redrocktom Loc: Sedona

Just learning LightRoom, using Kelby book primarily. He and Adobe reco converting RAW files to DNG immediately upon import. Cited advantages: DNG files are lossless but smaller, non-proprietary format, and they don't need the separate XMP sidecar. That data is embedded directly in the DNG file. I welcome any wisdom on this RAW vs. DNG recommendation.

rcurrie Loc: Kingsport, TN

Makes sense to me. I do it.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Me too. ;)

Rongnongno Loc: FL

RAW is proprietary, DNG is not a standard either.

A DNG is created from a RAW file and in the process can received some information and modifications made during the convert process.

If you pay attention, like RAW once a DNG is created it is not editable. It can be open but never saved as DNG again.

---------------

Note: The following is my understanding of what I have read a couple of years ago concerning DNG.

DNG was created as a possible standard for RAW but was not accepted as it does not allow for the customization needed when creating a RAW file within a camera. It was also AFTER the Bayer interpolation so it would have limited the color depth to 8 bits and the dynamic range to 2.

The software RAW/DNG conversion on the other hand takes the RAW 12~14 bits and 4~6 dynamic range, passes it through the equivalent of a Bayer filter w/o losing the color depth and dynamic range, something a camera computer is unable to do*.

RAW entirely by-passes the camera computer and just records the sensor array information.

Flymaster Loc: Michigan

Just bought Lightroom myself, and somewhat mystified by this DNG thing. I was thinking of picking up Kelby's book as well, is it any good?

Scott

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I shoot Canon but keep all my images in the proprietary Canon format. *.cr2. While I use Lightroom 5 most of the time I occasionally use Canon's DPP program (Digital Photo Professional), a very capable raw processing and conversion program. If I converted my images to DNG I wouldn't be able to open them in DPP. One of the main advantages of DPP is that unlike most other raw converters, all the in-camera settings for picture style, white balance, color tone, sharpness, contrast, etc are retained with the raw image as they would be with jpegs. In Lightroom you start with a basically blank slate because no in-camera settings are carried over with the raw images. That is the reason that unprocessed raw files tend to look dull and flat compared to jpeg files. If shots are already very close to what I want, all it takes is a bit of tweaking in DPP. As a result I don't convert to DNG.

Doyle Thomas Loc: Vancouver Washington ~ USA

DNG or "digital negative" is Adobes camera independent raw file format. Just about every camera including different models from the same manufacture have their own proprietary raw format. Archiving as DNG helps to insure your file will be readable well into the future.

Light Rooms raw converter must be up to date with support for your camera to make the conversion, otherwise you will have to use the software that came with your camera to open and edit to tiff.

As time moves on it is possible that you camera raw format may no longer be supported. By converting to DNG this potential problem can be avoided and is recommended. All information is retained and Light Room editing is the same.

My only concern is the possibility of Adobe moving the converter to the "cloud", forcing us to pay a fee to open a DNG.

mikedidi46 Loc: WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA

I shoot in raw and use Lightroom 5.3. I also have Photoshop Elements 11, but I seem to stay with Lightroom

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

The problem with the manufacturer's RAW program is it changes with each camera model, and you have to maintain each program for each camera. Even if the label is the same, the software only works with that specific model of camera. Own two different Canons, you need two software packages running. Also, Software like iPhoto and Aperature don't support all the older versions of camera RAW, only the recent ones. That is the advantage of Adobe DNG,

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Not sure why you think that is true. Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) is backwards compatible. While you need to update it to support new cameras as they come along, the updated versions still support my older bodies. I have three bodies and all three are different models from from different times and each is supported in the most current copy of DPP. You do have to update DPP with the latest version when you get a new body, but I always download the most current version anyway since Canon is always tweaking and updating features. No need for two different versions. In fact I'm not sure if I could even run two different versions on my computer. And unlike aperture and iPhoto Adobe does support older versions of raw files. If a time ever comes when there is a potential for a backwards compatibility issue, I will convert my raw files then.

mossgate Loc: Phoenix, AZ

For what it is worth. http://www.mosaicarchive.com/2013/05/01/the-raw-truth-about-dng/

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/creative-suite-podcast-photographers/how-to-get-started-with-lightroom-5-10-things-beginners-want-to-know-how-to-do/ The brief comments about DNG about five minutes into the Lightroom tutorial .

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

The best I found, Scott. ;)

mossgate Loc: Phoenix, AZ

And as an afterthought...... Once in awhile I get up the ambition to archive my ORIGINAL (unedited) and my best edited photos to CDs or DVDs. If you save your original raw files in a separate folder and/or on CD or DVD and just use a copy of the raw image file for post processing then you can use these raw files to your liking, keeping all your options open.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I've put some thought into this. First, a friend of mine purchased the newest LR and about the same time a Nikon D600. (I don't remember which version of LR) Adobe hadn't updated LR to support his D600 yet so I told him how to upload his images into LR and have it convert them to DNG. He brought his computer over for some help in the matter and I showed him how. After doing this once I could see some definite disadvantages to doing this - namely, this is very time consuming. I couldn't believe how long this took.

For this reason I think I'd be better off downloading the original raw image files and using the software that comes with my camera until Adobe did the update. I don't think you'll need DNG conversions unless your camera make and model isn't supported by Adobe and this usually isn't the case unless the camera make and model is newer than the Adobe product you are using. But if you have older files generated by a camera that is older than the Adobe product you use I think you'll always be fine. Besides, your camera manufacturers included or downloadable software should always support your camera, and if this isn't the case, I'm sure there will always be someone that will provide some kind of converter for your image files.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

It took Adobe a couple of months after the D600 came out before the specs for the D600 were available. Lightroom 4 was the current edition at the time and the update came along with other new cameras in the 4.2 update. I kept my D600 photos on memory chips and added them to LR after downloading the patch. ;)