For a number of years I have been recommending our readers to convert RAW files from their cameras to Adobe’s DNG format. In my DNG vs RAW article from 2010, I pointed out the reasons why using DNG over RAW made sense – it simplified file management, resulted in smaller files (when compressed or when embedded JPEG image size was reduced) and seemed like a good way to future-proof RAW files. But as time passed, higher resolution cameras were introduced and I started exploring other post-processing options, I realized that DNG had a few major disadvantages that made me abandon it. In this article, I will revisit the DNG format and bring up some of my concerns on why it might not be the ideal choice that I once thought it was.
Let’s take a look at some case scenarios and see what advantages and disadvantages the DNG format has when compared to RAW files.
1) DNG Conversion Increases Workflow Time
Whether I choose to convert my RAW files to DNG upon import or at a later point of time, the conversion process puts a significant burden on my import time and only complaints my workflow. While converting small RAW files from low resolution cameras is barely noticeable, converting anything over 24 MP does take quite a bit of time. Add the option of generating 1:1 previews on top of that process and I could be sitting and waiting for a while in front of my computer before I can finally start post-processing images. Keep in mind that DNG conversion is not a simple process – the DNG converter must not only copy and generate EXIF data, but it also must generate a JPEG preview to save into the DNG file, if you choose to do so (and it is always a good idea, since images can be previewed quickly). Depending on the size of the file and its resolution, this could take a long time, especially if you are dealing with thousands of images.
2) Disk Space Concerns – Does DNG Really Save Space?
The DNG format is a lot more versatile than a RAW file, because it allows you to tightly control the RAW file conversion process and specify conversion options. When dealing with uncompressed RAW files, DNG certainly does save a lot of space by converting huge uncompressed RAW files to losslessly-compressed RAW files. This alone can result in 50% or more in space savings. In addition, there is an option to generate smaller JPEG previews, which results in additional space savings. And if you do not need full-resolution DNG files, there is even an option for lossy compression, with the ability to limit the total megapixel count. So you could potentially save a lot of space by using the DNG format, provided you fully understand the implications of such things as lossy compression and down-sampling.
However, if you are smart about your camera settings, the space savings offered by the DNG format are more or less insignificant. There is no reason why you should ever shoot uncompressed RAW in your camera, so just don’t – always use the lossless compression method instead. If you do that, the space savings from DNG compared to RAW will be minimal. I did a test run with NEF images that I converted from my Nikon D810 to DNG. With medium-size JPEG previews, the space savings amounted to less than 15% and when I rendered full-size JPEGs, that number got reduced to 10-12%. Given the cheap cost of storage today, these numbers are not something I can be really excited about, especially considering my wasted time converting those images and taking into account all the other disadvantages of the format mentioned in the article.
3) Limited DNG Format Compatibility
Although Adobe has been pushing hard to make the DNG format open and widely adopted for many years now, it seems like very few companies actually give a damn about DNG. Aside from a couple of companies like Leica, Ricoh and Samsung, all the big boys like Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Sigma and Fuji continue ignoring DNG and pushing their proprietary RAW formats. And the list of DNG “ignorers” is not limited to camera manufacturers – most post-processing software packages out there either do not read DNG at all, or read it poorly, making DNG a lot less useful than it was designed to be in the first place. If you open a converted DNG file in anything other than Adobe software, you might find yourself dealing with excessively slow rendering time, odd colors, inability to read metadata and all kinds of other issues. Of course this is all not Adobe’s fault, which has provided plenty of documentation on DNG, made it royalty-free and even proposed DNG to be controlled by a standards body, if needed. But it turned out that other companies simply did not believe in the DNG format having as bright of a future as Adobe believed it would have, so support for DNG has been quite limited as a result.
Hence, at this point of time, you would be locking yourself to Adobe products if you utilize the DNG format, as others provide limited to no support for it.
4) Processing DNG with Other Software
One of the main reasons why I moved away from DNG back to RAW files is compatibility. Most software out there either has limited support for DNG, or it cannot properly read DNG files at all.
And this includes metadata – although Adobe keeps telling us that all the original metadata is fully preserved, other software engineers did not properly implement a way in their software to read that embedded metadata. I have yet to see a software package that can read all the original RAW metadata such as picture profiles, lens corrections and other data from DNG files properly. The funny thing is, even Adobe itself does not want to mess with all that metadata in its Lightroom and ACR software! If they did, you would not have to keep switching those camera profiles or applying color, sharpness and other adjustments to images. So if Adobe itself cannot do it, how would others with much more limited resources? RAW files already tons of proprietary metadata to begin with (some of which is sometimes encrypted) and you cannot even obtain proper documentation from manufacturers on how to read it. In fact, manufacturers are so reluctant in providing proper documentation with their RAW files that software companies have to reverse-engineer the process of reading and demosaicing RAW files.
As a result, pretty much the only software that can read all that proprietary metadata is provided by the manufacturer, such as Nikon’s Capture NX or Canon’s DPP. And none of the manufacturer software is capable of reading DNG files, yet alone properly extract and read the metadata from those Adobe-converted DNG files!
5) Point of No Return
Once you convert to DNG and wipe out your original RAW files, you are at a point of no return – there is no way to convert a DNG file back to the original RAW file. Adobe gives an option to embed the original RAW file into DNG files upon conversion, but that is an absolutely pointless option, as you will end up wasting a lot of space as a result. So you will have larger files than you started with, making the DNG format even less appealing.
Why might it be important to keep your original RAW file? If you ever wanted to switch from Adobe to any other software package, you would be better off with your original RAW files instead of DNG. There is always a chance that the software you want to use might not work with DNG properly, or in the case of manufacturer software, there might be no support for DNG at all. What are you going to do in such cases? I experienced this first hand when experimenting with other software, some of which either could not read DNG at all or could not read it properly.
6) The Future Compatibility Myth
We have been previously told by Adobe and other DNG supporters that the DNG format would be the format of the future, which gets rid of proprietary RAW files and simplifies them all to a single, open format. In addition, we have been fed with arguments like “your current RAW file may become unreadable some day in the future”. Well, the whole “compatibility” argument and inability to read RAW files in the future are myths for several reasons. First, post-processing and conversion software we see today does not just drop support for older cameras and their proprietary RAW formats. In fact, I have yet to see any software seize support for old RAW files – all that typically happens is newer cameras are added to the list of supported cameras. Why would anyone drop support for something they have been historically able to do well? No company wants to hear complaints from angry customers that are using very old gear. And it is not like the code for reading old RAW formats is so huge and complex that companies need to get rid of the old ones to make space for new ones. Hence, I would not be concerned with software not being able to read your RAW files in the future.
The only case where there might be a legitimate concern, is if one relies on manufacturer’s software to convert RAW files. If a camera is really old, older manufacturer-provided software might not run on newer operating systems. If manufacturer refuses to provide support for newer operating systems, it would be somewhat difficult to go back and run an older version of the operating system just to be able to run the software. It is possible, but would require some effort. There are workarounds though – one could always use third party software, or even revert to Adobe’s DNG converter in the future, if there is no other option.
The above are the reasons why I personally abandoned DNG. If you actively use DNG and convert your RAW files, I would love to hear your thoughts on this article.
I personally never used DNG because of all the reasons you mentioned above. Adobe always stated that DNG is an open standard but very few companies actually adopted it. That by default tells me that it is not an “open standard” but yet Adobe’s wet dream to push DNG as an open standard.
As usual, great article Nasim.
Thank you for your feedback Pascal. DNG is an open standard, but I believe that companies simply did not believe in Adobe spearheading anything open when all of their software is closed and proprietary. I remembering reading all the discussions on OpenRAW and those folks gave even more reasons why Adobe’s DNG format was not the right way to go in the future.
I personally moved to DNG a while ago and since last year switched back to RAW. Due to the above reasons, it just did not make sense to keep converting to DNG anymore.
The reason the big camera makers didn’t follow Adobe using DNG has nothing to do with Adobe spearheading it and everything to do with perceived advantage in using a proprietary format. Nikon, Canon and Sony all have options more or less unique to their RAW files. Things they can tout in their marketing as being an advantage to using their RAW file and thus their camera. Switching to DNG robs them of that marketing pitch and advantage, real or otherwise.
I do not know the limitations of DNG, the 100 page “specifications” adobe supplies reads more like a summary of features than explanation of implementation (and has a lack of figures, especially when describing alternative sensor formats [i.e. Foveron]); but there ARE limitations, whether I know them or not.
Knowing that should DNG become a “standard” instead of reacting to changes in the camera market camera makers would have to petition to get new changes included which gets very messy because you now have to announce what you’re researching before it gets onto the market so the new specification works as you want it to.
“RAW” gets you as close to the hardware as possible as the manufacture envisions it. “DNG” is a middleman that sometimes collects or sometimes is free, even if the advantage seems small now.
I feel that one of the major aspects for me is being forgotten about. My laptop (and all the software) is Windows Vista 32 bit based. Not a lot of software about (especially free) that provides Raw conversion to TIFF or Jpeg – especially when the manufacturers software refuses to work anymore on my laptop. So using DNG 8.3 is invaluable to my work – or do you have a better solution that does not mean my changing the whole software/laptop system that I own ?
I have found that keeping the raw files on an external hard drive and importing them into lightroom as DNG saves a tremendous amount space of my laptops storage. Sure it takes a bit of time to transfer them from the card, to the external and then import into lightroom but it seems worth it to me. You have the originals for a potential transition to other software down the road, and you have a smaller file size to tote around on the laptop.
I think you can pick up a seagate portable 2tb for like 90 bucks, who knows in a year or two that will probable be a flash drive for the same price.
Also, a ram upgrade is pretty cheap and easy and it will expedite the whole process but you probably knew that.
Hope this helps..
Coming late to this conversation . . . Naive me got fooled by Adobe’s push for DNG back when. I did auto-convert my RAW files to DNG for awhile and then got skittish about that and stopped. Nevertheless, I have a bunch of image files that can’t be opened in 3-rd party apps, and, DUH, I didn’t save the original RAW files aside before converting copies to DNG for my main image catalog. Live and learn!
Oh! Now we are in agreement :)
Personally, the most important reason for me to avoid DNG is capture nx2. There are some things this software can do to my d800e raw files that nothing else can. It’s like magic.
DNG is dead. It’s nice for use as a smart preview in Lightroom, but no need to delete your REAL digital negative in the process.
By the way, if they were to make it truly successful, they should have developed a standard that would move adjustments from program to program. Nothing does it today. I want the same adjustments to move from Lightroom to aperture to Apple photos.
Oded, Adobe says that metadata is fully preserved from original files. However, nobody wants to look into the DNG standards to understand how and where that data is stored…
But if it’s an ‘open format’ you’d think they would make that open too?
I’m not an expert so am I missing something here?
@Betty, The complete DNG standards are available to read and understand, down to the smallest detail, including how data & metadata are stored. The only issue is, you have to be up for reading a dense, 101-page document and be capable of understanding the “techese” contained therein. It’s a matter of having the experience to be able to read and understand this stuff, and having the time to invest.
You can have a look at this if you’re interested:
wwwimages.adobe.com/www.a….4.0.0.pdf
Try computing something useful from this one. Say, BayerGreenSplit = 4000. For your convenience, here is the description from “Digital Negative (DNG) Specification” you referred to, taken from page 39.
“BayerGreenSplit only applies to CFA images using a Bayer pattern filter array. This tag specifies, in arbitrary units, how closely the values of the green pixels in the blue/green rows track the values of the green pixels in the red/green rows.
A value of zero means the two kinds of green pixels track closely, while a non-zero value means they sometimes diverge. The useful range for this tag is from 0 (no divergence) to about 5000 (quite large divergence).”
I have couple more questions for you, why DNG Specification allows only one value for WhiteLevel, and how to interpret DNGPrivateData tag?
Oded, not just capture NX – quite a few software packages out there have problems properly reading DNG files. And forget about original RAW metadata – all that is buried somewhere in DNG files…
Nasim, you should some day do a post of a Lightroom Capture NX2 workflow. I’m still struggling with that.
Well, here we are. DNG death have apparently been exaggerated. It was the Capture NX2 “magic” that kicked the bucket.
Another reason for not using DNG is that if you ever submit your pictures to a fine photography contests (such as NHM wildlife photographer of the year) you can have a problem with the rule that the original RAW file has to be submitted along with the processed version.
WPH rules explicitly say that DNG is only accepted if it is a native format of the camera.
Good point.
I too, have bumped up against that problem.
I had a failed Nikon storage device (quite a few years back) which was under guarantee.
Nikon offered to recover the images for me.
Big mistake.
They completely screwed up and sent me a whole trip’s worth of images tagged as TIFF but which weren’t TIFF (but they were in fact still RAW).
The only way I could circumvent the problem at the time was to convert them all to DNG.
This was fine, or so I thought, until it came to entering international competitions.
DNG is banned unless it is the manufacturer’s native format e.g. Leica.
So if you want to exhibit or compete and don’t use a Leica or similar, stay away from DNG – or embed the RAW file in the DNG and buy a bigger hard drive or two or three…
Couldn’t you just change the file extension to .NEF manually and be done with it?
No, Lightroom wouldn’t allow it.
It’s obviously quite a few years back and I was still too much of a newbie to try anything more daring!
I had no idea what they done, (would you believe they had used a piece of unknown, free software from the internet to do the recovery?), had no real idea of what I was doing and didn’t want to risk making things worse.
In the early days of photoshop, Kodak created a digital format for scans of analog photos such as negatives and slides to a proprietary digital file. I’ve got several of these disks. They were called a Kodak photo-CD. They had their own program that you could use to browse the files and export them. Photoshop, before bridge even, could also read these files. At some iteration of photoshop, they dropped photo CD support. So the notion that once a company has developed the code to convert a proprietary format that they’d never later drop it foe fear of an outcry by their customers is not true. Adobe has already done this.
I subscribed to what I thought was only receiving replies via e-mail to my post on this thread. Boy was I mistaken. Instead, this forum sends me an e-mail for every reply to the entire thread. I have to say “uncle”! A large number of these replies are asking for help in what I should do in my specific situation. Many of the replies are from people who either won’t or cannot keep anything close to current on their editing machine or software or who do not understand the basics of image formats. I’d suggest that these persons do some research or post questions in open forms better suited for learning basic information about file formats. But I will try to give a brief explanation of what’s troubling some people here before I figure out how to stop all of the notifications and end my involvement with this thread.
For those of you who for whatever reason cannot keep up with a recent operating system, Adobe software, or hardware yet need a raw converter for a more recent camera that you purchased:
Use the camera maker’s converter. Most camera makers have free software to convert your images. These programs usually have some sort of browser too to viewing images. For now, you will have to convert your images to a destructive format. If your computer or OS is too old where the camera software will not load on it, you can try third party open source programs (I do not know much about them since I am current with Adobe) or you just need to shoot in Tiff (VERY large) format and or JPEG format in camera. There may not be any great options for those of you using old computers and new cameras and want to shoot and edit RAW images on your cameras. Serious Digital imaging requires an expense to keep your systems fairly current. If you can afford a new camera but cannot afford a $400 computer with a current OS, you may be totally out of luck. If you do not want to pay Adobe licensing fees to use a RAW converter and you must have non-destructive editing, you just might be out of luck or find a more creative solution on your own or on a forum more adapt to help you.
If you do not know what the file formats are for imaging or the image editing methods are, I suggest that you google them. But I’ll post a very brief primer:
There are two classification of files used for image editing, Destructive and Nondestructive. Nondestructive editing has an advantage because you do NOT need to create a new version or a copy in another format as you apply image edits to them. These image edits are really just instructions you tell a program to make at the time of viewing within the program or saving (exporting) to another file type. You need to use an image editing program such as Lightroom or ACR/Bridge or a host of others to make these non destructive edits, view the images on your screen, or save them as another format. Using this method of image editing allows you to keep the image at the highest quality it was captured from your camera all throughout the life of the image editing process. Most of these programs allow you to use any Image Format that the program understands.
Deciding what image format(s) to capture your digital images in when you “shoot” your photo requires some thought before you capture. RAW files “should” provide you with the highest quality, but only if you have a program (or will get one) that can read them. JPEG images require the least space and are the fastest to generate in camera and there are usually a host of size and quality options with them. TIFF images are usually the largest and provide excellent image quality are are able to be read by most, if not all, advanced image editing programs regardless of camera maker. DNG, the subject of this article, are offered as a RAW replacement for a few camera makers. I think most people here understand these formats.
What some people have trouble with is what file format to save their photos in after editing. The article is meant to educate you on the possible pitfalls of changing your file formats from RAW to DNG for your long and short term nondestructive editing purposes. I didn’t read it as providing you any information about destructive editing. So let me provide more information about the differences.
