AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

My experience that would, I think, directly relate to the original question occurred when I upgraded from LR 3 to LR 6. I had purchased a Canon 5D III and LR 3 wouldn't open its RAW files. So I had to do the DNG conversion. It was time-consuming and an additional step. When one takes 5000 pics in one shoot, it takes the DNG converter a LONG time to convert all of those. Plus I had to separate the RAW files from the JPGs (I shoot both) in order to do that. Another step. I know I'm the most impatient person, but that was a lot of time used before I even started culling and developing. When I got LR 6, it would open the RAW files. I did on a few go back to some I had done from DNG and reworked them from RAW. Frankly, I didn't see any difference other than perhaps a change in the way I processed the image because of program changes. Before I got the DNG converter, I used the Canon software to convert the RAW files to TIFFs. It worked. But again, it was slow and another step or two.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I have been converting Canon RAW files (CRW, CR1, CR2, & CR3) to RAW files for 5 years now. Because the batch process is so easy with DNG Converter, I have converted over 5 million Canon RAW files. When I first started, I kept the CR* files just in case. Since the DNG files open in Photoshop, Lightroom, Elements, Paintshop Pro, Photo-Paint, and every other program I have, and there does not appear to be any difference, I now delete the Canon RAW files after conversion.

The DNG files are about 75% the size of the Canon RAW files. I don't know how DNG saves space, or what it deletes, but if it deletes anything, it's not something that I ever used anyway because I'm not missing it. Of course, it's hard to miss something that one never used to begin with.........lol

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There is no reason not to go ahead and make DNG files from your ORFs.... so long as you keep your original ORF files.

You'll be able to work with the DNG files now. But sometime in the future you might acquire a new software that may or may not work with the DNG (search online for problems with DNG, there's some current non-Adobe editing software that doesn't seem to work well with them).

There's no guarantee that a future software will work with DNG files you create today. I wouldn't even trust Adobe themselves... After all they promised there would be a Lightroom 7 perpetual licensed version!

In the case you get another software in the future, it may be preferable to work from your original ORFs instead. Who knows what we'll be using in five or ten years! I can't speak for you, but with their current marketing methods I doubt I'll be using Adobe software much longer (I've been using PS since version 4 in the mid-1990s and LR since it was introduced).

My recommendation is don't "convert to DNG" and ditch the original ORFs. Make "DNG copies" of your ORFs, work with the DNG and archive the original ORFs. Hard drive storage space is cheap these days! (I bought 4TB earlier this morning for under $60.)

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

The bottom line, RAW and DNG files are identical. If this lashup works, go for it.

bluezzzzz Loc: Stamping Ground, KY

I've also been converting Canon RAW to DNG files for years now, with no problems or regrets, so far.

After a day's shoot I may come home with 700 +/- images. I ingest them using Photo Mechanic as CR2 files and then, after culling then or, more usually, selecting all, run a Photo Mechanic tool that uses the Adobe DNG Converter to convert them to DNG.

The wrinkle here, and I'm not savvy enough to understand it, is that there is Photo Mechanic option that can be checked to imbed the CR2 file in the DNG file. I checked that option, but have never gone back and used it for any purpose. Perhaps some day I'll have a need, and that option will be there.

Marshall

Bill P

When one takes 5000 pics in one shoot, it takes the DNG converter a LONG time to convert all of those.

Sorry, but I've got to ask. If you are getting 5000 (!) shots in a single shoot, which takes longer? Converting to DNG, or sorting through and selecting shoots for further adjustments? If I went somewhere where I amassed 5000 discrete images, I'd quit shooting photographs.

PierreD

I process Olympus ORF files using DxO Elite software, which works great, is relatively easy to learn/use, and imports these files directly - no conversion necessary. You might consider giving it a shot.

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

They're not identical, but close.

Conversion to dng basically embeds the raw file and adds some parameters that tell a dng-using program how to use the raw data. It also uses some compression on the raw file which they claim to be lossless. Not having converted any raw files to dng I can't really compare the two.

It is advisable to retain the original raw file in the manufacturers format. Dng may strip some items from the metadata if it doesn't know how to evaluate them (proprietary data). Many of those things you might never want to use, but you can't predict the future. And storage is cheap. At least keep the original raw files in an archive somewhere.

PS: I believe dng files come in two types: (1) original raw data are compressed; (2) original raw data are embedded in the dng along with the compressed version.

MoT Loc: Barrington, IL

Thank you everyone for your DNG replies it is very helpful.