DNG or RAW

[AaronBentley]

Good afternoon all,

I would like to start a discussion on DNG and RAW formats. Now for you that don't know what these are then you're probably in the wrong section of this forum, but I will go on and explain in short what they are.

RAW is a file format that camera's use to store all the data recorded by the sensor when you take a picture. The benefit of this is that when you use a format like JPEG you get a compressed imaged stored on your device/card which means you loss some of the data which once you import onto the computer makes the image harder to edit as sometimes certain area's may be too dark or too light and the data you need is no longer available. That in short is what RAW is.

DNG also is a file format but this is one that adobe use and not your camera itself. After you have taken your picture with your camera in its RAW state, you can import this photo onto your computer using a software like Adobe Lightroom, when importing you can convert your RAW file to DNG. In doing this you shrink the size of the file normally around 10%. It also combines all your XMP data into the file and doesn't require a separate file to handle all your metadata.

Now onto the point of this discussion, 

What file type do you prefer and why?

I use DNG, after using Lightroom for around 2 years and loving the program, I found that my RAW files took up a lot of space on my hard drive, not only that but I had XMP files for all/most of my pictures as I was always doing editing and whenever I wanted to send the file to a friend, I would have to make sure to send both files which is rather annoying. After trying out DNG for a while I decided to convert all my RAW files into DNG. I saved on lots of space on my hard drive and now when I want to send a file its a lot easier. I know there is myths out there saying you loss some of the image quality and that's why the file size is smaller, but since using the format I have not noticed any decrease in image quality.

Please join the discussion as I am curious to hear what people think.

Regards
Aaron

[ALwin]

There are various discussions and reasons for using either.  One of the biggest arguments is "future proofing" by converting all proprietary camera RAW files to DNG.  Personally, I don't really care, and I've been using my cameras' native RAW files.  I also use Lightroom as my primary photo editor and library tool, so when I export to Photoshop, they are duplicated and saved as TIFF versiions.

[beach_boy98]

I personally have flashed my point and shoot just to enable RAW. I am a hoarder and want all the information I can about a photo. I am also horrible at photo taking so raw has saved my back a few times there where I could just fix it in post.

[AaronBentley]

2 minutes ago, ALwin said:

There are various discussions and reasons for using either.  One of the biggest arguments is "future proofing" by converting all proprietary camera RAW files to DNG.  Personally, I don't really care, and I've been using my cameras' native RAW files.  I also use Lightroom as my primary photo editor and library tool, so when I export to Photoshop, they are converted to TIFF files.

Great point and thanks for replying,

I don't really see adobe dropping off any point soon and can only see more programs using the DNG file format in future because of its success. Did you know you can convert DNG files back to RAW?

[pedro69]

I tried DNG for a while but I actually prefer my photos in RAW as I don't like to have two separate files for one photo and I generally use Photoshop not Lightroom anyway.

[AaronBentley]

2 minutes ago, beach_boy98 said:

I personally have flashed my point and shoot just to enable RAW. I am a hoarder and want all the information I can about a photo. I am also horrible at photo taking so raw has saved my back a few times there where I could just fix it in post.

What point and shoot camera do you use? That sounds amazing to be able to do that and was something I didn't know was possible, would love to hear more.

[AaronBentley]

1 minute ago, pedro69 said:

I tried DNG for a while but I actually prefer my photos in RAW as I don't like to have two separate files for one photo and I generally use Photoshop not Lightroom anyway.

Hi Pedro, With RAW you get two separate files for one photo, not DNG.

[beach_boy98]

1 minute ago, AaronBentley said:

What point and shoot camera do you use? That sounds amazing to be able to do that and was something I didn't know was possible, would love to hear more.

Some Samsung thing I got ages ago. Don't remember the model. Its suprising how many cameras have after market firmwares made by the community.

[AaronBentley]

Just now, beach_boy98 said:

Some Samsung thing I got ages ago. Don't remember the model. Its suprising how many cameras have after market firmwares made by the community.

Thanks for the information, I have a Canon Powershot which I love to use along side my DSLR and the one thing thats always annoyed me with that it don't support RAW, I am going to look into doing this now. Thank you for that.

[pedro69]

1 minute ago, AaronBentley said:

Hi Pedro, With RAW you get two separate files for one photo, not DNG.

Hehe you are right. Looks like I need more coffee before posting.

[AaronBentley]

Just now, pedro69 said:

Hehe you are right. Looks like I need more coffee before posting.

Lol, Try some of your famous Tequila, I personally prefer this to coffee

[ALwin]

10 minutes ago, AaronBentley said:

Great point and thanks for replying,

I don't really see adobe dropping off any point soon and can only see more programs using the DNG file format in future because of its success. Did you know you can convert DNG files back to RAW?

Yes I know I can convert DNG to RAW, I believe I can do it immediately in Lightroom while I import the RAW files off my memory card.

