Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 10, 2012, 02:32 PM   #1
tmagman
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Calgary AB
DNG vs. Canon CR2 Raw files

I use LR4 almost exclusively for my photo organization and editing and shoot entirely in RAW. I've been hearing lots of buzz and talk these days about when importing photos, to convert them to DNG rather than leaving them in the CR2 canon raw format. Just wondering what experience people have had with switching or with using DNG overall. Anything added or lost in terms of data flexibility and quality?
__________________
rMBP 15" 2.7 i7, 16GB, 512GB
Asus G73SW-A1 2.0Q i7, GT460M 1.5GB, 12GB
iPad2 64-3G, 4S 64GB
7D, 15-85, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 70-300 DO, 50 1.4, Lensbabies, Canon S100
tmagman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2012, 05:43 PM   #2
r.harris1
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Denver, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmagman View Post
I use LR4 almost exclusively for my photo organization and editing and shoot entirely in RAW. I've been hearing lots of buzz and talk these days about when importing photos, to convert them to DNG rather than leaving them in the CR2 canon raw format. Just wondering what experience people have had with switching or with using DNG overall. Anything added or lost in terms of data flexibility and quality?
Here's an article on the "against" side from Thom Hogan (he's a Nikon shooter but a good all around writer). Worth checking out on general principals. I leave mine in RAW (NEF) as I don't see a big benefit in changing at this time.
r.harris1 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2012, 06:34 PM   #3
Laird Knox
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
The biggest argument for DNG is having an open standard for saving your RAW images. Should your camera company of choice go out of business then there is no guarantee that AwesomePhotoApp 3.7 will support the departed manufacturer. If this is a concern to you then you might want to consider converting your fils to DNG.

This is similar to questioning if you should save your Photoshop document as PSD or TIFF. (Except TIFF, unlike DNG, is a standard.)

Personally I don't find DNG compelling enough to make the switch. Who knows what the future will hold.
Laird Knox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2012, 06:41 PM   #4
Prodo123
macrumors 68020
 
Prodo123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
I view DNG as a format for camera manufacturers too lazy to develop their own RAW format. For example, Leica.
Good concept, failed implementation at best.
__________________
MacBook Pro 15" 2.2Ghz hi-res glossy, 16GB RAM, Logitech G700, Das Keyboard, Seagate Momentus XT 750GB iPhone 5 White 32GB Audiophile Photographer, videographer, audio engineer
Prodo123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 10:40 AM   #5
MCAsan
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
I always convert to DNG as part of import.
__________________
Retina MBP 2.7GHz | 16GB | 768G
Thunderbolt Display
iPhone 5s | Silver | 64GB | AT&T
iPad Air | Silver | 128GB | WiFi only
MCAsan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 10:55 AM   #6
steveash
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
I started using DNG when I got a new camera that wasn't supported by the version of Photoshop and ACR I was using at the time. By converting to DNG with Adobe's free software I could then open my raw files and adjust them without paying for the latest software update.

I also found that the files where considerably smaller and after I had got comfortable with the idea of DNG I converted my entire archive. This saved my a huge chunk of previously wasted hard drive.

The final benefit is that DNG should be more openly compatible with future software so that in twenty years time if I want to find a treasured family photo and open it up on my light-speed hologram image viewer there is a better chance of them working than a a Canon 5D Mk II specific CR2 file.

I know use DNG as part of my workflow and although the conversion takes a few seconds extra the benefits seem worth it.
steveash is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2012, 01:50 PM   #7
mtfbwy
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
I think DNG is also more future proof as well since it is published and free to implement. The RAW formats are not even standard among the same manufacturers from model to model and proprietary.

That said, I've not changed my library since it is pretty large and I have it all backed up in the cloud.
mtfbwy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13, 2012, 10:38 PM   #8
Randy McKown
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas City
Huge DNG fan here .. Read the article DNG vs RAW on XposurePro
__________________
.
Subscribe to my YouTube Channel :: For Great Video Tutorials
Randy McKown is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2012, 10:04 AM   #9
Zerozal
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: PA
I use DNG exclusively--converting from my camera's original RAW file. The main reason is that the DNG contains the XMP "sidecar" file within the DNG itself (as opposed to maintaining a separate file when using the original raw format), so there's no chance of losing it when moving files/backing up/etc.
__________________
2009 Mac Pro 2.93 Quad, 12GB RAM, 300GB Velociraptor, 2x 1TB WD Caviar Blacks in RAID 0, ATI 5870, 24" LED Cinema Display, iPhone 5
Zerozal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2012, 08:41 AM   #10
Razeus
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
I used to convert to DNG when I first started 3 years ago. DNG is a waste of time and not needed in one's workflow. I keep the ORIGINAL files as produced by the camera. DNG is NOT the original file.
__________________
Pictures & Tweets

Last edited by Razeus; Oct 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM.
Razeus is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2012, 12:52 PM   #11
blanka
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Don't! I did it the first 3 months I had my D700 because the buzz already was there in 2008, but it rendered some very nice photographs useless. I found out NX2 was much more capable than Adobe Camera RAW, and there was no longer a way to edit these photo's in Nikon's software. ACR has improved quite a bit since 2008, but I never found any raw converter having trouble with an old camera. You can always open the CR2's in the future, don't worry.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by r.harris1 View Post
Here's an article on the "against" side from Thom Hogan (he's a Nikon shooter but a good all around writer)
Exactly:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomHogan
No raw converters that interpret the DNG file will match what the Nikon camera's do in-camera (embedded JPEG). By converting to DNG you're essentially saying that you'll forgo the camera maker's settings, styles, and color rendering. (That's a big issue, in my mind, as the camera makers don't document the spectral response of the Bayer filtration.)
blanka is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 10:35 AM   #12
ocabj
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
I would not convert RAW to DNG and just archive the DNG. You're going to lose data from RAW to DNG because technically, the translation is dependent on the converter tool.

It's best to just work from (and keep) the file that was natively written by the camera.

I would only use DNG if my camera actually recorded directly to DNG.
ocabj is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 01:08 PM   #13
maflynn
Moderator
 
maflynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Boston
I've been using dng for a couple of years now without any problems. Since I'm largely in the adobe word (LR + PS) I'm not seeing any downsides.

I think it really boils down to personal preference.
maflynn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2012, 11:17 PM   #14
hoylen
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Examine the benefits to see if they are real benefits

The main argument for DNG seems to be it is a open format, so it is more likely that software will support it rather than proprietary RAW formats. But I don't find this compelling.

Firstly, has any software vendor actually dropped support for any proprietary RAW formats yet? So far, they like adding more and more features rather than removing any.

Secondly, you can always convert the RAWs to DNG in the future when/if the software stops supporting RAW. The RAW to DNG converter will not suddenly stop working, leaving you with RAW files you can't convert. Not to mention the software you currently use (assuming you don't update it) should still keep working with those RAW files.

If that day ever comes, converting your entire library will take a lot of time. But no more time than you would have otherwise used if you converted them incrementally. In fact, it might be quicker, since computers will be faster in the future. It seems a bad investment to pay for something that might never happen and if it does happen it might be worth less than what you put in.

Saving space is another argument, but only if you don't use the "embedding the RAW inside the DNG file" form of DNG and you permanently delete the RAW file after conversion. Is that something you are comfortable doing? The RAW file is the original source; the DNG file will always contain less than or equal information than the RAW file.
hoylen is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:11 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC