RAW vs DNG: Ask David Bergman

Today's question from Joseph: “I shoot RAW. When I import into Lightroom, should I keep them in RAW or convert to DNG? I was told DNG is better” and from Cody B: “The images from my Canon M50 are RAW CR2 files, but then I convert them to DNG. Does this compromise my ability to work on them in post-production?”
Go to www.AskDavidBergman.com to submit your own photo question, see David's gear list, and view the episode archive.
Production equipment used to produce this video:
Canon EOS R Mirrorless Full Frame Digital Camera Body
www.adorama.com/car.html?kbid...
Canon RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Zoom Lens
www.adorama.com/car241054.htm...
Manfrotto MT055XPRO3 Black Aluminum Tripod with MVH502AH Pro Video Head
www.adorama.com/bg055xprob52....
CLAR S30 Focusing LED Light 3-Light Kit
www.adorama.com/cllcls30d.htm...
Photek SoftLighter II 60" White Umbrella
www.adorama.com/pt6000fgs.htm...
Lastolite 6x7' Chromakey Collapsible Disc Background, Green
www.adorama.com/lsc67gr.html?...
Audio-Technica AT803 Omni-Directional Lavalier Condenser Microphone
www.adorama.com/atat803.html?...
Zoom H4n Pro Audio Recorder, Black
www.adorama.com/zh4nproab.htm...
Audio-Technica XLRF-XLRM Balanced cable
www.adorama.com/at83146.html?...
_________________________________________________________
David's "Two Minute Tips" RAW vs JPEG:
• Why I Shoot Raw: Two M...
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV DSLR Body
www.adorama.com/ica5dm4.html?...
Adobe DNG Converter:
helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/usi...
Canon Digital Photo Pro software:
www.canon-europe.com/support/...
Follow David on :
Instagram: / davidbergman
Get more information about David's #shootfromthepit live concert photography workshops at www.ShootFromThePit.com
_________________________________________________________
Subscribe to the Adorama KZbin Channel:
☞ / adoramatv
Follow us on Social Media
☞ / adorama
☞ / adorama
☞ / adorama
#rawvsdng #adobedng #postproduction

[@MikeJamesMedia]

Thanks, David. I appreciate you sharing both the technical and the practical.

[@alanplatt888]

Fascinating insight to files and comparison of RAW vs DNG. I found it very interesting indeed, thanks.

[@deemat100]

Concise, clear and well-articulated, as well as to the point and informative. Thank you!

[@thomastuorto9929]

I use to convert to dng when I first got into digital photography. Now I use my nikon nef along with saving a copy of my original photos to an external hard drive before I import to LR. aS ALWAYS, GREAT VID.

[@JohnJBloomfield]

Pentax is a cool exception, when you set the camera to RAW you can choose to save as DNG or PEF (their proprietary format) ... The only reason any Pentaxians can see for PEF to even exist is it allows for slightly faster FPS etc as PEFs are smaller because of the jpeg preview compression and nothing is missing in the DNG.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Yea Pentax is one of the companies that adopted the DNG format. Many others did not.

[@thats_mr_b_]

Ahhhh THANX DAVID for picking my question. You have been a big help in my development and passion to be a professional photographer !

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Happy to help! Keep those questions coming.

[@thats_mr_b_]

David Bergman will do. I’m trying to ask any I feel wont be repeats or an easy “read your manual” reply haha

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

@@thats_mr_b_ That's OK. If it's a question you have, I bet others will have the same. Also - most people don't read or understand the manual so I try to make it more accessible. :)

[@photonsonpixels]

Great clarification David.

[@simondeltree]

Great points. I still use the DNG conversion but embed my original raw files. I just like a standard version since I use both Canon and Sony. As you would say, to each is own. Great information and thank you.

[@nicksouthorn1248]

Great video, I enjoy watching these whether it is new info or not.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Thanks for watching!

[@ricktwice2205]

Fantastic video on this topic finally! I backup the original RAW on physical archives but i save the dng version to the cloud (my free acconts can last longer) :) Thanks Dave

[@ottawamountainman]

Thanks for the nice review. Did you know that Adobe recently added support for PSB (Photoshop large) file format to LR! For those working with the newest very high Mpix cameras .... it’s been such a game changer in file management not to have to use clumsy work arounds to get past the 4GB limit of tiff. That could make for a nice follow up episode.

[@nasserbrn]

David, Thanks for the excellent information!

[@TuhinMitra666]

Great video . Thanks !!!

[@johnvirdin2153]

Great info! Thank you for pulling all this info together. One of the first items in my workflow currently is to make a copy of the CR3 raw files to DNG with the embedded original RAW CR3 file. I then take advantage of the backup to Amazon. Amazon has not recognized the CR3 file format as a photo, but they do recognize the DNG format and this step in the workflow permits cloud archival of the images.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Interesting use of DNG!

