# To DNG or not to DNG?



## mkilci

After posting another questions and reading many articles, decided to switch to a workflow where no more JPEGs and all RAWs converted to DNG for several reasons. As I was ready to move forward, I just realized this work flow rendered my DxO pro 9 investment useless....
Didn't realize that DXO does not work with DNG files...(Although I do not use it for every shot,I like the app quiet a bit and hate to use the ability to use it).
So now what? Stick to just shooting RAW and not convert to DNG???
Any advice on what to do greatly appreciated...


----------



## Selwin

I don't shoot jpegs at all and DNG has never been appealing to me, never missed it. I don't us DxO either, I like the LR simplicity and only Edit In PS CS6, Topaz DeNoise 5 and lately some Nik Silver Efex.

Can you explain to us what your reasons are to convert your RAWs to DNG? Maybe I'll reconsider......


----------



## Rose Weir

Selwin said:


> Can you explain to us what your reasons are to convert your RAWs to DNG? Maybe I'll reconsider......



Way back in the early versions and slower computers the metadata update running in the background was turned off so updating had to be a separate (slow) process. Also, way back I was burning backups to cd/dvd. I discovered after that I had missed included the xmp files. 
Changing over to dng format had a cleaner list of files when I browsed the folder with the system or with a backup program.
Now computer is more powerful, hard drives are bigger and faster, metadata can run in the background but the dng habit is now embedded. At this point, whether original or dng doesn't really matter performance or space saving. 
I still would retain a renaming import preset to get rid of the beginning IMG for the Canon cr2 files. I want to scan down over the actual file designation and IMG is totally distracting. I rename with the file suffix as the first bit of info then the date. This works for me since I'm gathering large groups of images that go into video projects.


----------



## Victoria Bampton

I do convert to DNG at import, primarily because of the DNG Validation.  My import 'second copy' backups on another drive remain as the proprietary raw format and never get touched. If you want to use other raw processors, then there is more reason to stick with proprietary raw formats though.


----------



## LouieSherwin

After initially converting to DNG I went back to using raw only. 

-louie


----------



## Gene_mtl

LouieSherwin said:


> After initially converting to DNG I went back to using raw only.



Can I ask why?


----------



## Linwood Ferguson

I just haven't found the need to go to DNG.  If it was truly standard, as in came out of the camera, maybe.  For now, the main arguments seem to be around longevity -- but if NEF support (Nikon raw) ever seems to be in question, I can just mass convert all the old images at that time.  

I really think the idea of an open standard is wonderful, but plagued with bootstrapping issues -- if it's not widely adopted as a native format, then there's not much need to adopt it as my format (and everyone individually making the same decision ensures it is not widely adopted as a native format :hm


----------



## Pentax

being Pentax user I can shoot in DNG so no need to convert


----------



## clee01l

Pentax said:


> being Pentax user I can shoot in DNG so no need to convert


 I hope that you answered the poll as "RAW only".  Because you are not converting ti DNG

It is important to note that DNG out of a Pentax is a true RAW image file.  DNG as a spec can be RGB or Native RAW or Lossy compressed and maybe some other things too.  
When I shot Pentax I shot DNG too. I kept these as my master original. Now that I shoot Nikon, my master original is an NEF.  There is no  benefit to me to convert to DNG because I m not going to let go of the master original file.


----------



## wianb

I suppose some convert to DNG just because it is possible to do so and maybe once in a blue moon the file validation provided by DNG could be of some use (doubt it though).
When I first started off with LR I did convert to DNG but soon stopped doing so as I could see no valid reason to convert a perfectly good NEF to DNG.


----------



## Rob_Cullen

There is a good read at-  http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/dng_spec_1.4.0.0.pdf
Seems that the DNG  raw format is basically the camera raw data converted with TIFF characteristics, all metadata and EXIF data can be stored within DNG, all Lightroom edit history can be stored within the DNG (no .xmp sidecar files ever!), only DNGs  can be used in  a "proxy DNG" manner for editing while away from the main catalog. DNGs are slightly smaller than original NEFs and CR2s -much smaller than TIFFs.
I started using DNG when my great backup program (no name mentioned here!) backed up all my .xmp files but NOT the .NEFs- how good was that. And I had purchased a Canon camera that Lightroom (at the time) would not recognize the CR2 files (so had to use DNG Converter!), and I can edit DNG files in old versions of Photoshop & Elements (Elements v6 I recall using). I fail to understand why many people still compare DNGs to TIFFs, or even JPGs- They are just another RAW format with all the original camera data intact, basically unchanged, ready for archiving and compatible with many more programs than NEFs and CR2s. Why not use DNG?


