6 thoughts on “Photo Taco – To DNG or Not To DNG Part 2”

  1. The podcasts about DNG format would have had a lot more credibility if they were backed up by some real data or expert input on Harmon’s side. The jury is still out on this topic.

  2. I personally convert to DNG for the simple space issue. I don’t have an issue with the downsides of the format and if Adobe goes belly up one day, the competitor will have the DNG import if they want my business.

  3. Great podcast. I thought I’d weigh in too.
    First off – I am not a professional photographer, so the opinions expressed are those of a enthusiast and may not apply to those who have to earn a living from making photos….
    I end up teaching a mini class on Lightrooom every 6 months or so to friends and relatives and I tell people to convert everything to DNG. Here’s my pro/con list

    I have decided to use Lightroom for a long time – in fact I have decided on all the Adobe products. I am not a fan boy of Adobe, but right now they are the 800lb gorilla. I have friends who use open software solutions instead Microsoft’s Office and although it MOSTLY works, they still run into issues now and then. I decided to not fight Microsoft a long time ago, and although I am somewhat frustrated by them too, they are also the heavy hitter in the office tools. Maybe it’s age, but I’m tired of swimming upstream all the time, so I’ve decided to use the whatever software is either a clear leader or has a significant following so it won’t go away soon.

    Since I am a committed Lightroom and Photoshop user, I have no problem using their open source file format. If I’m wrong 5 years from now, I’ll export everything in whatever file format is winning at that time. I’ve converted all my VHS to CD to DVD to BluRay to streaming, so I’ve already resigned myself to the fact the world will forever change.

    The time to import and convert is a big deal, but I start the process and go do something else, so I really don’t care if it takes a bit longer. (Again, I don’t make my living with this…)

    Back up times being longer is also not a big deal. I do backups at night so again I don’t care how long it takes.

    I am more worried about a Canon raw file format not being supported down the road than I am about DNG files going obsolete since it’s an open file format, and with a 10% or so file size savings, this a big win for me. I sleep easier.

    I like the fact the XMP data is included in the file instead of a separate file to lose. I don’t automatically write the changes into the file as it does slow things down. As part of my workflow, once a month or so I select all my images and save the XMP data out. I makes the next backup take a bit longer, but since it’s overnight, I don’t care. I use this feature when sharing with friends as I only have to send the 1 file.

    When the PDF format came out, there was a lot of similar paranoia about converting documents to a proprietary format, but that has now become the defacto standard for sending files around. It’s my opinion that DNG will become the same standard in time. Adobe will not give up on it, and my guess is camera manufacturers will start adding as an option in response to user demands.

    In recap, since I’ve decided to be an Adobe user, and they want DNG, and there are some big advantages for me (future proofing, better integration with LR and PS, and no sidecar files to lose) I convert all raw files to DNG and ditch the camera specific raw files (CR2 for me.) I consider disk space free nowadays, but it doesn’t make sense for me to keep both. Pick one and stay with it.

    I am hoping my other favorite post program (On1) will start accepting DNG, but they don’t take raw now either, so both have to be converted to PSD files or similar before going there.

  4. Both pod casts were great, the whole subject was well covered and will help anyone decide what to do.
    I have decided to stay RAW, but keep the XML files, just to give me a backup of the modification and they are small

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top