Adobe DNG or Camera RAW

PoleStar

Quick question on lightroom.

What do most people recommend when importing files from camera, import straight as own camera RAW or import as DNG?

Thanks!

melekalikimaka

the original raw file from the camera, always imo

Valentia

As far as I know it makes no difference. DNG might be a better way of storing your image though.

soccerc

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the original raw file from the camera, always imo

As Mele says, maintain the original raw file. You can then convert a copy it to DNG. I tried it but noticed the DNG files were smaller so don't know if they carry over all the NEF info.

Valentia

soccerc wrote: »

I tried it but noticed the DNG files were smaller so don't know if they carry over all the NEF info.

There are two ways of saving DNG's. With and without the info. And, I think they can be saved with the RAW info too. I don't use them, just remember reading that somewhere.

charybdis

DNG files are Adobe's attempt at creating a standardised format for RAW files. Presently, Canon and Nikon et al. use proprietary formats for encoding their raw data, these are unpublished and publicly undocumented formats. The problem with proprietary formats of this type is that while you may have the technology and resources to losslessly process and view the information contained therein now, it is possible that in the future that said technology will be unavailable to you or your retrieval of it may be legally questionable due to obsolescence and altered licenses.

A few years ago, Nikon effectively attempted to lock out third party image processing software from working with their RAW files by encrypting the white balance data, presumably in an attempt to force people into using Nikon's own Capture NX software. While it was technically possible to circumvent the encryption, Adobe and other image processing software producers were wary of doing so as it would most likely violate intellectual property laws, most likely the American DMCA. Nikon eventually relented and the white balance data encryption issue was resolved, but it is a reasonable example of the issues surrounding proprietary formats as they relate to photographers.

soccerc wrote: »

I tried it but noticed the DNG files were smaller so don't know if they carry over all the NEF info.

The DNG converter running on your computer has access to considerably more processing power than the RAW encoder that runs on your camera; this means it can use advanced compression that is more resource intensive but produces smaller files that losslessly preserve the data from the original RAW files.

Valentia wrote: »

There are two ways of saving DNG's. With and without the info. And, I think they can be saved with the RAW info too. I don't use them, just remember reading that somewhere.

I believe the DNG converter has the option of embedding the original RAW file in the DNG file along with the converted image data providing you with the option of retrieving the original RAW file from the DNG at a later date, should you wish to do so.

gloobag

I always convert to DNG, simply because you don't have to worry about the sidecar XMP files created when you edit a RAW file. DNG uses lossless data compression, which is why the file size is slightly smaller. There's no difference in quality to my eyes.

Paulw

I always just import the naitive raw files in to Lightroom.

Anouilh

This might be useful:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nh/discuss/72157612102033235/

nilhg

Charybdis and Gloobag have given the reasons why I always convert to DNG on import, TBH I don't think it's a thing you need to worry too much about actually deciding to shoot in RAW first is the biggie for most folks.

PoleStar

Wow thanks a million for all the replies!

Ok, I think I shall stick to RAW so.

Thanks!