In general, most people subscribe that you should do as much editing as you can using non-destructive editing methods as they never require you to save an entire file, just the changes. And they allow you to tweak or make adjustments to these changes without “destroying” or creating a version of the file where you can no longer readjust from the initial file. When you make destructive edits, you bake in all of your changes into the file at the time you save it. You can never start over. You can only apply new changes to what you have baked so far.
So why does anyone ever use Destructive editing in the first place? It is necessary when what you want to accomplish is beyond what the nondestructive editing application is capable of or is easy to accomplish. Once you want to be more creative, you will have to move to a destructive application such as Photoshop. (Photoshop has ways to use it in a semi-nondestructive manner but I will not go into that level of detail.) Photoshop and programs like it were here first. Any changes you made in photoshop where final. You could make more changes on top of those. You could still start over as long as you had a copy of the original file. But you could never make “adjustments” after the fact to your changes that made along the way. Later programs such as lightroom came along. They were non-destructive but limited in their editing features. But still there were many overlapping features between photoshop and lightroom. As both have continued to mature, there are even more overlapping features. Soon, we could do pretty advanced clone stamping and facial touch ups non destructively right in lightroom without ever having to create a copy of the image. Let’s say that you later decided that you wen overboard with skin smoothing in lightroom, you could tweak these adjustments and bring back more detail without starting from scratch with adjustments made previously such as exposure. And you would do this all without ever having to save the file. But once you make edits in photoshop for things like skin smoothing, once you save it, you couldn’t later bring back more detail (unless you saved multiple editing layers in your .PSD file).
I think that someone asked here if they should be converting their RAW images to PSD (photoshop) format after importing them. PSD files are pretty similar to TIFF files, only with less support as its an Adobe standard. As long as you believe that the RAW format will be supported by your software as long as the PSD format is, you would not want to do this until you need to make a change to your image that needs to be done destructively and in photoshop. A 16 bit PSD file will always be larger than your 10 or 12 bit RAW file. An 8 bit PSD might be smaller, but you are losing information if you go down to 8 bits. So don’t do it until you have to. And then, only try and keep your original file too.
I hope that this brief note helps a few people understand the differences between non destructive and nondestructive editing a bit better. But since I’m going to unsubscribe from this thread, I probably won’t be back to answer any questions.
Beautifully written, with exceptional clarity, DVDMike! Thanks.
hey, DVD Mike: your post wasn’t a “brief note”, and what useful information there may be in it is couched in so many disparaging paragraphs of “you people are so stupid’, ‘if you don’t know the difference between…’, ‘anybody who is dumb enough to think…” -type messages. Feel good about beating people anonymously up before delivering your sanctimonious information? IF you want to help, don’t be a jerk. And, btw, you’re not the only one on the thread with the information. This is why forums arenot a good place to turn when one has real questions.
I use Lightroom CC and DXO OpticsPro10. After processing in DXO the options to send the file back to LR are JPEG, DNG or TIFF; is the best option to choose TIFF rather than DNG?
Thx
The short answer as far as I am concerned is RAW – in this case DNG.
You can ALWAYS convert your DNG to TIFF but you can NEVER convert your TIFF back to DNG.
If you lose/delete the DNG you will lose all possibility of going back and reediting your DNG for a different purpose or different interpretation without losing data (quality).
For me RAW files whether proprietary (NEF, CR, Etc) or open source (DNG), are sacred.
In this case, the DNG would contain a TIFF, not RAW data. So, there’s no advantage to DNG over TIFF. A DNG _can_ contain RAW data but doesn’t have to. AFter DxO processes the image, there’s no way to return to RAW data.
It so happens DxO still does not have the capability to go back and edit a DNG file once it has been saved. Go figure.
In this case use TIFF. The DNG file would be just a wrapper for a TIFF image, so it’s taking a common format image and wrapping it in a file that a lot of software can’t read.
I don’t understand why you’d do this round-trip. DXO is a standalone app – you could use it without Lightroom, never have to generate TIFF files and only move files to Lightroom if you want to do some particular Lightroom-specific edit (or use Photoshop).
Never seen the need for converting to DNG, and now I have even less reason to!
Well written, as usual, Nasim!
Thanks, Nasim. I agree. I was hoping at one point that DNG would be the one format that would replace TIFFs, PSDs and RAW. The problem I’ve had in the past, until very recently, has been my refusal to upgrade from Adobe CS4. I own CS2, CS3 and CS4 and thus far CS4 has been more than adequate, especially with the addition of DxO Optics and Nikon NX-D. The problem is Adobe stopped updated Camera Raw for CS4 a few years ago so that it would not recognize RAW files from newer cameras. Their advice when I complained was to convert my RAW files to DNG. I had no choice, but not trusting the process, I always embedded the RAW file and deleted the original.It was really annoying to not be able to preview images in Adobe RAW without converting them. However, I found a little workaround: I downloaded a trial of Photoshop CS6 with Bridge and after the trial ran out and Photoshop no longer worked I discovered Bridge still did, without a a serial number, and still does. Thus I was able to preview RAW images from my newer cameras. I have since given in to CC2015, at least for few months to see if really has any serious advantages over CS4.
Nowadays I use NX-D to convert to TIFFs after I have previewed the image. I still keep a copy of the RAW file until such time that I am satisfied with the image and can toss the RAW, but I guess I’m a bit of hoarder as I generally keep all RAW files of worthy images. I also have a large collection of images from scans of film that are saved as Photoshop EPS files, which I highly recommended for keeping files small that can be enlarged later without loss of resolution.
Shooting with a D800E and a D750 does create a lot of large files, which has made me more careful as far as keeping anything that does not have the potential of being a great image, a choice not always easily made. But, with the lower price of storage I figure it is easier and cheaper (time-wise) to add more storage when needed. In my MacBook Pro I have a 250GB SS drive that runs all my software, email and web browsers, and a 1TB 7200 RPM HGST drive in place of the SuperDrive for storage of everything else, including my user folder with my Music, Documents, Pictures folders and so on, keeping the 250GB to a minimum as far as storage. I highly recommend HGST 7200 RPM 1TB 2.5″ drives as an affordable alternative until the price of SS drives comes down. HGST (formerly Hitachi and now owned by Western Digital) are still the most reliable HDs on the market. Their 1TB Touro portable drives with USB 3.0 are about $69 on Amazon. Or install a bare drive in a 2.5″ external enclosure of your choice. That math works for me for now.
“I was hoping at one point that DNG would be the one format that would replace TIFFs, PSDs and RAW.”
DNG is RAW but OK, theoretically it could replace all other RAW formats – except it’s not going to happen.
However, RAW/DNG are DATA formats and so cannot ever replace TIFF/PSD which are IMAGE formats.
I don’t understand your distinction between ‘data files’ and ‘image files’. All files: DTP, music, CAD, images, etc are data files – so what’s your criterion for the difference?
John C
The criteria are not mine! I am not an expert and I may get corrected, but my understanding is as follows.
In the context of photography a RAW file is DATA file – all other imaging formats are IMAGE files.
A RAW file is just DATA (noughts and ones), along with an instruction set, gathered from the sensor, that has to be processed/decoded by a raw converter and rendered/bitmapped, usually assigned a colour space and then stored in a different recording format, such as TIFF or JPEG before it can be displayed or printed.
It is a ‘latent’ digital image which has no ‘meaning’ until this has been done.
It’s big advantage is that the original RAW data of an image is never changed. All corrections and adjustments that you make in a RAW editor are preserved in the file’s instruction set. You can change the instruction set as many times as you like without ever disturbing the original RAW data. Using software e.g. Adobe Camera Raw, you can change the shooting white balance, adjust exposure compensation as well as basic color, sharpening and levels controls as many times as you like without any degradation.
Once a RAW file has been converted to one of the other IMAGE formats, (TIFF, JPEG, PNG, GIFF,etc,) these changes are ‘baked in’ and further editing becomes destructive.
There are lots of other differences but that should probably the subject of a PL article Nasim or Iliah!
I’m in the same boat. Currently using Photoshop CS5.5 where Camera RAW won’t recognise the NEF files from my D810. The workaround is obviously to convert to DNG preserving the RAW file within. It does increase the workflow time but until I bite the bullet on getting CC it’s the only way.
First, thanks for a fantastic and informative site!
very interesting topic that I have been struggling with for some time, and have just recently begun converting to DNG.
My workflow is the following:
For selected images in use DXO optics for basic raw processing. I HAD experimented with two different formats to transfer those images back to lightroom. JPEG (size) TIFF (flexibility to make more robust adjustments in either Lightroom, Photoshop or NIks).
what I NOW do, is convert from from RAW in DXO back to DNG and save in that format in lightroom for further modification.
Would love you thoughts.
If you are using DXO, you are doing exactly the right thing IMHO.
As I replied to another comment, in this case, the DNG contains TIFF data, not RAW. So, there’s no advantage to going DNG, as Lightroom can also edit TIFFs directly.
Check the file sizes and you’ll see.
Not so sure about that.
Although camera RAW DNG files are a type of TIFF/EP format, they are not TIFF image files but are true raw data files.
Editing RAW files in LR is very different to editing TIFFs.
A RAW file can be manipulated endlessly in LR and the original is preserved regardless. These changes are only baked in permanently when the file is saved externally or exported from LR as a TIFF or PSD.
A TIFF is a finished image file with all data and changes baked in permanently from the outset. While it can also be edited endlessly in LR by appending an instruction set, this only applies in LR and any changes when saving out or exporting as a derivative TIFF/PSD file, are destructive.
With 16bit images this may have minimal impact but can be significant at 8bits.
PS. File sizes are not an accurate guide to file content.
Some issues with DNG as an “archival” format www.libraw.org/artic…where.html – scroll down to “Adobe DNG”; also take a look at the discussion with Peter Krogh, below the article.
I am also a bit disillusioned with the DNG format, and also with DXO Optics Pro. My upgrade from D5200 to D5500 camera body was meant to be painless.
I am using windows vista 32bit, and with that, I had a slightly older version of Photoshop (5.5) causing me to DNG my RAW files in order to use that version of Camera Raw, due to Adobe not supporting the D5200’s Raw files in version 5.5. My alternate method was to directly edit the RAW files in DXO Optics Pro 9.5, which was great, and I am, or was, a huge fan of the DXO Product.
However…
The D5500 Raw files will NOT open in Optics Pro 9.5, and after exchanges with customer support I am out on a limb because they are NOT going to issue any modules to support the D5500 in version 9.5, calling on me to dig deep and pay out for version 10, with no upgrade discount, or even, a free upgrade.
This is a double whammy, since Optics Pro 10 requires a 64bit OS, so I also have to buy a new computer? JUST to use my camera RAW?
Moving to Adobe’s solution, I got another problem – the version of DNG converter I had was (I think) 7.7 – and it is not supporting the D5500 RAW files either! Upon checking in detail a higher version (8.2 I think, but 8.xx if not) is needed to deal with the D5500 Raw files. Now, while this is available from Adobe as a free download, it, too, requires a 64 bit OS and will not run on vista 32bit, which again means, I have to buy a new computer?
I have a workaround, my wife’s laptop computer is running windows 7 64bit so I downloaded DNG converter 8.xx to that, and now take my portable drive and sdhc card to that computer, transfer the RAW files to the computer, run them through the converter, and then copy the DNG files to the portable drive.
I then take the drive to my own computer, copy them onto the hard drive there, and can use ACR and Photoshop from that point, to post process.
This does NOT, however, allow me to use DXO Optics pro.
When I bought Optics Pro I was assured that I would never have to upgrade the software in order to use it – upgrades were feature upgrades and not file format driven upgrades forced upon me, in the way that, in the good old days, Adobe used to do with us on the ACR package, where every year or so, the previous version of ACR would NOT work with the RAW files from a new camera, thus FORCING you to buy a new version of Photoshop JUST to get the correct ACR version for your new camera.
I bought Optics Pro on the understanding that I would never be forced to upgrade it, after talking to customer support, pre-purchase – and in just 18 months, here we are again… I have Optics Pro on my computer, and it will NOT work with the D5500 RAW’s, and they are NOT going to provide any module releases for it, in order to make it work.
This is just as bad as Adobe’s old habits, and although I understand that things move on, there must be some way of dealing with the issue.
This is partly borne out by the fact that although the DNG I now take from my wifes laptop computer are created in DNG converter 8.xx, they will load and edit fine in ACR edition, native to Photoshop 5.5.
It is long past time that Nikon and all the others provided us with an in-camera conversion to older RAW formats so that our original RAW files – FROM NEW CAMERA MODELS – can be used with recent legacy software, and not cause this mad scramble to find hardware and software to edit your images, simply by buying a new camera. In the case of the fairly mass market models, such as mine, where great numbers of them are sold compared to high end models, this really is a stupid and ridiculous rigmarole that we have to endure, when upgrading a body.
I feel better now I let off some steam… off for a coffee and a search for a new hobby :-)
YEAH!! My sentiments exactly.
Wow, that’s insane, sorry to hear that. I am a bit surprised the DxO won’t address this and solve your problem. Not to be annoying, but they have an excellent solution in DxO 10 and I just assumed they would update 9x (it’s not an “old” version time wise). Shame on them for not taking care of a customer in this regard with at least a discount on the new version.
Hi Skeptical, yes, insane is the word, I have calmed down a bit now.
All that needs to happen to put this right is
1. for DXO to provide modules for version 9.5 & Vista 32bit for the D5500 with popular lenses.
or
2. For Adobe to issue a version of their DNG converter which WILL run under Vista 32 bit and include the D5500 camera
or
3. for DXO to issue an upgrade for Optics Pro 9.5 which will allow you to open DNG files (at the moment it cannot read ANY DNG files from any of my older cameras either).
or
4. for Nikon to provide conversion software to take the RAW from a D5500 and make it a compatible RAW file for legacy use – compatible with, for example, D5000 / 3200 RAW version, so that the ‘new’ RAW files will work on photographers pre-existing post production hardware and software.
What really riles me is that if you go into the available module updates for Optics Pro 9.5 via the softwares’ built in update my modules menu, you will find they have got the D5300 listed there. This is the SAME sensor and the same in camera processor (exspeed 4) as the D5500 so there is NO legitimate reason for witholding updates for the ‘new’ D5500.
As things stand, I now have to do a ‘computer shuffle’ as described above, creating DNG files on one computer, and returning the files to my own computer in order to do post processing, and even then, restricted to my older Photoshop 5.5 with the old ACR (which DOES work with the ‘new’ DNG files – from DNG Converter 8.xx, but not with the RAW files out of the camera). My investment in Optics Pro was money wasted, as my understanding was that they would always provide upgrades to the list of cameras and lenses for my version, and that any other reason to upgrade that software would be ONLY because any newer version (of Optics Pro) would provide feature updates.
So I am now painted into a corner, unless I shell out for a new computer, and Optics Pro 10, I am stuck with my computer shuffle and my older Adobe software. I took a look at Phase One before posting this, and the D5500 is not on their supported camera list, so I can’t even go there!
Like I say, the D5300 and the D5500 appear to be identical cameras, same sensor and processing engine, so if DXO can do this for the D5300 why are they witholding support for the D5500? They should comment publicly, I am looking at new hardware and lightroom as a possible way forward, as there seems no chance they are going to do anything for me.
I wonder if golf would be a better hobby…..?
Hi Autofocus,
Unfortunately, I think you are stuck re getting a new computer. You also might consider getting a 64-bit version of Windows 10 if your hardware will accept it. I am assuming that your hardware will not support a 32-bit OS, so an upgrade is likely required.
My biggest issue with all of this is DXO. I like their software for noise reduction (it is really the only thing I use it for) but if you do import RAWs into it, it has an excellent export to LR feature. Apparently this feature is not part of DxO 9.5. They need to provide a low cost upgrade if you own the previous version.Further, new camera profiles should be provided at least for an amount of time, free of cost. DxO 9x is not that old… When companies have policies that don’t provide that (forcing you to upgrade at full price) I tend to look for other vendors. I purchased their software to test it out and never gave their support policies proper weight. Honestly, I will drop products based on poor support. Life is too short to justify that kind of baloney.
I also find it a bit odd that their is an issue with D5500 files given that uses the same sensor as the D5300. Obviously, the files are processed differently, hence the problem.
Regardless, upgrading your computer will solve your issue in terms of being able to function. As for DxO, I would escalate to see if you can get a discount on the upgrade. They don’t appear to have a support forum, but they do have a Facebook page. Perhaps you should post your difficulties on their page. When you post on something like Facebook, be very diplomatic (you were diplomatic here) and you might get a very nice response. Companies generally hate even mildly negative comments on social media and will try to make things right just to keep you quiet. Also, if they do resolve the problem, post a follow up about how much you appreciate their response and product. It works wonders when you need something down the road :)
Just checked Fast RAW Viewer is indeed compatible with D5500!
So it should work, for opening images, and then exporting to your normal program of choice!