[@jonlaye2537]

The latest Adobe RAW software seems to support my old DCR files from the Kodak DCS 520/560/760 cameras. In fact the conversions now are much better than with period software

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Agreed! I was telling people to shoot RAW way back then - even though hard drives were very expensive and camera cards were slow and tiny. But you can do so much more with those files with today's modern software.

[@Heartkwt]

GREAT INFO, thanks for sharing. Stay Blessed

[@Heartkwt]

God Bless

[@NorCal-yeti]

Thank you David!

[@AdrianBacon]

A plus for DNG is that you can embed the original raw file into the DNG. Yes, it makes it bigger, but you get the DNG, and it you ever need to produce the camera original, you can. I switched over to DNG so long ago I don’t even remember, and never looked back. My only wish is that more camera manufacturers would use it. The spec has support for storing everything the camera original raw files do. It’s absurd that manufacturers don’t use it.

[@basembarakat]

Actually, these sidecar files could be beneficial: When sending my raw file to third party editor they only need to mail back these sidecar files for my reviews and final edit delivery. These file way smaller than a typical raw file.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Sure. But I rarely will send raw files to a client. Toning is part of my creative process and I won’t leave that to someone else. Maybe if an editor was on my team and working for me to replicate my look, then sending XMP only on a large batch of images would be helpful!

[@basembarakat]

@@DavidBergmanPhoto Sure, I was also thinking about a retoucher on the same team.

[@tuvajosephfilms]

Thank you for the info. Personally I find working with DNG quite fast, especially with tight deadlines. But I embed the raw file for "safety"

[@bruceacphoto5240]

Nicely delivered. ThankU

[@gosman949]

I'm lucky. My Pentax K3 shoots DNGs! So I don't have to worry about converting!!

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

A few companies went that direction, but many did not.

[@Needacreate]

Exactly. With Pentax, you even get to decide if you want to shoot PEF (proprietary) or DNG RAWs. The native support for DNGs also means that you don't lose any data about focus points and other niceties. I've been shooting and editing Pentax DNGs for a decade now without any processing issues in Adobe nor in DxO software (which I've come to use almost exclusively).

[@OptixguyUSA]

I also am a Pentax guy. When I finally decided to start shooting raw permanently (about 8 years ago on my K5), I realized that I had a choice between Pentax's proprietary PEF format or Adobe DNG. Since I was already using using Photoshop CS5 on my iMac, I chose DNG, and I have not regretted it, especially since SD cards are now so inexpensive. More recently, I've acquired a couple of Panasonic Lumix ILCs (which I primarily use for video). Of course, Panasonic has their own raw format (for the occasional stills), so I downloaded the Adobe raw converter program and I convert files to DNG as soon as possible. This makes me even more grateful that Pentax cameras will save as DNG automatically!

[@gosman949]

@@OptixguyUSA Since my remark above, I purchased a used Nikon Z6. So now I am too faced with what to do with the Nikon proprietary files.

[@ChristianThueringer]

Very helpful, thank you

[@ShaneBaker]

Thanks David. Yet another terrific video. Please keep them coming. On Capture One and DNG: given the relationship between C1 and Sony, Fuji and now Nikon, I assume those manufacturers are providing all their technical data about their raw formats. Indeed, the other day I watched Joe McNally process a 17yo Nikon file in C1 with no difficulty, so I doubt if there will be archival issues in the medium future. Also, and a highly subjective assessment - my gut feeling is that raw in C1 provides better results than DNG.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

I suppose it's possible, but my understanding is that most of the companies do not share their SDKs with third parties. C1 recently improved their support of DNG files in the latest update, but I'd still rather use my original RAWs.

[@geoffchalcraft9432]

OR - use a Pentax, which gives you the choice of shooting either a raw (PEF) OR a DNG. I've only been shooting DNG for the last 14 years.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Yes, there are a few companies that adopted Adobe's utopian concept. But so much of the industry did not.

[@brucec6689]

Because I am still using Photoshop CS6 which will no longer accept my camera's RAW files, I HAVE to use DNG, otherwise I could not do RAW editing in that programme. So for me, DNG is a godsend. By the way, Affinity Photo on the other hand, does not reject my RAWs (from Sony 99ii).

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Yea, I've only recently bit the bullet and switched to the subscription model for that very reason.

[@wingincamera]

Pentax gives the option of saving in DNG or their PEF files in-camera.

[@TryMyMartini]

Yeah, as he said, a few manufacturers do. I remember some of Leica’s models do too.

[@gosman949]

I have years of DNG from my Pentax K3 saved. I now have a Nikon and trying to decide what to do with these files!

[@richardwintle1020]

I have SR2 files archived from a Sony DSC-R1. Recent versions of Camera Raw don't support this file format, so conversion to DNG is a must for me. I don't know the history of Sony's various raw formats, and I certainly don't understand why newer versions of Camera Raw don't SR2 when earlier versions did, but I'm glad the free converter is available.

