willy6419

Copy as DNG, or just Copy.

The reading i've done argues both ways. DNG, a format expected with long life. Copy into lightroom, at the goodwill of Adobe.

I'm amateur for pleasure.

Would like some guidance, pro/con.

I used to do as DNG, was convinced to stop, as unnecessary. much of this stuff is harder to decipher than i'd like, but i do want tact sharp from my D850 and D500 with three really top lenses.

Thanks,

Bill

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Adobe's DNG format is analogous to a RAW file. However, the DNG never became a 'universal standard'. And in fact, changing your RAW to DNG and discarding the original RAW locks you into an Adobe-based environment.

You're best able to decide your future needs, even if just a guess. The DNG does not save space. It will create a smaller file vs the RAW. But, this is true only for the initial conversion. As editing is performed, data is written into the DNG, creating a larger overall file when you seek to transfer the DNG and all of Adobe's edit information.

The DNG is a valid workaround for a new RAW format that is unsupported by Adobe, either for a brand new camera, or for users of older Adobe software that cannot be updated for newer camera RAW files. DNG is also useful for transferring / sharing edit information between LR users.

Personally, I import the original RAW files. Whether you 'add' or 'copy' depends on your workflow. Do you import directly from the camera card? If yes, you should use the 'copy' option of the original files making sure the files are copied from the camera card to some position on your computer for permanent storage. If you move your files around from the camera to computer prior to the LR import, you should use the 'add' option from the position on the computer when importing to LR.

If you are a JPEG shooter, the DNG process adds no value for the LR import as JPEG is the universal standard Adobe was unable to displace with their DNG format.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

I use the "copy" method. This also gives me a "one-stop" fix to duplicate files numbers as I can prepend the camera (e.g. 7A for a the first Z7 and 7B for the second, or Xa for the first X1d and Xb for the second) as well as adding a custom location name.

There are nearly as many ways to do this as there are users. I keep the RAW files. I do not use DNG.

willy6419

I use copy, original raw files, direct from card via card reader, not the camera.

I've been doing that, but this past week i spent time with a professional who earns his living shooting, and he told me, always copy to DNG.

I have been successfully, i thought, not doing that extra step, and will continue to copy and keep the RAW files.

Thanks for the very prompt response. Spent 3 days shooting in Yellowstone---incredible targets and we hit a period of very nice weather.

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

Dng is a wannabe standard that has not yet taken hold.
There are one or two (maybe more) cameras that use dng as a native output, but Canon and Nikon use their own native files and presently they are supported by all the major software out there. It's possible that Adobe could possibly force use of dng in their software but I believe that would generate a PR nightmare for them.

Dng has advantages and disadvantages. The size of the file is a red herring. Storage is so cheap these days that anything less than a factor of 5 or 10 in file size will not really make any difference. There are claims of 20-30% reduction of file size in dng over the original raw, but there are also reports that the compression is only 2-3%. Also, the size reduction is obtained by compression (claimed lossless) coupled with leaving out some proprietary manufacturers' tags. There is an option to include the original raw file, but that results in a larger file, not smaller.

About 4 years ago I looked at several sites on the web that evaluated the use of dng. I tried to collect the pros and cons in a writeup which you can look at.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=1419

Dng files embed edit information and update the jpg preview in the file after editing is saved. This means that if you use dng and edit it, you have to back up the dng after every time you edit it. Raw files you only have to back up once since editing programs do not change them. LR saves the edits in the catalog, so that has to be backed up regularly. If you export .xmp files from LR, you should back them up also after editing.

I tried to be clear in the writeup about which parts are just extracted from other writeups and which parts are my personal opinion. I don't think too much has changed in the 3-4 years since I last edited it, but the sources are listed if you want to look further. Most sources were found through Google or DuckDuckGo.

As far as importing files, I do it outside of LR through a program that changes the filename to something descriptive. Once the image files are on my hard drive I import them to LR using ADD, not copy. A lot of people use COPY and that works for them. No point in putting the files on your hard drive first then copying them. You wind up with two copies on the hard drive and only one of them is used by LR.

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

Did the professional offer a reason for his advice?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

They're a self-identified professional ....

willy6419

No reason, which i questioned. He thinks it's a better work flow and likes working with DNG files.

I'm going to stick with not creating DNG's. I've never tried to do something i couldn't do.

Thanks all, and I've saved the write-up address to study.

JDG3

I think the most valuable nugget of information came from CHG CANON when he said that changing all your inbound raw files to DNG could prevent you from migrating to non-Adobe post processing software. This alone should give one pause in using DNG.

IF everyone had adopted DNG as Adobe hoped they would then this would not be an issue. However, it does not appear that any of the camera manufacturers are adopting or has plans to incorporate DNG as their "raw" format.

As it stands now, all the post-processing software I have used, seen or read about will accept all the major camera raw formats and have no plans to change in the near future. So I see no need to add another step in the process that offers no advantages.

PhotosBySteve

For ten plus years, I have been importing to lightroom in "Copy as DNG" mode and have LR send the original camera RAW file (CR2/CR3 camera dependent) to a separate harddrive, in case I might need it for future use. Knock on wood, I have never had to go back to the original backup file. My backup original RAW file 8s well in excess of 100,000 photos.
DNG format has always served my photo post processing, very well.

flashdaddy Loc: Berlin PA

I download my files from my card reader to Bridge and they are saved as DNG. Along with that, I save the CR2 files to a portable drive at the same time.

RightOnPhotography Loc: Quebec,QC

I download RAW images from the card reader to my external hard drive and then import them, as RAW, into the Lightroom. Been doing this for years. Works for me.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Nothing can corrupt your read-only image data in your RAW file, as well as you have half as many files as the DNG + RAW workflow creates ...

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

Software will not corrupt your read-only raw files. Disk errors have the capability to corrupt any file, read-only or not. Fortunately disk errors are rare in todays computers. However, since they are non-zero, its good to have a backup or a double backup or more.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A DNG is not a back-up of your RAW. A back-up of your RAW is a back-up of your RAW. A back-up of your DNG and RAW is twice as many files ....