Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Many new users in the last year here.
I was reading about RAW and saw Bob's post about a year ago responding to the subject.
My question is why would one use DNG when you lose data including Metadata by converting RAW to DNG.
Storage today is relatively cheap so that doesn't really fly anymore.
So those that convert RAW to DNG and lose data what is the reason/real advantage?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

My only reason, and I've seen same reason in several UHH topics, was temporary: my newest camera's raw files weren't readable by my software.

jak86094

Do DNG files have "sidecar" files containing adjustments made to the RAW file? I don't think so. That might be a reason to use DNG rather than the native raw file format. It may be that any data lost in converting to DNG is negligible. I'd have to research that further. jak

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I agree with you and Linda - no reason other than temporary - until your camera and lenses are supported. The faster loading and slightly smaller file size is not enough of an advantage to outweigh the lack of compatibility with most applications.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The raw edits are saved, yes. I believe embedded in the dng or you have a choice to make as sidecar.

For those of us not obsessed with pixel peeping, I bet we can't tell the difference between a competent edit of a dng or raw

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

Since I don't use dng I can't comment about whether they can or cannot produce sidecar files. But what's wrong with having sidecar files?

It is my understanding that metadata lost during dng conversion is only proprietary data from the manufacturer, including some camera settings. Those items are only readable by software provided by the manufacturer. If you don't use the manufacturer's software, you're not using the data that is lost, no matter what software you use (because the manufacturer doesn't release the function of those items).

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Actually the data can be very important so you know what settings etc. were used including focus points.
I like looking at this information later to remind me of what was done etc.

Bill_de Loc: US

Is that still an issue with most applications?

Has anyone ever detailed what data gets lost converting to dng? I vaguely remember reading an article by one of the online "experts" that the only day that is lost is data that Adobe products don't use. Whether or not that is at all accurate I have no way of knowing.

---

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Nikon D850 RAW files are 54 MB, it takes too long to convert these to DNG. So I do an import/copy into LR. When editing in PC, ACR handles the conversion to DNG. Operation is much faster.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I was working with my printer to print a large scale (16x40) version of a Milky Way panorama. One of their preferred workflows is to receive images as 16 bit TIFF files which they then process through their evaluation and preparation ssoftware, then on to the printer. This is the process that I have followed with them for a number of prints, and it has always worked fine. In this case, however, I had slightly lightened the foreground area in order to reveal just a hint of detail. When we were reviewing the TIFF image, we noticed a lot (like really a lot) of very unpleasant noise in the foreground which was not visible in the original raw image or in the PSD (PhotoShop Document) image being used by Lightroom. I did not do any Photoshop editing of that image. Additional tries all produced the same noise.

The end result was that I submitted a PSD file to them and they were able to make a beautiful print for me. Close examination did not reveal any loss of resolution, color, or dynamic range. So my belief is that nothing (certainly nothing of significance) is lost by using this file format. I believe that DNG (PhotoShop raw) files are used by all Adobe photographic processing software and that camera raw files are converted to that format when imported.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

This discusses a bit of what is lost.
https://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw
For me it is data that I do not want lost.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The word 'raw' refers to a type of file - actually 'CR', 'NEF', etc. .... and 'DNG'. Technically, DNG is just another variant of 'raw'. My Pentax cameras are set to create both JPG and DNG files directly.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

14 bit uncompressed raw files from the D850 are close to 100 megs. Any particular reason you aren't using all the capability of that excellent sensor?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

"DNG is also considered to be a RAW image file. It is Adobe’s proprietary image standard that was created to store image data in a generic, highly-compatible format, unlike RAW files that have specific formats based on manufacturer and camera type. Although DNG was invented by Adobe and is supported in all Adobe applications, there are other camera manufacturers such as Leica, Hasselblad and Pentax that adopted this standard and use it in their cameras as their native and supported RAW file format."

"DNG strips out most of the unrecognized meta data (such as Active D-Lighting, Picture Controls, Focus Point, etc) from RAW files, making it impossible to retrieve this data from DNG in the future."

User ID

That need to look back is sorta like training wheels
on a kid's bike. Once you're rolling steady, you don't
need them anymore. You just keep on keepin on ...


`