Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Lightroom DNG
  
 
htran1980
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Lightroom DNG


Hi All,

Does anyone in here use lightroom and keep their file compressed raw or converting to DNG?

Thanks,
HT



Mar 18, 2017 at 02:27 AM
mcbroomf
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Lightroom DNG


I keep my raw files (I print tiffs and post jpgs), I don't convert anything to DNG


Mar 18, 2017 at 09:21 AM
genji
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Lightroom DNG


mcbroomf wrote:
I keep my raw files (I print tiffs and post jpgs), I don't convert anything to DNG


+1

Given that it costs so little to back up raw files now (hard drive, optical media, online), what advantage is there in converting to DNG?



Mar 18, 2017 at 10:27 PM
htran1980
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Lightroom DNG




genji wrote:
+1

Given that it costs so little to back up raw files now (hard drive, optical media, online), what advantage is there in converting to DNG?


Would lightroom load faster with DNG file?



Mar 19, 2017 at 03:11 AM
genji
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Lightroom DNG


htran1980 wrote:
Would lightroom load faster with DNG file?


This article, DNG: The Pros, Cons, and Myths of the Adobe Raw File Format, by Martin Evening (who has written an excellent series of Lightroom books) is worth reading. I'd be extremely surprised if, after you read the article, you then decide to take the DNG route.

Regarding your question, he writes:

"The DNG format allows you to enable Fast Load Data, which stores a standard-size preview in the DNG file. This enables faster loading when opening an image in Camera Raw or Lightroom. Having said that, Lightroom 6.3 now includes faster Camera Raw caching whereby the opening of proprietary raw files is now almost as fast as opening a DNG with Fast Load Data enabled."




Mar 19, 2017 at 05:46 AM
dalite
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Lightroom DNG


So other than faster loading on Camera Raw using LR6.3, what other advantage is there to not use DNG? DNG is still a non-lossy file.


Mar 20, 2017 at 10:33 PM
ksutton
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Lightroom DNG


dalite wrote:
So other than faster loading on Camera Raw using LR6.3, what other advantage is there to not use DNG? DNG is still a non-lossy file.


from what I understand, it's the notion of backwards compatibility. Each new proprietary Raw format that comes out with each camera runs with it the risk someone (possibly you) won't be able to open it in the future without a particular version of a particular piece of software. DNG ensures this isnt the case



Mar 20, 2017 at 11:06 PM
genji
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Lightroom DNG


ksutton wrote:
from what I understand, it's the notion of backwards compatibility. Each new proprietary Raw format that comes out with each camera runs with it the risk someone (possibly you) won't be able to open it in the future without a particular version of a particular piece of software. DNG ensures this isnt the case


To the contrary, the notion that at some time in the future one will require a particular version of a particular converter/editor to open a Raw file is a scaremongering myth propagated by DNG zealots. The reality is that none of the major raw conversion and image editing software applications has dropped support for older cameras and Raw formats; instead "each new proprietary Raw format that comes out with each camera" has been systematically added to the list of cameras and Raw formats supported by each software program. Vendors understand that end users have each owned a variety of digital cameras over the years. Why would they abandon older cameras when the code to support those cameras has already been written?

From my perspective, the greatest disadvantage of the DNG format is that the conversion from proprietary Raw to DNG is a one way process. There are conflicting opinions as to whether all the metadata in the original Raw file is preserved in the DNG but one thing is certain: a DNG file cannot be converted back to the original Raw.

Further reading:
DNG vs RAW
Why I No Longer Convert RAW Files to DNG
Why I Stopped Using the DNG File Format



Mar 21, 2017 at 07:48 AM
Dr Tone
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Lightroom DNG


I don't take a massive amount of photos so I back up the original RAW files and create a DNG copy for Lightroom as I find there's a bit of a performance improvement working with DNG.


Mar 21, 2017 at 06:29 PM
genji
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Lightroom DNG


Dr Tone wrote:
I don't take a massive amount of photos so I back up the original RAW files and create a DNG copy for Lightroom as I find there's a bit of a performance improvement working with DNG.


Exactly. IMO your smart, pragmatic approach is how DNG is best used.



Mar 21, 2017 at 07:26 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



davidrwilliams
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Lightroom DNG


I keep all my original raw files without converting to dng, as I see dng as being almost more "proprietary" than the original raw file based upon how many apps support dng's.

I never found any performance improvement in using dng files that was meaningful enough to justify dng's over original raw files.

Using the original raw files means I can use any raw converter available today - and likely in the future - to work with the raw files which is/may not be the case for dng files.

