DNG question

Hi gang,

When you convert your RAW files (i.e. NEF for Nikon), to a DNG file, do you save the original RAW file as well as the converted DNG or do you delete the original RAW file? Just asking for the sake of storage space on the hard drives...is it necessary to keep the original?

Just curious...Thanks!
Kate

Kate,

It is a matter of preference. I personally embed my NEF files in the DNG file itself and then delete the original NEF and its sidecar XMP. This makes for a much larger file (not quite 2x the size), but storage is pretty cheap these days even when I am shooting high volume stuff like time lapse video and HDR panoramas rather frequently.

The idea behind embedding the file is that I could then, sometime in the future, extract the NEF and open it in other software, like Nikon Capture, if I ever wanted to go back to that workflow. That being said, I've been doing DNG conversions on all of my files for a couple years now and I have yet to actually go and extract a NEF. Maybe something about Capture NX5 in 5 years will be great, but then again, will it be great for my current D3 images or waht about my old D100 images? I have no idea. I go for making that option available and buying a new hard drive whenever I need it every year or so...

Hope that helps.

Drew

I'm a bit mixed on whether DNG and RAW or DGN with RAW embedded is better - in either case, I'd keep the original file. Hard drive space is cheap today. Even 2 external 1 TB drives will run $200 or so, so you have a primary backup and a secondary backup drive.

Although I'd add to edit ruthlessly (and edit ruthlessly a second tmie) and keep things well organized. 1 TB of files is a lot to be sorting through for the best of a sequence of 10 shots, 8 of which you'll never show anyone anyway.

Regardless of what you decide, I would suggest that you keep a DVD copy of whatever came out of your camera. Every image, untouched. And keep it off site.

My wife and I are with Glenn. When you're talking about long-term storage- decades- too much can happen to drives, single copies, and the places you store them. I'm on the road in the Southwest for 3 months right now, and I'm copying originals to two separate hard drives, one kept with my laptop and the other concealed in the truck in case my laptop is stolen. I'm also burning DVDs and mailing them home. Since we live in a place prone to volcanic ash and to tsunamis, I'll leave another set of DVDs at our place down here-- far from the ocean and active volcanoes. Every time I think all those redundant copies are expensive, I compare it to the cost of replacing the original photos. Storage is definitely cheap in that light.

BTW- In addition to the originals, collections of processed images get roughly the same treatment.

Glenn, DVD storage is convenient and relatively inexpensive, but at best, DVDs will last only as long as the technology that reads them. What I am saying is try and find a 5.25" floppy drive. Its a technology that has not been used for about 10-12 years, yet it was ubiquitous in the 80s and 90s. Add to that the 8" floppy, the 3.5" floppy, Iomega Bernoulli drives, Infrared Optical drives, and although not related to computers but still a media storage technology the RCA giant cassette drives, 8 track tapes, 8mm Video, VHS, Betamax, etc - technological advances together with marketing departments striving to create and dominate with the next storage technology before anyone else does - all are conspiring to trash even the most conscientious backup and disaster recovery strategies.

Seems like as of today, BlueRay technology is sufficiently stable and dual layer drives can store up to 50 gb per disk. Drives will set you back $400 and media about $11/disk, and they are supposedly backwards compatible with all media types based on CD/DVD technology.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827187063&Tpk=blue%20ray%20drive

Or if you really want to be on the bleeding edge you can always opt for the holographic data storage technology, which will have a capacity of 3.9 Tb - yes, not gigabyte, terabyte.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_data_storage

Just staying on top of this stuff can be a full-time job. :)

Hello,

I don't post here very often, but this same question occurred to me recently.

I always embed the original nef file in my dng upon import via Lightroom. I discard the original from my CF card after this is complete, and then I let my Norton 360 take over from there to create a backup of the new dng files onto an external hard drive. I also export catalogs separately to keep the relative catalog file size down.

The reason why I thought about this is that you can use the free standalone Adobe Camera Raw application to extract the original nef files from the dng files, at a later date (Lightroom does not include this functionality). It works really well.

I used this process last week to re-create a folder of raw files from an earlier LR2 import, so I could play with the newest version of LR3, to include import using the raw files. This also helps if you want to play with Nikon's Capture NX, since some features of their software require the original nef files.

PH

I delete the original NEF after converting to DNG.....and I'm not losing any sleep over doing so.