DNG a.k.a. Digital Negative

[pixelens]

So I've been reading more and more about the .DNG format and I can't seem to find a negative reason to convert all my .CR2 files to .DNG... I was just wondering what the consensus was here on the forums with regards to the .DNG format just in case I'm missing something.

I ran a quick test on one of my folders and in a nutshell (based on readings as well):

1. DNG is an open format (http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/) - this means it can be opened now and pretty much forever whereas proprietary RAW formats (.CR2/.NEF/etc) have the possibility of falling to the wayside.
2. File size is smaller - I converted 94 .CR2/.XMP files into 94 .DNG files using Lightroom 2 and went from 2.22GB to 1.69GB in file size. Seems to be a considerable savings to me.
3. Sidecar information is embedded in the .DNG - no need to make sure the .XMP is attached with the .CR2.
4. Opening in Photoshop gives the same options as opening a .CR2 (as expected)... doesn't seem to be any loss in quality or information at all.

Comments?

[RustySterling]

I've been converting my files to .dng but I'm a fairly new user of PhotoShop CS4. Still, the fact that there is no information loss and that the files are smaller appeals to me.

[pixelens]

Yeah, just re-read the article in March issue of Photoshop User and there really seems to be any reason NOT to use it.

[mipo]

Not converting yet to DNG.
But the option to embed the original Raw is attracting.
I may explore the option to export to DNG with the embedded Raw for Backup & format protection.

[kimrose]

Been converting to .dng only at work because CS2 wouldn't except my .CR2 files from my 40D. At home I don't have that issue so I just use my .CR2 files. Honestly, I never thought about a benefit one way or the other, other than the annoying extra step of converting... however if it makes a noticable difference in file size, and does not alter the image in any way, that would be worth learning more to me!

[rediguana]

All my raw photos are converted to DNG on import. Having used a few different cameras now, it is nice to have them all in one file format too (and not a mixture of TIF and CR2 files). Other than that, for the same benefits as you outline above. I see no benefit whatsoever to stick with Canon formats.

[fletch]

This is an interesting discussion.

DNG seems a very attractive option and a great answer to the "shoot in JPEG" arguement that RAW formats will eventually fall out of support and become useless. But why doesn't everybody do it? There must be a reason.

Why are the files smaller? They must be loosing something.
Why do no cameras currenlty output directly to DNG? It would be a great selling point on a new camera to avoid the 'photoshop tax' so there must be a technical reason why the DNG files is not a good as the proprietary raw formats.
I think I'm correct in saying some RAW files are more raw than others. (e.g. Sony and Nikon files have some processing applied, mainly noise reduction). How does this affect the DNG conversion?

If all these answers come back as not a problem I don't see any reason not to batch convert all of my .ORF files to DNG.

[pixelens]

fletch: The last article I read about DNG was from the March 2009 issue of Photoshop User, and it mentioned that "the DNG lossless compression algorithms are better than
those applied in camera, resulting in a smaller file size", I'd recommend finding an issue and checking it out. As far as in camera, I believe some of the Pentax ones do, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see other manufacturers switching over in the future... the only drawbacks that the article seemed to indicate was that most of the manufacturer's software doesn't support .DNG and another "issue: MakerNotes. Never heard of them? Then you probably won’t care. All of the important data is carried over into the DNG file, but camera manufacturers also put some secret data in the  file. There’s a proper specification that they can follow, but some choose not to. Helpful, eh? If you shoot CR2 or NEF, don’t worry as those are fully transferred, along with some other formats too."

Anyways, at the end of the day, I think I'm going to try out .DNG - but I will burn my original .CR2 files to DVD just in case something goes wonky with one of the .DNG files.

[RPG Master]

Is their any free, open-source software (available for Linux) that will convert all my .ARW files to .DNG?.

[archersdad]

I have been converting to DNG just to ensure future compatability. File size really isn't that important (storage is cheap these days) so I embed the original CR2 file into the DNG in case I ever need the original.

If you are ever in a situation where you will be using your photos in court it is best to have the original RAW still intact so that is can be confirmed the file has not been editted in any way.