[@TheSocialjerry]

I decided not to use LR for a project as I was testing CO Pro. CO didnt support the raw file for the D3500 so I had to convert them to DNG. After the convertion it worked well. CO new update now recognises the D3500 raw file ... so no need to convert the raw files to DNG. This was a brilliant explanation. It was really informative

[@albertr915]

Hi David. Great video with excellent information. I am a Canon shooter, and I use Lightroom Classic. As far as format in concerned I prefer to use the original RAW CR2 Files. DNG is good. I do have some files that are of DNG format. They are very good, but at the end of the day I prefer to use the original CR2 RAW files. I prefer every bit of data the original CR2 file can give me. The only time I use a DNG file is when I shoot a panorama, or a HDR photo, and in Lightroom classic I have to convert those files to DNG. They do work out fine when I do that. Other than that I simply use the original CR2 files to make sure that I get, and maintain every bit of data the CR2 file can give me.

[@capturingperfectionphotogr1144]

I use DNG since I use an old version of lightroom which doesn't support my newer cameras CR2 and CR3 formats. I am not interested in going with a monthly subscription plan for Adobe so I'm stuck doing it this way or having to learn to use new software like capture one...

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

I get it. I resisted the upgrade to Catalina because I was still using PS CS6 and Aperture. But I’ve officially switched to Capture One and will finally have to go subscription with Adobe.

[@BLEEJazz]

I am on a same boat. I use lightroom 5 and it does not read raw files from my EOS R. It does not read raw files from my lumix GX85 either.

[@jasminen4777]

That's my story too. I use an older Nikon camera and Lightrroom 6 doesn't read the NEF files so its either covert to DNG or upgrade to the new creative suite. As a new photographer I thought just learning how to take great photos was a challenge but add on learning the complexites that come along with finding the right editing software is a whole other ball game.

[@jameskelson1891]

Very nice video. I have just a couple of additional points. First I have found a huge improvement using Canon DPP4 instead of ACR to open 90D files. That would be lost with a DNG conversion. Second you might want to consider a follow up video on formats for saving and archiving post processed files. Personally I use TIFF and would never consider just Adobe PSD.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Yes - DPP is always going to do a better job "out of the box" than anything else because Canon knows what every bit and byte does. They don't have to reverse engineer their own files. Many people find the user interface in DPP to be less intuitive than LR or C1 though. I use Capture One and only bring a file over the DPP if I'm having trouble making it look right in C1. As for saving formats, please submit that (and any other questions) at www.AskDavidBergman.com ! Thanks.

[@volodymyrn8460]

I've heard that some photo contests require original raw files to prove that it was really captured by camera

[@biglonie]

the DNG has the proof in it if you have a great camera with gps etc

[@geocubano]

Actually, Some cameras actually use both Proprietary RAW & DNG. Pentax gives you an option to either use DNG or PEF as the Raw FILE!

[@TorstenVillnow]

I always convert my raws to DNG in Lightroom. At the end of my work flow I update the DNG with the metadata and the finally developed image (as jpg) in DNG. So I can browse through my developed images also "outside" of Lightroom with software which can display the embedded jpg fom DNG files. I even convert to lossy compression, but solely for the masses of shots taken for a timelapse. I did a couple of comparison tests and could not detect any quality difference from images without that compression, and if any, you could hardly see these during the timelapse movie. The benefit however is, that such compression saves a considerable amount of space, and you can still work on the original (ok, almost, compressed and converted to DNG) raw.

[@ScotTheGr8]

The one thing I worry about is not the fact that I CAN grab copies of my files from my backup if my harddrive corrupts a raw file. It is KNOWING that a raw file was corrupted. You either need a mechanism to determine if any raw files were corrupted like the DNG checksum verification mechanism, or you manually, look at each file to see if any are corrupted. So obviously, a mechanism is do-able and the manual verification is not. Note that a backup copy could be what gets corrupted and might not be usable if you need to go to it. Granted, very minor chance of happening. I’ve looked for software to do checksums on raw files. Not really available/affordable. Only decent solution I could find besides using DNG was using one of the newer NAS systems that automatically do checksum verification on all file types.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

I suppose if I ran a big archive of historical images for a museum, for example, i might like DNG for that very reason. But I’d still embed the original raws in the DNG for retrieval if needed.

[@king2kx]

Like 10 years ago I used to edit my raw in Adobe Camera Raw and save as .DNG then open that file in Photoshop. I still use Camera Raw but now i just open in Photoshop after I do my edits without saving as .DNG... I think if you want to send a file to someone for editing into a collage or something and you want them to have the full range in the file DNG is ok option vs PSD or TIFF... Thoughts?

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

There are very few clients I will send raw (or DNG) file to. Toning is part of my creative process and the image isn’t “done” until I’ve done my own processing.