----------



## darky

I am shooting with Pentax without chance to escape from DNG. But after some time and experience I dislike DNG, because I have to write-protect my DNGs and not all software does honour or support this. I don't need and want any raw editor processing meta data in my raw/dng files!

Nevertheless I am converting the DNG from camera first to DNG. YES! First I export the embedded DNG full size preview to a separat JPG file, then I replace the embedded preview with a medium size preview. This because I do not need and want full size previews in DNG. A side effect is that the exported JPG preview has lens correction and other effects from camera but the modified preview through DNGConverter has no camera corrections. With this I can easily compare and I can use the DNG only setting and do not need the DNG+JPG camera option, which is wasting speed and memory.

Finally the only benefit I experience and aprreciate with DNG is the reduced file size and the option to define the preview (original size, medium size, none).
The big drawback for me is the fact, that XMP sidecars are impossible or very very difficult to manage with DNG.


----------



## clee01l

darky said:


> I am shooting with Pentax without chance to escape from DNG. But after some time and experience I dislike DNG...


 Unless your Pentax is different from the K20D and K10D that I had, you can still use Pentax' proprietary PEF RAW format as your output file format from the camera.  

One disadvantage of DNG is when it comes to backups. Anytime the metadata changes in the DNG RAW file, the backup software backs up the whole DNG file again (and again).  XML Sidecar files are small compared to the complete DNG RAW file.   

I think the best solution is to not write metadata to the XML/DNG file in the first place.  Outside of the Photoshop family, XML files serve no purpose and only serve to partially duplicate metadata that is always stored in the master LR catalog.


----------



## johnbeardy

It's amazing how often people still claim it's a disadvantage of DNG that you have to keep backing them up. That's just not so. 

The fault is that you haven't re-assessed your backup strategy. Keep a virgin copy of your DNGs - they are the backup of the photo data. You can then go on saving metadata from LR but think of it in terms of sharing metadata with other apps. Don't worry that you need to back up the DNGs to which metadata is written by LR - it doesn't include all your LR work anyway. Instead, backup your catalogue - the combination of the catalogue and the virgin copies gives you 100% coverage.

John


----------



## Rob_Cullen

> because I have to write-protect my DNGs. (Darky)


Why write protect?  Lightroom never touches the DNGs unless you deliberately embed metadata by pressing CTRL+S


> the combination of the catalog and the virgin (DNG) copies gives you 100% coverage. (John)


Well said John, DNGs remain 'virgin'. Again- unless you embed metadata- and I might only do that if I want to export a full size DNG to another person with LR edits included.


> XMP sidecars are impossible or very very difficult to manage with DNG. (Darky)


There is no such thing as XMP when you use DNGs.! never, nil, nought, not a worry!


> First I export the embedded DNG full size preview to a separate JPG file, then I replace the embedded preview... (Darky)


Why go to all this bother? I simply "Import" my NEF and CR2 files, converting to DNG as I import, and set my preview to "Standard", and apply a camera specific preset also.


> back up the DNGs to which metadata is written by LR - it doesn't include all your LR work anyway. (john)


True- However if you EXPORT a DNG from LR using the EXPORT function your LR edits DO show on the image when it is Re-imported into LR. History is not available, but RESET will still function to set the image back to camera original. This means if you CTRL+S to embed the edits, you can send a friend a DNG (RAW) file that will appear as edited by you. I do not CTRL+S embed metadata in all my DNG files- because-yes! it does make Back-ups see the files as 'New' and prolongs back-ups.


----------



## Jim Wilde

I-See-Light said:


> ...all Lightroom edit history can be stored within the DNG (no .xmp sidecar files ever!),


 
John's already pointed out that some Lightroom metadata is NOT stored in XMP (DNG or sidecar), develop edit history being one such element. Other metadata items not written to XMP include Flags, Virtual Copies, Collection Membership and Stacks.



> only DNGs  can be used in  a "proxy DNG" manner for editing while away from the main catalog.



I don't understand, could you explain what you mean by this?



> I started using DNG when my great backup program (no name mentioned here!) backed up all my .xmp files but NOT the .NEFs- how good was that.



I think I'd have just changed my backup program!


