I have gone back to some older shoots and batch-exported them to compressed DNG to save some fileserver space. So far I haven't had any problems being able to access or edit those images, regardless of the software I've used, and I haven't seen any change in image quality while saving something like 40% file size compared to uncompressed NEF.
Yes, I just started archiving in DNG after migrating to a new workflow with Lightroom. I attended a D-65 workshop a few weeks ago and Resnick made a convincing argument in favor of DNG. But I'm not going to dump my NEF files yet.
What was the convincing argument in favor of DNG? That your XMP metadata goes right into DNG and you don' t need NEF + XMP sidecar files? DNG sounds really interesting and is a try to standarize these different raw formats. May be I should do the same. I use Lightroom as well and so I could convert my NEFs into DNG and copy the orignal NEFS to DVD (as the mater backup). May be one time I will need the NEFs.
EOSDNG wrote:
What was the convincing argument in favor of DNG?
DNG sounds really interesting and is a try to standarize these different raw formats.
Yes, we have all of these proprietary RAW formats that are not readily read by software until decoded. NEF files and the software required to read and convert those files are certainly going to be around for awhile. However, will you or your heirs still have the OS and RAW converter required to process the image 50+ years from now? Do you have to archive the entire operating environment in addition to the RAW file in order to ensure that the file is available long-term?
Now, it's certainly possible that DNG will never become firmly anchored as an open-source, RAW file format standard. And will updates to open-source code (e.g., Adobe's updates to the XMP library for manipulating metadata) eventually make backward compatibility impossible? The format will continue to evolve and grow and perhaps this won't compromise the ability to read files written to an old specification. Who knows. But it does make sense to archive important RAW files, for now, in the proprietary format (NEF for me) as well as DNG.
Do you understand that DNG is not "Open Source" and important parts of the data are just as obfuscated (or encrypted) as the native raw format?
As far as Adobe maintaining compatibility, I am sure the format will be generically similar to tiff for a long time - but there is no guarantee that any software will be able to handle what is inside.
invalid2 wrote:
This is mostly in response to Ted {turnert}.
Do you understand that DNG is not "Open Source" and important parts of the data are just as obfuscated (or encrypted) as the native raw format?
As far as Adobe maintaining compatibility, I am sure the format will be generically similar to tiff for a long time - but there is no guarantee that any software will be able to handle what is inside.
Thanks Noah. It appears that I'm confusing open-source with "publicly available" and "open specification". Since Adobe is the developer it's not free from intellectual property restrictions. And I think Adobe's XMP is open-source which may be why I have assumed DNG is too.
DNG is not an international standard with certification by a standards commission. DNG is good for Adobe, but at least it's an attempt at a standard that might stick. With DNG I retain RAW editing capability and files are pretty svelte compared to 16-bit TIFF.
invalid2 wrote:
As far as Adobe maintaining compatibility, I am sure the format will be generically similar to tiff for a long time - but there is no guarantee that any software will be able to handle what is inside.
turnert wrote:
DNG is not an international standard with certification by a standards commission. DNG is good for Adobe, but at least it's an attempt at a standard that might stick. With DNG I retain RAW editing capability and files are pretty svelte compared to 16-bit TIFF.
I believe I failed to explain my point. DNG is a tiff derivative. http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/pdfs/dng_spec.pdf:
between DNG and the TIFF 6.0 format on which DNG is based.
How does DNG prevent a vendor from using undocumented (or encrypted) data structures for data that copyright holders (photographers and clients) might want or need?
Currently, when importing to Lightroom I have the files converted to DNG. I toss the original CR2 files.
As an IT professional I have confidence in myself maintaining operating systems and software so, if in the future there is a loss of compatibility, I can go back to old systems and convert to TIFF as a worst case scenario.