[@christopherchall7056]

Thank you! You helped me expand my understanding, weighing the pro and cons. Do you have any thoughts about color profiling each (Canon, Nikon, Fugi, etc) of your CAMERA sensors. ColorChecker has software to create profiles for each sensor, just like creating ICC profiles for each of your papers. Appreciate your thoughts.

[@zavoina]

Shooting professionally (part time) for 10 years now, I read a lot about DNGs but never felt compelled to use it and haven't missed them.

[@craigoram]

Fun to see a BOL guru in the photo world! I felt the same about DNGs, but the old version of Lightroom I use doesn't support my camera's RAW files so now I'm forced to convert or give in to the subscription model. :( Look forward to hearing from you at Triage - thanks for all you do!

[@felixrodriguez4263]

David I agree with you about the raw vs dng issue. With the better computers and software this isn't much of a difference plus each camera software gives the right inner workings of the process for one's images. Like the old saying goes if not broken there no need to fix in this case. I found working in raw files much more productive with the camera software. I always backup my images in multi copies and places for sure. Found the information in my good to know folder. Great tip

[@CrispyFrenFry]

As an archivist I strongly encourage DNG files because digital obsolescence is a terrifyingly real thing we encounter all the time. Great video nonetheless!

[@billbrown3414]

My Creative Cloud subscription is due this month. I've been wondering if I should dump it in favor of the open source software that's available. Problem: I have files dating back to 2007, but I soon discovered RAW and used Nikon's software for editing. Later bought lightroom (before the subscription conversion). Now, every one of my RAW files has the sidecar file. This time last year, I looked last year at dumping Adobe, but the alternatives ignored the sidecars and my edits.This year I considered whether converting to DNG would produce more compatibility. From what I see here, I think I'm stuck with Adobe. Comment?

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Yea, switching from one program to another is a hassle. I have a decade or more of files in Aperture. I have easy access to the RAW files, but would have to "bake in" my edits and export TIFFs (or JPEGs) to still have the same "look" in another program. Do you images have a lot of edits? You could export high res TIFFs of your BEST frames and then just move all of your RAWs to a new program. Best of luck.

[@RonLoxton]

I use DNG with DarkTable. No need for me to convert as my Camera supports it in body.

[@PiotrekYouTube]

Hello, I have Canon 2000D is the same what I see in your video Canon D2000 in Camera Raw? Or it is other DSLR Camera?

[@hazardstorms226]

David-Great video! Can you please help me with a problem?! I have tried to use Photo Mechanic but found difficulty as my Sony files apparently do no embed a large enough JPEG to get a clear enough photo to judge clarity when culling...it drove me crazy trying to get it to work. Do you have any ideas for a Sony user to be able to use PM? Thanks!

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

It is unfortunate that Sony does not embed a full size JPEG into their RAW file. You could shoot RAW+JPEG in the camera and then PM will only show the pair as a single file. Let me know if that works.

[@hazardstorms226]

@@DavidBergmanPhoto Thanks, David! I really want to avoid shooting RAW +JPEG, as I don't want unneeded files. But if I try and it works you'll be the first to know! I REALLY hope Sony changes that!! It's such a problem. Thanks, again!

[@TimberGeek]

I'm starting to use DNG on my high ISO images, I'll take the raw file(s) I want to work with into Topaz and export a "DeNoised" DNG for further editing.

[@sadbravesfan]

So Topaz is best used only with DNGs? I shoot with Sony and occasionally will have images with an ISO of 6400 that come out pretty good after noise reduction in LR but I've heard Topaz is even better at noise reduction. Just haven't tried it yet so if you could expand your thoughts I'd appreciate it.

[@roberttangen2942]

When I download images into Lightroom I convert them to DNG. I also save a second copy in RAW on a second hard drive. Not sure for my work which is better but I feel good having both versions.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Whatever system works for you... But let me ask you this - if you need to pull an old file to reprocess, do you grab the DNG or the camera’s original raw file? I would always go back to the original.

[@roberttangen2942]

David Bergman Most likely the DNG. I do most of my work in Lightroom and I save to that using the DNG format. I understand why you would want that original RAW but then I’m not a professional and for me this is very serious hobby but not my livelihood. When I save a piece that I’m finished working on I will save it as a JPEG but if I’m going to print I use TIFF. While I use PhotoShop it is still something of a mystery to me. I do use it when I print but only because I don’t really like the Lightroom Print module. To be honest I don’t print that much

[@charlieross-BRM]

There are a lot of 'plosives and some booming coming from the microphone on this segment. For RAW, I leave them in the camera format. That's part of helping me distinguish which camera they came from, even though I often have separate folders for each camera used, under a project folder. Almost exclusively now, it's Canon CR2. I don't see any additional file that has to stay with it, just the JPG and the CR2. Long ago I used a Pentax (K10?) that used DNG. Also back then ~2008, there were some weird ideas about why RAW was essential. It was a term people threw around to sound cool but they had no idea what it did or didn't entail.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

My audio is a work in progress...