----------



## darky

darky said:
			
		

> I am shooting with Pentax without chance to escape from DNG. But after some time and experience I dislike DNG...





clee01l said:


> Unless your Pentax is different from the K20D and K10D that I had, you can still use Pentax' proprietary PEF RAW format as your output file format from the camera.
> 
> One disadvantage of DNG is when it comes to backups. Anytime the metadata changes in the DNG RAW file, the backup software backs up the whole DNG file again (and again).  XML Sidecar files are small compared to the complete DNG RAW file. I think the best solution is to not write metadata to the XML/DNG file in the first place.  Outside of the Photoshop family, XML files serve no purpose and only serve to partially duplicate metadata that is always stored in the master LR catalog.



Thank you Cletus. I am sorry, my Pentax K-30 has only DNG or DNG+JPG or JPG but no PEF. This (proprietary) DNG content was not interpreted correctly from quite a couple of semi- and professional RAW editors. Lightroom immediately could render it correctly, but one of its strongest competitors not for 12 months!

I think we understand well the different workflow options with metadata, XMP embedded vs sidecars and backup. But there are very valid DAM reasons to realize it this or that way. The big problem with DNG format is, that a lot of software does not allow a free workflow decision for the user. If a user does WANT to write protect his DNG, JPG, PNG, ... or does WANT sidecar files some software does not work properly or does ignore this. If you use Lightroom together with other tools this can be problematic. That is why I do not like DNG and would appreciate a DNG back to RAW converter for my camera (unrealistic wish!).


----------



## darky

johnbeardy said:


> It's amazing how often people still claim it's a disadvantage of DNG that you have to keep backing them up. That's just not so.
> 
> The fault is that you haven't re-assessed your backup strategy. Keep a virgin copy of your DNGs - they are the backup of the photo data. You can then go on saving metadata from LR but think of it in terms of sharing metadata with other apps. Don't worry that you need to back up the DNGs to which metadata is written by LR - it doesn't include all your LR work anyway. Instead, backup your catalogue - the combination of the catalogue and the virgin copies gives you 100% coverage.



John, you are right, but only for a specific workflow. If you want to keep all your image files (virgins, versions, ...) together, the backup process can be very complicated. Note, that a couple of users do not use only Lightroom for DAM. It makes their image life more complicated but more flexible ... and is of course their fault. A backup of virgins and LR database is not always sufficient. It is sufficient for a disaster recovery, but I like to backup more. E.g. all the LR exports in my image folders and all the automatic sophisticated batch exports with other software (e.g. cropping, resizing, resharpening with ImageMagick). My backup is not only required for disaster recovery, but for regular synchronization between various network and fixed hard disk drives. 

Damian


----------



## johnbeardy

Sure, a few users don't use LR for DAM, but you can't base advice on individual and sometimes-offbeat workflows. That "specific workflow" is a typical workflow and therefore a good basis for general advice. DNG can be attacked, but you have to choose ground that is much less shaky than the old backup argument that keeps getting rolled out.

John


----------



## Selwin

Hi John, I value your determination to save DNG from a bad rep. At the same time, I know many people who eventually take backing up their source files seriously, and arrange a decent setup on a serious backup app, rely on automated  backups that keep searching the same folders for new images. In these backup environments, it may be harder to make sure that 
- *each* "virgin" DNG is actually backed up
- the virgin DNG's are *never* overwritten by the backup software
Of course, as a Guru, you will know what to do. But a few suggestions on how to backup would certainly be welcome to the average user.
I still see so many reports of people losing images or edits or both, that I wrote a backup sticky. I want to make doing backups as easy as possible so that everyone will start doing it.


----------



## johnbeardy

It really isn't difficult, Selwin, once one sees that continually backing up DNGs is pointless.

The easiest way is to physically separate new or "virgin" DNGs from the "working" DNGs to which LR writes metadata. Once new DNGs are backed up, they can be moved over to the drive for working DNGs which isn't targeted by the backup program.

John


----------



## Den

Selwin stated: "I still see so many reports of people losing images or edits or both, that I wrote a backup sticky"

Where might one find this write-up?


----------



## Selwin

Den said:


> Selwin stated: "I still see so many reports of people losing images or edits or both, that I wrote a backup sticky"
> Where might one find this write-up?


Hi Den,
You can find it in the Tips, Tricks & The Starter Kit section of these forums. Just had a look and saw it's not marked as Sticky. But it's currently just below them.


