Bill Hilton wrote:
If you don’t want to go the DNG route (I wouldn’t)
Barry Pearson asks …
Any particular reasons?
1) Of the four RAW converters on my computer only one reads DNG files so far and that one (ACR) is only the third best converter program I use.
2) An extra step in the flow to do the conversion.
3) Extra storage space since I’d definitely want to keep the originals as well as the converted files.
Good reasons, for you and probably many others.
I have said "I would advise everyone to investigate DNG, and make up their own mind about whether it suits them". A problem is that it is quite tricky to do this evaluation.
There are several things that may influence the result, and someone who hasn’t tried DNG may not even know what to take into account. It is a bit like the classic questions "should I use film or digital", or "should I use Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro", or "should I use Raw or JPEG". The answer is "it depends ….".
Here are some of things that are likely to influence the answer, which I wrote before I saw your response:
– What camera do you use? One type or more? One make or more? – What Raw processor do you use?
– What version of Photoshop do you use?
– What is your workflow?
– What and who are your photographs for?
– What is your back-up/archive strategy?
You appear to have worked to a similar list!
My answers to each of those those questions is different from yours, and I’ve come to a different conclusion. (I use ACR, converting to DNG isn’t an extra step for me, and I don’t feel the need to save the originals).
But this does indicate the sort of factors that people need to consider, at the moment. We are at an intermediate state of evolution of DNG, where some people can get a lot from it, and others little or nothing.
DNG sounds like a good idea, especially if your file format isn’t supported any longer, and maybe in 5-10 years I’ll convert my RAW files when/if it becomes more universal, but right now I have no problems finding excellent software that works fine on the current RAW formats I shoot.
At the moment, it may be better to find reasons to choose to use DNG, else leave alone.
1. Someone who uses a Raw processor that won’t accept DNG will get little or no benefit from DNG. They may decide to archive a DNG version of their Raw files to increase the chance that they will be able to read the files years later. But they will have to work with the original Raw file. Users of the cameras’ own software (currently) come into this category.
2. Users of ACR 2.x under CS may get significant, or little, or no, benefit from DNG, depending on their workflow. I benefited, and someone with a camera only supported by ACR 3.1 / 3.1 DNG Converter can benefit a lot, as shown in this thread. But others may not benefit, or only a little.
3. Users of ACR 3.1 under CS2 are likely to get significant benefit from DNG. This is the release where its benefits have become much more obvious. Since upgrading, I have started to convert to DNG straight from the card without an embedded version of the original file. (Against the advice of Adobe). Being able to hold ACR 3.1 settings and adjustments within the DNG file in a non-destructive way makes file management easier. Obviously I get the benefits of the smaller file size.
I expect that, in 5 years time, it will be much easier to identify who shouldn’t use it rather than who should.
—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ http://www.birdsandanimals.info/