[@billwendry]

When the Canon format CR3 was first released, the editing software I was using at the time couldn’t read the files. That’s when I converted to DNG. But, with time, the editing software back engineered to read CR3 and I bailed on converting to DNG. DNG was useful for that short period of time when my software couldn’t read CR3 files. Nice job on explaining the benefits and downside.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

I did the same thing during that time. And thanks!

[@simonmaney3438]

@@oneeyedphotographer I went the DNG route. DPP just seemed 'difficult' and slow. [You do get to use DLO though which can be useful} It was also interesting to note the significant differences in colour between Adobe and DPP. I went with the theory that if I don't know (the colour differences) it doesn't matter.

[@brianshirley7617]

I used to use DNG until I found that every time I change the processing of an old photo and then perform a backup, where there in a sidecar file that is all that gets saved - the original raw file is untouched. If the file is DNG then the whole raw file gets re-written with all the attendant risks of corruption.

[@ChaitanyaShukla2503]

Some Canon lenses provide focus distance information which always gets lost with DNG and for people shooting on MP-E becomes a big headache.

[@BarryKidd]

I used DNG when it first came out. I "assumed" that sooner or later everything would switch over. I really have no use for it these days.

[@user-ft8oz7sw6m]

Hi! I use Sony A7R4 and I find an interesting thing regarding Raw and DNG. Uncompressed raw file from the camera has about 120Mb size. But after I import this file to Lightroom and convert to DNG, the size shrinks to about 60Mb. Is it normal? Don't I lose any data during conversion? If so, is there any way to maintain the original file size?

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Check your DNG converter preferences. There is an option for lossy compression that will make the file size even smaller. But lossy means you lose some data. It is not enabled by default, so as long as it's not on, there is no data loss, even if the file size is smaller.

[@user-ft8oz7sw6m]

David Bergman Thank you so much for the answer!

[@markwith140]

That's a distortion of reality, I shoot Nikon Raw, and every program I have ever used to edit the photos can convert the Nikon NEF file directly (your initial gambit about support and sdk's). I have files from back to 2002 that still open with Lightroom, Capture One, Exposure X5, Dxo, etc. The manufacturer format also has lens correction and other stuff contained within and this information is not contained within a file converted to DNG. It takes time to convert to DNG wiping out any so-called benefits in speed. The only time I have used DNG is when I have purchased a hot off the presses camera model and the software I have does not yet support the updated file format. I do agree with your final conclusions though, well recovered.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

I think we agree on 99%. :)

[@chrispatmore8944]

When I scan old transparencies, I save them as .dng during the scanning process as it gives me more options to apply corrections in the edit that are also non- destructive.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Interesting. I wonder if any more data is actually saved by using DNG as opposed to TIFF from a scan?? It's very different than a native file created from a camera because there's only so much data your scanner can collect.

[@chrispatmore8944]

@@DavidBergmanPhoto I have no idea. I use a Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 film scanner with VueScan, which gives the options of scanning in TIFF DNG or RAW DNG, as well as other formats in 24, 48 or 64 bit RGB. I use RAW DNG at 48 bit and process the scans with Adobe Camera RAW, as that's what I'm most familiar with for editing my digital concert photos. Of course, the scans don't have the latitude of a digital RAW file, because the scans can only be as good as the originals but they certainly look better after a bit of tweaking. I could digitise the slides with a digital camera, but I have the scanner and don't need to buy a macro lens and set up a copying rig. Maybe if or when the scanner dies I'll go down that route.

[@training7574]

Very interesting, thanks. I believe your points are valid for a single PC. But in our family, we have 3 PCs and a NAS for our photos. There are lots of possibilities for confusing folders and catalogues. It seems that DNG would bring some advantages in that respect.

[@michaelzetlitz2853]

I actually think the writing of metadata directly to the DNG file is annoying, as this means that the entire file will be backed up everytime there might be some change to metadata, whereas if using xmp sidecar files only those need to be backed up again. The less writing to the original raw file the better in my opinion.

[@billloveless6869]

I don't use DNG. It's, at least to me , another tool that each person has to try and see if it fits in with their workflow.

[@arunbalakrishnan8978]

what about tiff? when we import a raw file in lightroom and transfer to photoshop it will convert to tiff. Is tiff has all the detailes of raw?

[@ScotTheGr8]

Arun Balakrishnan TIFF does not have the full dynamic range of the RAW file. Once you go to TIFF you give up pulling up the darkest shadows and pulling down the brightest highlights.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

What he said. :) Tiff is basically an uncompressed jpeg. It’s a larger file so you don’t lose quality from compression like you do with a jpeg. But all the thing I mentioned in the video as being “baked” into the file and flattened... that still happens with a tiff. The raw file has way more data / latitude.