----------



## Den

Thanks.


----------



## Rob_Cullen

Thanks Selwin for the Backup post.

Getting back to Jims question-


> only DNGs  can be used in  a "proxy DNG" manner for editing while away from the main catalog.- 			 		 	 I don't understand, could you explain what you mean by this?


Jim- I am wrong!  I was thinking about "Smart Previews" that can be edited in the Develop module, when you do not have the original file available. And I now know that Smart Previews can be made from any image file including JPGs. I learn from my own mistakes.! (Must remember- Think twice, write once.)


----------



## Jim Wilde

Thanks. I had assumed you meant the Smart Previews, but wasn't sure, so thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Denis de Gannes

Surprising that this thread generated so little participation!


----------



## Bryan Conner

I do not know exactly how I missed voting in this poll.  But, I did.  At the moment, I am not converting my raw files to dng.  The reason is that I may use DXO 9 on my high iso images because of the PRIME noise reduction that has been released.  DXO 9 will not open (or even see) the files that I converted to dng over the past 2-3 years.  I wish DXO would accept the converted dng files from Lightroom/Adobe DNG converter!!

So, I did not vote in the poll as there is not an appropriate choice for me.  I am in conversion limbo at the moment.


----------



## Kiwigeoff

So does nobody use Smart Previews?? - they are DNGs!!:surprised:


----------



## Bryan Conner

Kiwigeoff said:


> So does nobody use Smart Previews?? - they are DNGs!!:surprised:



I do not use Smart Previews.  They do not seem like an *intelligent  *use of disk space since I do not use Lightroom without hard drives plugged in.  Thanks for turning me on to the fact that they are dng files.  Learned something new today.


----------



## johnbeardy

Oh, Geoff, technically you are correct, of course. But now you've outed smart previews, won't the anti-DNG crowd spread their usual FUD about them too?! (I'll just use one extra exclamation mark  )

John


----------



## Denis de Gannes

That is reason enough Bryan, Lightroom will not use the smart previews when the *"original files"* are available.


----------



## clee01l

Kiwigeoff said:


> So does nobody use Smart Previews?? - they are DNGs!!:surprised:


I don't think the use case is all that relevant for Smart Previews yet.  If you are highly mobile and keep your master images on a NAS or other detachable drive, then you might want to create and carry Smart Previews along.  At some point in the future when low powered tablets and smart phones are more integrated into our workflow, accessing SPs via the cloud may become practical.  Adobe is looking to the future in developing the SP concept now. (Built it and the need will develop for the apps to support it.)


----------



## RikkFlohr

Oddly, the four selections in this poll don't cover the way I shoot.

I shoot Raw and Jpeg appropriately, but never Raw+Jpeg. I suspect there are more like me.


----------



## rhynetc

LouieSherwin said:


> After initially converting to DNG I went back to using raw only.
> 
> -louie



Same here!


----------



## Bryan Conner

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=85559.0;topicseen  is a link to a related discussion over at the Luminous Landscape Forum.  Jeff Schewe chimes in with some info that may be interesting.  The entire discussion is interesting to me....ok, I am a geek...


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Entertaining read, thanks Bryan


----------



## Jan Erik Edvartsen

I converted to .DNG after watching Julieanne Kost talking about this wonderful file format. (Julieanne Kost is awesome. Her creativeLIVE workshop is fantastic. I bought it in an instant. You can even hear the presenters mention my name when taking questions for Julieanne. My AKA online is Eddy the Teddy so you hear that nick on day 2!)

For me the pros of .DNGs far outweigh the potential cons.

1. You get file validation. This is a big one!
2. Metadata changes can be written directly to the file instead of those pesky .XML sidecar files.
3. And .DNGs take up slightly less space than RAW files, so the more RAW files you have, the more space you save when you go .DNG.
4. Adobe constantly update and improve this file format - with added functionality being added once in a while. Like File Validation.

One more thing. In System Specs, we can't choose DNG as a file format. Would be nice to have this added to the options.

