Beginner Is There Any Benefits to Converting .NEF to .DNG?

Forkbeard

Forkbeard

Messages
475
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
and can you still edit them in the same non destructive way that you can the raw files?
 
If you are using these images in Lightroom, DNG gives you a further advantage in that no XMP sidecar file is required with the DNG format (I am assuming the NEF are the same as Canon's CR2 files in this regard in requiring an XMP file). If you move the files around on disc outside of Lightroom, your edits (stored in the sidecar file) can end up detached from the image, so keeping it in DNG saves this problem. XMP files aren't huge so not much of a saving there, but they do double the file count. Develop settings from LR in a DNG, are also read by ACR. (that may also be true of sidecar files, but I'm not sure if that's the case). DNG is also likely to be supported across more software and platforms than the camera manufacturers own format. I convert to DNG on import to Lightroom.
 
Nikon nor canon Raw require sidecars in Lightroom. You can choose to create them but it slows you down
 
At the moment I'm using Elements which also creates .xmp files. I prefer not to have them and also prefer to do all the file management outside of Elements and just import certain files or folders afterwards as/when I want them, which I'm using the Adobe .DNG converter for. Then I started thinking that because there's no sidecar file, they might be similar to jpegs and not be non-destructive. So the data that would be in a .xmp file is in the .dng?

I also like the fact you can get a codec for Windows so you can view them with Photo Viewer, although I'm thinking you can probably get the .nef codec anyway.
 
Last edited:
The dng format is supposed to be a universal and unchanging file format. So that in years to come when nothing will read a neff, cr2 or even JPEG you will still be able to use them.
 
Correct - while it's true you don't *need* a sidecar file, and writing the data into one takes a tiny bit longer, it's a sensible move to do so as your edits are preserved and if you ever move PCs it's a cinch to rebuild a catalog that has become lost or corrupt. For the fractional speed penalty it's worth have LR write the data. Better still, if you work in DNG, the data is written into the DNG itself, with no external sudecar to worry about. This makes the file, and its edits, highly portable between different computers as the nondestructive edits are carried with the file itself and can be read by someone else. That's what I've always understood at least, but happy to take advice if this is somehow flawed.
 
Forkbeard said:
At the moment I'm using Elements which also creates .xmp files. I prefer not to have them and also prefer to do all the file management outside of Elements and just import certain files or folders afterwards as/when I want them, which I'm using the Adobe .DNG converter for. Then I started thinking that because there's no sidecar file, they might be similar to jpegs and not be non-destructive. So the data that would be in a .xmp file is in the .dng?

I also like the fact you can get a codec for Windows so you can view them with Photo Viewer, although I'm thinking you can probably get the .nef codec anyway.
Click to expand...

If file management is the issue, then try Lightroom. It has an excellent and fully integrated library system, as well as being non-destructive and having probably the best post-processing facilities for photographers. Check it out, and try the free 30-days trial :)

DNG is an open format introduced by Adobe some years ago, with the laudable intention of stardardising Raw processing across all manufacturers, but it has never caught on. Off the top of my head, I think only Pentax and Hasselblad use it.
 
HoppyUK said:
DNG is an open format introduced by Adobe some years ago, with the laudable intention of stardardising Raw processing across all manufacturers, but it has never caught on. Off the top of my head, I think only Pentax and Hasselblad use it.
Click to expand...

Leica as well
 
It hasn't so much caught on at the front end, but it has caught on at the back end. I'd garner that there are rather more products that can read a DNG, than can read a camera manufacturer's own proprietary format. I did have a look for an up to date source on the adoption of DNG - didn't find an up to date one, but this, last updated in 2011, shows which manufacturers support or supported it then, but more interestingly how many apps can read it. Lots is the short answer. http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products_y7.htm
 
I convert to from RAW to DNG when importing to Lightroom purely to increase the chances of software in a couple of decades time being able to open / read the files.
 
As others have said, I got caught out with my old Canon 350D. I was happily using my Adobe software to process and work on images and then CS4 came out without RAW support for the older camera. I then had another step in my workflow with Adobe Camera Raw. It's just easier to convert to DNG on import. You've then got a format that's widely supported.
 
This is true, but the same can be said of some RAWs - they can be lossy or lossless, thus are completely equivalent in this regard to DNG.
 
Harlequin565 said:
As others have said, I got caught out with my old Canon 350D. I was happily using my Adobe software to process and work on images and then CS4 came out without RAW support for the older camera. I then had another step in my workflow with Adobe Camera Raw. It's just easier to convert to DNG on import. You've then got a format that's widely supported.
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, Adobe haven't stopped supporting any RAW formats. :thinking: The version of the Camera Raw plugin that came out with CS4, ver 5.2, lists the Canon 350D as one of the supported cameras. That is why the Camera Raw update got bigger as more cameras were added, but no formats were forgotten, plus they added things like the camera/lens profiles. I think the last time I downloaded one separately, it was over 100mb. :eek: The ver 2.4 update was 1.6mb. :eek:

People cite not being able to access their RAW files in the future as a reason for converting to DNG. There are millions of people using these various RAW formats, and the code to read the files has already been created, so I doubt a file will ever become unreadable. And the Adobe DNG converter can be used to convert to DNG in the future. And if the Adobe software can convert them, then the Adobe software should be able to read them.