[@sfink16]

Some software use Dave Coffin's DCRaw raw convertor. It also is a lossless format, apparently keeping all the data. Libraw is another one. I believe that these are similar to Adobe's DNG in that they retrofit the raw images from the manufacturers to allow them to be used in various programs, such as RawTherapee and Darktable. It's also used in a little known program that I use called Lightzone. Have you ever tried these free raw convertors, which are great for Linux users but are available in Mac and Windows as well?

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

I'm not familiar with all of those, but I believe they are raw conversion programs, just like Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One, etc. They do not create a new RAW formats like DNG.

[@sfink16]

@@DavidBergmanPhoto Incorrect, DCRaw and Libraw reverse engineer Canon, Nikon, and Sony, etc. raw files like Adobe DNG Convertor does. The open source raw convertors I mentioned need the reversed engineered format files to work. It's the only way I can open a CR2, CR3, file in those open source raw convertors. The open source raw convertors that you confused your response with can save in DNG formats, JPGs or Tiffs, like Lightoom can. Explain how they (DCRaw and Libraw, not the convertors) do not do the exact same thing, reverse engineer, that Adobe DNG Convertor does when they create the DNGs.

[@acalscupufff8744]

a thing u have not mentioned is that , anny row file uses just 1 core of the procesor when editing , and dng uses all the cores to process 1 file ... speed in editing ?

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Hmm actually have not heard that. Will look into it, but processors are so fast these days that I haven’t seen much of a difference in real world usage.

[@gosman949]

Funny Terry White said yesterday on his big show, that he converts his NEFs into DNGs all the time with no downside in quality! Of course he works for Adobe! I recently changed from Pentax where I have shot natively DNGs for years to NEF files with my used Nikon Z6. I'm trying to figure out what I'm going to do going forward with these files--- convert to DNGs or keep in NEFs.? I probably will do a little of both. My 1 and 2 star images, I can covert to DNG's with Lossy Compression to get the files down to small size. Keep the keepers in the original NEF!

[@garys.674]

I have a D800 and a D7100. I am still using LR 6 and PS 5 extended. LR isn't a problem but PS does not like my RAW files. What to do?

[@wakkowarner8810]

What about the video cameras that use dng? Such as old blackmagic cameras.

[@jwascher]

I shoot a Fuji X-trans camera and use Liughtroom. Lightroom does not open Fuji RAW files well, and can create "worms" in the picture when sharpening. Many Fuji users have switched to Capture1 for this reason, but I have several hundred thousand shots in my library and can't imagine making that switch. I find using Iridient X-Transformer to convert the RAW images to dng first and then importing to Lightroom may take a bit longer, but the results in editing are far superior to the Fuji RAW editing in Lightroom.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Interesting. If the third party company (Adobe, in this case) doesn't work to support a certain raw format, then it makes sense that their own DNG will look better. But Adobe really has to support raws from most major camera brands or people would stop using LR/PS.

[@jwascher]

David Bergman And that is what is happening. It seems many Fuji shooters have abandoned LT/PD to got to Capture1 or Luminar. Capture1 even has a free version for Fuji with limited capabilities. I have responded to Adobe feedback requests several times but have never gotten a response

[@seanmkai]

Well, one camera (manufacturer, not sure about other Sony cameras?) specific advantage of DNG is that my A7III offers only lossy compressed raw or uncompressed raw. So if I want lossless compression, DNG is my best option. Let me know if you guys have better options tho.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Personally I'd still rather have the raw - even uncompressed - then deal with converting everything.

[@eyemovie824]

Does profesional industry work with converted dng??

[@Sam-km9nm]

Just got a dji mini 3 pro drone. It’s my first drone and my first time taking interest in photography. Seems to me dji uses dng as their raw file type.

[@binsong3960]

I shoot in raw, I use old vision light room, the DNG look like lost a lot of details when I open both pics and compare , the raw pic very colorful ,I have tried to import to photoshop , same problem. anyone knows how can I get full details from RAW ? thanks

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

It's really up to the software company and how much effort they put in supporting the RAW and/or DNG format.

[@deustechmachina6061]

Unfortunately, sometimes there isn't a choice and I have to use the DNG file if I want to do any post processing. For example, I own a Panasonic G9 and use Luminar 4. The software works great if I'm shooting standard RAW. However, if I use the "high-res" mode for any images, Luminar doesn't know what to do with them. Even though the files still show up in the .RW2 format on disk, Luminar treats them differently. The only way I can successfully process those images is by first converting to DNG.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Unfortunately, part of the "Tower of Babel" issue we still have to deal with. Adobe's effort to standardize was a good one, but too many companies didn't go along with it (yet?).

[@louisburley1597]

I just use DNG because that's what LR and PS like and I haven't found another software I like to edit with. I shoot Sony as well, and I actually didn't care for capture one

[@darrylc734]

Older software new camera did create and convert to DNG. Began the process Create my own lens profiles with Adobe Lens Profile Creator. Simplefy the process.