Oh and I voted '_RAW Converted to DNG'_


----------



## camner

johnbeardy said:


> It's amazing how often people still claim it's a disadvantage of DNG that you have to keep backing them up. That's just not so.
> 
> The fault is that you haven't re-assessed your backup strategy. Keep a virgin copy of your DNGs - they are the backup of the photo data. You can then go on saving metadata from LR but think of it in terms of sharing metadata with other apps. Don't worry that you need to back up the DNGs to which metadata is written by LR - it doesn't include all your LR work anyway. Instead, backup your catalogue - the combination of the catalogue and the virgin copies gives you 100% coverage.
> 
> John



I think part of what seem to get in the way is when one is running a cloud backup service in the background (CrashPlan, Dropbox, etc.).  All of those apps can be configured, of course, to exclude certain directories, which is what one would have to do in order NOT to be backing up the revised DNG files whenever the metadata changes get written out to the DNG. _[After reading the DNG vs RAW discussion over at Luminous Landscape I want to be clear that I am NOT claiming that this need to fine tune the backup strategy to accommodate a DNG workflow is in any way an argument against the existence or use of DNG!  My only point is that it adds a bit of complexity to the backup process, which for some seems to be a disadvantage that overcomes the advantages that come with DNG and leads them to eschew the use of DNG]_

Just to make sure I understand what you're suggesting, John...Are you proposing that one convert to DNG (perhaps upon import) and then keep the DNG file instead of (or in addition to, depending on preference) the straight-out-of-the-camera RAW file as the "virgin" file (the one one goes back to if all else is lost!) and then not bother to write out metadata to the "working" DNG files because the LR catalog is a superset of whatever gets written out to the DNGs?  (Unless, of course, as you suggest, one uses the "written out to DNG metadata" as a way to communicate with other apps that can read that stuff.)


----------



## johnbeardy

I don't think it adds any complexity to the backup - just the need to think it through. But shouldn't we be thinking it through continually in any case and always checking backup is indeed happening and is appropriate? I just drag pictures from an area that is covered by backup to one that isn't, which isn't exactly complex or time-consuming.

You've mostly grasped what I wrote. But I don't think it makes sense to convert to DNG upon import - it's better to do so when you've decided which pictures are worth keeping. After ensuring the new virgin DNGs and the raws are backed up, raws go onto an archive drive and are removed from LR (no harm, good to have another backup in a different format) and the virgin DNGs now go over to the working drive which isn't covered by backup. I'll just write metadata to those files as and when I need, and that's to communicate with other apps, not for backup purposes.

My point here is not to say people should use DNG, but that "huge backups" is not a convincing reason to avoid it.

John


----------



## clee01l

johnbeardy said:


> ...My point here is not to say people should use DNG, but that "huge backups" is not a convincing reason to avoid it...


I solved that problem for myself when my SOOC RAW files were DNG by simply not updating the metadata in the original files.  The LR catalog keeps all of the metadata Catalog backup are routine and backups of those backups are too.  If I ever move away from LR, I'll have time and opportunity to merge XMP metadata to the originals.


----------



## darky

If you manage and edit your image files mainly in Lightroom (LR) a proper workflow and backup can be achieved of course with or without DNG conversion.

But it can turn much more complicated if the camera provides only DNG, if other tools than LR have to manage, read or edit DNG files and finally if you like to have a simple backup strategy. With simple backup I do not mean backup speed or backup size, but I mean ONE source directory structure which includes originals AND working files and I mean a backup trigger based on file modifications (e.g. archive attribute, date, ...). With DNG files a correct and fast backup it is still possible, but the backup setup can be more complex.

I was suprised to detect, that LR is able to ignore the read-only setting of DNG files. See also http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showthread.php?20958-LR-disables-read-only-attribute-of-DNG
Why are Adobe products so inconsistent with DNG and XMP files?  This does not create trust...

Damian


----------



## johnbeardy

Damian

I think that inconsistency over read-only files is related to the Import process, and is not related to DNG. Let's say I create a NEF and lock it in the camera, then import it - so no DNG involved. LR copies the NEF but removes its read-only flag. I think this is undesirable, but nothing to do with DNG.

Inconsistency is partly the Lightroom way - its ethos was to start from zero and not necessarily repeat what other products did. 

John


----------



## Den

A decision as difficult as deciding whether ObamaCare is a good or bad idea, and just as controversial!:crazy:


----------



## camner

Den said:


> A decision as difficult as deciding whether ObamaCare is a good or bad idea, and just as controversial!:crazy:



Oooh...if we go down THIS road the fireworks over "to DNG or not to DNG, that is the question" will seem quite small...we'll probably overwhelm the server and Victoria will have to move the board again.


----------



## clee01l

camner said:


> Oooh...if we go down THIS road the fireworks over "to DNG or not to DNG, that is the question" will seem quite small...we'll probably overwhelm the server and Victoria will have to move the board again.