Here is a linkhttp://www.fastrawviewer.com/usermanual/supported-cameras
I had a similar experience with PhaseOne a what you describe. Thus I have migrated to the adobe CC I have received updates for my newer hardware from Adobe as CC updates. I am happy with this service. Re the DNG issue, I have avoided the DNG path, from the beginning, for all the reasons listed in Nasim’s excellent article. While I currently use and like Adobe’s software, I don’t want to be dependent on them. After the Aperture debacle, I promised myself, I would never again be dependent on one software manufacturer for my photo editing and catalogue.
I convert RAW to DNG and perform all my edits in DNG with LR/Photoshop, then I store the edits in DNG. Then I convert to whatever file type neccesary from DNG – jpeg, png etc. The RAW files are untouched. But I guess with modern software the RAW files will stay untouched even if you edit the RAW files.
I used to do the same, but now just import the original raw format since I might want to use a different raw interpreter on some images that whatever I’m using by default. As for modern software leaving RAW files untouched, I think that’s the way it’s alway been or will be as RAW is technically a read-only format, if I’m not mistaken. So the software must either create side car files to associate changes in how that image is to be previewed by the software, or it has to create a new entity with the information included inside that capsule, such as the DNG file with certain defined ways of storing data. However, every time the standard changes, so does the associated data.
Nasim,
Great article. As usual, it has me scrambling to understand and to reread your past article. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks I guess.
How does one configure Lightroom CC( in the preferences I assume) to be sure that files are not converted to DNG?
I reviewed my 3000 or so images, and they all have NEF (which as I understand is Nikon version of Raw?), except for a few images that have DNG annotation. Most of these DNG images represent images that I converted to HDR using lightroom’s adaptation (rather than Photomatix). I assume LR converted them to the DNG format on its own.
There are a few images that have DNG annotation, which do not fit the mold of the others.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Paul
Paul,
I’ll jump in here, as no one has answered your questions in a long while!
You don’t need to configure Lightroom to *not* convert to DNG files, because the default setting does not do that–you’d have to explicitly set it up to do that conversion. So don’t! ;-)
NEF is Nikon’s raw filename extension, yes.
When Lightroom creates a *new* file as a composite of multiple HDR original NEF (raw) files, it saves it as a DNG. That’s OK, because if you need to post that file to a website/blog destination, you’d be using Lightroom to export that file to a JPEG anyway, as that’s what you’d need for any screen-viewed image.
Hope that helps!
Ted
I absolute agree with you and i’ve recently sadly reached the same conclusions: it’s years that i archives my shots in dng format and LR catalog. Luckily i’ve separately archived the original raws, too. And here i’ve good news : the process is reversible (and very very tedious :(( ). If you substitute a dng with a nef (for example) you can “reconnect” it in LR-CC without losing any information (development , metadata, keywords, collections, books, etc.) .
Same as you: even converting RAW files to DNG in order to have a faster post-processing in LR, I never deleted the original RAWs because I’ve always felt that one day I could miss it as you never know what the hell the new technologies, new softwares and so on can do in the future. And the original will always be the one for whom you always can come back for whatever the new options offer… Actually I remain not intended to do it so far, but just is case I’d like to keep in mind which would be the correct way to “reconnect” the processed DNG to the original RAW files as you mentioned. Could you please point me to the step by step process?
Hi all. What difference between DNG and PSD? After post-processing workflow, I usually save as PSD format before convert to jpeg for public viewing.
Is there an error that I should not do?
Thanks.
Hi Hoan,
Nothing wrong with this IMO. If you are using LR and converting to .dng (raw file) the file moves to other programs like Photoshop. If you save in Photoshop I like to save in a format that preserves layers and PSD works fine so it’s easy to edit in the future. Export to jpeg (one size for web, another for printing or lab) is standard.
Enjoy
They are completely different animals.
DNG is a data format, PSD is an image format converted from a data format.
But your workflow is absolutely fine!
Wow. Best article ever against DNG. Logical. Well reasoned. Thank you for sorting it out for me.
Recently I return from traveling through Europe for close to 3 months and had thousands of images. I was using a Fuji X-T1, and an Apple MacBook Pro. Apparently while I was in Slavakia, where I found the color and light to be extraordinary, I apparently allowed Lightroom to import and convert my raw images to DNG. When I returned home and imported them to my PC several of those images in their DNG format now looked ordinary. They had lost what made them great. Luckily I still had the Fuji original conversion and was able to recover them. Was this because of the conversion to DNG or Abobe’s bad handling of Fuji raw? I still don’t know but I won’t make that mistake again. I have been exploring alternatives to Lightroom. Do you have any suggestions?
You need to update the JEPG preview inside DNG file.
Duel cards and Jpeg + raw and done. This provides a future proof backup at minimal size penalty plus an in camera card redundant backup without adding much time to my workflow.
Yes, it’s what i do as well. I keep jpeg backups on a 32GB CF card that mostly stays in the camera until it’s full. The 32GB SD card holds the NEF files that I download, back up and then re-format the card. Always I’ll have high quality JPEGs as backup in the camera until I eventually download and store them on a different drive. A 32GB card can hold 2,000 16MB JPEG files. I paid about $42 for a 32GB Lexar 1000x SD card. That’s about 1.31 per GB. On the other hand, a 1TB external portable hard drive sells for $68 or about 7 cents per GB. Pretty cheap, considering that will hold approximately 62,500 JPEGs. Keeping JPEGs as a back up makes perfect sense!
How do figure a JPEG is an adequate back up for a RAW file?
While JPEGs will not have as much color information as a RAW file, you can open each version in ACR or Photoshop with whatever defaults you use and see if you can tell the difference. I save JPEGs at “fine” setting, maximum file size, optimized for quality, in camera. You can edit the JPEG file and save it as a PSD, and again, see if you can tell the difference. For all practical purposes, except possibly making large prints, JPEGs pretty much work as well as RAW files converted to PSDs and then to JPEG. Think about the fact that almost all your images wind up as JPEGs anyhow unless you’re making really large prints. But, you’re right, it’s not the best back up format, but it saves a huge amount of space. And will suffice in a pinch or an emergency. And of course it depends on what you’re shooting and for what purpose. Like I said, outside of making huge prints, most images are fine as original JPEGs, even after editing. JPEG artifacts these days are not as much a problem as they were ten years ago, unless you do ten “save as” saves. Shooting JPEGs at extremely high ISOs could have a problem with noise, but I don’t recommend shooting over about ISO 1000-1600, which won’t be a problem with a full frame camera or higher end APS-C camera.
I make large prints.
I can see the difference.
“JPEGs will not have as much color information as a RAW file” – you can say that again.
How large do you print? I would guess that you can see the difference when viewing prints side-by-side, but if looking at a single print, are you really sure you can be certain whether it’s based on a RAW or a JPEG file? And assuming that you can, I’m sure you have thousands and thousands of photographs; how many will you realistically reprint a few years down the road, and how much are you willing to pay for the surely minimal quality difference?
Of course, it’s your choice, but I do feel that there’s a bit of RAW snobbery among photographers these days. Many pros, especially wedding photographers, don’t even bother shooting in RAW: they don’t have time to process the quantity of images they take, and they’re experienced enough to nail exposure and white balance. And hey, they can’t be wrong: their customers all think that theirs is a once-in-a-lifetime event.
I view the RAW format as a kind of insurance; I should RAW plus JPEG full size and fine. Depending on the occasion, I use DxO Optics Pro to convert the RAW files to JPEG or work with the JPEGs produced by the camera directly. For shots that are super-keepers or that are taken in very difficult light (e.g., at high ISO) I tend to keep the RAW file. In all other cases, I will keep only the JPEGs. Let’s be honest: a vast majority of my photos don’t fall into the super-keeper category, so in all the years I’ve been shooting digital (starting in 1998, though I didn’t fully give up film until a few years later) it has not happened once that I wished I still had a discarded RAW file.
Obviously, your mileage may vary, but I still think that the vast majority of RAW-keepers out there needlessly complicate life for themselves. To finally get to respond to Nasim’s question: I never used DNG. Incidentally, if support for image and data formats were to dwindle, I’m fairly confident that JPEG would be the last one to go, at least in the photo area.
I print up to and including A2 and I have around thirty thousand images stored as RAW.
Storage is cheap.
I think you are missing the point.
The quality difference (16 bit vs 8 bit) is far from minimal and if you think otherwise then you have much still to learn.
Yes, a RAW file is very important as an archival format, but its other overwhelming strength is editing headroom and flexibility.
If you never edit or make many or large changes to a file, never make high quality prints, never enter competitions and never make a mistake, then JPEG is fine.
However editing eats up data and a RAW file in a huge colour space like Prophoto permits almost limitless edits with no impact on quality.
A JPEG is based on just 256 tonal values and these rapidly disappear in the editing process resulting in banding, colour degradation, contrast shift and other artefacts. A RAW file on the other hand has 4096 tonal values per colour. Do the math.
Once you have converted to JPEG you are stuck with it, you can never go back, you can never amend an editing decision, you can never apply a new treatment to an image without substantial quality penalties.
JPEG is fine for high volume, ’here today gone tomorrow photography’ like newspaper journalism and for happy snaps on social media, but for serious photography where multiple careful adjustments are made to achieve a particular artistic or aesthetic result, JPEG is nigh on useless.
And if space is an issue for you, then shooting RAW plus a fine JPEG makes no sense at all.
Also, I would argue that it is shooting JPEG that can unnecessarily complicate the photographer’s life. If you can unerringly ’nail’ both exposure and white balance at all times and in all conditions, then I salute you. I can’t. On the occasions when I don’t (or want a different look), I thank heaven for having shot in RAW.
The best wedding photographers do shoot RAW. JPEGs for quick previews for the client are adequate enough, but for those album shots of a lifetime, the best photographers will take the time to process and edit to a high standard. Granted, much of that market is served by mediocre photographers working for clients who are happy as long as nobody’s head has been cut off, but some clients thankfully demand, and get, something better.
Yes, at the end of the day it’s a choice, but snobbery has nothing to do with it.
It’s a choice – between mediocrity and excellence.
It’s the difference between a high res audio file such as FLAC and MP3.
Some pretend that MP3 is perfectly adequate for listening , others say it’s an insult to the discriminating ear.
I fall into the latter category.
I have made my choice.
You have obviously made yours.
OK, not much room for discussion here. You stand for excellence and whoever disagrees with you for mediocrity.
I will just clarify a couple of points: no, I don’t pretend to nail white balance and exposure every single time; I do shoot RAW for that very reason. However, what I keep and in what form is another story. Our image libraries are roughly the same size; in my case it’s exceedingly rare that I go back to 99% of my images for reprocessing or reprinting. This can happen with exceptional images (or at least with those that I consider exceptional), and as stated, for those I keep the RAW files. What point did I miss?
Let me add that I do not appreciate your condescending tone. I’m perfectly well aware of the quality difference between 16-bit and 8-bit, and I don’t need you to tell me how much I have to learn. I’m not trying to convince you not to keep you RAW files, either; I’m just presenting another point of view, and that is that these days, many people wear the fact that they are shooting RAW like some kind of badge of honor, as though it made them better photographers. Whether an image is a good photograph is probably impossible to assess in objective terms, but I believe that the component behind the viewfinder is far more more important than whether we’re dealing with 8 or 16 bit. What becomes apparent with pixel-peeping is not, in my opinion, a critical component of what makes a good, or even great photograph. You may think differently, and that’s perfectly fine.
Happy shooting!
First off, your RAW files do not contain 16 bits worth of data. I believe that contain either 12 or 14 bit. I hadn’t heard about anyone using 16 bit raw files yet. Are there any?
Up until a few years ago, I primarily shot weddings and I always shot raw. I would shoot +JPEG as a backup. Although shooting 800+ shots per wedding, reviewing and adjusting the exposure of the raw files took time but not enough time to warrant shooting only JPEG. But you can still make significant adjustments to JPEG files via Lightroom and not lose “quality”.
Oh please…
OK, RAW files contain 14 bit data and are processed in a 16 bit colour space.
Happy now?
>But you can still make significant adjustments to JPEG files via Lightroom and not lose “quality”<
No you can't.
If you think you can, you are deluding yourself.
You've already lost the quality in saving to JPEG in the first place.
From that point you are just going further downhill.
If you want to use JPEG as an editing or archival format, that's your right, but please don't try to justify the choice by implying there is no penalty to pay.
JPEG is a lowest common denominator 'convenience' format, no more, no less.
Betty, “oh please” yourself! You were trying to be technical, yet you were not being accurate. Secondly, you reading comprehension skills are amiss. I never said that I did or use JPEG as editing or archival format.
I also did not state that JPEG was an equal to raw files, just that after you have jpeg images you can nondestructively edit them in Lightroom without any further loss in quality, something that you were ambiguous about earlier and some with less knowledge might take as the case.
I was just pragmatically clarifying things without being obnoxious, apparently something which you are incapable of. I’d suggest that you learn how to read before being so obnoxious towards others. Get off your high horse. Perhaps others like your ineffectual banter, but I do not.
I’m not aware that I ascribed any of those assertions to you.
It was you who jumped on my slightly careless, if common, use of the 16 bit as applied to in-camera RAW files. I stand corrected.
Your piece was excellent and I agree with virtually all of it.
On a small point of my own…yes, you can non-destructively edit a JPEG in Lightroom, but as soon as you save or export it outside of LR you introduce another round of compression.
Also, if you edit a file outside of LR and save it back to LR, you’ve broken the non-destructive workflow.
Surely it’s much better to edit in RAW, save in TIFF (with layers intact) and only convert to JPEG on output?
My tone is what it is.
I am sorry you don’t appreciate it, truly.
I just tell it how it is and sometimes that ruffles feathers especially when a long-held belief or choice is criticised.
“OK, not much room for discussion here. You stand for excellence and whoever disagrees with you for mediocrity”.
No, not really.
You can’t fight facts.
You must know that RAW is the ultimate format for preserving image quality and flexibility – admittedly at some cost in storage and effort.
It is not perfect, but at present there is nothing better.
Therefore, all other formats are, to a greater or lesser degree, inferior in those important respects.
Inferior is an uncomfortable word but is no less true just because you don’t like it.
Something that is inferior must, by definition, be at least mediocre – or worse.
I apply the word mediocre to the format in that context, not to the image or the photographer.
As ever, it’s all about choices.
However some choices are better than others- depending of course, on the final intent.
The point you missed is that large fine JPEGs also take up a lot of hard drive space so if, as you say, you have no further use for 99% of your images, why not just delete them and keep what you consider worthwhile stored as RAW?
I am not trying to persuade you to do anything you don’t want to, I am just pointing out that JPEG is a poor choice for archiving or editing images.
It is however an excellent and convenient means of outputting images to the web and even for print – once all the high quality editing has been done.
That is not a ‘point of view’, it is indisputable.
If you want to make the choice to take shortcuts on grounds of convenience and speed, that’s fine, but please don’t try to justify that choice by pretending that there is no loss incurred.
I agree that for many, saving in RAW is a waste of time because their images don’t warrant it.
But who are we to say?
You are also right in saying using RAW makes no one a better photographer and undoubtedly some people do get pretty sniffy about using RAW without justification.
But people brag about all kinds of things – expensive lenses, their high IQ, their qualifications, etc..
It’s nice to have all those things but personally, I just go by results.
Happy shooting to you to!
“A RAW file on the other hand has 4096 tonal values per colour. Do the math.”
Oops, correction – a 14 bit RAW file has over 16000 tonal values per colour while a 16 bit file has over 65000.
“But, you’re right, it’s not the best back up format, but it saves a huge amount of space. And will suffice in a pinch or an emergency.”
And ONLY in an emergency! Even 100% quality JPG’s show color degradation, luminance loss, image pixelation, artifacts, etc. The JPG’s 8 bit format simply doesn’t cut it for modern image quality. Use ONLY in an emergency and I don’t really know of an emergency bad enough to force someone to save JPG’s for archival purposes!? Unless, of course you simply can not add/afford any more storage space to your computer or cut DVD’s for archive…
That “huge amount of space” you’re saving is lost image quality!
bwa
You can say that again.
And again!
Nasim,
Which format do you edit your files in? What software do you use to edit images?
Nasim,
I have on and off struggled with this part of my work flow: DNG or not. Each time this decision comes under consideration, I have elected to stay with native RAW. I do not regret it.
I completely agree with your evaluation. The issue of hidden secret sauce and hidden (in DNG) EXIF info is very compelling. In broad terms, a translation is never as fully nuanced as the original. This is true whether we are translating language, or digital files.
Here is one other consideration falling on the side of archiving native RAW:
Of course, we have seen how targets have evolved with higher pixel counts, and even more importantly greater dynamic range. But along with that evolution has come an evolution of post production software. I have found that manufacturer’s native software is better positioned to take advantage of this ongoing evolution of new targets. I can now get better processing on old RAW files with the newer software. On the occasion that I really need the control of PS it is easy enough to export from CaptureNX2.