[@L.Spencer]

I think having converted my photos to dng is affecting whether I decide to leave Adobe. I'd like to switch to something else, since they want to be able to see my photos without my permission, but it seems like I'd lose all my dng's basically. I wish I had kept them raw. I do have all my sd cards though...

[@garys.674]

I have a D809vand a D7100. I am stillnus7ng LR 6 and PS 5 extended. LR isn't ac9roblrm but PS doesn't like my RAW files. What to do?

[@ivyproduction7137]

Please, I bought canon m50 mark ii and I took some shots in Raw and lightroom is not reading it . Please what should I do? Thanks

[@juansaydeflores890]

lightroom probably does not have the RAW reader for the m50. downlaod Adobe DNG converter from Adobe to be able to convert them to DNG so lightroom can read it

[@dalefrolander3583]

I'm using an old version of lightroom because I refuse to buy a subscription, so I have to convert my a7R5 raw files to dng in order to keep using lightroom.

[@jpdj2715]

Valuable, but a detail. Raw has seen a lot of processing, actually. Simply because pixels must be invented - the sensor has monochrome photovoltaic cells with an R, G or B specialization and each of these is re-imagined into RGB. If this is done too simply, you get Moiré patterns. It can be done smart, using computer vision AI algorithms that do image recognition and use a form of understanding what is in the image to identify borders and shapes first, or you can do it very stupid and remove Moiré later. This is not done in post and solved before the raw file is saved (in the part of the camera that has to solve the sensor's stupidity). No, the raw file is not the sensor scan and in cooking terms extremely well done. The raw file is no longer kept completely secret from all software developers. Nikon work with Adobe to some extent. But, it used to be completely the case, indeed. This used to be why 3rd party software developers bought cameras (like DxO who used that work to advertise their software as in DxOmark) to reverse engineer the raw format and adapt their profiles to them.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Yes of course there is some processing in-camera before the raw file is saved. But it’s still the least processed file that the end user is able to access.

[@jpdj2715]

@@DavidBergmanPhoto - it is the least processed. No debate. Just, in the way we talk about raw, let's not feed the myth that digital photography is done by a sensor that writes its data to a data store - both components are so passive they're almost dead. The amount of processing in my 46 MP camera to get a raw file, from scanning each of the 46 million photosites before it can save a raw file, would keep a Cray One supercomputer of the late 1980s busy for a very expensive amount of time. The algorithms used in the camera's firmware are not trivial. And JPEG creation from raw in camera can be done better and faster today, because a lot of processing already was done to invent the raw file (read up on AI, computer vision, convolution, if you want to fathom this). My thoughts go out to a person we shall not name, who would call a raw file fake. That's how much processing was done to imagine the raw file in the camera, between scanning the sensor and saving the raw file.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

@@jpdj2715 That may be true, but I try to not get too far away from the "photography" aspect when doing my videos. I'm certainly no engineer, and we can debate semantics all day, but most people don't need to know or care about how the file is created in order to decide if it's right or them. Thanks so much for the info, though. I certainly like to know as much as possible.

[@evanleebodies]

Using a Fuji s5 Pro from way back when, I have no choice but to use DNG in LR3.

[@ronaldmoravec2692]

My Leicas only DNG raw files. My Nikon are converted and I save both

[@efromadler1390]

Leica uses DNG natively so there is no need to convert files

[@TOMMYBOY6969]

I use an older Mac mini that is stuck on Maverick and i have no problem with Canon's CR2 files,,, but now with CR3 files, it will not run on my old Photoshop and Lightroom,, plus Adobe's new RawCR3 to DNG converter only runs on the newer Macs,,,,Thanks Canon :( looks like i will not be buying any new canon cameras anytime soon !

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Can you get an older version of the DNG converter?

[@TOMMYBOY6969]

@@DavidBergmanPhoto The older version of Adobe's DNG program will not convert new CR3 files,, it will only convert CR2 files. I mean,,, i like to buy a new Canon camera, maybe the RP would be my next camera,, but so far,,, i dont have the money to upgrade my Mac mini, so I dont know what Canon was thinking going to CR3 files,, they just neglected everyone with older computers....

[@thats_mr_b_]

Just to add though, I convert them to DNG because in a photography group I’m in in FB requires settings to be posted and I hate chasing down the picture on my card. I currently use Photoscape X pro but plan on switching to ACDSee. Means a lot David.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Just download your RAWs from the card and work with those natively. Wherever you currently store your DNG files, you can that with RAWs instead. Just a thought. :)

[@geko9425]

Its simply not true that RAW files are not processed. They are!

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

You’re correct because the raw file isn’t an image at all. So some work is done in-camera. But the raw is the least-processed file that end users can access.

[@nicksouthorn1248]

Perhaps it is better to say that converting to DNG 're-processes', therefore not as good as using the original output from the camera.