So why not just convert anyway? It takes time, if you are in a hurry to process files. As the argument goes that you don't have to process every RAW file, just the ones you intend to make into pictures, you don't also have to convert every RAW file DNG, as you will again, not be processing every file, so why convert them all!:thinking:

I know some Pro's convert RAW files to DNGs for archiving for the reasons above, but that is after the keepers have been kept, and the rest deleted. And processing has been completed.

I'm no Pro, but I like having the original files available, and I have my files organised so as they don't have to be moved. And if they are, for a new HD for example, it's folders with RAW and associated XMP sidecar files all being moved together. I also use Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw, and so I can open a RAW file as soon as it is in the computer.

In the past the Nikon software could process the files better than Adobe, (not sure about the new Nikon software) and some people swear by the Canon software for processing too. I couldn't get on with the Nikon and Canon software, and like the UI and extra processing options of the Adobe software more.
 
redhed17 said:
So why not just convert anyway? It takes time, if you are in a hurry to process files. As the argument goes that you don't have to process every RAW file, just the ones you intend to make into pictures, you don't also have to convert every RAW file DNG, as you will again, not be processing every file, so why convert them all!:thinking:
Click to expand...

Perfectly valid - but the time penalty isn't much. I just have LR to copy as DNG in the import dialog. It's transparent then. No extra clicks on an import, and it takes a few seconds longer during the import process. Thus I never have CR2's and sidecars on the computer. Different strokes for different folks, but I can't find any reason not to do it, as the files take up less space, there are fewer of them, and for me it's transparent in the workflow (just the slight increase in import time). Converting them all just means you have less to store (aside from any theoretical compatibility problems in future - which I agree are probably a non-issue).
 
Simes123 said:
Perfectly valid - but the time penalty isn't much. I just have LR to copy as DNG in the import dialog. It's transparent then. No extra clicks on an import, and it takes a few seconds longer during the import process. Thus I never have CR2's and sidecars on the computer. Different strokes for different folks, but I can't find any reason not to do it, as the files take up less space, there are fewer of them, and for me it's transparent in the workflow (just the slight increase in import time). Converting them all just means you have less to store (aside from any theoretical compatibility problems in future - which I agree are probably a non-issue).
Click to expand...
im pretty sure LR will not need sidecars as the edits are all stored in a single catalogue file - files from all my old nikon cameras are in nef format and LR does not create sidecars for them so id imagine it would not need sidecards for canon cr2 files either
 
boliston said:
im pretty sure LR will not need sidecars as the edits are all stored in a single catalogue file - files from all my old nikon cameras are in nef format and LR does not create sidecars for them so id imagine it would not need sidecards for canon cr2 files either
Click to expand...

I believe this to be the case yes, but as I recall, if you use sidecar files, and your catalog is lost for some reason, your edits remain intact as the changes are written in the sidecar. Also useful if you are sending a file to a colleague with LR and you want them to see the file plus edits. Or use DNG and all the edit information is included within the one file.
 
Simes123 said:
I believe this to be the case yes, but as I recall, if you use sidecar files, and your catalog is lost for some reason, your edits remain intact as the changes are written in the sidecar. Also useful if you are sending a file to a colleague with LR and you want them to see the file plus edits. Or use DNG and all the edit information is included within the one file.
Click to expand...
if you have spent a lot of time on edits then that catalogue becomes a very valuable file needing regular backups - the only disadvantage i can see with edits stored in the dng would be extra time to backup a lot of 30mb dngs compared (possibly 100s if you have done bulk edits on multiple files) with backing up a single catalog file
 
I must admit, I never backup my catalogue file - other than the auto backup LR does in place - I have the catalog on an SSD, along with LR's preview cache for performance, with the files on a separate RAID0 pair, backed up to RAID1 NAS using GoodSync over the network. You make a good point about batch processing, and it could result in a lot of data on the network. Nonetheless, I do back up my image files regularly - it's an unattended process, so doesn't take me any personal time and it's on a Gb LAN. I guess we each have our preferences to achieving the same thing.
 
I use Lightroom and Photoshop. I have no xmp files, I shoot raw (nef as I'm a Nikon user). Latest LR still reads my D70 nef files and that camera was out in 1994. I can view nef files in Windows Explorer too as there is a convenient codec to download. Other than the potential to store edits in the dng file (for me there is absolutely no reason why this offers advantage) I can think of no reason at all to convert nef to dng, but each there own I guess :)
 
There are advantages - each to their own whether those advantages are of value to you. Things like performance gains and file size reductions are worthwhile to me. This thread could go on forever with willies being waved over which is better. This link provides a good weigh up of the pros and cons for any beginners reading, http://www.lightroomqueen.com/articles-page/convert-dng/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top