# pros and cons using DNG



## jndm (May 16, 2013)

Hello, yesterday there was a small discussion under one post from Victoria (https://www.facebook.com/lightroomqueen/posts/470530956350614) about DNG verification, which leads me to start this thread.

Do you convert your photos from RAW to DNG while importing to Lr? What benefits does have it for you?

Currently i shoot into RAW and do not convert RAWs (NEFF,CR2) to DNG. Main reasons are:
- I like the idea having "exact" data from camera
- I do not care much about space as disk are quite cheap (I remember times when 400MB disks cost same as standard laptop now

Why I am thinking about DNG?
- that verification is cool
- no needs for sidecar XMP files

What I do not like about DNG
- files are changed (because XMP is written into file instead of external xmp file)


In case I will use DNG I will probably also archive original RAWs or use that "embedded origimal RAW) option. First choce is good because I will still have untouched data, but it is quite complicated to manage it (in case I delete photo in Lr I will have to delete it also in archive....), second option will means that I will have huge files...

Sometimes people say that DNG is good for archiving because it is open format, but I think that when it comes that Lr or other SW will stop support my RAWs I can still convert to DNg, there is no need to do it in advance.

So what are ypour opinions about DNG and using that?


----------



## clee01l (May 16, 2013)

jndm said:


> ...Do you convert your photos from RAW to DNG while importing to Lr? What benefits does have it for you?
> 
> Currently i shoot into RAW and do not convert RAWs (NEFF,CR2) to DNG. Main reasons are:
> - I like the idea having "exact" data from camera
> - I do not care much about space as disk are quite cheap (I remember times when 400MB disks cost same as standard laptop now


Those are my justifications for not using DNG too.  There is no purpose outside of the Photoshop family of products to create an XMP sidecar file.  So I don't create sidecars.  Everything in the XMP metadata is in my LR catalog plus a lot of metadata that will never be stored in the XMP.
When my main camera wrote DNG RAW files in the camera, I imported them directly into LR.  Now I import NEFs.  I would never delete the original NEFs, so what have a second RAW format around to have to keep track of too.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 16, 2013)

As you know, the verification's the winner for me.  DNG files are my working files and my working backups.

My import backups stay as original format, just in case I ever needed one (so far I've only ever gone back to test stuff when writing the book), and I don't bother to go back and delete photos from those backups.


----------



## DianeK (May 17, 2013)

Victoria Bampton said:


> DNG files are my working files and my working backups.
> My import backups stay as original format, just in case I ever needed one.


So just to make sure I understand this.  I currently do a "make a second copy to" when importing RAW.  Are you saying that if I copy as DNG on import the LR images will be DNG but the "second copy to" will be the original RAW *not* the DNG?


----------



## Hal P Anderson (May 17, 2013)

Diane,

Yes.

Hal


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 17, 2013)

Yep, it's the original format as it comes off the card, with the exception that if you're renaming in the import dialog, it renames the second copy too. It's ideal for a DNG workflow.


----------



## DianeK (May 17, 2013)

Thank you Hal and Victoria.  This does make me more comfortable with DNG.


----------



## ClickCardo (May 30, 2013)

Victoria Bampton said:


> As you know,    the verification's the winner for me.      DNG files are my working files and my working backups.
> 
> My import backups stay as original format, just in case I ever needed one (so far I've only ever gone back to test stuff when writing the book), and I don't bother to go back and delete photos from those backups.



Victoria

Verification would still be the primary reason for me also, but on The Library of Congress' website for digital preservation they reference several checksum type utilities that I'm looking at.  I'm a little nervous given Adobe's recent Cloud hubub putting things deeper down the Adobe dark hole, but then if I felt that strongly about it maybe I wouldn't put more into LR and this forum.  Seems pretty ridiculous I know, especially since Adobe has committed to perpetual license LR5, but I cannot completely scrape the thought out of my mind.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (May 30, 2013)

That's understandable, although even if LR did go subscription one day, it would be lovely and cheap.   And other software supports DNG too. 

Try ImageVerifier as an alternative verification option - http://basepath.com/site/detail-ImageVerifier.php


----------



## Tony Jay (May 30, 2013)

Michal welxcome.

