lreisner Loc: Union,NJ

On the surface there would be no reason to convert files to DNG from the camera raw files. The, however question, to me becomes, what if the raw files are no longer supported by both the companies that created them and secondary companies like Adobe, Topaz, Microsoft or others. Each camera has their own raw files that are either unique to that camera or brand. I personally have Sony and Canon raw files from many different cameras over the years. To my knowledge, DNG files were created by Adobe to be universal raw files. I recently compared two files of the same picture, one a Sony raw file and the other a converted DNG file and did not notice any differences after comparing their histograms.

So the question is how compatible are DNG files with other programs (photo processing and file readers)? If they are compatible across a wide variety of platforms, then does it make sense to convert raw files into DNG files to protect against obsolescence? Which format will have long term staying power that future generations, will be able to view your pictures in, original Raw format, DNG or is there a better alternative?

Yes I know there are Tiff files which are much larger and JPEG files which have their own limitations. On the plus side, these file formats are so universally excepted, that they are likely to be supported for a long time to come.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

From my understanding, dng files are read by all the software processors. The conversion deletes some EXIF data from that portion of the image file. So, if all of the EXIF data is important to you, keep the originals.
--Bob

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Predicting the future is difficult. If I had a pick one or the other, I'd say Adobe's DNG is the one more likely to lose support rather than the camera's RAW. But, both outcomes are extremely unlikely. What I mean is you are making the wrong choice if thinking Adobe's conversion of the original file is the better long-term format. Adobe tried to displace the camera RAW files, and the industry laughed off their attempt.

When you convert to DNG, Adobe takes the read-only image data and replaces the 'wrapper' around that image payload. They strip all the camera-specific / brand-unique information, retaining only the EXIF standard fields and then their own Adobe-specific EXIF extensions. You lose data about the AF position and other camera-info / brand-unique info. Data that may be very relevant to investigating the image in the future.

Coming back to Adobe's attempt to replace RAW with DNG, all Adobe software and all their competitors support the RAW files in their native RAW format. Why waste time, effort, and storage with the DNG when the RAW has more original data and is universally supported?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Going on the premise that you do not save JPEGs, but only RAW. I would just keep the RAW.
I can't see an editor like Canon's DPP stopping support for the .CR2 files even though they have migrated to the .CR3 format. There are TONS of .CR2 files out there still in existence. I keep my RAW files, but I only edit what I want to use. I don't edit for the sake of editing all my images, just to have an edited version of them.
I'm not concerned with saving the RAW.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

I copy all of my mem cards to a raw image storage ssd in my desktop. I back that disk up regularly to an external usb drive. I import from the raw image storage disk into Lightroom and have Lightroom make a dng copy to a separate image working ssd in my desktop. So I have 3 copies of the "raw" (nef and dng) file just in case. While dng (digital negative) is from Adobe it is an open standard based on Tiff and is a bit more flexible than the tiff standard. dngs are tiff files, but not all tiffs are dngs, so you can always convert a dng to tiff if you want. Here's a good article on the dng file format.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

I always import Nikon, Fuji, and Astro RAW files as DNGs into Lightroom. I do not think the format is going anywhere any time soon.

FreddB Loc: PA - Delaware County

I don’t understand why you think Canon,Nikon, et al would stop supporting their raw files. Their mirrorless cameras also do and will produce raw files - I assume the very same “type” of raw files?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Well, .CR2 and .CR3 files are different. They simply support both formats.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The programming is complete for all CR2 files. Why would anyone drop that programming from their software? That's why 'dropping support' is a rather nonsensical idea. Of course, strange ideas occur most every day ...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Exactly.

BebuLamar

The one reason I can think of is to force the users who refuse to stop using their old DSLR and buying new Mirrorless. Otherwise it would cost them nothing to support old format.

hpucker99 Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

I watched a Nikon webinar last year and the presenter showed how the Adobe conversion of RAW to DNG introduced changes to the file compared to a TIFF made by Nikon software.

I don't see the ability to read RAW files going away anytime soon by Adobe or the camera manufacturers.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

"Changes?" What changes? Of course Nikon is going to say this because NEF is their version of RAW, and DNG is Adobe's. Is it an attempt to get Nikon users to switch to their own editing program? Whatever it is called?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The short answer is to keep the original raw file and only convert it to DNG if you can't use it with your current software.

If your current software cannot open the raw file it might later get updated so that it can. If that happens there may be some information in the original raw file that it can now use that the DNG did not find.

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

So when did Adobe present dng to us? It's been here a long time. During that time, if there were a real reason to convert to dng, Adobe software would not now read the native raw files. Since Adobe still supports all the raw file formats out there (yes, there is sometimes a delay when a new format appears), Adobe must by now recognize that its 'universal format' has not caught on.

I consider that since Adobe still supports native raw formats it will continue to do so until such time as there is a real reason to use dng.