Raw vs DNG
Jul 28, 2014 15:40:41 #
I have CS5 which does not read the newer RAW formats. A fellow Hog suggested using the converter to create DNG and then I don't have to upgrade to the "Cloud". Don't have a problem with it, I'm just used to what I'm doing for now. I've tried it and it works well.
My question is...Do I need to keep the original RAW files? Adobe seems to indicate that they contain the same information. If that's the case once the conversion is done why would I need them?
Anybody else doing this? Opinions please.
TNX
My question is...Do I need to keep the original RAW files? Adobe seems to indicate that they contain the same information. If that's the case once the conversion is done why would I need them?
Anybody else doing this? Opinions please.
TNX
Jul 28, 2014 15:47:20 #
Toolking wrote:
I have CS5 which does not read the newer RAW forma... (show quote)
I convert all my NEF files (raw) to DNG on import into Lightroom.
After confirming the files converted and imported fine I reformat the SD card and delete all the original NEF's.
I have not lost anything other than focus points, and I am sure some other minor info that Nikon stored in maker notes in EXIF.
At first it bothered me about not being able to see focus points, Aperture and View NX2 showed these nicely, but Lightroom never has anyway.
You know what, I no longer miss not having access to focus points.
I will continue with DNG as my converted raw format - no complaints, no problems, no hassles.
Jul 28, 2014 16:11:38 #
Err...
First off when you convert to DNG you change the data one way or another. A DNG can be 8 or 16 bits. If you select 8 you lose a great deal. If you select 16 you lose nothing or so we are told. Trouble is many manufacturer insert their own data in a raw. That data is not transferred.
Compare raw and DNG to milk processing. Unprocessed milk has a flavor that is original and depend on what the cow eats - as well as its health - Pasteurize the milk and you have no taste but a bland generic one. All by product from there have the same downgraded taste. That is what DNG does. It creates a bland compliant version of a raw.
This is why deleting raw files, regardless of camera brand, model (or what not) is a really bad idea. It cost nothing to have a real backup of your pictures. The stripped data may (or may not) come handy one day. I do not like taking a chance.
If someone is happy with keeping the DNG, so be it, after all this is their choice.
Make your choice with the full information.
First off when you convert to DNG you change the data one way or another. A DNG can be 8 or 16 bits. If you select 8 you lose a great deal. If you select 16 you lose nothing or so we are told. Trouble is many manufacturer insert their own data in a raw. That data is not transferred.
Compare raw and DNG to milk processing. Unprocessed milk has a flavor that is original and depend on what the cow eats - as well as its health - Pasteurize the milk and you have no taste but a bland generic one. All by product from there have the same downgraded taste. That is what DNG does. It creates a bland compliant version of a raw.
This is why deleting raw files, regardless of camera brand, model (or what not) is a really bad idea. It cost nothing to have a real backup of your pictures. The stripped data may (or may not) come handy one day. I do not like taking a chance.
If someone is happy with keeping the DNG, so be it, after all this is their choice.
Make your choice with the full information.
Jul 28, 2014 17:05:19 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Toolking wrote:
I have CS5 which does not read the newer RAW forma... (show quote)
I really like the idea of having everything as dng files, but DxO Optics Pro 9 does not read converted dng files, only camera native raw files (nef, arw, etc). I'm also a digital pack-rat, so I keep everything. :-)
Jul 29, 2014 06:23:57 #
Toolking wrote:
I have CS5 which does not read the newer RAW forma... (show quote)
They are effectively the same. You cannot write to a raw file, so changes are saved in a sidecar (xmp) file with the same filename. When you use a dng file created from a raw file, your changes are written to the dng. YOu can always revert to the unedited dng file, or keep the dng as you would a raw, and edit a copy.
The only other difference is that certain metadata will not be copied into the dng file - with Nikon raw files, Active D Lighting and Picture Control are settings that are proprietary and will not be accommodated in the dng. Also, Most camera manufacturer software applications do not recognize dng.
Jul 29, 2014 10:23:52 #
Jul 29, 2014 10:41:30 #
I usually keep both formats. My workflow brings in the RAW files into Lightroom converted to DNG while the original RAW files are copied to my NAS during import. I can then work with the DNG files and remove the unnecessary images from my hard drive. So, my working images are DNG and the backup is my RAW files just in case I have to bring some that I previously deleted.
Jul 29, 2014 13:19:54 #
lexstgo wrote:
I usually keep both formats. My workflow brings in the RAW files into Lightroom converted to DNG while the original RAW files are copied to my NAS during import. I can then work with the DNG files and remove the unnecessary images from my hard drive. So, my working images are DNG and the backup is my RAW files just in case I have to bring some that I previously deleted.
:thumbup:
Precisely the way I also import.
Jul 29, 2014 22:51:03 #
lexstgo wrote:
I usually keep both formats. My workflow brings in the RAW files into Lightroom converted to DNG while the original RAW files are copied to my NAS during import. I can then work with the DNG files and remove the unnecessary images from my hard drive. So, my working images are DNG and the backup is my RAW files just in case I have to bring some that I previously deleted.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jul 30, 2014 15:14:09 #
Jul 30, 2014 15:34:25 #
Toolking wrote:
Pardon my ignorance... NAS?
Not sure who you are asking because you did not quote, but Network Attached Storage NAS
Jul 30, 2014 16:02:35 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Toolking wrote:
Pardon my ignorance... NAS?
A NAS is network attached storage. The drives are part of a small computer which attaches directly to my home network. The other way is direct access storage, where an external drive is attached to a computer by USB, FireWire, etc.
Jul 30, 2014 16:15:57 #
amehta wrote:
A NAS is network attached storage. The drives are part of a small computer which attaches directly to my home network. The other way is direct access storage, where an external drive is attached to a computer by USB, FireWire, etc.
What kind of speeds do you get in comparison to USB. I may have to have one of those.
Jul 30, 2014 16:20:03 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Toolking wrote:
What kind of speeds do you get in comparison to USB. I may have to have one of those.
It is comparable to USB3, about 40MB/s transfer speeds. I have both the NAS and my laptop connected to a 1GB switch.
Jul 30, 2014 19:14:24 #
amehta wrote:
It is comparable to USB3, about 40MB/s transfer speeds. I have both the NAS and my laptop connected to a 1GB switch.
40 MB/s is all? On a GB network shouldn't you see closer to 100 MB/s....assuming Gigabit cards on both ends.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.