CR2 or DNG

Edwinrgarland

Edwinrgarland

Messages
71
Name
Ed
Edit My Images
Yes
I use lightroom 4 and i've always kept the original CR2 files but I'm reading more and more about dng files and i'm wondering if it would be a good idea to start converting my cr2 files to dng instead.

I've had a search on t'internet and there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer on this.

It does appear that converting cr2 to dng would save about 20% on file sizes but surly this would be at a cost?

Im completely confused:shrug:
 
I was watching a tutorial on you tube and the presenter said he converts to dng but always keeps the original files backup on and external drive.
 
There's some interesting reading here.

Although it is an open format, it isn't a standard format (at least, it isn't yet) and isn't supported universally. As your camera writes CR2 and I dare say that there will always be a converter available, I don't really see the point in converting other than if there is indeed a file-size advantage - but beware (from the link above):

The process of DNG conversion involves extracting raw image data from the source file and assembling it according to the DNG specification into the required TIFF format. This optionally involves compressing it. Metadata as defined in the DNG specification is also put into that TIFF assembly. Some of this metadata is based on the characteristics of the camera, and especially of its sensor. Other metadata may be image-dependent or camera-setting dependent. So a DNG converter must have knowledge of the camera model concerned, and be able to process the source raw image file including key metadata. Optionally a JPEG preview is obtained and added. Finally, all of this is written as a DNG file.

DNG conversion typically leaves the original raw image file intact. For safety, many photographers retain the original raw image file on one medium while using the DNG file on another, enabling them to recover from a range of hardware, software, and human, failures and errors. For example, it has been reported in user forums that some versions of the Adobe DNG Converter don't preserve all the raw data from raw images from some camera models.
Click to expand...

The future of DNG is not definite/certain; I can't see any viable advantage in converting and saving as DNG - personally I wouldn't bother. I know it's not what you asked, but if you want a reduced-size emergency back-up, I would go for a jpeg (yeah it's lossy and loses the original data - but it's an emergency back-up and you still have a good copy of the image).
 
Thanks for the info.
Looks like it makes sense to continue with my current setup and just ignore dng files.
 
I always convert to DNG now on LR import. If I can save 20% of HD space then I'll take it, and given that it's an Adobe format the support will always be there to revisit them in the future.

I don't see the point of keeping both the DNG and native Raw - unless you have loads of HD space to spare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top