ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
To manage hard-drive space, I delete ruthlessly.
Preserve the good ones. No one will ever care about the mediocre shots.
Preserve the good ones. No one will ever care about the mediocre shots.
My older Pentax K100D wrote only the proprietary raw PEF files, and one was expected to use the bundled Pentax editing software. With my K20D they added an option in the camera menu to write either PEF or DNG, as you say a laudable move! And that dual option still exists on my newer K-3 as well. Using Adobe DNG Converter, I converted the old PEFs to DNGs in the interests of standardization.
I choose to have those Pentaxes that can do so output DNG, and of course the Leicas too.
After processing with Lightroom, I save the output as full-size TIFF files as a source for further uses, and there's a future-proofing aspect to that too.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Use RAW format with Adobe ACR.
Tried saving duplicate as DNG but quit.
As I understand, some cameras use DNG format.
Tried saving duplicate as DNG but quit.
As I understand, some cameras use DNG format.
TXForester
Well-known
I usually work with just the RAW files. However, I use Photoshop CS5 and some RAW files are not supported by an Adobe Camera RAW update for CS5. In that situation, I convert to DNG before other processing.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Two small points:
1. Adobe has us over a barrel, pushing us to the annual subscription program. CS5 and Lightroom 5 won't handle raw from the newest cameras. Whatever software, you need to keep updating it to use the newest cameras.
2. There are risks of future readability anyway you go, and I think this risk is the biggest factor to guide the strategy for what file types to keep. Each of us has to make our own choices. Some redundancy (i.e. keeping jpeg and/or tiff) reduces risk.
1. Adobe has us over a barrel, pushing us to the annual subscription program. CS5 and Lightroom 5 won't handle raw from the newest cameras. Whatever software, you need to keep updating it to use the newest cameras.
2. There are risks of future readability anyway you go, and I think this risk is the biggest factor to guide the strategy for what file types to keep. Each of us has to make our own choices. Some redundancy (i.e. keeping jpeg and/or tiff) reduces risk.
Bill Clark
Veteran
Hope this helps someone:
https://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5261
I use CS4 and it works with my Canon cameras. Mine are a wee bit old but still work just fine. The portrait shown here was made with a Canon 10D! I did RAW update, sometime ago, and it works for me. I don't intend buying any new digital cameras but if I do I'll see if something like Photoshop Elements works.
https://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5261
I use CS4 and it works with my Canon cameras. Mine are a wee bit old but still work just fine. The portrait shown here was made with a Canon 10D! I did RAW update, sometime ago, and it works for me. I don't intend buying any new digital cameras but if I do I'll see if something like Photoshop Elements works.
majid
Fazal Majid
You can always download the most current DNG converter (free), convert your RAW files to DNG and then open them in CS5 (not sure about LR5).
If Adobe tries to make LR go subscription-only, I am switching to DarkTable: http://www.darktable.org/
DNG is fully documented, but it is a complex format. NEF and many other RAW formats have been reverse-engineered by Dave Coffin and implemented as open-source libraries like dcraw or libopenraw. On the balance of probabilities, I suspect DNG is going to be readable longer than NEF et al.
charjohncarter
Veteran
RAWtherapee is open source that will work with Windows. It is a good piece of software with maybe too much loaded on to it, but you don't have to use it all. Another down is you don't have the crossover from Adobe so you will have to learn the interface. I like it and use it often, I find it great with exposure control, contrast, and lightening (without blown highlights).
tbhv55
Well-known
+1 for Rawtherapee. Admittedly, a difficult interface (initially) but once mastered, a great piece of software offering superb Raw conversions (IMHO). It also has some excellent film simulations, if that's your thing.
Ronald M
Veteran
You may end up wedded to Adobe forever. Software companies are poachers for your money.
been on CC rent for 1.5 years now and have yet to find anything useful that was not in CS6. Fortunately 6 is still on 3 computers.
And do not go higher than Capitan or 6 will no longer work so I was told July 4.
been on CC rent for 1.5 years now and have yet to find anything useful that was not in CS6. Fortunately 6 is still on 3 computers.
And do not go higher than Capitan or 6 will no longer work so I was told July 4.
Gregm61
Well-known
I should download raw therapee and give it a try again. It's been a while. I've tried multiple programs and downloaded trials of many others and keep on winding up right back where I left off, with Photoshop and Adobe Camera raw. For me, it's been the best interface and workflow.
Cost? It is, what it is. I could stop buying new bodies too, or at least slow it down to maybe every other or every third generation. I don't need to be having dinner out virtually every night of the week too. There are so many things I waste money on. Photoshop isn't one of those things.
