Godfrey
somewhat colored
Don't know why your NEFs or CR2s cannot be extracted in a form that DPP can edit ... Last time I checked with a bit-for-bit comparison of a set of .ORF, .NEF, .CRW, .CR2, .SRF, .PEF and .RAW files, the original and post-extraction native raw files were exactly identical. DNG Converter simply encapsulates the native raw file format, intact, into a DNG file alongside the DNG structured raw image data.
But if the native raw format is what you find best to archive for your purposes, fine: go with it. I've never used DPP or ViewNX anyway, I haven't owned Nikon or Canon digital cameras since 2004. Never liked their software, or the software provided by any of the camera manufacturers. IME it's always been clumsy, slow, difficult to use, often an added cost extra, and merely replicates what the in-camera JPEG engine does. I don't see the point of that ... I'll set the camera to make JPEGs and use that instead.
There are dozens of excellent raw converters that read native AND DNG raw file formats. I don't think there will be any shortage of options regardless of which kind of raw file you choose to archive.
BTW, I archive ALL my raw originals, both native and DNG (when the originals are not DNG). I also archive all my completed work as TIFFs and JPEGs. I have not yet, in over a decade of constant use, needed to go back to a single native raw file from the archives for lack of getting what I wanted out of a DNG raw file.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
How important one's work (or photos) are has almost nothing to do with whether you have achieved a museum show, or a public audience, or anything at all. It has everything to do with how much you value what you're doing, and whether you would miss the photos you've made if they were lost.
Keeping a complete backup, using a policy and system I devised and automated about six years ago, has cost me almost nothing and saved me from having to find out how much I missed my photos when they were gone for real. (I still miss the two-three boxes of negatives and prints from the middle 1990s that went missing about 2002. All happy snaps, but the story of those years of my life is now sadly lacking the little bits and pieces of friends and places in images.)
The difference between doing a poor job of archiving and a good job is so trivial I cannot imagine why I would not do a good job if I did any job at all.
G
vitaly66
slightly tilted
The correct answer is: 16-bit tiff.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The correct answer to what? Archiving your original image files? Likely not. Archiving your client deliverables? Maybe, if that's what you send to your clients. Archiving your hosted web photos? Again, likely not. Et cetera...
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I am convinced that some digital photographers are digital horders -- producing and keeping more images than could ever be reviewed -- but of course that is the right of all horders.
Edit: I too have missing negatives (they are much easier to lose than digital files kept in several locations) but as I age, I realize they are not that important. But some folks obviously feel differently.
I don't think that archiving is the same as hoarding.
I review every photo I make. I delete the junk first.
I was never as organized with film negatives as I am with digital images. But I have something on the order of 30,000 negatives on my shelves. Are they valuable? Eh, who cares. They are valuable enough to me to dedicated the six cubic feet that they take up to them. I look through some of them now and then...
G
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I am convinced that some digital photographers are digital horders -- producing and keeping more images than could ever be reviewed -- but of course that is the right of all horders..........................
Indisputable fact in my mind. Primarily because it is so much simpler to just buy another 1T drive than to edit the photos that filled up the last one.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
fberna
Member
nope, see below.
DNG allows you to keep the original format raw file if you want and adds tons of advantages. Just to mention one, adding endless metadata.
Also chances are, DNG format -which is now will be there for much longer than proprietary formats.
from Peter Krogh article
Embed original file
You can embed the original source image in the DNG. This can make the file very large: it will add the the full additional size of the original file. This is desirable if you want to preserve the ability to open the image with software that does not support DNG, or if you need to choose a backwards-compatibility setting when you make the DNG.
Ranchu
Veteran
Yes, I was mistaken in that. It does, however double the file size. The fact is that the main reason not to do so is that Adobe's converter is garbage, another is that Adobe is wholly untrustworthy, while Canon and Nikon will support their raw files until the Rapture. You know that much.
I don't find endless metadata all that appealing, really.
FrankWheeler
Newbie
Shooting with Fuji and my current version of ACR can't handle the RAF files. I know I should upgrade the ACR but bit tight on cash. Does Adobe DNG converter affect file quality if I convert from RAF to DNG to use on my version 5 ACR?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
DNG Converter will faithfully reproduce the raw sensor data and supporting metadata for processing in an older version of Camera Raw. BUT, the Fuji sensor data is tricky to process and only the latest versions of Camera Raw have an algorithm that does a good job.
G