And lastly, consider this fly in the ointment. My new LG G4 records pictures in DNG.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks for your comments on DNG files. I’ve played with them but never found a real use for them. Now I will forget about DNG format completely.
Hi All,
No reason to change my workflow. Right now I read my cards with Fast Raw (thanks Nasim) and dump my non-keepers (I take fewer photos, normally, when not learning a new camera, then just about any pro I know. I don’t really ever spray and pray and methodically use the same process I used with film. I am obsessive about getting pictures right in the camera and also don’t like changing such ingrained habits) I also don’t use large files. Most of my files are 16mp (probably 70-30, the others are 24mp) so import / conversion times are not high. I just find it very easy to work with DNG. The plugins I use work fine (Topaz, on1, DxO 10 with Export to LR for noise reduction) so no reason to worry yet. If the time comes where I have problems I will stop converting to DNG and re-sort my workflow. Otherwise, no reason.
Note that I have made some changes to experiment with jpegs. This isn’t a bad way to go. I may someday shoot mostly jpeg instead of raw. Heresy, I know!
In 1995, I read an Adobe article about an American photographer and his experience was called The Raw Workflow in the Real World. After that, my workflow has changed and I always used the ACR. When the LT was released I noticed it was the same thing and that the program incorporated the BRIGDE together. I do not particularly like it because the BRIDGE gave me more easily about Indesign and the PS, programs that use in my work. So I continued with the ACR. With cameras updates I always suffered with updates from ACR, so I converted many of my files to DNG. With many “internal” color crises with the Nikon I instituted the following in my work. Due to a matter of how quickly the most common and current work, we converted to DNG and let photos we like, in RAW. Special work that I like, I leave the files in RAW. The photos in RAW we work in Capture One, which has been much better than the Adobe ACR, but slower. Recently I printed a picture in DNG I did a decade ago for a restaurant and the picture was great. But still we choose the pictures five star stay in RAW not to create a dependency ADOBE. Thanks for the great article! (Sorry for my English is not my original language)
Well said.
This does bring up a point that seems to get little attention (at least as far as I can tell). There needs to be some type of internationally recognized “standard” for archiving digital photographic data. DNG was promoted as open source, but it was conceived and developed by a corporate entity. At the end of the day, it is just another proprietary file format. I doubt that Nikon or Canon or Sony (or Adobe for that matter) is going to simply vanish or pull all support of their products, but we can’t assume that Nikon RAW file made today will be fully accessible decades from now. Our historical record exists digitally and we need to ensure that documents describing that historical record are accessible next month, next year, next century.
I found the same problems, when I first started using Lightroom I imported raw files after a while I switched to DNG and found some software could not read DNG files on my Mac, as I was learning to use lightroom at the time I thought it was best for me to switch back to importing raw files, I was finding it difficult to get my iPhoto images into lightroom because Mac like to keep one locked into their software system,I thought Adobe might also do the same . I’m glad I switched back very quickly. Especially after reading your informative article, A BIG THANKYOU FOR IT
I recently read an article were a photographer after converting many raw files to DNG migrated from Lightroom to capture one pro. Unfortunately capture one pro does not support or even read DMG files, so the photographer regretted ever using DNG. I do everything in raw and I use capture one pro and Photoshop
Nasim, thanks for sharing your changed stance on using DNG. It is specially significant to me as i had started using DNG as my default, after using your previous article. But i am not clear what would you now recommend; would you advice people who are using Lightroom, import RAW files as they are or use , say DPP for Canon users?
I dont see a reason where you can use both RAW and DNG. Use RAW as archival for the un-edited files and DNG to edit as well as the archival og edited files. It involves an extra step in the workflow but that does not take a significant amount of time. It take extra space, but space is cheap. Hence, you get the best from both worlds.
I use DNG because I don’t want to switch to new software all the time.
Well. .dng is less compatible than most standard .raw formats.
The original camera RAW file is the bare minimum standard of evidence required, in all cases that I know of, when proof of image authenticity is mandatory. The reason being that it is very difficult [but not impossible] to convert, say, an edited DNG or TIFF file back to a convincingly authentic Nikon NEF file.
If one discards the original RAW file, then Adobe et al. improves their RAW converter for your camera, you can never take advantage of that improvement.
Obviously, in all cases where your processed image has already served its intended purpose(s) the above two issues become totally irrelevant, therefore the RAW file and all intermediate processing files are totally redundant.
A Nikon Electronic Format (NEF) file *is* a Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) file that contains Nikon specific metadata: one of the tagged fields being the in-camera processed RAW sensor data. Nikon Capture NX/NX2 was(!) a non-destructive image editor that stores all of the user-selected processing steps in metadata fields.
Adobe et al. chose to ignore this inbuilt capability of RAW files and demand instead that the users generates a DNG (or whatever) file to work with. This would’ve been acceptable if DNG had already become a universally accepted standard, but it hadn’t, and it still looks unlikely to become adopted by the camera manufacturers.
Lightroom Capture NX2 workflow. I’m seconding Oded’s request for an article on that subject. Is there any problem with getting Lightroom to do its editing directly onto NEF (Nikon RAW) files? Do I have to run them through the Nikon software first? As I am now in the process of converting to Lightroom, this would be a timely item for me.
Lightroom can process all RAW formats.
Well, mostly, anyway. As a former long-term Nikon user of LR and recent Fuji XT-1 user, I’ve discovered that LR doesn’t properly read complicated areas of a Fuji raw image such as landscape foliage, something I like to shoot. The details and colors there appear smudged, which is terrible, considering how sharp the Fuji lenses are. I use a Mac, so I guess I’ll be experimenting with Iridient at some point to compare.
Sorry I’m late to this thread–just discovered this site! I’ve enjoyed your other posts.
I have just been looking at the demo version of Iridient for my Fuji files – for the same reasons as you – and am finding the results very encouraging.
That’s good to hear!
Thanks for this article. I have always converted all my RAW file to DNG when I started using Lightroom but your arguments have make complete sense. Anyone here can show how to convert my DNG files back to RAW?
I don’t think it is possible other than perhaps by a skilled techie making a counterfeit for less that honourable motives!
A different perspective: luminous-landscape.com/ranta…dng-again/
Excellent point, but the problem is not that DNG is a poor format, it’s that it is poorly supported and is not as open as it could be.
A case of conflicting corporate interests and/or stupidity.
One of the technical problems with DNG is Makernotes. For example, try converting a Sony file to DNG and read back the table of white balance presets in the file. Most probably you will be getting “corrupt metadata – invalid offsets” messages.
DNG documentation suggests that “The MakerNote data must be self-contained. All offsets within the MakerNote must be offsets relative to the start of the MakerNote, and must not point to bytes outside the MakerNote.” This is possible only if the metadata is fully understood, and one knows where are the offsets to recalculate those.
Point is, even if the workflow is around DNG, storing and backuping original raw files is still necessary, if one wants to keep it future-proof.
Is there any current image processing software that honours Nikon’s metadata, such as custom white balance, noise reduction, Custom Picture Controls, and Active D-Lighting?
Obviously, Nikon Capture NX2 honoured that metadata, but NX2 is now obsolete and Nikon’s free ‘replacement’ is not an image editor; it seems to be just a proprietary RAW converter, without which most of the user-selectable imaging features of Nikon cameras are completely useless to users who wish to process NEF files.
Camera Raw didn’t exist until August 2002 when Adobe released Photoshop version 7.
And with that, I think this potentially a lose-lose situation either way one would choose to go. It’s not impossible for Nikon or Sony to someday go the way of Polaroid. And if a company like Polaroid can fail, so can any major camera manufacturer, given the right circumstances. Then, sometime in the future, Adobe (if they’re still around) could abandon Camera Raw in favor of something new or when Apple or Microsoft (if they’re still around) have a major operating system update, we may no longer have a way to view Raw images from certain cameras that are no longer being manufactured. Or at least not without keeping around an old operating system on an aging computer. Which I’m sure a number of us do with old Apple programs from the 80s & 90s and system 7 or 8 or 9.
Think about those very popular Hi-8 video cameras which were discontinued in 2007 after 22 years. It happens. 2024 is still 9 years off.
A few years ago I found it difficult to find current Adobe software to use RAW images from an early Canon Rebel – the plethora of RAW formats simply comes and goes too frequently to depend on being able to process them all even ten years from now, and it’s a mug’s game guessing that your DSLR is so popular that its RAW will always be supported. So I’m convinced an “archival” lossless format really is needed for dependable long term storage of images, and that’s obviously what Adobe tried or is trying to do with DNG. Out of curiousity then I checked Smithsonian to see what they were using, since institutional archives may end up defining the standard long after prosumers are moldering in their final repose – at the time Smithsonian had decided on lossless TIFF.
Honestly, we should have 16-bits-per-colour displays in this day and age, even 12 would be nice. It isn’t hard to notice the inability for 8-bit colour to display darks and lights properly.
16 bit TIFF preserves large amounts of information so I’m not surprised the smithsonian would choose it.
As an archivist (though not in an institution quite as impressive as the Smithsonian!) I can attest to this – we use 16bit TIFF files for archival storage.
I totally agree with everything that you say in this article, but, even then, I think you are over generalising on a couple of points.
2) DNG files are smaller. Yes, if your camera supports compressed RAW files, then there is little space benefit from using DNG. Try telling that to the many (and growing and numbers of) Fujifilm users out there, for whom RAW compression is not an option. Ignoring the fact that Fujifilm users should keep their RAWs in RAF format at all times, a RAW file from my X100T is 33MB, the same file converted to DNG with lossless compression is always less than 20MB. That’s a big improvement if space is an issue.
4) Processing DNG with Other Software. Seriously? Can you give some examples. I’ve yet to come across any non Adobe processing software that doesn’t support DNG. A few suites are even supporting the lossy compressed variation now as well. I still wouldn’t recommend using Lossy, but, if you have a bunch of RAWs that you may never process, but can’t bring yourself to delete, then lossy compression might be an option.
You can compress using “ntfs compression” (pkzip I believe, it gets to 25mb), or whatever your HD format supports. 7z can bring it below 20MB (and since 7z is comparable to gzip in terms of compression, if you have native support you can use that).
Why you need a “format” to compress files is beyond me.
Just to say.
Lossless compression is always going to be some kind of pkzip, gzip, lzma… or whatever is popular at the time.
Transparent compression in the filesystem means you can skip the third party format and directly compress the image (i.e. with NTFS)
I thought EXT4 had support for this, but there are others out there, just that they seem all or nothing.
A while back you could get a copy of DxO Optics Pro for very little money by downloading the older version for free. and the upgrading it to ver. 10. Maybe $80, not more anyway.
Like others here I mainly use it for its excellent noise cancelling, and then I export to my good ol’ Aperture.
Maybe ‘Fast RAW Viewer’ would help the guy who couldn’t open images taken with D5500 (you simply open the files using the program, adjust exposure and then export to your normal program LR, Capture One, or whatever. Fast and simple!
Nasim,
Thank you very much for the informative articles and beautiful photos on your website. I’ve learned a lot from following your blog.
While all the issues listed above are valid points against using DNG, the one reason I still use it is improved file integrity. As I learned in Peter Krogh’s excellent book “Organizing Your Photos with Lightroom” (thedambook.com/organ…ghtroom-5/), DNG files include a hash that can be validated using Lightroom’s “Library->Validate DNG Files” command. By running it, Lightroom will check each DNG file in the catalog to ensure that they have not become corrupted on your hard drive.
As recommended by Peter, I make two verified backups of my photos onto external drives that I periodically swap offsite (to a safe deposit box). Despite correctly verifying the files while copying, files on one external drive eventually become corrupted. Fortunately, I was able to catch these corrupted DNG files by using the “Validate DNG Files” command. Apparently, one of my external drives started corrupting data stored on it even though its SMART status showed good health and a long SMART test showed no errors. I immediately replaced the bad drive and was able to recover the corrupted files from another drive.
Had I not used DNG files and the Lightroom’s validation command, I could have lost these valuable family photos. While using the DNG has its downsides, I can deal with them to help ensure my photos remain intact.
Mark
That’s very interesting.
Presumably the corruption was due to drive failure not the file itself?
Is the DNG hash a means of reviving the original file or just a means of giving a warning that the drive is misbehaving?
I back up my NEF and other image files almost daily to one external drive and periodically to a second offsite drive.
I also use Prosoft’s Drive Genius DrivePulse which monitors drive behaviour and integrity of all my drives but I wonder from what you say whether that is enough.
From what you say, I surmise that the “validate” command is an early warning to delete the corrupted files and only use those from the second back up?
Yes, the corruption was most likely due to the drive failure. Because the DNG hash validation failed, I knew that the photos were corrupt. I restored them from a drive that contained known good versions (i.e. DNGs on the known good drive passed the DNG hash validation). After I restoring the files, I ran the DNG validation check again on the suspect drive and additional files that passed the first time failed during this second check, so I knew something was wrong with the drive.
Basically, I run the DNG validation check periodically on my primary photo drive. I have 2 backup drives that I swap between monthly. One backup drive is in an external drive bay attached to my computer. After importing photos or editing photos, I turn on the external drive bay and sync my primary photo drive to the backup drive. (Imported photos take awhile to sync, but syncing Lightroom edits is fast because they are stored in the Lightroom catalog). Then, I run the DNG validation check on my backup drive before taking it offsite and swapping it with the other backup drive in the safe deposit box. That way, I should have a validated backup drive offsite in case I need it.
If you want to know more about this method, read Peter Krogh’s book “Organizing Your Photos with Lightroom” (thedambook.com/organ…ghtroom-5/).
Thanks.
I do so like a man who believes in belt and braces.
I used to convert my Nikon NEF files to DNGs, but I abandoned this practice about a year ago, and I haven’t looked back. One issue that has not been addressed in this thread pertains to my particular workflow, and it was an important one when I decided to abandon DNG. My system is Mac. In my workflow, I employ incremental backup of my photos, that is, my backup program (Data Backup) backs up any new or modified files and retains earlier versions on my backup hard drives. I frequently return to my RAW files in Lightroom over and over, tweaking images several times and then resaving the edits. File size of DNGs is vastly larger than that of the sidecar xmp files that are modified when any edits are made to RAW files, and the use of the RAW file/xmp combo results in considerable savings of disk space than with DNGs when successive incremental backups are made.
Saving images using incremental back up sounds like a recipe for a colossal metadata muddle sooner or later and a waste of space.
If you are using Lightroom, why not use Snapshots and/or Virtual copies saved in a Stack?
This is what Lightroom was designed for – all edits and edit versions/copies stored safely in both the catalogue and the image files (‘automatically write data to XMP’) with both catalogue and images backed up in full.
Relying on virtual copies and snapshots would not protect against a dumb mistake like inadvertently deleting a file from my hard drive. I don’t understand how incremental backups would create a “metadata muddle.”
If I’m understanding correctly, you are backing up the XMP sidecar files for the RAW captures at various stages of the editing process. I suppose that isn’t entirely crazy, but I don’t see it as being especially helpful either. All of the adjustments in Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw are simply metadata values for the RAW capture, and don’t affect the RAW capture. Therefore, if you decide you want something to be different, you could just go back to the Develop module in Lightroom or open the RAW capture in Adobe Camera Raw again, and make changes to the applicable settings based on what you want changed.
Or better still, you could also go back in History or use Snapshots or Virtual copies to provide similar benefits.
If we were talking about destructive adjustments I could see some sense making incremental backups along the way. But with a non-destructive workflow (such as is the case with Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw) I don’t see any benefit to an incremental backup. And frankly, with this type of incremental backup I’d never be able to figure out what point I needed to recover from if I didn’t like the latest version of the image.
Oh, and the best protection against inadvertently deleting a file is a proper, full, back up strategy.
I’m yet to test the actual space I’m saving since I incorporated DNG into my workflow. But that’ll be easy-peasy. I don’t intend to drop DNG now because I’m on a budget as far as IT is concerned. I got my self a Linux server and I’m using LVM to join hard-drives and get a larger logical disk. So it might be that DNG savings are minimal but I need them bad.
One thing I must do is clean old my old session files. I mean, delete whatever I didn’t use. And boy do I have huge amounts of space to save! That is, I might actually drop DNG in the future. Hahahaha!
DNG could easily win this battle of formats if Adobe introduced good hardware acceleration to DNG processing in Lightroom. Only DNG, no need for other RAW formats. Just concentrate on one thing and do it right.
Now we see miserable efforts to speed up processing of hundreds of different formats which for obvious reasons fail and people go to settings to switch OFF hardware acceleration as in reality it decelerates some actions.
What you describe in last last paragraph happens.
DPP 4 doesn’t open the EOS 1000D files from 2009.
DPP 4 is the following software of DPP 3.
I let you imagine if Canon will continue providing DPP 3 and 4 in the next years….
So I must use ACR in near future anyway.
Nasim, good article (and great website, by the way).
