DNG VS Camera Raw

[Leofric]

Hi,

Would like to check if anyone here actually convert their camera raw file into DNG.

and would like to know more about the "goodness" of DNG. The thing that i know of is smaller file size ( its a lossless compression format) as compared to Camera Raw.

 

[catohcat]

+ I dont need a special photoviewer to view DNG files, even Internet Explorer read them.
+ DNG is universal & best format for archive. Like PSD, you can still open your DNG with all metadata in the future photo editors 10, 20 yrs later.
+ With DNG I can achieve color tones of different camera profiles, even making one myself. So no more "I support Canon 'cos it's skin tone", "I support Nikon 'cos it's vibrance" blah blah.

 

[gazkw]

hmm, i didn't know DNG is smaller than RAW... if so then i might start converting all to DNG.

 

[2evans]

Some people have to convert to DNG as newer camera raw files are not supported in some older software... i.e. Photoshop CS4 is needed for the latest canon cameras.

 

[zcf]

When convert RAW or compressed RAW files to DNG, will it be miss out any info where the original RAW file carry? Just wonder.

Does the DNG convertor provide by Adobe run on it own in Window, or does it require photoshop or lightroom to run. And how user friendly is it?

 

[frederickykfoo]

When converting raw files from my Pany GF-1 to DNG it is bigger. For Sony A850 it is smaller for my CS3. Very strange ? :dunno:

 

[zcf]

When converting raw files from my Pany GF-1 to DNG it is bigger. For Sony A850 it is smaller for my CS3. Very strange ? :dunno:

May be Pany have a better compression method than DNG, while Sony compression is not as good as DNG (if there are no info/data loss)?

 

[Darkman]

One reason to convert to DNG is not so much that Camera Raw does not support newer RAW formats, but because later Camera Raw software may not support older RAW formats. DNG, being universal, is purported to be supported forever. Maybe that's also the reason why Leica opted to use DNG as their native RAW format.

 

[Leofric]

Some people have to convert to DNG as newer camera raw files are not supported in some older software... i.e. Photoshop CS4 is needed for the latest canon cameras.

probably Adobe wants ppl to either buy and upgrade to CS4 or use their DNG convertor.. haha

 

[nemesis32]

One more adv i think is that you do not need to save the "sidecar info" like keywords etc. I can't rem exactly but it was mentioned in the Scott Kelby CS4 book.

 

[2evans]

probably Adobe wants ppl to either buy and upgrade to CS4 or use their DNG convertor.. haha

Pretty much,

Customer spending money to buy newer CS4 > Adobe spending money to support newer cameras on CS3

:sweat:

 

[ionicbeam]

Seems like dng doesn't preserve colour accuracy. For me, converted raw files have a slightly different colour than camera raw. Since camera raw has camera profiles, its colours tend to be more accurate. Anyone has different experiences?

 

[agape01]

I would convert for my own work and the debate will continue.

I would convert to DNG so that when I upgrade to newer cams, I don't have to keep upgrading Photoshop to keep up.

As for having color shift, I do not see a reason why there should be one. After all, DNG is just rewriting the RAW codes. Even if there is one, it should be very easy to convert in Camera RAW or make final adjustments in CS.