It won't happen.  Politics and religion are not subjects for conversation here.  Although "To DNG or not" is bordering too close to religion.


----------



## jndm

For me one big advantage of DNg is that verification. Another good point is that in Windows I can search directly from explorer for keywoards as they are "burned" into DNg.

On the other side i am not prepared to throw away my original RAWs, so the only possibility can be DNG which include original RAW. I have tested several times on different RAWs extraction of original RAW and it is working fine.

So in case I will decide to switch to DNG I will probably go this way:
- include original files into DNG
- set LR to write metadata to files (because of tjhat search possibility).

I am using CrashPlan for backup, so I do not care too much about backup size. More than this, if DNG is changing it is backed up again and again so i have several versions in backup which can be useful in case some damaged version is backed up.


----------



## Denis de Gannes

jndm said:


> For me one big advantage of DNg is that verification.



Can you explain what this "verification" means to you? Why do you consider it so important?


----------



## Victoria Bampton

Denis de Gannes said:


> Can you explain what this "verification" means to you? Why do you consider it so important?



It's often the canary in the coalmine.  For example, I had an email this week from a guy whose Time Machine backup drive got fried by a lightning strike. He was trying to back up to a new drive, but it kept failing.  Why?  Because some of the files had become corrupted.  But they were NEF's so he didn't know.  Hadn't looked at them in a while.  If they'd been DNG files, he could have run the DNG Validation overnight every few months.  He'd have discovered that they were corrupted, and copied them back from his backups.  Except he wouldn't have just copied them back - he'd have hunted down the cause of the corruption too, before it affected too many of his files.


----------



## Denis de Gannes

Thanks Victoria.


----------



## Allan Olesen

I assume this DNG validation is just some form of checksum validation?

That is possible with any file type. And if you want to do it from inside Lightroom, at least two plugins have been written. One of them was even created by a member of this forum. Here is the announcement (which also contains a link to another plugin which does the same):
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/commu...Validation-Suggestions-and-feedback-solicited


----------



## Cpkyle

I have a Nikon and convert my raw (NEF) files to DNG.  During conversion I embed the original.  If I am not happy with how LR5 processes the file (about 5% or less of the time) I can use the Adobe DNG converter to extract the original NEF file.  This original file is untouched by LR5. Am I missing something here?  I don't see the downside of converting to DNG when you embed the original raw file (NEF in my case) for later use if required.


----------



## clee01l

Cpkyle said:


> I have a Nikon and convert my raw (NEF) files to DNG.  During conversion I embed the original.  If I am not happy with how LR5 processes the file (about 5% or less of the time) I can use the Adobe DNG converter to extract the original NEF file.  This original file is untouched by LR5. Am I missing something here?  I don't see the downside of converting to DNG when you embed the original raw file (NEF in my case) for later use if required.


Welcome to the forum. 
If you don't convert your NEFs, LR still does not alter the original. And you do not need to extract it from the DNG. If you convert the NEF and embed it into a DNG, you end up with a file that is the size of the NEF *plus* the size of the DNG  A much larger file that when you started.  

Without creating a DNG, the LR workflow is Import and store NEF, Make adjustments and store these in the LR catalog and export a derivative image that consists of Original plus adjustments. 
When creating a DNG, the LR workflow is: store the NEF, Convert to DNG and Import the DNG, Make adjustments and store these in the LR catalog and export a derivative image that consists of Original plus adjustments. 

If you want to retain the NEF, why do you need a DNG?


----------



## Cpkyle

Cletus:  Thanks. I get better results in LR5 with the files I convert to DNG.  When I import the NEFs directly into LR5 (without conversion) I have issues with sharpening and colors, but when I convert from NEF to DNG and use LR5 I get very good results.  A related point is I have set my in camera sharpening to zero and this has also made it easier to sharpen DNG files in LR5.  When using the NEF file in Capture NX2 I can get very good results, but I don't like that software.  I don't mind the size of the files as storage is cheap and by embedding the original I can always go back to the original file.  I sometimes use Nik software with LR5 and the DNGs respond well with Dfine and Viveza.


----------



## Denis de Gannes

This is the first time I have ever seen a claim by anyone that the process of raw files are any different than the process of raw files converted to DNG by Adobe Products. Adobe has always been at pains to indicate that they make no change to the raw data when converting to DNG. As far as I am aware there should be no difference.