DNG does not alter data in any malignant way.
This is important to understand.
DNG also records proprietary information although that my not be accessible to third-party software.
Actual pixel (sensel) data is recorded exactly as it is in the RAW file.
This is because almost every RAW format now, as well as the DNG format uses the TIFF-EP standard as its basis.
So concerns about 'alteration of data' don't really stack up.

Whether one would use DNG though is a much bigger issue.
DNG was designed, and introduced, by Adobe for the purpose of provding a universal RAW format.
Ideally, camera manufacturers would adopt DNG as their RAW format, and some have.
What is also required is for the International Standards Organization (ISO) to adopt and maintain DNG as a universal RAW format.
The point of the exercise is to provide a RAW format that, either retrospectively or prospectively, could be used for archival purposes.
What archival means is that DNG would be accessible by any software at any time in the future because right now proprietary formats are at risk of becoming orphans (this has happened to several RAW formats already).
However until the ISO adopts DNG AND camera manufacturers recognize its usefulness en mass the purpose of the DNG format remains illusory.

I would like to see DNG (or potentially another RAW format) adopted as a universal RAW format and when this occurs I would probably convert my RAW files to DNG but until this happens converting to DNG does not offer the benefits that I would.
Currently my RAW files are just at risk whether in proprietary RAW or as DNG files if action is not taken.
Whether one sees the risks of non-universal RAW files depends on how far into the future one wants one's RAW files to be accessible.
Consider how much the electronics and software industries have changed in the last ten years and then extrapolate even fifty years forward.
How many of the current players in the market does one still expect to be in business?
Will any of the current RAW files be recognized by any software in the future?
Right now there are no guarantees.

DNG is an excellent idea, designed with the best of intentions, but remains a potential rather than actual solution at this point in time.

Tony Jay


----------



## sizzlingbadger (May 31, 2013)

The problem for me is dng is more of a universal container rather than a universal format. You can convert an OEM raw file to dng format and it still may not be understood by an application that does support dng. For example I converted the raw files from my Fuji camera to dng but Aperture still couldn't read them as it didn't understand the data contained in the dng file. When Apple added support for my Fuji camera the dng files became accessible.


----------



## johnbeardy (May 31, 2013)

Didn't you try what Aperture calls "baseline" support?


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jun 2, 2013)

It would recognise the file format at all.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jun 2, 2013)

Maybe use an earlier DNG spec?


----------



## Allan Olesen (Jun 2, 2013)

I think that DNG is inferior to raw for future compatibility. It may be good enough as working format, but not for archival purposes. You can't be sure that the information your future software is able to extract from a raw file is still present in the DNG file.

An example where this went wrong, even without moving from Lightroom to another piece of software:

 Fuji has made a new sensor, called the X-Trans sensor, which doesn't have a normal Bayer pattern. Some Lightroom version (4.3 or 4.2?) would perform demosaicing to those files and save them as linear DNG instead of normal DNG without telling the user. This means that the original raw data were lost, and when Lightroom 4.4 got a better demosaicing algorithm for the Fuji files, it was too late. Files which were already imported and changed to DNG in the old Lightroom version were for ever stuck with the result of the old, apparently very inferior demosaicing algorithm.


----------



## johnbeardy (Jun 2, 2013)

A rather misleading example!


----------



## Denis de Gannes (Jun 2, 2013)

johnbeardy said:


> A rather misleading example!



Misleading? in what way. I asked clarification of this issue a couple months ago and there was no clear solution. If you did not retain a copy of the original raw file then you were left with a dng file that was "defective". If there is a way to correct the dng file using the updated DNG Converter I would like to know.


----------



## clee01l (Jun 2, 2013)

johnbeardy said:


> A rather misleading example!


I agree, but could you elaborate?


----------



## clee01l (Jun 2, 2013)

If you are worried about archival images, you can always encapsulate the original RAW inside the DNG. It can be extracted later. Of course, this means the DNG file is larger by a factor  and never smaller than the original RAW. To me this obviates any advantage that some might see in the DNG as a RAW format superior to the original RAW.


----------



## WildVanilla (Jun 2, 2013)

I personally use DNG, after having carefully considered the chapter in the Missing FAQ. I like not having to worry about keeping my RAW and XMP files aligned, and my workflow is always to save a copy of the RAW files SOOC onto a NAS anyway, just in case!