There are many images where I prefer CaptureOne's raw conversions over Lightroom/Camera Raw, and although CaptureOne now supports dng files, I see significant differences between its output for raw vs. dng files with the raw conversions strongly preferred to it's interpretation of dng files.

(FWIW - in past I convert all my raws to dng's after importing into Lightroom, until a few years ago when I started testing CaptureOne and found that I preferred it's conversions to Lightroom. I've now migrated all images in my library back to their original raw formats so I can work against the raws with either LR or CO.)



Mar 21, 2017 at 07:41 PM
genji
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Lightroom DNG


davidrwilliams wrote:
I keep all my original raw files without converting to dng, as I see dng as being almost more "proprietary" than the original raw file based upon how many apps support dng's.

I never found any performance improvement in using dng files that was meaningful enough to justify dng's over original raw files.

Using the original raw files means I can use any raw converter available today - and likely in the future - to work with the raw files which is/may not be the case for dng files.

There are many images where I prefer CaptureOne's raw conversions over Lightroom/Camera
...Show more

Thank you for introducing Capture One into the discussion. Although I've continued to upgrade my C1 license, I've never really gelled with the software and didn't feel qualified to discuss how it handles DNG files. One of the articles I linked to earlier in the thread, Why I Stopped Using the DNG File Format, deals with this issue in depth and presents a persuasive argument that C1 users should avoid the DNG format.



Mar 21, 2017 at 09:37 PM
mogul
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Lightroom DNG


genji wrote:
To the contrary, the notion that at some time in the future one will require a particular version of a particular converter/editor to open a Raw file is a scaremongering myth propagated by DNG zealots. The reality is that none of the major raw conversion and image editing software applications has dropped support for older cameras and Raw formats; instead "each new proprietary Raw format that comes out with each camera" has been systematically added to the list of cameras and Raw formats supported by each software program. Vendors understand that end users have each owned a variety of digital
...Show more
With the camera companies struggling to keep their head above water, I think it is areal possibility that some may go under with their proprietary raw format like Minolta.



Mar 22, 2017 at 04:32 AM
JimUe
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Lightroom DNG


mogul wrote:
With the camera companies struggling to keep their head above water, I think it is areal possibility that some may go under with their proprietary raw format like Minolta.


What happened to Minolta's raw format?



Mar 22, 2017 at 12:04 PM
mogul
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Lightroom DNG


JimUe wrote:
What happened to Minolta's raw format?

As far as I know, it still is supported but for how long?



Mar 22, 2017 at 02:45 PM
dallvr
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Lightroom DNG


Exactly what I do also. I used to convert my Canon raw files to dng years ago, but also kept the original raws. I found some anomalies with the metadata (if I recall correctly) when I opened the dngs to extract the embedded raw files. In any event, the scare story that someday the original raw files would become somehow unreadable hasn't happened yet. I can still access my raw files from 2003 (when Canon confusingly called them .tif)


Mar 22, 2017 at 04:48 PM
genji
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Lightroom DNG


mogul wrote:
With the camera companies struggling to keep their head above water, I think it is areal possibility that some may go under with their proprietary raw format like Minolta.


---------------------------------------------

JimUe wrote:
What happened to Minolta's raw format?


---------------------------------------------

mogul wrote:
As far as I know, it still is supported but for how long?


I assume you're referring to the MRW format, which is supported by the following Raw converter / Image editing software applications (to name a few of the most popular):
Camera RAW Supported Cameras
Capture One Pro 10 Supported Cameras
Raw Therappe Supported Cameras
Corel AfterShot Pro Supported Formats
Affinity Photo Supported Cameras
DXO Optics Pro Supported Cameras
Iridient Developer Supported Cameras
ACDSee Supported Cameras

Better quickly convert those MRW files to DNG because all of those programs are likely to drop support for the MRW format at any moment.



Mar 22, 2017 at 10:30 PM
DavidBM
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Lightroom DNG


genji wrote:
Thank you for introducing Capture One into the discussion. Although I've continued to upgrade my C1 license, I've never really gelled with the software and didn't feel qualified to discuss how it handles DNG files. One of the articles I linked to earlier in the thread, Why I Stopped Using the DNG File Format, deals with this issue in depth and presents a persuasive argument that C1 users should avoid the DNG format.


Jonathon I'd be interested in your take on C1
My own is very uniformed; I've played with it, didn't like the interface except for its colour editing interface.
I didn't much like it's default output either: it looked to me like the JPEG performance of a camera that's trying to do all the work for you - an automated attempt at a final high contrast and sharpness look. I prefer to have a more neutral starting point.
But I know lots of people prefer C1; my *guess* - and it's only a guess - is that C1s defaults are close enough to their preferences, that it saves them a lot of work, because it comes out close to 'right' by thier lights.