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

@@nicksouthorn1248 We can debate semantics, but so much of the user-accessible processing is still available in post with a raw files.

[@neil101]

DNG is RAW, just not company specific !!

[@DaleSteadman]

Exactly, I don’t see much benefit for DNG, sorry Adobe.

[@TryMyMartini]

I really just hate the sidecar files.

[@juansaydeflores890]

ain't no right way and their ain't no wrong way....

[@grimlightwildoutdoors]

Raw format will always be the best for image quality. Camera manufacturers know how to get the best from their respective hardware and image formats. DNG is just a newer way for Adobe to tie people into Adobe software long term. Work in raw make your edits and save, then batch edit over to either jpeg or tiff depending on work flow. This is not a complicated workflow I’ve never used DNG and have never needed to use this format professionally or on my own personal work this is a pointless format except for Adobe wanting you to tie into their eco system which more and more people are moving away from due to their ridiculous monthly fees, I for one would rather buy and own my software.

[@longliveclassicmusic]

I was super fascinated by DNG back when I was on a Canon Rebel SL3 (now shoot on an EOS R)…until I got Capture One (which didn't support the SL3's raw files), tried a DNG, and they looked HORRIBLE in Capture One. What's the purpose of DNG if they only look good in Adobe, and Adobe is what is used to create them? I think Topaz's software that can convert JPEG's to DNG raw format is great and actually does a GREAT job if that's ever needed. But that's about it for me. I just don't understand why camera companies keep their raw files closed source. LITERALLY NOBODY (unless it's some weirdo in a basement somewhere) USES THEIR S*TTY SOFTWARE. Most high end commercial pros and smart consumer pros use Capture One, and most mid-grade consumer pros use Adobe. Adobe and Capture encompasses probably 99.999% of the camera industry. I don't understand why camera companies wouldn't sell licenses to them instead of making them reverse engineer the files. It honestly makes me wish I could afford the PhaseOne camera system. Capture One was originally designed to be the raw processor for their cameras. I shot and edited JPEG for a long time before leaving photography. I struggled a lot when I got back into photography and started taking it seriously, because honestly Adobe is HORRIBLE as a raw processor. Holy Hell. It's so bad. The photos are unsharp, the color is s*t, and there is weird color fringing that doesn't exist otherwise. It amazes me how many “influencers” and “educators” push LR and ACR. I honestly never had a problem editing JPEG's a long time ago, but my little stint with Adobe Camera Raw & Lightroom was hair-pulling. I have emotional scars from it, no joke. God bless PhaseOne for Capture One. Holy Hell. I use Lumariver to create custom color profiles for it with a Color Checker Passport II and just upgraded to a Color Checker Digital SG, and the results are simply mind-blowing. Lumariver is very complex, but if you master it, importing a linear curve, auto curve, AND Capture One's profile file made from their reverse engineering of your specific camera, the color results are spectacular. It's a rabbit hole once you escape the claws of Adobe. My next mountain to climb is LENS CAST CORRECTIONS, particularly when using ND filters…all workflows that are completely nonexistent with Adobe. Maybe camera companies keeping their secret recipes under wraps is good for us Capture One users, though. If they ever start releasing SDK's, Adobe processor users will probably get just as good of imaging results as us Capture One users! So shhhhh! 🤫

[@DavidBergmanPhoto]

Would be nice if they released those SDKs, but that's wishful thinking.

[@edwardkennedy2031]

DNG is an Adobe propitiatory file format that is primarily supported by Adobe so they can control the flow of images coming from any supported RAW format. DNG uses compression, all compression IS LOSSY, so using DNG will result in data loss. Stay with your RAW file for Lightroom or TIFF files for PS. Also, unless your a sports, news or action photographer, always use RAW format. JPG by its own definition is LOSSY, but its small and easily transportable making it very useful in certain genres.

[@rupertrooksby]

"all compression IS LOSSY" - what? No! Lossless compression loses nothing, that's why they call it lossless. PNGs, TIFFS, FLACs, RARs. Lossless. If ZIP files lost data, how would a binary program file work when it was unzipped at the other side?

[@ScotTheGr8]

Edward Kennedy I’m pretty sure DNG has a non-lossy setting available. Not sure I would call DNG proprietary since it is fully documented in an open spec but agree that Adobe came up with it for their benefit. Still, it provides a a nice set of features like a checksum and a place to store edit info. Agree it may not grab all data available from the original raw file. That keeps me from jumping in and using it.

[@PawelSklad]

DNG is loseless by default. You can choose a lossy dng in Lightroom, but this is just an option.

[@catnapwat]

Maybe you should do some research before posting next time

[@charlieross-BRM]

@@ScotTheGr8 Right. It's not Joint Photographic Experts Group DNG. It's Adobe's DNG. I'm old enough to remember the rivalry of manufacturers in the two camps of VHS and Beta. Competition vs mutual trust seem to come with the territory.