You say “First, post-processing and conversion software we see today does not just drop support for older cameras and their proprietary RAW formats.”
Canon recently released Version 4 of its Digital Photo Professional software (DPP), which processes its CR2 RAW files. DPP Version 4 does not support RAW files from older cameras. I have a Canon 350D, 40D and now a 6D, and DPP Version 4 will only process RAW files from the 6D. Further, any changes made to the 6D files with DPP V3 do not appear with DPP V4, and vice-versa. My concern is whether Canon will drop support for DPP V3. I would suggest that in the medium-long term this is highly likely. No company likes to support multiple versions of software for very long.
You are right, Robert. Same already happened when DPP 1.6 came out, and Chuck Westfall intervened to correct the situation for the version 2.0. I think we all need to contact Canon and ask them to solve this problem.
Yes, Ilaih. I raised this on the Canon forum, but have not yet heard any response from Canon. If more people do raise this issue perhaps we can get them to respond.
community.usa.canon.com/t5/So…74#U152374
Perhaps Canon expects us to throw away all our “old” cameras, and more importantly, the images taken with them.
Asked folks from DPReview to join www.dpreview.com/forum…t/56798972
Even Adobe does not support DNG in the manner it should. Primary advantage of DNG is the ability to take it away from the processing program and it will have all of the raw data, edit instructions, metadata, and a nice preview of the edits. However, Lightroom makes you manually remember to re-save the edits to the DNG file and create an updated preview. All of the updated editions to Lightroom and they refuse to offer even an option for automatic preview update. Does not sound like much of a commitment. Also, DNG Converter unrefined user interface that has not changed since the first edition. Just seems a little strange.
Hi Nasim,
Just been re-reading your 2010 article Raw v DNG, where you extoll the benefits of the Adobe DNG.
Now that you have reassessed the value of DNG in this article, you maybe ought to add a caution to the earlier article.
I saw no reference to your, and other peoples, revised view on the shortcomings of using DNG in your earlier article.
Regards,
Andrew
thank you for the post. I am currently looking at DNG to solve an issue.
I am using Canon 1DX cameras and CS4 and snow leopard to don to support the raw files from this camera body.
The solution is to upgrade to the latest MAC operating system and support Adobe with a monthly subscription – something I am not prepared at the moment to do.
My solution is to convert all 1DX raw files to dng with the raw file embedded. This allows me to edit is RAW in CS4 and allows previews to be viewed in the snow leopard operating system. I can then in the future extract the raw files if and when I upgrade my system.
Not the best solution, but a reasonable workaround. Of course I am still researching the option. Cheers, Iain
I’m contemplating going back and staying with NEF and Skipping DNG conversions for all the reasons from the article. I do notice, however that my average file size from my D810 goes down from about 43 MB in NEF to 38 MB in DNG. Shooting out 400 images a day that’s a savings of 2GB a day. Thoughts? I guess it’s processing time vs. storage savings.
You claim that “Adobe keeps telling us that all the original metadata is fully preserved”. This statement by Adobe is not true. For example, if you use DNG Converter 9.5 (the most recent version) to convert an Olympus E-1 ORF image, you will lose most of the proprietary Olympus metadata. Gone. This is because the DNG converter saves only the maker notes data block proper, and not any data outside this block that is referenced from pointers within. Adobe knows about this, and doesn’t plan to fix it (I was told this years ago by a top-level person Adobe). Worse, for many raw file types the proprietary manufacturer’s datais converted into a different, undocumented, Adobe-specific format that adds yet another layer of obscurity. I am the author of the free ExifTool metadata software, and I have worked hard to give it the ability to read the mess that Adobe creates here, but I understand completely why other software can’t read this proprietary Adobe metadata. I also strongly recommend avoiding the DNG format, even if your camera has an option to write DNG. My Pentax DSLR’s will write DNG, but I find that Adobe software may modify DNG files without warning, which also runs the risk of losing proprietary metadata.
I realize this article is not older, but thought someone might be able to help. I started converting my RAW files (Nikon) to DNG because my current version of Lightroom can’t open my camera’s RAW files (my LR is too old). I was shooting jpeg/RAW for a while because of this, before I realized that converting to DNG gave me the ability to use LR with my current camera. So now I have a RAW, DNG, and JPEG file for almost all of my photos from last year (not a pro, just personal, but it’s a lot of photos). Should I keep all 3? I can’t just delete the JPEGs because some of them are my edited photos. It feels like such a mess.
If you converted the RAW files to DNG without embedding the RAW file in the DNG, and the files are ‘keepers’, you are stuck with them as there is no way of going back).
It actually doesn’t matter that much as LR handles DNG perfectly well and for almost all practical purposes it’s just a matter of having a different file suffix on the file name. They are both RAW.
That leaves the JPEGs.
You may want to keep the important JPEGs, (although in theory there is no reason to keep them as it is a simple process to regenerate a JPEG for output in Lightroom when needed from an edited RAW file).
There are two options depending on how you arrived at your JPEGs.
1. If they are important and you used Lightroom to CREATE your JPEGS from the RAW files, you can delete the JPEGs from the RAW+JPEG ‘batch’ and just keep the ‘final output’ JPEGs.
2. However, if you used Lightroom to EDIT the JPEGs from the RAW+JPEG batch, (naughty, you should not have done this!), I would keep the JPEGs that are important and delete the rest from the RAW+JPEG batch.
You can separate the RAWs from the JPEGs in the RAW+JPEG batch into different folders.
End result is you have a group of RAW files (NEF+DNG) and a group of ‘important’ JPEGs.
Hope that helps.
I sympathise as I got into a similar muddle several years ago!
What about Cloud Storage? Cloud Storage could be added to this article’s list as the #7 reason not to convert to DNG. While local hdd/ssd storage cost go down every 6 months my internet upload speed does not increase more than say once every 5 or 10 years. I live in rural Wisconsin and my upload speed is about 4.5Mbps or 562KBps. Prior to last year when Charter moved into town my upload speed had been stuck at 50KBps for the last 5 or so years. Unless I subscribe to a more costly internet plan or move to a larger city, how long will I have to wait before my upload speed increases again? I bet most everyone else considers their upload speed to be slow even if it is faster than mine. The problem with DNG’s is that your non-destructive edits are saved in the metadata of the DNG file as opposed to a raw NEF or CR2’s .xmp sidecar file. How does this factor into cloud storage? After culling my shoot I then sync my PC with OneDrive, and this is where the real problem with slow upload speed comes into play. If I were to use DNG’s then OneDrive would reupload each DNG anytime I edit keywords, labels, ratings and develop settings. Alternatively, if I keep my raws as CR2’s then OneDrive would only upload my .xmp files. Which would you rather sync to your online backup, a full 20MB DNG or a 4-200KB .xmp file? Multiply that by 100, 200 or 400 photos. Think about it. Not only are you waiting around for DNG’s to process on import but you will be tying up your upload bandwidth each time you edit your photos. I have much better things to do with my time and upload bandwidth (such as sharing it with the rest of the family).
Dropbox is smart enough to only upload the changes between the cloud version and local version whenever a file is updated.
I don’t think OneDrive or Google Drive will do this currently.
I have just recently purchased the Canon 80D and Lightroom does not identifity the raw files from this camera, so I have no choice but to convert my raw files to DNG. The downside for me is the extra work before I can start processing, but it seems I have no choice and then also storage. After I have converted the Raw files to DNG files, do I delete me Raw file or do I keep both. If it was that I kept both, that means nearly double the size storage for each image. I know you can’t revert the DNG back to Raw but in what situations would I really need to anyway. I am new to LR and just trying to work it all out for the simplest and best solution.
Vicki
You can safely delete the RAW files if storage is a problem but first check carefully to be sure everything has copied over correctly and (please!) make a back up on a separate drive.
The only situation where you might need to keep the RAW file is if you plan to enter yoir work in photography competitions and salons. They often require the original RAW file from which a JPEG was derived for verification that no cheating has taken place.
You can also embed the RAW file in the DNG but that only slightly alleviates the storage issue.
Thanx Betty, Just had another thought to cover all my bases, I could convert raw to dng and to load into my Lightroom drive and then on my back up drive I could save the Raw files in which I would then have all my bases covered. Think I have just answered my own question, funny how we look at things differently the next day.
Just to make sure, the order in which do this is important.
First, back up your RAW files to your back up drive so they are safely stored in their original RAW format.
Then import-copy the same RAW files to Lightroom and do the DNG conversion in Lightroom so that your LR catalogue is ‘looking at’ DNGs and all your further processing/editing is done to your DNG files.
Yes, I find the same – sleeping on a problem often seems to unscramble it and you wonder why you were so confused the previous day!
I have an interesting dilemma. I just bought a Nikon D500. I have Photoshop CS6. Adobe has decided not to add D500 raw compatibility with CS6. After spending a lot of money on CS6, I haven’t quite reconciled myself to throw it away and start subscribing on a monthly basis to the current Photoshop version. Adobe clearly is trying to force the issue by making CS6 obsolete for people like me. So DNG is looking like an option. I could use Nikon’s software, but I don’t think that I can do as much with it as I can editing raw images in Photoshop.
I have no intention of replacing my raw images with DNG images. I’ll just keep adding more storage when I need it. But if raw is no longer an option with CS6 and DNG is not a good option. What else can I do?
I was not aware that Adobe was discontinuing support for cameras like the D500, but as I use CC I am not up to speed on other versions. Assuming you are right and Adobe is not just dragging its feet with an update, I would not get too worried about converting to DNG.
There is nothing wrong with DNG, it’s just a balance of pros and cons and for some, the cons are beginning to outweigh the pros. I have a fair chunk of DNG files and am not going to lose any sleep over that.
If storage is not an issue I would convert your D500 files to DNG but also make use of the option to embed the original NEF file in the DNG.
That way you solve your current dilemma but leave your options open for the future when/if you decide to go with CC or other software.
Just coming across this article as I try to comprehend alternatives for saving images edited in Adobe Camera Raw. Just had a couple of comments should this post still be alive and of any interest.
1) You mentioned there is no way to reverse a DNG file to its original raw format. However I can select Develop Settings / Clear Settings in Bridge and that appears to return the image to its original status.
2) You cautioned that a DNG image might not be optimally workable or maybe not workable at all in a non-Adobe software. However, as long as Adobe doesn’t drop support for DNG files, I could always open a DNG in ACR and then save as TIFF or PSD or open in Photoshop as TIFF / PSD and Save-as however I want. So that would appear to negate a problem where I can’t process DNG in a piece of software.
What I like about DNG is that the ACR changes are saved within the DNG file. As long as I cancel out of ACR after making changes and therefore do not compromise the original raw file, I can always go back into ACR and make a different set of changes and save them as DNG as well – since the DNG files are suffixed as “*_1.DNG”, “*_2.DNG” etc., I can easily keep track of variations of ACR changes without having to deal with the XMP sidecar files.
Just some thoughts from an admitted rookie – still shooting film with my Nikon-F6 and scanning selected shots – but I’m finding that even if starting with a TIFF file, working in ACR before going into PS seems the best way to go. So therefore I’m trying to decide the best way to preserve the original image file as well as inevitable variations of changes.
Appreciated your article as it brought me up to speed somewhat on understanding DNG and provides food for thought as to whether or not to consider it going forward. I don’t really like the ‘sidecar’ XMP files approach as it is just more pieces of things to keep track of.
Jerry Keenehan
I thought about this problem and tested a lot before finally deciding on the following workflow and storage approach. I have several systems – Nikon, Fuji and Panasonic, all used for different purposes and all with their own RAW formats. Fuji in particular does not do much if any lossless compression on camera on their RAW files, presumably to maximize the frame rate with the available camera processor. Compression is very processor intensive so good tradeoff in my book as I never get close to filling up a card before I take the images off and I can do compression later. Nikon and Panasonic both see some nominal lossless compression benefit from RAW to DNG.
Shoot in RAW + small JPEG. Small JPEG gives a processing reference and can also be used to send smaller files by email if needed without doing an export.
I use a RAW-import catalog with storage on external high cap drive (actually USB3 connected RAID-0 HD pair). Import RAW and immediately convert to lossless DNG in Lightroom in the RAW-import catalog. Delete all RAW files. Then delete images (uncompressed DNG) I know I am not going to use. Typically 3-4 passes though for a full culling. I end up deleting 70-80% not because I am short of storage but to remove clutter. Find this a very good discipline
Apply develop edits to DNG including built in Camera Calibration selections (e.g. film type) and my presets. So any edits individually reversible back to the original state (I do wish Adobe would however support the ability to edit changes in the stack). Compare with JPEGS to see if any additional adjustments are needed for each image – not to match the JPEG – just to compare with the JPEG engine and in camera settings. Delete all JPEGs
Keep the remaining uncompressed DNGs on external drive using the RAW-import catalog
Export compressed DNG copy of all files to C drive so included in rigorous backups and same catalog as all my photos including old scans, phone pictures, pictures from others etc. all in one catalog. Compressed DNG Gives more options to tweak WB later and more latitude for levels adjustments. Also can apply Camera Calibration for different film types etc on the compressed DNG. Did a number of tests comparing same image in uncompressed DNG, RAW, Compressed DNG and JPEG while applying large adjustments in LR. JPEG very quickly goes to hell with +/- 100% on Basic adjustments sliders – Exp, contrast, highlight shadows etc. Honestly I could not tell the difference visually between RAW, compressed and uncompressed DNG under large adjustments. Mathematical comparisons between compressed and uncompressed DNG (layer subtraction) with +/-100% showed some difference but I could barely see anything with pixel peeping in the actual images. Compressed DNG applies 256 levels per color on the 16×16 compression block and each block can have its own set of levels – so a lot more than 256 levels for R,G or B across the entire image as opposed to 256 levels per primary color for the whole image in JPEG. So although it get JPEG-levels of compression the tonal and dynamic range across the image is much higher. But still by the time I import the compressed DNG to my main Catalog I have made all the adjustments on the uncompressed RAW before export, so rarely need to make additional changes. Sometimes on WB. So as far as I am concerned compressed DNG after adjustments is fine for personal archive. In addition I have external copies of the uncompressed files but I don’t do offside backups of those and if I lost them I would not be too concerned.
If I need to send images to others I will either export JPEGs from RAW catalog or from main catalog
These are the advantages of DNG for my workflow…
– Common format for multiple systems
– Space efficient lossless (esp Fuji) and lossy compression. Lossy compression better than JPEG for editing but about the same file sizes
– DNGs avoid sidecar files so I retain standalone files with all adjustments includes I can use between systems and applications
– DNG files can be opened without a RAW converter using Adobe DNG codec installed on any machine (albeit a bit slow) without proprietary RAW converter
– Same set of adjustments and Camera Calibration between compressed and uncompressed DNG
– Same presets used for compressed and uncompressed DNG
The above looks like a number of steps, but it is always consistent, mostly bulk operations and therefore quite quick. Is there a risk using a vendor proprietary format ? Sure. But Adobe is so ubiquitous in this area I honestly can’t see a point where I will not be able to open or edit DNG files. Less likely that having vendor proprietary RAW hanging around without support IMO
Re Paul’s comments on workflow – not questioning it but just commenting with my current thoughts for anyone who may wish to comment on same.
Background: Still shooting slide film with Nikon F6 and scanning the handful of slides I really like with a Nikon Super Coolscan ED 5000 & current Silverfast scanning software – scan all slides at 100% size (roughly 1x1inch) at 48bit color depth and 4000 ppi – this provides a very good digital image for any further work.
Since virtually all of my images are TIFs resulting from a scan, at present I don’t actually have raw images but I’ve kind of stumbled on the fact that starting the workflow with the TIF images in ACR is clearly the way to go before getting into PS. So, before doing a lot of new scans and/or work or rework with prior scans, I need to decide on and tighten up a new workflow.
My current thinking on a workflow is this:
1) As I have always done, I will continue to save the original scanned image as *.rev00.TIF – the plan being never to touch that image so I can always go back to it regardless of any other considerations.
2) In the past I have then always made a copy of the original image named *.rev01.TIF for changes in PS. Now, I’m contemplating making that *.rev01_ACR.TIF for initial work in ACR.
3) Next step is to open the rev01.ACR image in ACR and make the initial pre-PS changes.
4) From ACR I will simply ‘Open Image’ in PS and immediately save-as *.rev01.PS.TIF and make any applicable changes in PS.
5) At the end I’ll have three versions of the image (whereas currently I have two):
#1 rev00 original image untouched;
#2 rev01_ACR TIF image with the embedded ACR metadata changes;
#3 rev01_PS for whatever I’m going to do with the PS image.
I think that gives me the best of both worlds as I can always go back to the rev01_ACR.TIF camera raw version to make further changes or copy that to a rev02_ACR version to try a whole different set of changes without losing the first, or having to fiddle with XMP sidecars, separate database or catalog images etc.
