plan to export for some reason, why waste the space. And if you save as a jpg, what size will you choose or do you plan to keep a myaid of jpg files. For WIW I have zero jpg files saved. I just export for some use and when done erase it. I know disk spoace is cheap but why waste it?

MJPerini

I would Agree with CHG CANON
It absolutely was Adobe's intention to offer a universal format. I cannot say if that would have been a bad or good thing for photographers. It definitely would have benefitted Adobe. The fact that it was rejected by nearly all Camera manufacturers essentially means that DNG is an anomaly as an unneeded intermediate step. There is no benefit.
For better or worse , every editing application (exceptionalism camera specific ones) needs to support every RAW format. The problem in my view is that the DNG is not an exact copy of all the data in a raw file. It is a 'nearly exact copy' Certainly enough to provide good editing results (especially in Adobe's software)
Leica Adopted it with no consequences, which is because they wrote the data they wanted to write into the constraints of the DNG format. For them there IS no conversion (RAW> DNG) process.
I see no compelling reason to use it, and see no benefit.
Not many people speak Esperanto anymore either......

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

As much as I too reject the 'need' for converting RAW to DNG, I will point to the usefulness of transferring edits between two separate LR Classic installations. Here, the DNG is a wonderful method of sharing work-in-progress edits. Although the DNG doesn't send the step-by-step history from import to export, it does present the current status of every edit parameter of the image. Exporting and sending that DNG to another LR Classic user lets them import that DNG into their LR Classic database, receiving the RAW-data payload and all the edit parameters. The second LR Classic user can edit the image and send back a new DNG export, allowing the first LR user to receive, import and compare the now edited versions of the image.

This DNG usage scenario is very specific to sharing edited images between LR Classic installations. Creating DNGs as a default is entirely unnecessarily.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I need to save the photos of interest to my family as jpg. At 84 I can't guarantee that I have time to convert them to jpg while I'm still able. My photos are all in LR, which nobody in my family knows how to use. The jpgs are in folders which follow normal OS conventions and names so the family has a significant chance of finding them since everyone knows how to use the computer. The space taken up by jpgs is not significant. All jpgs are full size.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I do, I do plan to "export" - on my website, on Facebook, sending to a print house, sending to friends.

I peruse my images in Explorer, no cataloger. Up until Win 11, Explorer didn't display .CR2 files, so having the JPEG was nice. I peruse the JPEGS and edit the RAW.

Since I don't take a bazillion pictures (I'm very selective), I'm not worried about space at all, I have less than 500GB of space used for images in 20+years. That includes scanned old prints. I'm not wasting space, I'm having convenience. And I can send/post an image without having to open an editor to save it as a JPEG.
My wife like to peruse the images (again, in Explorer), and she has absolutely NO INTEREST in learning an editor.

We each do what we like, eh?
Or would you prefer I do things your way.

bw79st Loc: New York City

I know this won't help the original poster much but the only thing I use DNG format is for anything I scan of my slides and negatives. My Olympus cameras' output is recognized by PS and is treated as RAW. I see no need to convert my digital cameras' output to DNG.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"The fact that it was rejected by nearly all Camera manufacturers essentially means that DNG is an anomaly as an unneeded intermediate step. There is no benefit."

"This was Adobe's effort to try to take over the market. It failed, mostly because Adobe was forced by the market to provide support for 'native format' RAW files from all the relevant camera manufacturers."

My understanding is that Adobe created DNG in public domain. I have four cameras that use DNG. Three come from DJI who sells a wide variety of unique flying, action and stabilzed cameras. The fourth is my year old Samsung phone.

It would be fun to know actual unit sales numbers, but between DJI and Samsung phones, I'd conclude that Adobe's DNG program is doing well.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If we think about how Topaz uses DNG to edit RAW first and pass those edits back into LR or PS, this is another 'serious' and 'useful' implementation. So, it's not that DNG doesn't have uses. Rather, default conversion and replacement of proprietary RAW with DNG is where Adobe pushed 'industry standard' too far for the industry to agree / adopt.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I believe that dng is a container file. That means that it is not always a raw file. It may contain the raw data when an original raw file is converted to dng but not necessarily when editing software is transferring an image to other software.