Lightroom Digital Negative/DNG benefits?

[Sachis2112]

I'm contemplating whether or not to have LR automatically convert RAW to DNG. Thusfar, I haven't done so and I seem to be working along just fine.

My questions:

Can anyone tell me what benefits one might get from converting to DNG?

Once converting to DNG, is this type of file editable in third-party software (such as Gimp or Photomatix)?

i.e. if I automatically convert to DNG on import (and tell it to go ahead and delete the RAW as Scott Kelby suggests in his LR2 book), will I be able to make HDR pics without PS (because I can't afford it for a while...)?

Thanks for any help you can give!

[zona5101]

At one point when I first installed LR, I converted to DNG, but for me it doesn't give me any advantage so I leave my images in their native raw format. I use PS & LR for editing and both handle my camera's native format. One of the freeware noise reduction programs I have only uses jpg. It can not read camera native or dng files. And I have to export to jpg to send to a printer or upload. I would check the applications you are thinking about and see if they read dng files. It not, then you will have to convert them anyway.

[inkista]

You probably won't see many benefits to DNG, except a smaller file size (DNG uses a lossless compression, iirc). Unless you buy a new camera whose RAW format cannot be understood in the versions of LR/PS you have. This is one big benefit if you choose not to upgrade to the latest version of LR/PS every time one comes out. If you lag behind on an Adobe version, chances are that the next release of ACR that comes out after a new camera is released won't work with older versions of LR/PS. In which case, you'll have to convert to DNG for the RAW from your new camera to be readable, or pay "the Photoshop tax." There's also the fact that if you buy a new camera and you do have a version of PS/LR that can be upgraded to a new version of ACR--you still have to wait for that version of ACR to come out. In the meantime, you could use DNG--if your camera saved to that format (oh, happy are the Pentax and Leica shooters).

However, the only real drawback to using DNG is that you no longer have the proprietary metadata that can be used if you open the RAW file in a native processing application that comes from your camera manufacturer. If you're using LR & PS, chances are good you're bypassing the Nikon/Canon software already, anyway.

Most software that supports RAW also supports DNG--it's just another RAW format to them, and one that moves quite a bit less than most RAW formats. If you're using Photomatix to do HDR, it can read the DNG files. And if your HDR software doesn't read DNG, chances are good it'll read TIFF.

Theoretically, DNG is better for archival purposes. If you shoot with two cameras (a dSLR and a RAW-capable P&S) and that you upgrade one every three years or so, in 20 years, you'll have gone through half a dozen cameras, and as many RAW formats. If you convert to DNG, you've got a single file format to worry about decoding 20 years down the line. It's also got an open standard (unlike RAWs, which are closed proprietary formats that you have to reverse-engineer to can-open. Again, you probably won't see any immediate benefits from using DNG. It's when you try and open that file 20 years later, that you may see one.

The main difference is knowing you're using a standard, vs. proprietary file formats. If that doesn't make any difference to you, then RAW's probably just fine.

[Sachis2112]

Thank you. I think I have the answers I need to move forward. Basically, keep doing what I'm doing until I can find a reason to change. I haven't gotten to the point where I am going to be changing cameras any time soon. Just starting on my little journey.