DNG v RAW Poll

[jsrockit]

I just use whatever RAW format my camera produces.

 

[Godfrey]

The big issue is the possibility that the software of tomorrow won't be able to read the files we create today in anything but the most important filetypes.

I see DNG as an Adobe creation, more exposed the whims and business currents that drive Adobe. I want images to be available to my grandkids, say 40 years from now. Will Adobe be around 40 years from now?

I'm keeping my .NEF files. I use Lightroom, but I export the sidecar files, because I'm not counting on my Lightroom catalog being usable forever, more likely something will open the .NEF with the sidecar. I make good jpegs of every image and for special images a TIFF as greater insurance of future usability.

I'm betting someone will keep producing software that opens .NEF files.

Will future software be able to open DNGs? PSDs? Lightroom catalog? The iPhoto catalog? I'm not counting on any of these.

I'll bet on NEF, but I hedge by keeping good jpeg and/or TIFF.

Archive for the grandkids with finished, rendered prints, not digital files.

G

 

[willie_901]

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.

I don't know anything about how raw numbers and file format are affected by dual pixel raw. Time will tell.

However metadata information may be lost. LR and other platforms choose to display many of the metadata parameters. For instance Fujifilm raw contains metadata describing if the electronic or mechanical shutter was used. This information is not displayed in LR. I don't know if the DNG conversion throws it away or just keeps it.

Nikon raw has many proprietary parameters that only Nikon's raw rendering software could use. Adobe has to analyze new camera data streams and lenses and create their own metadata. I have no idea if Nikon still uses proprietary metadata since the last time I touched a Nikon camera was about a month after the Fujinon 10-24/4 zoom lens first appeared in the US market..

 

[Dogman]

I'm a late-comer to Lightroom. Before using it, I always used whatever conversion software came with the camera for working with Raw files. With Lightroom, I've started converting selected original Raw files--which I still keep--to DNG and using the DNG files to develop for printing the images. Since a final print is my main purpose in photography to begin with, this routine works well for me. The original Raw files remain available for future use if I find something later that I might want to print.

 

[Ronald M]

DNG from Leica. Raw from Nikon because Nikon does not provide full data from raw files to software developers.

 

[thereabouts]

I use RAW or DNG (same thing in all practicality for my workflow), depending on what my camera produces. Any image that I choose to edit, on is converted to a TIFF and worked on in Photoshop. If it's being printed, I flatten the TIFF and send it for printing.

 

[peterm1]

I have occasionally converted from proprietary RAW to DNG when the version of my processing software did not support that RAW file type for that specific camera. Why buy a new updated version of a relatively expensive piece of software just because they fail to patch it for new cameras? By converting to DNG I can continue to shoot RAW files with my new unsupported camera and continue to use my existing processing software for longer. This was an issue when using Corel Paint Shop Pro, which is overall a pretty good piece of software but which requires the user to otherwise purchase an upgrade in this situation.