Several months ago I realized that I had about 4 different systems for saving and keeping my photos and this made the recovery from a hard disk crash very difficult. So I have been spending lots of time figuring out how to do it. I have been reading the The DAM Book by Peter Krogh (NPN review).
I am now using a number of the things he discusses, in particular he pointed out my one problem in archiving. I was organizing my digital files the same way I have my slides.
Now to my question. Peter is a big proponent of using DNG to archive your raw files. How many of you out there use DNG as an archive? Are there any issues using it?
I'm converting all my NEF files to DNG and then deleting the NEFs. I'm not embedding the NEF in the DNG either.
The DNG files are smaller than the NEFs so that helps. I'm also betting on more third party support for the DNG format and as long as Adobe's around (a fair bet, I'm thinking), I'll be able to convert the DNGs as long as I keep ACR updated.
Posted by Steve Konrad on July 10, 2006 at 12:16 AM
I shoot 100% raw (NEF). I post-process in Capture One 1 and create working TIF images and JPEG images for web. I archive in DNG and embed the original NEF. I see no isses at all with this. I expect that within 5 years most major camera brands will support shooting in native DNG. It just makes sense. This craziness of having hundreds of raw formats is not sustainable, and raw is not going away.
Posted by Steve Konrad on July 10, 2006 at 12:38 AM
I shoot 100% raw (NEF). I post-process in Capture One 1 and create working TIF images and JPEG images for web. I archive in DNG and embed the original NEF. I see no isses at all with this. I expect that within 5 years most major camera brands will support shooting in native DNG. It just makes sense. This craziness of having hundreds of raw formats is not sustainable, and raw is not going away.
Posted by Steve Konrad on July 10, 2006 at 12:39 AM
I shoot 100% raw (NEF). I post-process in Capture One 1 and create working TIF images and JPEG images for web. I archive in DNG and embed the original NEF. I see no isses at all with this. I expect that within 5 years most major camera brands will support shooting in native DNG. It just makes sense. This craziness of having hundreds of raw formats is not sustainable, and raw is not going away.
Like Rob Barbee, I am converting all my raw files to DNG format. I have both Canon and Nikon raw files. Converting them all to DNG means I only need long term support for one file format, which is an open format, and is supported by lots of software packages (both raw conversion and image catalog packages). It also has the advantage of embedding all the metadata in the DNG file so I have no longer have to keep track of sidecar files or which packages do or do not support the sidecar files. And it supports embedding a full-size, fully rendered JPG preview image. That helps in reviewing the thumbnails because they are fully rendered against the raw conversion parameters I set for the image.
I'm not very familiar with DNG. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the filesize is smaller, which is certainly nice, but other than that what other benefits does it offer. I shoot only Nikon, so having multiple formats is not an issue for me. Are there any disadvanatges to using DNG vs. NEF or other RAW format?
Posted by Scott Buckel on July 10, 2006 at 2:35 PM
Bill - if you read people that believe in DNG format they do not mention any downsides at all as far as I can tell and that is why I decided to post this question. There are a number of people in this forum that know these kind of details much better than I do.
I am thinking I do not like the time to do the conversions, but if there is upside I would condsider it. DNG is an open documented file format, which is great. Our Nikon files are not and in fact I have NEF's from 5 different Nikon cameras that are similar, but not the same.
I do not think that Nikon will ever go away in the foreseeable future. One nice thing about them they seem to be very consistent, staying with the same mount for years and years amoung other things so I am not that fearful that they will not have code to decode their raw files form legacy cameras.
Thanks Scott. I just hung up from talking with Jerry Greer, and he gave me a great reason for not converting to DNG, at least for the near term. We both use Capture 1 RAW converters, him the PRO version, me the LE version. He said C1 will not open up DNG files at the moment. There are working on the issue and will have the capability at some point in the future, but that doesn't help now. So, for me anyway, this issue is dead for the near term anyway, but certainly seems a viable path in the future perhaps.
In Peter Krogh's "The DAM Book", he documents two drawbacks to DNG: 1) camera maker software generally won't open those files (i.e. Nikon Capture, etc), and 2) it adds an extra step to your raw workflow.
If you feel it is important to be able to open your raw files with your camera maker's software, you have the option of embedding the original proprietary raw file in the DNG file and extracting it later with the Adobe DNG Converter tool. It makes the DNG file significantly larger.
If you visit Peter's web site www.theDAMbook.com, you can download and read Chapter 1 of his book for free. This is the chapter in which he extolls the virtues and drawbacks of the DNG file format starting at page 14.
Posted by Scott Buckel on July 10, 2006 at 3:55 PM
Walter - I have read the book and I am still wondering if those two drawbacks are the only ones. Peter also goes and discounts those two drawbacks with backwards compatibility as being a huge reason to use DNG and further he goes as far as not recommending that you imbed the raw files within the DNG. Don't get me wrong I think his book and approach are great, I just want to understand what the assumptions are and what the possible downsides are. I am in the process of implementing most of his process right now, including using IVMP.
I definitely want to know more before I consider adding time to my workflow.
Maybe I just have questions and doubts with anyone who is an evanglist for things . . .
The only other potential drawback I can foresee is if a client wants to see camera original raw files. In another travel and outdoor photography group I participate in (T-O-P-A), they have discussed that some clients insist on submitting camera original raw files for final publication. If the client will not accept DNG files in place of camera original raw files, then you have an issue to deal with.
I would hope the DNG files would be preferable because the client would not have to keep track of the sidecar XMP files where all the important metadata (raw conversion parameters, IPTC info, keywords, etc) is stored. It is all in the DNG file so there is only one file for them to keep track of.
