DickW Loc: Roxboro, NC

Am brand new to raw. Shooting Nikon so files are in NEF format. After reading several items here and elsewhere, am leaning towards converting to DNG. Is there any downside to doing so? Does it make a difference whether I covert in Lightroom or use a dedicated converter? Which one?
Thanks,
dick

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Only things you need to be careful of:
Keep the same color space (sRGB, RGB, ProRGB) as the original.
Use 16bit color conversion. DNG defaults to 8 bits. You would lose trillions of possible shade of colors.

I am not aware of any software doing this better than another one, unless the default mentioned above are presets. Remember that DNG is an Adobe standard, not an universal one.

Otherwise there is absolutely no reason not to do it. You gain a more accepted non-standard format.

If you are looking for universal compliance use TIFF (same caveat as above). Difference? DNG is not editable, TIFF is.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Dick, I'm not an expert on file formats. And if you are going to work in an Adobe product, I'm not sure you have a lot is choices.
BUT, the most complete file you will ever have of your RAW shots are the native files produces by your camera.
A DNG, is already a translation of the original shot, into a different format. That it's universal does not mean it contains all the original data your camera shot. You are using Adobe's version of their translator to make the DNG.
So, all that said, I use LR all the time, but I will never erase my original native file. In ten years, who knows what will happen with the ability to manipulate a RAW file.
I erase most of my shots anyway, but if I feel it's worth printing, it's certainly worth saving my RAW file for future use. I can always recreate a LR/PS file, but not my RAW.
Dick, not sure that answers your question, but at least thats my philosophy. ;-)
SS

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I always convert my NEF files to TIFF. Just about every editor and image viewer can import TIFF files. If for some reason I need to transfer my images to a computer owned by someone else, I know that I can at least view them on it.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

I do the same... However, with raw CR2 files (the Canon version). I think TIFF is much safer than the proprietary raw format for archival purposes. Perhaps saving both is an option for you? Who knows what format will stand the test of time, but so far TIFF wins.

DNG is not a bad option because although Adobe created it, it's still an "open" format (not proprietary, just not accepted as a 'standard' yet). If you don't like the TIFF option, I would go with the DNG one. Anything is better than the proprietary raw file in my opinion. Again, if you can afford to do both, that would be ideal. Just my humble opinion.

DickW Loc: Roxboro, NC

This may be a stupid question based on my lack of knowledge/experience, but it sounds like several of you are suggesting TIFF as an output format after processing the raw file in Lightroom...is that right??

Rongnongno Loc: FL

We suggest TIFF because of its compliance and versatility with many if not all software.

DNG and RAW are not editable, TIFF is*. That is the main difference.

* Meaning that changes made on a TIFF file are or can be destructive.

amehta Loc: Boston

First, there are two types of DNG files: regular and linear. The regular DNG file is like a raw file, containing sensor data, not RGB image data.

One simple way to go from the camera's raw file to regular DNG is using the Adobe Raw Converter (google it, the link might change for each new version). If you use LR, and copy to DNG when you import the raw pictures, you might get exactly the same file, but I'm not sure. If you do your post processing and export to DNG, I believe you get a regular DNG file with the processing steps stored in the file as an instruction set.

Some programs (like DxO Optics Pro), when it is finished with post processing, it can export the image as a linear DNG. This is comparable to a TIFF file, but compressed DNG is half the size of an uncompressed TIFF (I don't know where the compressed TIFF would fit).

Either a regular DNG or TIFF file have had processing done, at a minimum to convert the sensor data to RGB image data (information is "created" by interpolation in this step). When this is done, the initial lens distortion correction and initial color calculations are applied, so any other processing is applied to a "derivative" file. This is why it is a little better to do the processing from the raw data as often as possible, either the camera raw or the regular DNG. This is also why LR saves your processing as instructions, so if you add to the steps, it applies the old and new steps to the original raw data. If you have lots of storage space (it's cheap!), then saving as TIFF (16-bit) is good, but it does not replace raw/regular DNG.

DaveHam Loc: Reading UK

DNG is Adobe's proprietary format so generally you will need to use Adobe software to view and edit. If you use TIFF that is a general standard that Adobe and any other editing or viewing software can use.

As a general rule DNG file size is smaller than a full TIFF.

The risk with Adobe is that they are changing their customer 'service' model, recently forcing Photoshop users to a cloud computing solution. If you don't follow suit then you loose the Adobe software and can't view your images.
Adobe claim so far that Lightroom is not going to go cloud computing route; however their record on claiming and doing so far is similar to that of a politicians manifesto versus what they actually do......

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

A long time ago when Photoshop was relatively new on the market and PaintShop was still by Jasz I used Photoshop to do some stuff on some images. I let it save the images as DNGs. I was then unable to view the images with anything but Adobe - couldn't use Windows Explore or PaintShop.

That biased me against Adobe. I have Photoshop (another story) but seldom use it except for maybe something it does better or easier than PaintShop. As I assume the same condition exists I'm very careful NOT to allow "Save As" a DNG

Picdude Loc: Ohio

This is the second thread I've seen today about converting RAW to another format. But what has not been mentioned in either thread is WHY are you wanting to convert? If it is to save an image after processing, that's one thing. But I really can't see a good reason to "convert" a RAW file to DNG, TIFF or anything else just for the sake of converting. What are you hoping to gain?

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Because you may want to edit, share or perhaps even print your images.

Picdude Loc: Ohio

Not to be argumentative or dense, but these all appear to describe reasons to convert AFTER processing (which I understand) not before processing.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Well, I'll throw in my 2 cents. DNG is a raw format developed by Adobe in their hopes that camera manufacturers would adopt it. If they would, it means Adobe can cease to continue upgrading ACR to recognize, and deal with, all the proprietary formats. DNG is NOT proprietary. Anyone can go to Adobe's site and download the necessary code to implement the DNG specification in their cameras, for free.

The one key reason I use DNG is that all edits in Lightroom, as well as the metadata, are stored in the DNG file, leaving you with a single file that has all data about that image. Using other raw formats (NEF, CR2, etc.) requires Lightroom (and other software) to create a sidecar file (with an .XMP extension) to hold all that data. I just don't want to deal with all those files.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

For sure. I don't know why one would want to convert without doing at least some basic processing. If I ever were in such a hurry that I didn't have time to process my RAW images, I'd simply shoot JGS's instead.