Cost? It is, what it is. I could stop buying new bodies too, or at least slow it down to maybe every other or every third generation. I don't need to be having dinner out virtually every night of the week too. There are so many things I waste money on. Photoshop isn't one of those things.
jarski
Veteran
Btw. Bridge CC (alone) is free of use, no need for monthly programs or one time costs. Realized this only recently and was gladly surprised. Adobe ID is needed naturally to complete the download.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
My workflow policy when it comes to raw files:
G
- I archive all original, native raw files off-line from my image processing system. I have not yet found a need to retrieve a single file from that archive.
- Most of my working copies of original files now are native DNG since i'm using mostly Leica M and SL cameras at present.
- When there is a significant file size advantage or when I need custom camera calibration profiles, I convert native raw files to DNG.
G
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I did not vote above, because I need two choices to accurately describe what I do. I both own an M9, which I shoot in RAW format, and convert Fuji, Olympus, Sony, and Ricoh RAW files to DNG. Then I can see everything in PS Bridge (v.12, which is getting a little long in the tooth, RAW conversion-wise).
I use DNG because I don't want to switch software packages often. How messed up is that? A LR upgrade is inexpensive, and LR converts all RAW to DNG. If I then need to do extensive image manipulation, I can do it in PS 12 without further PS upgrades. I find the camera companies RAW conversion software in general inferior to or clunkier than LR. But really, I think the constant upgrade cycle is a huge distraction to the creative process. I have been off that merry-to-round (new camera-->need new software + more RAM-->need new computer . . .ARRG) for about five years now and it is just fine. Honestly, I "upgraded" to PS 12 from PS 10 when 12 came out and I have yet to learn all its features. It has been years. The "monthly fee" thing is not for me, whatever its merits may be.
So I try to obsolescence-proof my files by having at least one version of them all in one format. Sigh. Gotta shoot some film instead, I think.
I use DNG because I don't want to switch software packages often. How messed up is that? A LR upgrade is inexpensive, and LR converts all RAW to DNG. If I then need to do extensive image manipulation, I can do it in PS 12 without further PS upgrades. I find the camera companies RAW conversion software in general inferior to or clunkier than LR. But really, I think the constant upgrade cycle is a huge distraction to the creative process. I have been off that merry-to-round (new camera-->need new software + more RAM-->need new computer . . .ARRG) for about five years now and it is just fine. Honestly, I "upgraded" to PS 12 from PS 10 when 12 came out and I have yet to learn all its features. It has been years. The "monthly fee" thing is not for me, whatever its merits may be.
So I try to obsolescence-proof my files by having at least one version of them all in one format. Sigh. Gotta shoot some film instead, I think.
NickTrop
Veteran
What? No "jpeg" option? Because making these adjustments in most cases is done faster, better, cheaper by the nth generation chip in your camera. You're just wasting time, most (but not all) of the time doing what a computer does 10.000X faster and way more accurately, than doing this manually. Computers -- they're better at driving cars, better at making calculations, and better at adjusting your photos (and way, way, WAY faster) usually. It's what they do.
100% with Ken Rockwell on this.
100% with Ken Rockwell on this.
AFenvy
Established
I always convert to DNG when importing from a digital camera. I have had Nikons, Canons, Olympuses, etc. etc. and I like having all my files under one format that is always supported. Adobe is able to organize and archive all my files in a straightforward manner as well. I need to do a better job with my film scans....
ckuwajima
Celso
DNG only if native. Not really confident that converting from RAW to DNG will preserve all info contained in original.
Spanik
Well-known
Not yet have a camera that can output dng so I never use it. Filesize is no issue, storage is cheap compared to my time managing a few MB here and there (shooting less instead of just keeping pushing the sutter release is more helpful). Programs enough that can open any raw I need. So I see no use for yet another file format.
willie_901
Veteran
It may or may not... depending on whether the DNG conversion option is lossless or lossy.
At any rate, upon import to LR CC I convert all the raw files to lossless DNG. During the LR import I select the LR option to copy the RAW files straight to an external HD as well (no DNG conversion). Then both my working HD with the DNGs and the external drive are backed up to two separate HDs.
The DNGs are deleted from the LR HD as part of my image selection (a.k.a. editing) work flow. The only time I ever needed a raw version was when I discovered a LR 'keepers' was flawed (motion blur, focus issues, exposure error, etc) then I would import the raw versions deleted DNG files from my external HD (without the automatic raw copy option of course).
Otherwise I have not needed the raw data. This is similar to not needing negatives or transparencies but keeping them in notebooks or file folders... jst because.
ckuwajima
Celso
Nice workflow.
I guess the conversion to DNG is mostly ok, but there may be proprietary information embedded in RAW that can not be readily mapped to DNG format. The new Canon EOS 5D IV dual pixel RAW is an example.