Walter brought up one of the main reasons I decided to go the DNG route: the ability to embed metadata.
As far as clients wanting RAW files, if they insist upon it, then they'll get DNGs from me. If that's not an issue for you, then I wouldn't worry about it.
The conversions do take a little time. I've made it a part of my workflow. I open a folder in Bridge, edit for keepers, apply as much metadata as I can at the time (I use templates a lot) and then convert to DNG through Bridge. (select all>Open in Camera Raw>select all in ACR>Save). Then I find something else to do after that (the dog always wants to play...)
After that I move them to their final folders.
I have noticed that it's taking a bit longer since I got my D200 though. The downside to more megapixels...
I have been shooting in RAW for quite a while but recently read much of the DAM book. I shoot Canon and the confusing and frustrating thing for me is that converting images with Canon's DPP software gives a different looking image that Adobe's RAW converter. Canon does not at this time support DNG so is there a way to make images convert the same as DPP in Adobe RAW converter or is that just life in the fast lane?
What is the difference produced by the two converters? The latest ACR (4.1 comes with CS3) is very powerful. If you have not tried the latest ACR, you might give it a spin and see if it can more closely produce the same look and feel in your images that you get with DPP. On another photography site I frequent, there are a lot of Canon shooters and most have moved from DPP to ACR since ACR 4.1 was released. There is some question as to the longevity of Canon's DPP product. I have not official source for that. It is strictly rumor at this point.
Just a small question with converting to DNG, I use bridge to view my images first and delete the duds and flag the others with ratings, When you guys convert to DNG do you do it now or would you work on the image first in Adobe Raw Convertor and then save file as a DNG or just save the first to a DNG and then work on them later.
I save to DNG pretty late in the process. At a minimum, wait until you have made all of the ACR adjustments. Changing metadata is pretty quick with DNG files. Changing ACR adjustments is slower because ACR has to regenerate the embedded preview. I tend to do it last, after making all ACR adjustments, applying all public metadata, applying ratings, etc.
I've started using DNG since using Lightroom as my primary RAW processing tool. When importing, I just select the option to copy files from memory card to a folder as DNG. The primary advantage that I see is the ability of the DNG format to store all the metadata and LR editing instructions within the DNG file format, instead of using separate sidecar files. Other than the slight increase in the intitial import time, I haven't seen any disadvantage.
At some point, I may go back and convert the old RAW files, but for now, I just plan to use DNG point forward.
If you have your old raw files in a single folder tree, you can use the standalone Adobe DNG Converter. Point it at the root folder of the raw file tree, select a separate destination folder, and it will crank through the entire tree. I will duplicate the directory structure of the source tree in the destination tree. If you have your old raw files on an external drive and have a spare computer somewhere, use the spare computer and just let it run while you work on your primary computer. It will take hours, maybe even days depending on how many raw files you have. You might use two external drives - one for source, one for destination. That will help in performance as reading and writing will not be competing for the same disk head.
I don't convert to DNG on import because making ACR adjustments is faster with sidecar XMP files. Once I have made all my ACR adjustments, then I feel comfortable saving to DNG. It is a personal preference.
Discussion
20 repliesI am now using a number of the things he discusses, in particular he pointed out my one problem in archiving. I was organizing my digital files the same way I have my slides.
Now to my question. Peter is a big proponent of using DNG to archive your raw files. How many of you out there use DNG as an archive? Are there any issues using it?
Thanks,
Scott
The DNG files are smaller than the NEFs so that helps. I'm also betting on more third party support for the DNG format and as long as Adobe's around (a fair bet, I'm thinking), I'll be able to convert the DNGs as long as I keep ACR updated.
I am thinking I do not like the time to do the conversions, but if there is upside I would condsider it. DNG is an open documented file format, which is great. Our Nikon files are not and in fact I have NEF's from 5 different Nikon cameras that are similar, but not the same.
I do not think that Nikon will ever go away in the foreseeable future. One nice thing about them they seem to be very consistent, staying with the same mount for years and years amoung other things so I am not that fearful that they will not have code to decode their raw files form legacy cameras.
Scott
If you feel it is important to be able to open your raw files with your camera maker's software, you have the option of embedding the original proprietary raw file in the DNG file and extracting it later with the Adobe DNG Converter tool. It makes the DNG file significantly larger.
If you visit Peter's web site www.theDAMbook.com, you can download and read Chapter 1 of his book for free. This is the chapter in which he extolls the virtues and drawbacks of the DNG file format starting at page 14.
I definitely want to know more before I consider adding time to my workflow.
Maybe I just have questions and doubts with anyone who is an evanglist for things . . .
Scott
I would hope the DNG files would be preferable because the client would not have to keep track of the sidecar XMP files where all the important metadata (raw conversion parameters, IPTC info, keywords, etc) is stored. It is all in the DNG file so there is only one file for them to keep track of.
As far as clients wanting RAW files, if they insist upon it, then they'll get DNGs from me. If that's not an issue for you, then I wouldn't worry about it.
The conversions do take a little time. I've made it a part of my workflow. I open a folder in Bridge, edit for keepers, apply as much metadata as I can at the time (I use templates a lot) and then convert to DNG through Bridge. (select all>Open in Camera Raw>select all in ACR>Save). Then I find something else to do after that (the dog always wants to play...)
After that I move them to their final folders.
I have noticed that it's taking a bit longer since I got my D200 though. The downside to more megapixels...
Thanks
At some point, I may go back and convert the old RAW files, but for now, I just plan to use DNG point forward.
I don't convert to DNG on import because making ACR adjustments is faster with sidecar XMP files. Once I have made all my ACR adjustments, then I feel comfortable saving to DNG. It is a personal preference.