[AaronBentley]

Just now, ALwin said:

Yes I know I can convert DNG to RAW, I believe I can do it immediately in Lightroom while I import the RAW files off my memory card.

Lol, Quick witted you are. 

[.spider.]

I would never ever convert my RAW files to DNG. 

You'll loose all the information which is not interpreted or wrong interpreted by the DNG converter. 

[ALwin]

14 minutes ago, AaronBentley said:

Lol, Quick witted you are. 

I know there is always going to be a discussion about things like this, but I find it best to leave it up to the "photographer" to decide whether he/she/it wants to convert.  There are always going to be Pros and Cons arguments.  And everyone makes valid points, as Obi-Wan told Luke, "from a certain point of view".

[AaronBentley]

7 minutes ago, ALwin said:

I know there is always going to be a discussion about things like this, but I find it best to leave it up to the "photographer" to decide whether he/she/it wants to convert.  There are always going to be Pros and Cons arguments.  And everyone makes valid points, as Obi-Wan told Luke, "from a certain point of view".

I agree with you in the fact that its down to everyone's preferences, Their is no correct answer, I was only curious to what people use and why :D

[AaronBentley]

12 minutes ago, .spider. said:

I would never ever convert my RAW files to DNG. 

You'll loose all the information which is not interpreted or wrong interpreted by the DNG converter. 

It is true you lose some information when converting, but nothing that would damage your image, or that is what I have been lead to believe.

If you've experienced something difference, please share as I would love to hear :D

[ALwin]

5 hours ago, AaronBentley said:

It is true you lose some information when converting, but nothing that would damage your image, or that is what I have been lead to believe.

If you've experienced something difference, please share as I would love to hear :D

When I first adopted Lightroom, with version 3, at first I did opt to convert to DNG.  I didn't throw away my camera RAW files, instead kept both copies.  Sometimes I need to go back to my old photos, because a friend or client asks for a print... and yes while there may be a loss of data during conversion, it's hardly anything that I miss.

Adobe Lightroom/Adobe Camera RAW, Capture One, DxO Optics Pro, (the old) Apple Aperture/OSX Photos (current) all have their own tool for interpreting RAW formats.  None of these software open the RAW image file and show it in the exact same way.  So I personally don't worry about what might be lost in RAW to DNG conversion anyway.  What matters most to be is the "look" of the final photo that I send to my clients or print.  None of my clients have asked me what data was lost during all the editing.

My main reason for sticking with my Nikons' NEF format is for these two reasons:

1. While I can afford virtually unlimited storage, I am lazy to do the conversion.
2. While Lightroom allows for non-destructive editing, sometimes I need to "save" my changes and I prefer them to be saved to an external XML file rather than into the DNG file.
3. And I feel that space is wasted by keeping both RAW and DNG versions, when RAW will serve me just as well if not better.

I know professionals who convert to DNG and discard their RAW files, and I haven't really heard any complaints from them.  Just as I know others who stay with RAW.

In a way, DNG vs RAW conversation is similar to the "Protection Filter or Not" conversation.  Some people use it, some people don't, and some people use it sometimes.

Nice article about camera RAW vs. DNG here.
https://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw
https://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng

[AaronBentley]

32 minutes ago, ALwin said:

When I first adopted Lightroom, with version 3, at first I did opt to convert to DNG.  I didn't throw away my camera RAW files, instead kept both copies.  Sometimes I need to go back to my old photos, because a friend or client asks for a print... and yes while there may be a loss of data during conversion, it's hardly anything that I miss.

Adobe Lightroom/Adobe Camera RAW, Capture One, DxO Optics Pro, (the old) Apple Aperture/OSX Photos (current) all have their own tool for interpreting RAW formats.  None of these software open the RAW image file and show it in the exact same way.  So I personally don't worry about what might be lost in RAW to DNG conversion anyway.  What matters most to be is the "look" of the final photo that I send to my clients or print.  None of my clients have asked me what data was lost during all the editing.

My main reason for sticking with my Nikons' NEF format is for these two reasons:

1. While I can afford virtually unlimited storage, I am lazy to do the conversion.
2. While Lightroom allows for non-destructive editing, sometimes I need to "save" my changes and I prefer them to be saved to an external XML file rather than into the DNG file.
3. And I feel that space is wasted by keeping both RAW and DNG versions, when RAW will serve me just as well if not better.

I know professionals who convert to DNG and discard their RAW files, and I haven't really heard any complaints from them.  Just as I know others who stay with RAW.

In a way, DNG vs RAW conversation is similar to the "Protection Filter or Not" conversation.  Some people use it, some people don't, and some people use it sometimes.

Nice article about camera RAW vs. DNG here.
https://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw
https://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng

Thank you for that very detailed post about your experience. I also agree with what you said about the final image not the data, that is all that matters at the end of the day.