AZNikon Loc: Mesa, AZ

I have just purchased this program and I am trying to learn it. There are plenty of tutorials online which is good, but sometimes you just have a question and there's no one to ask. Since I have just joined UHH I will try my luck here.

Situation: I watched one tutorial and it spent a lot of time on the topic of converting proprietary raw files to DNG (Digital Negative). I shoot Nikon so we are talking NEF files. I spent a lot of time with this and I am still scratching my head.
Question: Is it really necessary to convert my NEF's to DNG's? Since Lightroom 5 is a "non-destructive" program that works with metadata only, why not just work from the NEF's?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

"Luck" is the wrong word. When you ask a question here about LR5, you get the right answer, and more. Go ahead. Give it a try. And welcome to our forum.

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

.DNG files are slightly smaller than .NEF files, so there is a slight savings in space on your hard drive. It is not necessary to convert - the Develop module allows a choice between "Copy as .DNG", "Copy" and "Move" - if you wish to retain your .NEF files in that format, chose "Copy" or "Move" (move erases the file from your memory card - I don't use "Move" as a personal choice because I like to have a temporary backup in case LR5 gets discombobulated).

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

The one primary reason I decided to use DNG files, instead of leaving them as NEF files, is that all metadata gets stored in the DNG file. This includes edits you make to the photos as well.

Left as a NEF file, each photo's edits will be stored in a sidecar file with an .XMP extension on it. So now, for each photo, you'll have to know there are two files that need consideration.

Additionally, I saw no major disadvantage converting to DNG. It is actually a smaller file than the NEF.

I initially decided to use the DNG format and there's not been a single instance where I wish I hadn't.

TimS Loc: GA

Ditto for my canon CR2 RAW files.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Personallly I copy my Sony and Olympus RAW files from their memory cards into LR folders, then use the LR RAW editor on them without conversion to DNG. Depending on where the photos are going I may eventually convert to 16-bit TIFF to send them to other programs (that conversion permanently embeds the RAW edits into the TIFFs so the other programs can see what your edits are) for further work. Thus I remain in lossless formats until I finally must convert to JPG for printing or web use.

DNG is just the original generic version of RAW before companies started adding their own proprietary code and file extensions to it, so there's no real benefit to converting to DNG. Edits go in the DNG file or are attached to other RAW files using a sidecar. Who cares? Adobe makes excellent RAW convertors for every brand so DNG isn't going to cause miraculous better image quality or anything. It's like stripping the name tags and decals off your Cadillac so it becomes indistinguishable from an almost identical similar Chevy model. Why?

billjohdoittoday Loc: Arkansas

And further ditto for my micro-four-thirds RAW files.

Bill