From all the above comments, it would appear to me that having an ACR version along with a simple, finished TIF image as part of the workflow for long-term compatibility with technology changes is not a bad way to go.
Any comments would be welcomed – admittedly I’m coming late to this forum as well as the whole camera raw / workflow issue.
@Jerry Keenan
Seems perfectly sensible to me.
It’s essentially a RAW workflow carried out within the constraints of not having a RAW original.
I do much the same with RAW files.
I leave the original RAW ‘as shot’.
I make a Virtual Copy and apply initial global adjustments (and sometimes crop) in LR and then go over to Photoshop to make a Master TIFF.
Save the master TIFF and the RAW virtual copy both stacked with the original RAW.
End result is a 3 file stack.
I can then go back to either the original RAW or the Virtual copy as starting points for a completely new interpretation.
Thanks for your comments, Betty. I’m pretty much sold that the basic scheme I outlined is how I’m going to proceed for now.
Soon, perhaps, I’m going to have to abandon my F6 when availability of Fujichrome Provia 100F and processing became scarce or too expensive and/or I can spring the bucks for a first-class probably Nikon Fx digital.
One thing I probably still like about shooting slides, though, is that I can take 36 slides and put them on a light table and quickly narrow them down often times to just a few keepers – i.e., as opposed to having hundreds of digital images to sift through.
And while it is time-consuming and would not be an option for more prolific photographers, I like the scanning process and usually get amazing results from the Nikon film scanner and the Silverfast software.
In addition, being a bit paranoid it’s nice to know that I always have the slides to rescan if my computer blows up and all my backup schemes fail (I did say I was a ‘bit’ paranoid now!).
It was interesting reading all the comments in this blog as, like perhaps everything about photography and working with digital images, there is so much to know and consider depending on how important it all is to you.
Regards,
Jerry Keenehan
I have read through all posts and only ’57) Paul’ has mentioned a major advantage of DNG.
I use Lightroom for all my major processing and changed to DNG because all steps are stored in the DNG file. If I used RAW – as I used to – then I am stuck with a sidecar file with the RAW file which can easily become detatched.
This may not matter if Lightroom is used exactly as Adobe planned and the catalogue kept safe – but the instant you start moving files around outside Lightroom you have problems. This suits my way of working and – if necessary – I can point Lightroom at my internal or external DNG backup drive and pick up my pictures with edit data at any time – even though I have screwed up the catalogue.
Tried to read all previous posts. Headache …
I have Windows Vista, CS3 and a Canon 50D. Always converted to DNG … everything fine and no problem. Liked smaller file size and the no side-car approach.
Now my wife got a Canon SX60. Tried RAW … Problem!
Installed DNG Converter 8.3 (highest version that goes with Vista), selected Camera Raw 4.6 and newer (required for CS3).
DNG converter does not recognize the SX60’s .CR2
My choices? New OS for computer which most likely will not work together with my CS3 or abandon the DNG idea. I think I’ll opt for the latter.
Or does anybody know of another DNG converter that the one from Adobe?
I think I’ll will keep the original CR2’s. RawTherapee and Gimp 2.8 work just fine.
I use DNG because I like the editing flexibility of RAW, don’t need high resolution, but my current camera (Sony A7Rii) doesn’t support shooting medium or small RAW files. Converting from compressed ARW to lossy compressed DNG makes my file sizes go from 40+ MB to around 13 MB, which is substantial when you have 100s of thousands of photos.
When I’ve bought my first digital camera – Canon S40, I’ve started shooting RAW and being concerned about size, converted all my photo to PNG. Today, looking at the miserable size of photos of that times I feel a bit sorry for doing this conversion and loosing source RAWs.
Are you equating converting RAW to compressed lossy DNG with converting RAW to tiny PNG? Are you suggesting someday I might look back and regret converting because the 42 megapixel DNG files are too small or lacking information?
Not exactly equating, but yes, you lose information.
But the full size RAW files have more information than I want or will ever be useful to me.
I don’t understand why some people have the belief that more information is always better when there are trade offs to having more information. Not sure if you are among those people but you kind of sound like you are.
When I bought my second, 17GB HDD I thought – this is more than enough for anything… :)
Do you still use Vista?
@Alex
I’ve purchased plenty of things such as HDDs and software believing they would be good enough for my uses for a set amount of time, but I would never buy something like that thinking it would last indefinitely. If you bought hardware or software believing that you might never want to replace it than you are either a sucker or shortsighted.
I also don’t understand how that relates to recording more information than you need in cases where you know that the extra information won’t ever be necessary.
Looks like a talk becomes a bit too religious here…
Alex
Not really.
It’s just about good practice and common sense.
@Craig Volpe
Deleting information from an archival file is a choice.
I would suggest it’s not a good one.
@Betty
That you suggest deleting information from an archival file is always a bad choice suggests you think capturing images at anything other than the theoretical maximum value is always a bad choice. If that is in fact what you believe, I suggest that’s a stupid and dogmatic opinion because there are plenty of use cases where shooting in JPG, lower resolution, lower bit depth or with RAW compression makes sense depending on the scenario.
Craig Volpe
1. Look up the meaning of ‘archival’.
2. I was not being dogmatic, I was making a suggestion. The two are not equivalent.
You too are free to suggest what you like, but storing information as a full resolution *archival* file is neither stupid nor dogmatic. It’s common sense and good, sound photographic practice. You never know when in the future you might want to reprocess that file for an entirely new purpose. If all you have is a JPEG, you are stuffed. I would be interseted to hear a counter argument.
I recognise that some people choose to just shoot JPEG for their particular circumstances and that’s fine, especially if they are 100% sure that they will never need that file again at a different size, colour or resolution. Clairvoyance is a great gift.
We have fabulous cameras capable of better image capture than ever before. Why would anyone want to throw away part of that treasure?
Saving RAW or other high resolution files, in a compressed format might have made sense once upon a time when storage was expensive. Today it is cheap, so why dump valuable data when you no longer need to? It’s a choice which you have rationalised in your mind. That’s fine. Most photographers would disagree.
Finally, I have to say it’s a bit irritating when people use the ‘particular’ to ‘disprove’ the ‘general’.
Image data is precious – true.
Storage is cheap – true.
So, in general, throwing away data is neither necessary nor a good thing to do.
You can choose to disagree, it’s your data that’s going in the trash can.
“…suggests you think capturing images at anything other than the theoretical maximum value is always a bad choice.’
Not always, but usually.
JPEG is a ‘throwaway’ format – generally single use. It can always be quickly and easily recreated from a high resolution original.
Uncompressed RAW is an archival format – generally archival(!) and a source for multipurposing. Once damaged or depleted it can never be recreated.
Losslessly compressed RAW is a very good idea – same as uncompressed RAW with a useful saving of space.
Lossy compressed RAW is a crippled format with depleted data. Worst of all words.
No dogma involved – just opinion tempered with common sense.
If a person makes a choice in the full knowledge of the facts, both pro and contra, then for that person, that choice is an informed one and they then must live with the consequences, whether good or bad. IMHO.
@Betty
“I recognise that some people choose to just shoot JPEG for their particular circumstances and that’s fine, especially if they are 100% sure that they will never need that file again at a different size, colour or resolution.”
That contradicts your idea that deleting information from an archival file is always a bad choice. It depends on circumstances.
Craig
I think you are slightly missing the point.
An archival file is generally understood to mean a lossless file which will store the maximum amount of information in a format which will make it retrievable for the longest possible time.
In general RAW, DNG (both native and derived) and TIFF are most used for archival files. It has to said that none of them are perfect for various reasons.
You seem to overlook the fact that I said JPEG (lossy) is a ‘throwaway’ format in my previous comment.
The fact that it frequently and widely used doesn’t mean it has no value. It’s a very important format without which transmission and display of images would be a truly ponderous process. It just isn’t very suitable as an archival file – unless of course you have painted yourself into a corner and it’s all you’ve got.
So, no contradiction.
“Finally, I have to say it’s a bit irritating when people use the ‘particular’ to ‘disprove’ the ‘general’.”
I agree. However, you made an absolute statement, not a general statement. When an absolute statement is made suggesting something is always true, it is perfectly reasonable to use a particular instance to disprove it as always being true. Had you instead said “I would suggest it’s generally not a good one” that would be a general statement and I would not have argued about it.
“Lossy compressed RAW is a crippled format with depleted data. Worst of all words” is also an absolute statement. Taking a generalization and making an absolute out of it is dogmatic.
Craig
I am assuming you are referring to this statement?
“Deleting information from an archival file is a choice.
I would suggest it’s not a good one.”
The first half of the comment is an absolute statement. I hope you would agree it’s true.
The second half of the comment is a suggestion.
A suggestion is ‘an idea put forward for consideration’ and so by definition is not an absolute statement.
The insertion of the additional word ‘generally’ is superfluous and serves only to make the sentence unnecessarily verbose.
Had I said, “It’s not a good one”, then that could be rightly, but a bit pedantically, construed as an absolute statement though given the context, most reasonable people would still understand it as an opinion – with which they may or may not agree.
“Lossy compressed RAW is a crippled format with depleted data. Worst of all worlds”
I would contend that this statement is both absolute and true – but expressed in language more colourful than scientific. ‘Poetic licence’ if you like.
To reduce it to its bare meaning:
Lossy compressed RAW is a format with depleted data (true). Has more disadvantages than advantages (true).
More accurate perhaps, but not as eye catching.
The English language is full of subtlety and nuance so taking a sentence too literally and without consideration of its context can result in its intent being obscured.
I take the view that absolute statements are best reserved for matters of verifiable fact and evidence based science. Similarly statements made in the context of opinion, choice and suggestion are best taken as just points of view.
@Betty
To you, what is the difference between taking a photo with maximum information then deleting some of that information, and taking a photo with a lower amount of information to begin with? Why do you think it’s okay in some circumstances to do the latter, but never okay to do the former?
Craig
“To you, what is the difference between taking a photo with maximum information then deleting some of that information, and taking a photo with a lower amount of information to begin with?”
None whatsoever – if it’s a considered choice.
“Why do you think it’s okay in some circumstances to do the latter, but never okay to do the former?”
You are misrepresenting what I said. So to clarify;
Taking a photo with a lesser amount of information such as a JPEG is perfectly fine if that is the final, desired end point and the photographer is sure that what comes out of the camera will be 100% OK and it will never be needed again at a different resolution, size, compression, bit depth or colour space.
I use JPEGs all the time for projected and online competition entries (sRGB/AdobeRGB JPEG is a standard requirement) but I create each JPEG from a RAW or TIFF master so I have infinite flexibility. I can reinterpret the master (crop, colour, sharpness, etc,) if I change my mind and make any number of JPEGs or prints at different pixel resolutions, colour spaces or compression levels for different destinations.
If I just had one in camera JPEG, I would be stuck with the single version of the picture the camera decided to give me.
However, if the photo might be repurposed in the future when those parameters will probably change, it makes more sense to retain an archival quality, full resolution, original such as TIFF or RAW as these can readily be converted into any number of derivative files/JPEGs for display or print at any size, resolution, bit depth, compression or colour space.
Given that, it makes no sense to take a full resolution master file and throw away two thirds of the data for the sake of same some space saving on your hard drive.
At the end of the day, all these things are choices and it’s OK to do whatever you want, but it seems to me that choosing a format which maximises both quality and flexibility is a sensible one, while trashing data just limits your options with no worthwhile benefit.
A 70-80% decrease in space is not insignificant when dealing with terabytes of information. In my case, managing around 3TB of data with offsite rotating backups is significantly easier and less expensive than 12TB. And while lossless uncompressed RAW files might technically contain more information, I find the difference imperceptible except the most extreme cases of toning. Have you ever tested to see if you could perceive any difference? If so, can you share an example?
Craig
I am not trying to make you wrong, I have already said it’s about choices.
If you consider that throwing away 70-80% of your data in order to save storage space is a worthwhile trade off, then you should do just that.
If your work is mostly destined for the web or for small prints, it probably doesn’t matter very much. I happen to make large prints but also produce work for web and projection, so I value the editing flexibility a losslessly compressed RAW file gives me. The differences are clearly apparent when doing extensive edits on large images and no, I can’t share an example as I made that decision a long time ago and never save in compressed RAW format – I only shoot 14 bit RAW(NEF).
On a purely personal note, I am a self confessed quality obsessive/compulsive so that drives my choices, but I do wonder though, why someone would invest in a high megapixel camera and then not exploit its capability to the fullest extent possible or at least save that potential for the future?
I can understand your justification regarding storage, but we should not pretend lossy compression makes no difference. It has to make a difference – and it does. If it made no difference there would be no point in high megapixel cameras, no one would buy them and manufacturers wouldn’t make them.
Craig
>>Archival has never meant storage at the “highest possible quality”.<>The size of the print does not determine whether it is considered archival or not.<>‘reusing the image at a substantially higher size/quality than that in which was captured.<>It sounds like you’re thinking the image quality / file size has a linear relationship.<>A 75% reduction in file size for <1% loss in quality is not a bad tradeoff in my mind for non critical photos<<"
What exactly is a >What I really hate about the a7Rii is that unlike all my previous cameras, there is no option to shoot 1/2 or 1/4 size RAW files when desired.<<
Not sure what you mean by ½ or ¼ size RAW files. If you mean sRAW, then you're welcome to that choice – which encapsulates everything I've said about quality.
“Has more disadvantages than advantages (true).” That is subjective and entirely depends on context. What you might consider a big advantage others might consider minor and vice-versa.
Craig
I could compile a list (but I won’t for reasons of space) and the list of advantages (features that are generally recognised as advantageous; editing headroom, tonal smoothness, future proofing, etc, of uncompressed RAW will substantially outweigh those for compressed RAW. That’s objective.
However, I recognise that the weight given to one particular feature (in your case storage and cataloguing) may outweigh all the generally accepted advantages. That’s subjective.
Essentially, when compared to a lossless RAW, a compressed RAW has no advantages save one – which can be summarised as convenience.
You really are being dogmatic and it sounds like someone doesn’t understand the concept of diminishing returns. Those are not objective advantages. If they were, then why would camera manufacturers add the option of shooting in different sizes, compression levels, formats, and bit depths? Each one of those choices presents tradeoffs and users should pick them depending on context.
I could use the same flawed reasoning to argue that all the advantages of shooting uncompressed RAW over JPG “has no advantages save for one” – image quality. But I wouldn’t do that because in reality all of those advantages and disadvantages depend on a lot of factors. There’s a reason commercial photographers often shoot in RAW whereas photojournalists often shoot assignments in JPG.
Hypothetical question: if your camera could shoot at 1000 megapixels, would you always shoot at that resolution? If not, why not?
Craig Volpe
“Each one of those choices presents tradeoffs and users should pick them depending on context.
Craig you seem not to have read what I said in my previous comments and to have forgotten that the context was archival storage formats, not the pros/cons of shooting RAW vs the rest.
I have already said it’s about choices. There is no absolute right or wrong, but from the standpoint of image quality, editing headroom and long term flexibility RAW is undoubtedly the archival gold standard. Obviously other factors come into play for various photographers in differing circumstances which necessitate tradeoffs. As you say, “each one of these choices presents tradeoffs and users should pick them depending on context”.
But let’s remember the context is archival storage and let’s not pretend that they are not tradeoffs.
“I could use the same flawed reasoning to argue that all the advantages of shooting uncompressed RAW over JPG “has no advantages save for one” – image quality.”
I don’t see that as flawed reasoning – the statement would be as broadly true as mine but for the fact that you have changed the context from ‘archiving’ to ‘shooting’.
I make my choices based on quality (RAW) and accept the tradeoff of inconvenience. You make your choices based on convenience (lossy compressed RAW) and accept the tradeoff of lower quality. What’s the problem?
“There’s a reason commercial photographers often shoot in RAW whereas photojournalists often shoot assignments in JPG.”
Precisely. Commercial photographers are primarily concerned with quality and editing flexibility, photojournalists are primarily concerned with speed and convenience.
But JPEG is a lousy format for archiving.
Of course, to take your hypothetical question ‘in the opposite direction’, there might come a point for me where file sizes became so colossal that the time, computing power and storage requirements might become totally unmanageable at which point I too, would start considering trade offs. However, that time has not yet come.
You seem to be trying to create a disagreement where one doesn’t exist perhaps to justify the particular tradeoff you have chosen – that you find the differences imperceptible. Well, I and a whole lot of other photographers find the difference clearly and unacceptably perceptible. Manufacturers give us a gold standard format so that photographers who want attain gold standard work have the original data to work with, not a rendered and/or compressed derivative.
And in that context too, perhaps we should draw a distinction between simple storage and archiving?
So, with respect, no dogma and no flawed reasoning – provided you remember the context.
Almost everything you have said is based on the premise that archival photographs by definition are captured using maximum theoretical quality settings. That premise is false.
Craig
Yes, it’s a pity that shooting got conflated with archiving half way through the discussion.