----------



## DaveS

I'm somewhat confused, I wasn't under the impression that camera sharpening (on or off) made any difference to a raw file (or those converted to dng).


----------



## Denis de Gannes

DaveS said:


> I'm somewhat confused, I wasn't under the impression that camera sharpening (on or off) made any difference to a raw file (or those converted to dng).


You are absolutely correct. Third party software like Lightroom will not be able to read those camera settings when processing the raw data, only the camera manufacturer's software will apply those settings. Raw data is raw data each software provider have their own recipe for processing the data. There is no right or wrong process, just a different taste.

If you like to eat fried chicken, then there are many choices you can make and enjoy the one you prefer.


----------



## clee01l

DaveS said:


> I'm somewhat confused, I wasn't under the impression that camera sharpening (on or off) made any difference to a raw file (or those converted to dng).


In camera sharpening only affects camera processed JPEGs. NEFs are not even RGB in the camera and until demosaic'd and converted to RGB no sharpening can be applied.


----------



## Denis de Gannes

clee01l said:


> In camera sharpening only affects camera processed JPEGs. NEFs are not even RGB in the camera and until demosaic'd and converted to RGB no sharpening can be applied.


Lightroom on importing a raw file will apply its own default sharpening, however it cannot read the camera setting for sharpening. The camera manufacturer''s software will read and apply the sharpening to match what the camera was set to.


----------



## Replytoken

clee01l said:


> In camera sharpening only affects camera processed JPEGs. NEFs are not even RGB in the camera and until demosaic'd and converted to RGB no sharpening can be applied.



If I remember correctly, I thought I have recently read a few articles that seem to indicate that a few camera manufacturers are actually applying some in-camera corrections to their raw files, mostly with respect to NR, even when the user has not selected any NR in their settings.  I believe that Ricoh may do so with their GR, and I believe that Thom Hogan may have mentioned another camera, but I cannot remember in which post he mentioned it, although I believe that it was in the last month that I read it.  It does not sound like a common practice, but I suspect that our raw files are not always as untouched as we would imagine them to be.

--Ken


----------



## Cpkyle

Ken, I think you are on to something.  I shoot landscapes and previously I shot with my sharpening at the default of "2" as I didn't think this impacted the raw/NEF file.  At that setting I would get noise in the sky portion of my photos IN LR5 (Particularly with a clear blue sky).  In Capture NX2 the sky would be noise free with the same NEF file because Capture NX2 reads the NEF file perfectly.  The noise issue I mention is not noticeable when I don't have the sky in the photo.  I don't think I ever would of known of this issue unless I shot landscapes.  The noise issue becomes more noticeable when I print a book using the book module/Blurb.  What looks like a little noise on my computer screen becomes more noticeable in my Blurb book.  On a further note I shoot with the Nikon 1 V1 which is known to have noise issues at relatively low ISO settings.  Perhaps the noise issue is more noticeable because my V1 uses 10mp files.  Since I have changed my in-camera sharpening on my V1 to zero last Novemeber the noise in the sky is gone using LR5.  I just printed a book with Blurb and noise is present in the photos I shot with in-camera sharpening set to "2" and the photos I shot with in-camera sharpening set to "0" noise is not present.


----------



## clee01l

Replytoken said:


> If I remember correctly, I thought I have recently read a few articles that seem to indicate that a few camera manufacturers are actually applying some in-camera corrections to their raw files, mostly with respect to NR, even when the user has not selected any NR in their settings.  I believe that Ricoh may do so with their GR, and I believe that Thom Hogan may have mentioned another camera, but I cannot remember in which post he mentioned it, although I believe that it was in the last month that I read it.  It does not sound like a common practice, but I suspect that our raw files are not always as untouched as we would imagine them to be.
> 
> --Ken


There are no pixels in a RAW image to sharpen. There are only photosites on the sensor. These are arranged in rows of filtered red and green photosites alternating with rows of blue and green photos sites.   This is called a Bayer array . Four photosites are arranged  containin one red, one blue and two green filtered photosites. These are collected to make one pixel.    A pixel after demosaicing contains red , green and blue values. This demosaicing and converting to RGB does not happen in the camera except to produce a JPEG image.  
You may find this link instructive:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm

LR uses ACR to process the photosite data.  i.e to demosaic and convert to RGB.  ACR also applies some pre-sharpening, NR and WB leveling.  The resulting image is the one that you would see if you applied the General Zeroed preset on the Original at import.  It is flat, noisy and somewhat toneless. 

