Not Your Everyday Banana

by Bart Arondson

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm interested in starting to convert my photos to DNG instead of NEF, because it allows Lightroom to embed it's metadata into the actual files, and because the "fast indexing" feature makes significant performance gains on my hardware.

While considering this, I noticed that Lightroom has the option to embed the source RAW into the DNG it creates (if using DNG mode), which puzzles me. It would double the size of the file, and (in theory) the NEF and the DNG contain the same information. Is there some kind of information loss or disadvantage (other than requiring the conversion step in one's workflow) that occurs when being converted into DNG?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Disclaimer: this is what I recall from having read about the prospect of going all-DNG for file archives. I might be a bit fuzzy or off.

DNG is a standard format, with specific properties. The raw files produced by a camera have a unique format, which does not precisely map to the DNG spec - camera manufacturers are being a bit cagey about file formats.

Because there's no exact match between raw and DNG, some raw file properties do not get carried over to the resulting DNG file. So to get access to the complete raw data, the actual raw file needs to be at hand. Which will be the case if it is embedded within the DNG.

In the end, it seemed to me to be too much hassle going back and forth between raw and DNG, so I decided to keep using "raw" raw files. It would be nice to have the metadata embedded within the image file, rather than contained in a sidecar .xmp, but I made a trade-off. Your mileage may vary.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Well, the essential premise is that having the original raw format inside gives you the eventual ability to extract it from the file if it were ever needed. I'm not sold on that being especially useful, the DNG format is freely available since Adobe decided to make it so, so I think that DNG gives more future proofing than a closed and proprietary format will.

However, on the other side of the equation, the general cost of storage is relatively low, so if you can afford the space, why not? It can't hurt in that situation.

share|improve this answer
1  
There's no evidence to suggest that DNG is any more future proof than raw formats. Support for raw formats is accumulative, and older raw formats are not removed from the programs capable of reading them. –  Nick Bedford Apr 22 '12 at 22:39
    
@NickBedford - Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance. –  John Cavan Apr 22 '12 at 23:29
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.