As far as archiving is concerned, I have always understood that to mean preserving either the original or a facsimile of the original at the highest possible quality for flexibility, quality, future repurposing, posterity, etc.
With film that would have been an original negative or transparency. With print it means archival quality processes, papers and boxes. With digital things have changed. Nevertheless, the only format comparable to a film negative is a RAW file or maybe an uncompressed TIFF. Hence my assertion that RAW is the gold standard for archiving.
However, I would contend, right or wrongly, that archiving is more than just storage. Archiving (at archival quality) implies preserving something of value at the best possible quality. You can store any amount of dross on a hard drive and call it an archive, but I would beg to draw a distinction.
So yes, you are right and I am happy to concede, if that is what you are after, that in a way, the premise that archiving is associated with the aim of preserving maximum quality is probably now no longer true. In the digital era as it has come to mean simply storing anything that that you happen not to have deleted. However, I would still hold to the suggestion that if one were shooting for archive, it would be foolish not maximise the data capture.
‘Archiving’ files with depleted and /or compressed data denies any possibility of taking advantage of future developments in conversion processes or reusing the image at a substantially higher size/quality than that in which was captured.
As far as shooting itself is concerned, it’s horses for courses – down to individual priority and choice with tradeoffs either way. My choices leans heavily towards quality. Yours lean towards speed and convenience. However, not to be overlooked is the fact that having made a choice of shooting format you are then stuck with it for storage – archiving seems too grand a term.
So, it seems incomprehensibly short sighted to me that a person would invest in a superb camera like the A7R II, with probably the best sensor in the world and capable of 42 Mp capture, to then consign three quarters of that beautiful image data to the bin for reasons of storage. You might just as well shoot with a 12-16Mp camera and get the benefit of higher frame rates and better low light performance as well as easy storage. You can always get more storage but you can never retrieve lost data.
“‘reusing the image at a substantially higher size/quality than that in which was captured.”
This makes me think you’ve never actually tried doing a side by side comparison between RAW and lossy DNG. Except for very rare circumstances, there is no perceptual difference in real world use. Seriously, I dare you to try it if you haven’t already.
“incomprehensibly shortsighted” to “consign three quarters of that beautiful image data to the bin for reasons of storage”
It sounds like you’re thinking the image quality / file size has a linear relationship. It doesn’t. Even if there is a loss in quality, it’s extremely small. A 75% reduction in file size for <1% loss in quality is not a bad tradeoff in my mind for non critical photos. For the sake of argument, even if image quality loss was 5%, I would still think that an acceptable tradeoff for many, but not all, of my photos. Diminishing returns. That person who commented earlier and saved all his photos as tiny PNGs? I'm sure there was a big reduction in file size, but along with a huge reduction in image quality. I wouldn't do anything like that to all but the most unimportant photos and I had an important reason to reduce their file size that much.
Don't believe me? Here's a quote from an in-depth discussion of RAW, Lossy DNG, and JPG:
"There is a clever way to see for yourself what the price of using lossy DNG is.
Nack selected a contrasty image and imported the original Raw file into Lightroom where he exported it as a DNG with lossy compression and imported that DNG back into Lightroom. You could also do this with the free DNG Converter and the image editor of your choice.
You want the original Raw file and a lossy DNG copy.
Next, he cranked up the exposure in the shadow and recovered the highlights as much as possible. In Lightroom he pushed the sliders to +100 for Shadows and -100 for Highlights. He even used the Brush tool to open the shadows another full stop, squeezing every bit of data out of them.
He first made those adjustment to the original Raw file and then copied and pasted those same adjustments to the DNG copy. That's easy to do in Lightroom with the Copy Settings command.
A visual inspection didn't reveal anything obvious, he writes, but there's a trick that will let your computer show you what's different about the two images.
Nack doesn't say how he exported the edited images, but we'll assume it was as TIFFs using the same color space.
He opened both images in Photoshop in different layers of the same file. "I set the blending mode of the top layer to Difference in order to highlight any variation between the two versions." That's the trick.
What did it reveal?
Absolutely nothing. A black image. No derivation.
He tried the same thing with a few other images, he reports, including a few with subtle gradients. In only one image was he able to notice a difference, a shot of the moon over a darkened landscape. But only after he had increased exposure over four stops."
Equating a 42Mp lossy RAW file to a 12-16Mp RAW file because the resulting file sizes are similar is extremely ignorant. Obviously there is a huge perceptual difference between a 42Mp and 16Mp image. Anyone could notice the difference if printed big enough. On the other hand, if no one can notice a difference between a 42Mp lossy DNG and a 42Mp lossless DNG file no matter how large it's printed, than it's ridiculous to equate the two.
For the record, while I sometimes appreciate having 42Mp on the a7Rii, I would have been perfectly content with half that resolution. The reason I didn't get an a7Sii is because the focus performance on the R is better, and focus performance is more important to me than image size. What I really hate about the a7Rii is that unlike all my previous cameras, there is no option to shoot 1/2 or 1/4 size RAW files when desired. Anyone who's used to editing 1000s of wedding photos with smaller file sizes and then tried the same with 42Mp files can probably relate.
Archival has never meant storage at the “highest possible quality”. Archival means storage with a focus on long term use and degradation of materials. If someone stored prints using materials designed for 200 year storage, and another person stored prints designed for 500 years, the former would still be considered archival. Additionally, if someone made a medium sized print designed for 200 years of storage, it would still be an archival print. The size of the print does not determine whether it is considered archival or not.
Craig
>>Archival has never meant storage at the “highest possible quality”.<>The size of the print does not determine whether it is considered archival or not.<<
Did any say it did?
It’s the quality that matters, not the size.
“‘reusing the image at a substantially higher size/quality than that in which was captured.”
If there is 'no perceptual difference' between an uncompressed RAW and a lossy DNG containing just 20% of its original data, one would have to question the sanity of millions of photographers not to mention the camera manufacturers for foisting such an unnecessary nonsense on us. Why are all photographers concerned with quality shooting RAW? Why are we wasting powerful computers processing this stuff and gigabytes of storage storing it, if there is no difference?
Does this 'imperceptibility' extend beyond DNG to all RAW formats? Presumably it does.
I have no idea if your anecdotal internet story/experiment has any validity as we have no idea of the original exposure, the viewing condition, magnification or print size not to mention factors which neither one of us has even thought to consider.
I am not saying there is perhaps some truth in what you say, but at present I remain unconvinced and it would take someone with substantial photographic cochones and some well presented evidence to divert me from my present path.
"It sounds like you’re thinking the image quality / file size has a linear relationship."
No, I do understand that compressing data is not the same as binning pixels. I was being flippant, so apologies for that.
"A 75% reduction in file size for <1% loss in quality is not a bad tradeoff in my mind for non critical photos."
What exactly is a >What I really hate about the a7Rii is that unlike all my previous cameras, there is no option to shoot 1/2 or 1/4 size RAW files when desired.<<
Not sure what you mean by ½ or ¼ size RAW files. If you mean sRAW, then you are welcome to that choice – which encapsulates everything I have said about quality.
@Craig Volpe
>>Archival has never meant storage at the “highest possible quality”.<>The size of the print does not determine whether it is considered archival or not.<<
Did any say it did?
It’s the quality that matters, not the size.
“‘reusing the image at a substantially higher size/quality than that in which was captured.”
If there is 'no perceptual difference' between an uncompressed RAW and a lossy DNG containing just 20% of its original data, one would have to question the sanity of millions of photographers not to mention the camera manufacturers for foisting such an unnecessary nonsense on us. Why are all photographers concerned with quality shooting RAW? Why are we wasting powerful computers processing this stuff and gigabytes of storage storing it, if there is no difference?
Does this 'imperceptibility' extend beyond DNG to all RAW formats? Presumably it does.
I have no idea if your anecdotal internet story/experiment has any validity as we have no idea of the original exposure, the viewing condition, magnification or print size not to mention factors which neither one of us has even thought to consider.
I am not saying there is perhaps some truth in what you say, but at present I remain unconvinced and it would take someone with substantial photographic cochones and some well presented evidence to divert me from my present path.
"It sounds like you’re thinking the image quality / file size has a linear relationship."
No, I do understand that compressing data is not the same as binning pixels. I was being flippant, so apologies for that.
"A 75% reduction in file size for <1% loss in quality is not a bad tradeoff in my mind for non critical photos."
What exactly is a >What I really hate about the a7Rii is that unlike all my previous cameras, there is no option to shoot 1/2 or 1/4 size RAW files when desired.<<
Not sure what you mean by ½ or ¼ size RAW files. If you mean sRAW, then you are welcome to that choice – which encapsulates everything I have said about quality.
“If there is ‘no perceptual difference’ between an uncompressed RAW and a lossy DNG containing just 20% of its original data, one would have to question the sanity of millions of photographers not to mention the camera manufacturers for foisting such an unnecessary nonsense on us.”
Funny you would say that because my camera didn’t even have the option to shoot 14 bit uncompressed RAW files until obsessive types like yourself asked for it. So yeah, even when camera manufacturers don’t see the point of unnecessarily increasing file size for little to no increase in image quality, some consumers still get upset about it. Personally, I don’t mind having the option there, since there might be special cases like research that it might make a meaningful difference, and you can always keep the option turned off. What I do mind however, is when people such as yourself dogmatically argue that it’s irrational not to shoot at anything but the highest quality setting or that it somehow makes the file not “archival”, whatever that means.
“I have no idea if your anecdotal internet story/experiment has any validity…”
Anecdotal? Oh please. If you bothered to look at the article, you would have seen they set up their own experiment in a controlled fashion to isolate all variables except for one, and they shared their methodology. They even explained how you can do the experiment yourself if you question their results. Many other sources have done comparisons and come to similar conclusions. They are easy to find with a simple Google search, and include notable sources such as DPReview. And then we have you, who assumes there must be a practical difference if there is more data, yet hasn’t even done a comparison themselves. That’s not even anecdotal, that’s complete speculation.
“Why are we wasting powerful computers processing this stuff and gigabytes of storage storing it, if there is no difference?”
That’s exactly why I don’t shoot at the maximum settings allowed on my camera. Except for special use cases, it unnecessarily slows things down, wastes space, costs more, and has no practical benefit.
Dear Craig,
Sounds like you are using one of Sony cameras. If so, try to extract the original Sony white balance presets table from a DNG.
Craig
“What I do mind however, is when people such as yourself dogmatically argue that it’s irrational not to shoot at anything but the highest quality setting or that it somehow makes the file not “archival”, whatever that means.”
Please don’t put words into my mouth and try not to be so irritable.
First, I didn’t say it was irrational to shoot at anything but the highest quality setting. I have consistently argued that convenience over quality is a choice which has associated tradeoffs, perceptible or otherwise. You apparently seem to be rather dogmatically denying the tradeoffs because to you, they are imperceptible for your practical purposes.
Second, I didn’t say that shooting at highest quality is a prerequisite for archiving. I said if one is going to archive anything it makes sense to preserve as much quality as possible, but because archiving has come to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, it doesn’t really matter a rat’s ass either way because once you have committed to a shooting quality you are stuck with it for archiving.
“And then we have you, who assumes there must be a practical difference if there is more data,”
Again you are ascribing an assumption to me which I am not making. I am arguing that having more data can never be a bad thing – if one’s prime aim is quality and there are no other constraints. Just as shooting a 5×4 on fine grained negative stock is a purist approach compared to the more practical 35mm on Tri-X. If you have commercial or practical constraints, trading data for convenience may make perfect sense particularly if the perceptible differences are small and there is no concern with repurposing in the future.
“A 75% reduction in file size for <1% loss in quality is not a bad tradeoff in my mind for non critical photos."
You refer to carefully controlled experiments and then make infantile claims like this. What does a <1% loss in quality look like? Where do you get that figure? Is it objective or subjective? What is a non critical photo? A photo that is non-critical today may be highly critical tomorrow – which kind of brings my archival quality argument round full circle.
I think the differences we are arguing about relate mostly to our types of photography. You are clearly a busy, commercial, wedding photographer who needs to make a living and who has to balance speed, cost and convenience at a quality level that is 'good enough' to pass muster at 10×8. Once sold, those files have to be archived but in reality are unlikely to ever be revisited.
I am in the fortunate position of being retired from my former profession with no financial or other constraints on my (amateur) photography – which falls into the fine art camp (for want of a less pretentious term) with a quality level that has to pass muster at international salon level, or A2 or more. My best files are likely to be revisited as RAW converters and other technology improve over time.
So yes, obsessive types like me ask for, and get, 14 bit RAW files to play with, which for some unaccountable reason galls the hell out of jobbing photographers like you who just want to get the job done.
I see no need for conflict and I see no right or wrong here. It is purely a matter of practicality and choice. And arguments about what is or is not archival quality and whether the differences between compressed/lossy/uncompressed DNG/RAW files matter a hoot is a long way from "Why I no longer convert RAW files to DNG".
I don’t really disagree with anything you’ve said in your last post. However, it’s pretty contradictory to a bunch of the things you said earlier.
According to you, deleting information from an archival file is “not a good choice”
According to you, using compression “might have made sense once upon a time”
According to you, “most photographers would disagree” with using file compression on high res files
According to you, it’s not always, but usually true that it’s bad choice to capture images at anything other than theoretical maximum settings.
According to you, “lossy compressed RAW” is the “worst of all worlds” and “has more advantages than disadvantages”
According to you, an archival file is a file with the maximum amount of information
According to you, “it makes no sense” to lossily compress a RAW file
According to you, there is no worthwhile benefit to lossily compressing a RAW file
According to you, “the differences are clearly apparent” between 12 and 14 bit files when editing large images, yet experiments show there is little to no perceptible difference
According to you, if the difference was imperceptible, camera manufacturers wouldn’t make high megapixel cameras. And yet camera manufacturers do make high megapixel cameras that don’t even include the option to shoot in 14 bit
According to you, it’s “incomprehensibly short sighted” to buy a camera that can capture high quality images if the camera isn’t going to be used at anything but the highest quality settings (some of which weren’t even included in the release of the camera because the manufacturer didn’t think they were worthwhile)
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with shooting with maximum settings, even if hypothetically there is no benefit compared to lower settings. But it’s super annoying that over and over again you project your own photographic priorities to suggest it’s irrational for other photographers to shoot using lower settings. You keep saying it’s an okay choice to make depending on circumstances, yet you also keep saying things like above that contradict that idea.
Craig
Nothing I have said is in any way contradictory as long as we adhere to *your* initial premise that context is everything. The context in which I made those statements was from the perspective of quality as opposed to convenience.
In that context,
1. Deleting information from an archival file is not a good choice ”
– true, if quality is the first priority – and it was a suggestion not a statement.
2. Compression “might have made sense once upon a time”
-No that’s not what I said.
I said, “Saving RAW or other high resolution files, in a compressed format might have made sense once upon a time when storage was expensive. Today it is cheap, so why dump valuable data when you no longer need to? It’s a choice which you have rationalised in your mind. That’s fine. Most photographers would disagree”
– true, if quality is the first priority.
3. It’s not always, but usually true that it’s bad choice to capture images at anything other than theoretical maximum settings.
– true, if quality is the first priority.
4.“lossy compressed RAW” is the “worst of all worlds” and “has more advantages than disadvantages”
No, that’s not what I said. I said, “Lossy compressed RAW is a format with depleted data (true). Has more disadvantages than advantages (true)”
– true, if quality is the first priority.
5. “An archival file is a file with the maximum amount of information”
– true, if quality is the first priority.
6. “it makes no sense” to lossily compress a RAW file.
– true, if quality is the first priority.
7. “there is no worthwhile benefit to lossily compressing a RAW file”
– true, if quality is the first priority.
8. “the differences are clearly apparent” between 12 and 14 bit files when editing large images, yet experiments show there is little to no perceptible difference.
No, that’s not what I said. I said, “I value the editing flexibility a losslessly compressed RAW file gives me. The differences are clearly apparent when doing extensive edits on large images.. I only shoot 14 bit RAW(NEF).
I was referring to clear differences between lossy and lossless RAW files not between 12bit and 14bit files.
Notwithstanding, both lossless compression and high bit depth are important to me and other photographers who appreciate the massive headroom in terms of tonal values and smooth transitions that a lossless 14 bit file bestows. If quality is the first priority, you can never have too much of it. If the priority is speed and convenience, I guess you use what you can get away with.
9. “if the difference was imperceptible, camera manufacturers wouldn’t make high megapixel cameras.” And yet camera manufacturers do make high megapixel cameras that don’t even include the option to shoot in 14 bit”
Bit of a strange jump in logic here – we seem to have gone from high pixel count to high bit depth…but no matter, either way…
– correct, those manufacturers have some catching up to do.