Rob


----------



## Jason DiMichele (Jun 2, 2013)

Hi folks,

I'm new to this forum and am extremely impressed with the information and community shared. 

My 2 cents on this topic is that DNG is such a benefit with regard to workflow and that is why I am using it exclusively (some files may end up as tiff, for example, focus blends or mosaic stitched files). 

The whole concept of "perhaps new raw converting technology down the road will allow me to get more out of my images" is slightly irrelevant in my humble opinion. The basic reason being that if you are able to get prints that are good enough now (for galleries, sales, etc), are you really going to go back to those hundreds or thousands of images and reprocess them all for a probable minute amount of improvement? I'd rather spend my time continuing to improve my vision and being in the field. 

Cheers!


----------



## johnbeardy (Jun 2, 2013)

"The whole concept of "perhaps new raw converting technology down the  road will allow me to get more out of my images" is slightly irrelevant  in my humble opinion."

It's more relevant to JPEG vs Raw than to this topic.

John


----------



## Bryan Conner (Jun 2, 2013)

Jason DiMichele said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> The whole concept of "perhaps new raw converting technology down the road will allow me to get more out of my images" is slightly irrelevant in my humble opinion. The basic reason being that if you are able to get prints that are good enough now (for galleries, sales, etc), are you really going to go back to those hundreds or thousands of images and reprocess them all for a probable minute amount of improvement? I'd rather spend my time continuing to improve my vision and being in the field.
> 
> Cheers!



Some of us are self admitted raw conversion geeks.  Since I am no longer a working pro photographer, I shoot mainly to have raw files to convert and experiment with.  I get great enjoyment in going back to old raw files from long gone cameras and reprocessing them.  So, to each his own.


----------



## Jason DiMichele (Jun 2, 2013)

Bryan Conner said:


> Some of us are self admitted raw conversion geeks.  Since I am no longer a working pro photographer, I shoot mainly to have raw files to convert and experiment with.  I get great enjoyment in going back to old raw files from long gone cameras and reprocessing them.  So, to each his own.



Hi Bryan,

I would not consider your enjoyment of photographing for the purpose of experimenting with RAW conversion to be what the far majority of photographers are doing or interested in. I completely agree with you about to each their own. I also believe that it is essential to know all the subtleties of converting RAW images to get the most out of the images. 

Cheers!


----------



## Bryan Conner (Jun 3, 2013)

Jason DiMichele said:


> Hi Bryan,
> 
> I would not consider your enjoyment of photographing for the purpose of experimenting with RAW conversion to be what the far majority of photographers are doing or interested in. I completely agree with you about to each their own. I also believe that it is essential to know all the subtleties of converting RAW images to get the most out of the images.
> 
> Cheers!



Hi Jason,

I agree with you completely.   If every photographer mainly shot just to have images to process, then the world would be a very uninteresting one photographically.  I am happy that most photographs are made trying to capture beauty and emotion etc instead of simply to satisfy some old nerd's addiction!


----------



## jndm (May 16, 2013)

Hello, yesterday there was a small discussion under one post from Victoria (https://www.facebook.com/lightroomqueen/posts/470530956350614) about DNG verification, which leads me to start this thread.

Do you convert your photos from RAW to DNG while importing to Lr? What benefits does have it for you?

Currently i shoot into RAW and do not convert RAWs (NEFF,CR2) to DNG. Main reasons are:
- I like the idea having "exact" data from camera
- I do not care much about space as disk are quite cheap (I remember times when 400MB disks cost same as standard laptop now

Why I am thinking about DNG?
- that verification is cool
- no needs for sidecar XMP files

What I do not like about DNG
- files are changed (because XMP is written into file instead of external xmp file)


In case I will use DNG I will probably also archive original RAWs or use that "embedded origimal RAW) option. First choce is good because I will still have untouched data, but it is quite complicated to manage it (in case I delete photo in Lr I will have to delete it also in archive....), second option will means that I will have huge files...

Sometimes people say that DNG is good for archiving because it is open format, but I think that when it comes that Lr or other SW will stop support my RAWs I can still convert to DNg, there is no need to do it in advance.

So what are ypour opinions about DNG and using that?


