DNG vs (CR) Camera Raw

Don't know if this has been discussed before, but I see alot of you save in DNG format. I saved (tested) some pics I took today.
I saved the pics in (CR), then I saved the same pictures in (DNG). The only thing I saw that was different was the file size. I did not select to embed the original raw data, but at the same time when I opened the info for each for each format, I had seen the same options to input data in both formats. They both also had the same data generated into each file info, from what I saw when the file was downloaded.

Each (DNG) pic was about 5mb smaller than the (CR) file. Unless I am missing something, what is the benifit if any, saving to (DNG) vs(CR).

Thanks for any input, to DNG or not to DNG ??


Thnaks,

Dave

Dave, I started converting all my RAW imports to DNG about a year ago and have never looked back. I do the convertion as i'm importing into LR3. DNG's are a little smaller than RAW, but much more important is that it's a universal format, and there is no need for a sidecar file because all the XMP data is embedded into the DNG file along with all the original colour data which makes it a cleaner file to manage. Believe me, after 100,000+ images it will make a difference. And because LR is a non-invasive application (all edits are in the Catalogue file), there is no danger in messing up your original DNG file. After that, all the derivatives you create will be determined by your photo business requirements, workflow, etc.

I hope that helps

Garry Revesz
SceneInAction Photography

Thank's for the advice, I use CS5, do I need to embed anything into the DNG file or does it embed everything upon import, one of the options prior to converting is to embed all of the RAW data which will increase the file size?

This is were it it's somewhat confusing?

Dave

When you convert a camera RAW file to a DNG file, it completely restructures all the data in the file to Adobe's standard DNG. At the same time, you have the option to embed the original RAW file inside the DNG file, "just in case" you may want to access the original RAW file created by the camera. As far as I'm concerned, the chance of that is so remote that it's just not worth managing the bloated DNG files created. And also, the RAW files created in camera, are not fully consistent from version to version, and camera to camera. On the other hand, a DNG file is a consistent, standard, RAW file format that works with any RAW file editor from any camera maker and third party application like LR, CSx, Aperture, etc. Anyone can open a DNG file; but there is no guarantee anyone can open a proprietary RAW camera file.

I hope that helps.

Thanks again for that information, it clears up alot, I will start converting to DNG now,

Thanks,
Dave

From my perspective the only negative to converting to DNG is that you close the door on the possibility of using canons proprietary algorithms ie DPP.

Now of course this may not be important to you but my view is that until canon supports DNG natively
I will stick with CR2 I see no advantage except file size I can always convert later.