10. “it’s “incomprehensibly short sighted” to buy a camera that can capture high quality images if the camera isn’t going to be used at anything but the highest quality settings (some of which weren’t even included in the release of the camera because the manufacturer didn’t think they were worthwhile)”
No, that’s not what I said and it’s disingenuous of you to repeatedly make a selective quote, add your own interpretation and then ascribe it to me.
I said, “it seems incomprehensibly short sighted to me that a person would invest in a superb camera like the A7R II, with probably the best sensor in the world and capable of 42 Mp capture, to then consign three quarters of that beautiful image data to the bin for reasons of storage. You might just as well shoot with a 12-16Mp camera and get the benefit of higher frame rates and better low light performance as well as easy storage. You can always get more storage but you can never retrieve lost data.”
– true, if quality is the first priority.
It’s strange too, that the manufacturer has gone from thinking (according to you) that highest quality settings were “not worthwhile” to all of a sudden making uncompressed 14bit RAW a major feature – presumably this was purely to pander to the delusions of a few crackpot eccentrics?
“it’s super annoying that over and over again you project your own photographic priorities to suggest it’s irrational for other photographers to shoot using lower settings. You keep saying it’s an okay choice to make depending on circumstances, yet you also keep saying things like above that contradict that idea.”
It’s true that I project my own priorities, but I have been at pains point out repeatedly that everyone’s priorities are different and dependant on circumstance. You yourself acknowledge that I keep saying “it’s an OK choice to make depending on circumstances”, so I am baffled why you find what I say contradictory and why you find it super annoying? Perhaps you find it super annoying because you find yourself in the uncomfortable position of having to justify throwing away three quarters of the data you have just spent megabucks capturing?
I have reminded you more than once to take account of the very factors that you initially pointed out as being of paramount importance – context and circumstance. When we make choices, context is everything. My context was quality. Yours was practicality. So there has been no inconsistency or contradiction on my part.
I have a final analogy for you.
If I was a builder and needed to carry tools and materials from job to job, I would drive a flat bed truck or station wagon and accept the tradeoff in performance, handling and build quality compared to say, a Porsche. However, I am not a builder, I can afford the Porsche and appreciate the quality and huge performance headroom – and even if I hardly ever need to use it, it’s great to know it’s there when, on occasion, I want to put the hammer down.
If I may be so bold can I point that both Craig and Betty say truth when they speak of archival?
Now I’m afraid I have no other means of asking that so please forgive any rudeness. With all due respect, is it possible for you two to carry on this one-month-got-nowhere thread privately? It’s been ONE MONTH.
Please <3
Me, I archive what I deliver. Unless I have a VERY GOOD reason to store RAW's, I'll archive JPEG's. That means if I want to turn an image into a 90×60 (centimeters) wall print, I won't store RAW's. I might keep the RAW for special images I eventually send out to contests. Other that, no need to keep the RAW's. I want to have a D810 so no way I'm keeping 3000 D810 RAW's. That'd be insane! Hahaha
Now, please carry on privately, please? <3
I would shut off only this reply thread if I could.
Thank you! =)
Luiz
Many threads have been known to carry on, or get revived, for far longer than a month.
However, I agree with you.
Enough is enough.
Sorry for the annoyance Luiz. How do you respond to someone privately on here?
Betty, you didn’t say for any of those that they are only true if quality is the first (don’t you mean only?) priority. Plus, that’s not even always true. For example, sometimes 12 bit files have higher image quality than their 14 bit counterparts. Also, you suggested more information equals higher image quality. Pretty sure increasing your ISO increases information but lowers image quality.
Next time, instead of saying something like “there is no worthwhile benefit to lossily compressing a RAW file”, I suggest something more like “if quality is the primary concern, potential quality loss from lossy compression outweighs the benefits.” Same for the rest of your comments.
My camera shoots directly to DNG and in all honesty, I’ve never had compability issues!
Moreover, my colleagues whose cameras shoot in other RAW formats are always converting theirs in order to use other programs which only take DNGs (X-Rite stuff mostly).
I think DNG is as useful as any other RAW formant and I prefere it. When I’ve been forced to use someone else’s camera, I always end up converting the files. To me it is way more useful, but it will solely depend on what you do with your images after shooting.
Dear all,
I’ve learnt alot from the thread above and my fear, when this started, was that DNG would be dropped. I have just learnt that mobile phones are starting to use DNG, instead of developing their own Raw format. This could be a new hope that this format won’t be dropped by large photo management software like Lightroom.
best,
Alles
Standards take time, and each manufacturer has a phase they go through where they refuse to accept a third party “standard”. We’re at that point now with DNG, but I think taking a long-game perspective, DNG will prevail.
Here’s some examples in other industries:
PDF: Adobe created the PDF standard as a once and for all solution for print/prepress compatibility options. It took over 10 years for prepress software and RIP hardware to fully support the PDF standard. Since then, PDF was refined to have a special subset for printing called “PDF/X” which greatly increases compatibility, reliability and speed.
FBX: In the 3D modelling and animation world, there were dozens of formats and each software vendor had custom written their own importer/exporter, resulting in really odd behavior moving data between programs. This is similar to how RAW files are now for camera, but there are hundreds more features in 3D modelling and animation. Since FBX became an industry standard, and they released code for basic serialization/deserialization in multiple programming languages, moving data between 3D packages has become much easier and more reliable. Again, it took nearly a decade but we’re getting there.
Dear folks,
thanks a lot for this thread filled ith loads of useful information. :)
I’ve recently been looking for a proper way to store & archive years of photos, although it seems that I’ve done more pics when kids were younger… ;-) After all an external harddrive (or two) isn’t that expensive anymore but what would you do in case of a a fire or burglary while on holiday? Even small amounts of that black smeary dust are enough to ruin nearly every NAS in the cellar and external HDDs are easy to carry and easy to sell on eBay…
Flickr looks nice as a storage for processed full-size JPEGs but it doesn’t support RAW. Then I gave BackBlaze a try, but they only support payment via credit cards. Maybe it’s some kind of cultural difference (Germans don’t like credits ;-)) but I don’t have one and usually don’t need one. So I ended up with Amazon’s Photo-Storage. As I already pay for the ‘Prime’-Option I get free unlimited storage for their choice of picture formats, any other files are limited to a sum of 5 GB. Unfortunately Amazon doesn’t support any RAW format files (maybe TIF?), except DNG. So I converted all of my NEFs, RAFs, PEFs etc. to DNG and chose the option to include the original RAW file. Et voila – saved all digital photographs from 1999-2016! :-)
Maybe I’m missing something..?
Kind regards
Pooky.
You are missing www.amazon.com/gp/drive/about :)
Aloha, :)
thanks for your reply. Yep, I missed that some RAW formats (Nikon, Canon & Sony) are supported & recognized as pictures by Amazon: www.amazon.com/gp/he…=201649930 – Glad to read that :) But also I’ve got several hundred gigs of RAWs from my old Fuji & Pentax. So I’m going to store the Canon’s RAW files untouched, while I’ll store the Fuji & Pentax ones embedded in DNG – plus original RAWs still available on local USB & NAS. :)
Pooky
You can pay for Drive option and store any types of files. But several hundred gigs are much easier accommodate today. Problems start after first TB.
I had no idea Amazon supported RAW (or at least DNG) files. Local backup plus online backup on Amazon’s servers sounds like a pretty decent backup strategy. If you haven’t done so already, I would suggest learning what the process is to restore all your files in the case of losing your local drive. Good luck!
This whole digital realm is becoming a festering swamp! I have forty years worth of archivaly processed negatives which can last for hundreds of years but a digital file from a few years ago might be totally useless now and a new file from a new camera not work on an almost new computer and software! Thankfully I used digital for work and casual diary records only. If I was younger and had hopes of working digitally for the rest of my career, well I would take up painting instead.
Digital is not magical. If there is not some effort made to establish some universal standards soon digital will remain a treadmill to hell of constant random changes and expensive upgrades.
In retirement I am faced with the choice of replacing my ageing Mac and editing software and relearning a new program or going back into the darkroom to print beautifully toned monochrome prints from my negatives. Choice is getting easier as I type.
Caroline
I see your point, but can see a lot of downsides to your approach.
Yes, well-processed film negatives will last a long time – as long as they are stored both well and very, very securely.
However, it only takes one catastrophic event – like fire, flood, burglary, fungus(!) – and everything is gone at a stroke.
With digital, one can store the same material duplicated to multiple locations – like desktop (internal and external drives), laptop, remote hard drive, cloud server, optical disk, flash drive – and the loss of one is just an inconvenience.
Unfortunately, digital is an ever evolving technology so adapting to, and embracing, change is unavoidable.
Film technology is pretty static and so less demanding in the respect of not forever having to chase a moving target.
Maybe having your negs scanned and stored digitally might be a good compromise as far as insurance against untoward events is concerned – leaving you free to indulge your passions in the darkroom?
I follow a lot of photographers and not surprisingly a good amount are of the “#filmisnotdead” sort. dangers of film negatives? fire or flood? Uncommon compared to digital corruption or data loss in general. Burglary… serious? not only did they steal my TV, Stereo and Cat… they stole my film negatives too. digital negatives are a recipe for indecisiveness. we can change our mind anytime we please, we got the original…. somewhere. I am a digital or die dude, but have mad love for our film brothers and sisters.
Betty
In my innocence I thought that film scanning would be the answer to my dreams and a life not smelling of chemicals not masked by any amount of Chanel. I assumed that since all my work was consistent it would just be a matter of feeding them in at a chosen setting and hey viola a life’s work in a magical electronic form, easily posted for anyone to see, I was wrong.
That brings us right back to the ever changing non universal “electronic negative”. worse was discovering that every image had to be adjusted so as to be as consistent as the originals, not my idea of fun.
Amongst the tsunami of images created daily nobody is going to be interested in old negatives, I now just print for my own pleasure and the joy they give those who acquire them.
From your comments on this site I think we are on the same quality wavelength…
Nothing in this world is perfect so there will be tradeoffs on whatever path we choose.
The important thing is to do something positive to safeguard material which is irreplaceable if lost or damaged.
I happen to think that digital archiving in multiple locations is the safest way.
I completely understand your love of film and the its relatively uncomplicated workflow, but the trade off is its vulnerability and having to forego the amazing transformations that are possible with digital editing.
Have you considered rephotographing your film using a slide duplicator? Once you have camera settings and exposure standardised, your results should be pretty consistent and faithful to the originals.
Hello Caroline, hi Betty,
I understand that adapting to a new technology is some kind of work, you need to spend time & eventually money to learn how to deal with new tools. That’s what I call ‘life’. :) The first day, you’re not learning anything new, is the first day you’re starting to die – mentally, somewhere deep inside. The human race isn’t a dying breed because of our imagination, our will to investigate and to explore – give your fancy full scope to what that means when a society starts to think that conservation & preserving of old tech is sufficient. Everybody knows Hannibal for crossing the Alps with elephants but nobody remembers Julius Nepos oder Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman Caesars. ;-)
Still beeing able to handle the “old technology” is a great gift, you shouldn’t give that skill away! ;) But learning new ways and new tools doesn’t mean you have to give up calm & unhasty afternoons in a lovely smelling darkroom. :D
I’m still storing loads of mounted slides from my dad and some of my own. Most of them start ageing, colours are fading. Few of them show first signs of fungal attack, although they’re stored at a dry cellar with dryer pouches and an electrical air dehumidifier. So their days seem to be numbered and I want digital “originals”. My first thought was to use the transparency unit of my flatbed scanner, then changed to a film scanner. Both ways were way to much time consuming (fine tuning every single friggin’ scan) and the results were not what I expected. So now I’m using a professional scan service. They use Nikon film scanners, use a procedure to remove dust and clean smudy slides before scanning and some tools afterwards, esp. for Ektachrom slides). As a result I get an USB HDD or DVD with well processed scans, stored in Nikons RAW format with an appropriate dynamic range that looks close or even better to the original slide. Those files are stored on external HDDs, my NAS in the cellar plus Amazons cloud (unlimited storage for prime members).
If I had a little more time I would have tried a slide duplicator, maybe home-made with a slide-projector: Remove all lenses, insert frosted glass between the light buld and the slide and place your DSLR on a tripod, may a 80 or 105 mm would do fine… (fotovideotec.de/dias_…alisieren/ & fotovideotec.de/dias_…itaet.html )
tmi.reflections
I’m quite aware that presumably nobody wants to ‘steal’ my digital images. ;) But external HDDs a easy to carry and easy to sell at backyard flea markets of pawnshops. My NAS might get damaged just because of overvoltage (although I do have a small UPS). And last but not least harddrives just die sometimes, as well as DVDs or flash storage – plus file corruption because of transfer errors via USB or network cables. So maintaining some kind of digital picture archiv means work – so does an analog photo archiv if you want your grandchildren or maybe great-grandchildren to have a look a their ancestors… ;) Not to mention those infinite changing file formats and software “standards” beeing pure pain in the ass. ;)
best wishes, Pooky :)
That’s why I said use multiple devices in multiple locations.
Whatever happens, you have at least one safe back up somewhere.
Nothing’s perfect, but that’s as close as we can get.
Hi Pooky,
I too have tons of slides and negs that I would like to transfer to digital. I too have tried my had at manual transfer, but it seems that I would not have enough years left in my life to complete the job.
Since I work in the Nikon universe, having the digital format in some type of Nikon RAW would work out well. Could you say more about the service you are using and how the project is going. This is a bit off topic, so you might PM to me. thanks…
bc
In what world is Ricoh a little boy and Panasonic, Olympus, Sigma and Fuji are big boys?
don’t you have youtube? all the cool boys are using “indie” camera gear today. The oppressive market leaders want your photos to look bad, we must rebel. ok, serious, Photography is not an arms race. at the end of the day it is about artistry and composition. even the best lens/camera can’t make a pile of cow poo look like sushi being eaten by sexy models in bikinis on vacation on some exotic island. The high-end equipment are simply tools, no apology needed. they allow the photographer to concentrate on their artistry and not on the deficits of their equipment. We not acknowledge those who don’t understand this basic concept. good day :)
I described in my June 2016 post above how I used compressed dng on my C-drive folders and maintained uncompressed dng on my external archive. There were a lot of benefits for consistent editing, speed of processing and file size efficiency using dng on both.
Well the time has come to abandon that approach with the new subscription only policy from Adobe on Lightroom. I still plan to continue using LR6 for the time being but see myself moving away from Adobe to another RAW processor and catalog application. My catalog structure is replicated in Windows folder naming so it will not be so difficult to switch and maintain the order I have. I deleted all the compressed dngs I have on my local drive and exported jpegs from my uncompressed dng archive. Several thousand images. In my previous workflow I did not keep original RAW files so will keep the uncompressed dngs I have. Going forward I will save only RAW files for my external archive. I lose some file size efficiency but decided I can’t assume to be using Adobe anymore.
Shame
I use an Olympus EM1 mark II. Windows 10 does not render the RAW images as visible pictures. This means when using software such as Aurora for HDR combination I cannot see the images to chose which ones to combine. So I convert to DNG which is then usable. Once Windows 10 gets up to speed (this RAW format has been out for a year!) then I will not need DNG.
Well I thought the same “one could always use Adobe’s DNG converter in the future, if there is no other option”, since Adobe kept fed us with fear that our”current RAW file may become unreadable some day in the future” and converting into DNG will save them.
I have meny FujiFilm S5600 and S9500 RAF files that are not supported in any major software, not even Fuji’s. Only Lightroom/ACR opens them (and all other software that are also related to DCRAW). I’m using Pentax now, which DOES save DNG’s naturally and CaptureOne opens them better than ACR/Lr. So I wanted to re-edit my RAFs in C1. I wanted to know which is better: Converting to DNG with Adobe DNG converter, or converting it to 16-bit linear TIFF using DCRAW.
I learned that CaptureOne does not open DNG files that were converted RAF files as it does not open RAF files directly. Since DNG conversion is marely rewrapping same original sensor image in new container and possibly compressing that image better than it was before, all sensor specific remains the same. So if software can decode that bayer, it will open converted DNG’s as well and there is (at least in my tested Pentax files) no difference what so ever. But if sensor is not supported, it will remain not supported, regardless.
So for my obsolete, odd 45-degree rotated raw image inside RAF file, DNG is no solution. DCRAW is and all software that uses it (some way or another). It seems also ACR uses DCRAW for raw extraction – the reason they “support” every sensor on planet.
Here, my case gives EVEN LESS of a point to convert files to DNG. Major brands will ever be supported, while odd files are not supported already and converting will not change that.
While I support the idea of DNG format if manufacturers would support it natively. But why they would limit themselves by using common format, if they can use their own format as competitive advantage .
Sadly my Sony A7ii in “uncompressed” raw mode is not compatible with Lightroom 5.7.1. I have to first convert to DNG prior to import. If I wish to use uncompressed raw with Lightroom I have to upgrade the program to one of their subscriptions which I don’t care to do. So I am stuck with DNG if I like it or not.