« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Convert your raw file to DNG- or not  (Read 293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stef.

  • Board Moderator
  • Can't shut me up
  • *****
  • Posts: 7538
    • View Profile
    • Stef's photographs
Convert your raw file to DNG- or not
« on: January 19, 2010, 11:24:27 PM »
Logged

Offline Mike (Senior)

  • Regular Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Gender: Male
  • NAPP Member
    • View Profile
    • NAPP
Re: Convert your raw file to DNG- or not
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2010, 11:42:36 PM »
funny you should bring this up

i myself have been considering converting to dng just for the fact that it will take up less space on the HD

my concern was never a loss of quality just the time it would take to convert, but i have found something very interesting.

I have been shooting cRaw with my a700 for a few weeks and have been pleased with the results, I haven't noticed any loss of quality vs. Raw

I did notice today when I converted identical images taken within a second of each other that the cRaw file that was originally 12.17MB converted to dng and ended up as 12.2MB, so no file size savings, however the same identical photo shot 1 sec later that was a Raw file originally 18.01MB converted to dng was only 9.5MB

somewhat interesting, so it would make better since to shoot full Raw and convert to dng than to shoot cRaw and leave it be or even shoot cRaw and then convert.

I may be changing my workflow to include, a) switching back to full Raw and b) converting to dng on import.

thoughts?
anyone want to also do this to see if you get the same results?
Logged
NAPP Member | KelbyTraining Alumni

Offline Mike (Senior)

  • Regular Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Gender: Male
  • NAPP Member
    • View Profile
    • NAPP
Re: Convert your raw file to DNG- or not
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2010, 12:19:56 AM »
I tested this again and got the same results.


two very surprising results
one being that there is no savings when using cRaw
two that there is such a huge savings when using Raw

as I have understood the file saving would be around 20%

Logged
NAPP Member | KelbyTraining Alumni

Online blanko

  • Major Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 161
    • View Profile
Re: Convert your raw file to DNG- or not
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2010, 09:16:03 AM »
I use an a350 and an a700 ,I've never had a problem converting raw with the a700 but with the a350 I had to use image data raw converter until I read an article about DNG converter and now use this for importing the a350 files. I know you are trying to save space on the hard drive so why not convert to DNG and process in whatever software you use then discard DNG and keep the raw or vice verce I have to say also that I as yet have not noticed any great deal of image loss in DNG and the article written by MARTIN EVENING in the book "ADOBE PHOTOSHOP for PHOTOGRAPHERS" actually suggests that one day all imports will be done using DNG to save costs in developing formats for raw by camera manufacturers and various models. DNG is free to download and can be used by most makes of camera to date.
Logged

Offline wildieswife

  • Can't shut me up
  • ****
  • Posts: 2334
  • Gender: Female
  • Still in charge ... I think ;)
    • View Profile
Re: Convert your raw file to DNG- or not
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2010, 12:15:33 PM »
What good timing for the post.
I've been dragging my heels whether to instal Lightroom as OH has recently got it and now I have a new imac too so it's compatible.
This has made my mind up.  He sent for full and comprehensive tutorials from the US so we can learn together ..ahhhh...pass the sick bucket quick  ;)
It sounds pretty good but there's one problem.  When I do my work at college the tutor keeps telling us to use jpgs as the college macs are having a problem with RAW - what a crock ;) I suppose I'll just have to work and then convert some as I do for here. No difference really.... DOH

Cheers Stef! I've watched it all and am 'upfrit' all (Manchester accent) LOL


Pat
Logged
Often while traveling with a camera we arrive just as the sun slips over the horizon of a moment, too late to expose film, only time enough to expose our hearts.  ~Minor White

Gear - Sony Alpha700 /Minolta 300mm f4 /Tamron XR DiII SP 17-50mm f2.8 / Minolta 28-80mm/Tamron Di 90mm macro . And various slaves/lights and studio stuff.

Online rannari

  • Major Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 172
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Galleria
Re: Convert your raw file to DNG- or not
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2010, 02:51:50 PM »
My workflow:

ARW -> DNG
DNG -> Apple Aperture

I only shoot full RAW. DNG format saves a lot of HD space and I haven't notice any difference between DNG and ARW files. For conversion I use Adobes DNG Converter. I like it, because it also let you change the naming of the files. Program is easy to use.

kurt
Logged

Offline Stef.

  • Board Moderator
  • Can't shut me up
  • *****
  • Posts: 7538
    • View Profile
    • Stef's photographs
Re: Convert your raw file to DNG- or not
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2010, 01:44:54 AM »
Another way is to import your files from your camera via Adobe Bridge and setting the import file to DNG. You can rename as well.
Stef.
Logged

Offline chappo1

  • Can't shut me up
  • ****
  • Posts: 1983
  • Gender: Male
  • real name..... john
    • View Profile
    • chappo's doodlings-australian wildlife
Re: Convert your raw file to DNG- or not
« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2010, 05:07:01 AM »
Is is true that the Camera manufacturers want to keep their own proprietary formats as they have different algorithms for manipulating raw data?.. I must admit that I have not bothered to look at .dng.....john
Logged
A700, SAL70300G, SAL18250, Sigma 50-500, Sigma 17-70, Tamron 180 macro, Sigma 90mm, 58AM

Dynax Digital Forums

« on: »
Pages: [1]
« previous next »