But there could be more to it than that. I know it's not down to colour accuracy thanks to Jim Kasson's cool series on his site about colour science, in which he shows the extent to which C1 and LR deviate from accurate so as to get appealing (the extent is about the same, and in about the same directions)

But did you form any view, interface aside?

cheers
d



Mar 22, 2017 at 11:33 PM
genji
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Lightroom DNG


DavidBM wrote:
Jonathon I'd be interested in your take on C1
My own is very uniformed; I've played with it, didn't like the interface except for its colour editing interface.
I didn't much like it's default output either: it looked to me like the JPEG performance of a camera that's trying to do all the work for you - an automated attempt at a final high contrast and sharpness look. I prefer to have a more neutral starting point.
But I know lots of people prefer C1; my *guess* - and it's only a guess - is that C1s defaults are close enough to their
...Show more

David, I purchased a full copy of Capture One 5 when they offered a 50% discount, mainly because of enthusiastic recommendations from a bunch of different GetDPI and FredMiranda members. It took me less than ten minutes to develop a pathological hatred for sessions, contrary to the opinion of most of the C1 user base. But I'm not interested in organizing at the filesystem level -- those session folders and subfolders drove me crazy so I stuck with LR. Catalogs were introduced with Capture One Pro 7 but for reasons I can't recall the implementation didn't feel logical to me. I skipped v8 and upgraded to v9 to keep my license alive. In response to your question I created a C1 v9 catalog and imported the contents of the same folder that is referenced by Lightroom. This made it easy to export the same file from the two different applications. Moreover, all my keywords and ratings came across perfectly. Since I was curious about any differences between v9 and v10, I downloaded and installed the free Capture One 10 Express for Sony, then created another catalog from that same folder.

I've exported five different images using the default settings in each of the three programs and I have to say that I prefer C1's output in four cases. Why? Because the LR JPEGs seem to have a faint veil over them. And it definitely wasn't that C1 was producing an automated attempt at a final high contrast and sharpness look. The LR output could perhaps be significantly improved by using a better colour profile than the the default Adobe Standard (something that's discussed in one of the articles I linked to earlier in this thread). That's something I'll definitely explore. But for the remaining image the C1 output was surprisingly worse in terms of rendering detailed highlights. One other thing to note is that while the JPEG files from C1 v9 and v10 look identical, the v10 JPEGs are dramatically smaller (as in 60-70% smaller).

I don't want to derail this thread by posting a bunch of comparison images but I am tempted now to start a new thread on the topic of Capture One (Pro) vs Lightroom. I would say though that, if switching to a superior colour profile in Lightroom doesn't yield better results, I'll be strongly tempted to upgrade to Capture One Pro v10 (without waiting for a discount). And, for anyone who only shoots with Sony cameras and doesn't want to pay for an Adobe CC subscription, Capture One 10 Express for Sony is a no-brainer. Not only is it free but there's a reasonably priced upgrade path to Capture One Pro for Sony then on to Capture One Pro.



Mar 23, 2017 at 10:00 AM
DavidBM
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Lightroom DNG


genji wrote:
David, I purchased a full copy of Capture One 5 when they offered a 50% discount, mainly because of enthusiastic recommendations from a bunch of different GetDPI and FredMiranda members. It took me less than ten minutes to develop a pathological hatred for sessions, contrary to the opinion of most of the C1 user base. But I'm not interested in organizing at the filesystem level -- those session folders and subfolders drove me crazy so I stuck with LR. Catalogs were introduced with Capture One Pro 7 but for reasons I can't recall the implementation didn't feel logical to me.
...Show more


Interesting, thanks! I don't use the Adobe colour profiles; instead I make my own with Colour Checker for each body and in various alternative lighting situations (sometimes lenses). The result is that every body and lens looks exactly the same colour wise. The profiles are likely colourmetrically more accurate than Adobe Standard, which is in turn probably more accurate than the Camera Profiles Adobe provides. They are also (as colourmetrically accurate colour in a photograph usually is) less appealing - I use a range of presets to deviate from accurate in different ways for different purposes. But I like the starting colour to be consistent. I guess the short story is that for my purposes it doesn't sound as if C1 has advantages, if it's all about colour profiles. But I totally see that it makes a ton of sense for someone who has got that nice coupon that came with their Sony body - $50 for a non-subscription copy of C1Pro for Sony.



Mar 23, 2017 at 10:46 AM
1
       2       end






FM Forums | Sony Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password