----------



## Jason DiMichele (Jun 3, 2013)

Bryan Conner said:


> Hi Jason,
> 
> I agree with you completely.   If every photographer mainly shot just to have images to process, then the world would be a very uninteresting one photographically.  I am happy that most photographs are made trying to capture beauty and emotion etc instead of simply to satisfy some old nerd's addiction!



Morning Bryan,

Don't get me wrong, I also do some testing here and there with regard to RAW conversion, Camera RAW/Lightroom camera profiles, etc. I use to compare various RAW conversion software but I've just standardized on Camera RAW / Lightroom now. I love the techie side of the industry as well. I think your "old nerd's addiction" is valuable in that it allows you to inform the community of interesting finds or better ways to get the most out of our images. 

One of the things I'm interested in, mainly for my art reproductions, is which RAW converter provides the most accurate colour (Camera RAW, Capture One, etc). Have you done any serious testing with this? Seems that even with my custom polarized lighting camera (5D Mark II) profile for the reproductions, I'm still having to tweak local/global hues, saturation, etc. 

Cheers!


----------



## Bryan Conner (Jun 3, 2013)

Jason DiMichele said:


> Morning Bryan,
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I also do some testing here and there with regard to RAW conversion, Camera RAW/Lightroom camera profiles, etc. I use to compare various RAW conversion software but I've just standardized on Camera RAW / Lightroom now. I love the techie side of the industry as well. I think your "old nerd's addiction" is valuable in that it allows you to inform the community of interesting finds or better ways to get the most out of our images.
> 
> ...



I have not done any serious testing.  Currently, I also use Lightroom for all of my raw conversions.  I find it to be as accurate color-wise as any of the other raw converters that I have used.  These include RawTherapee, Capture One v6, Canon DPP, and maybe one or two that I have used and forgotten.  The question is "what is accurate?".  I think the variables involved in monitor calibration, viewing environment lighting temperature, as well as personal color perception are enough to always leave a doubt as too whether or not the color is "accurate"....at least in my opinion.  And I have not even begun to to talk about output device variables....LOL.  I am sure that you have had and understand all of these struggles/demons.   But, I find ACR/Lightroom to be capable of rendering "close" colors.  Especially when you use a Gretag-Macbeth color chart and create a custom camera profile in the lighting conditions that the subject is in at the time of capture.  I have only done one "art reproduction" job in my life.  That was enough for me...:disgusted:


----------



## Jason DiMichele (Jun 3, 2013)

Bryan Conner said:


> I have not done any serious testing.  Currently, I also use Lightroom for all of my raw conversions.  I find it to be as accurate color-wise as any of the other raw converters that I have used.  These include RawTherapee, Capture One v6, Canon DPP, and maybe one or two that I have used and forgotten.  The question is "what is accurate?".  I think the variables involved in monitor calibration, viewing environment lighting temperature, as well as personal color perception are enough to always leave a doubt as too whether or not the color is "accurate"....at least in my opinion.  And I have not even begun to to talk about output device variables....LOL.  I am sure that you have had and understand all of these struggles/demons.   But, I find ACR/Lightroom to be capable of rendering "close" colors.  Especially when you use a Gretag-Macbeth color chart and create a custom camera profile in the lighting conditions that the subject is in at the time of capture.  I have only done one "art reproduction" job in my life.  That was enough for me...:disgusted:



Hey Bryan,

The question of what is accurate is definitely going to generate an extremely wide range of answers. At a completely basic level, I would say that it would be nice to be able to print the resulting capture from a painting and have the print look very close. I have a polarized light setup for reproducing my art and have created a custom camera profile for this lighting setup. I still have to tweak some local saturation and hues, sometimes by minute amounts and sometimes by a decent amount. I also make custom printer profiles with my XRite i1Photo Pro 2 so the printing accuracy is taken care of. It may come down to the fact that the CMOS sensors are more sensitive to certain colours and some of those painting pigments are very rich. To some degree, I want to have the artist very happy with the quality of their reproduction and perhaps most of the time I'm "close enough", but I take pride in doing the very best that I can. One advantage of having to manipulate captured colour is that it keeps my eye colour-trained by having to always pay attention to the relationships between certain colours, etc. I wonder just how much more accurate the medium format digital backs and large format scanning backs are. 

Cheers!


----------