You will need to reference any articles that discuss in camera corrections to RAW files.  Because I do not think the result of any in camera corrections can still be called a RAW file.


----------



## Cpkyle

The two photos at the link below are NEF files converted to DNG.  The shots were both taken with my Nikon 1 V1.

https://plus.google.com/photos/108010993019509070666/albums/5968783173260906513

The first shot (Church) was taken within in-camera sharpening set to “2”.  Noise is present in the sky at the top of the photo.

The second shot (Office Building) was taken with in-camera sharpening set to “0”. Noise is not present in the sky portion of the photo.

I know this is not a perfect comparison, but the type of noise present in the church photo was a constant issue for 18 months of shooting landscapes.  Once I changed the in-camera sharpening to zero (“0”) the noise was eliminated.

As Ken stated earlier Thom Hogan mentioned this issue with Nikon NEF files.  As such, I think this is a Nikon specific issue and most likely does not impact all Nikon cameras.  There is something in the NEF file that when in-camera sharpening is set to anything other than zero that interferes with the noise reduction/sharpening instructions in Lightroom.  I’m not saying it applies to your cameras.  I think because my V1 uses just 10mp files the issue is perhaps more noticeable.  Other folks with higher MP Nikon cameras may not be impacted, but I am.

John


----------



## clee01l

Cpkyle said:


> The two photos at the link below are NEF files converted to DNG.  The shots were both taken with my Nikon 1 V1.
> 
> https://plus.google.com/photos/108010993019509070666/albums/5968783173260906513
> 
> The first shot (Church) was taken within in-camera sharpening set to “2”.  Noise is present in the sky at the top of the photo.
> 
> The second shot (Office Building) was taken with in-camera sharpening set to “0”. Noise is not present in the sky portion of the photo.
> 
> I know this is not a perfect comparison, but the type of noise present in the church photo was a constant issue for 18 months of shooting landscapes.  Once I changed the in-camera sharpening to zero (“0”) the noise was eliminated.
> 
> As Ken stated earlier Thom Hogan mentioned this issue with Nikon NEF files.  As such, I think this is a Nikon specific issue and most likely does not impact all Nikon cameras.  There is something in the NEF file that when in-camera sharpening is set to anything other than zero that interferes with the noise reduction/sharpening instructions in Lightroom.  I’m not saying it applies to your cameras.  I think because my V1 uses just 10mp files the issue is perhaps more noticeable.  Other folks with higher MP Nikon cameras may not be impacted, but I am.
> 
> John


I don't see any noise present in either image. ACR has demosaic'ed and converted both images to RGB.  While the ISO is 100 for both, the shutterspeed for one is 1/1250s and the other is 1/250s.  Still no "apples to apples" comparison.  ISO 100 should be the least noisy sensitivity setting.   Additional Post processing is done on the images sent to Picasa/Google+ presumably using LR.  The histogram for the image that you say has a noisy sky is showing the image to be under exposed with a large blue spike and the other image is over exposed with a large blue spike on the over exposed end.

When you are shooting NEFs and processing these in LR do you have the D-Lighting setting on in the camera settings.  This should be off for post processing with any software other than CNX2  D-Lighting varies the ISO sensitivity at each photosite to boost shadows and dampen highlights.  Nikon records those photosite adjustment factors in the Makers notes section and these factors are not read or applied by LR or anyone else.  D-Lighting should be set to off if you are shooting RAW and not using CNX2 for post processing  (Many Nikon "experts" suggest that it should always be off for RAW.)


----------



## Cpkyle

Cletus:  Thanks.  Looked at your Flickr photos and they are superb.  I added another shot (third in this group) which perhaps is a better example of noise when my in-camera settings are set to 2.  I do have the D-Lighting turned off in camera.

https://plus.google.com/photos/108010993019509070666/albums/5968783173260906513

John


----------



## Replytoken

clee01l said:


> You will need to reference any articles that discuss in camera corrections to RAW files.  Because I do not think the result of any in camera corrections can still be called a RAW file.



Unfortunately, I have read too many articles this past month to remember where I read the reference, but it may have been at Thom's site, or perhaps it was related to some of the Ricoh GR reviews that I was reading?  But, I did find this article which may shed some useful information on the subject:  http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html .  If I can find the piece that I read, I will post a link to it.  Sorry about the gray bandwidth overload.

--Ken


----------

