Converting RAW files to DNG

[Allan Bell]

Hi ladies and gents I am wondering what the pros and cons are of converting Sony ARW raw files to DNG, or any other camera manufacturers RAW files for that matter.

 

Is there any record of the conversion software losing pixels or detail in the original RAW file?

 

Will the software alter colour space?

 

Are there any other cons?

 

I ask this because I purchased a new Sony A7 mkIII yesterday and I know my copy of LR6.14 (Perpetual licence) will not recognise RAW images from this camera. I believe there is a workaround to get LR6.14 to recognise the mkIII files but believe it is only for Windows and I am on an iMAC.

 

Allan

 

 

[MDM]

I don't think there is any need for intervention or deep breathing here. I am definitely not sressed or angry here and I certainly not attacking KHA. I am just pointing out the fallacy in KHA's argument about the need to keep quarantined versions of raw images for fear that Lightroom might damage them. As already pointed out there are other ways in which they might become damaged but that is not one I have ever heard of. As spacecadet says, propagating false information on a public professional forum is not a great idea. I suspect this thread will get moved or deleted as it is in the wrong place anyway. This section is supposed to be for questions about Alamy which this clearly is not.

[Bryan]

Back to Allan's original question, and this isn't the answer!

 

Are you aware that Sony has come up with a new raw converter to replace Image Data Converter (IDC)? It's called Imaging Edge and is free and downloadable. 

 

I have installed it on our laptop, which I only rarely use for photo processing (and given my expulsion from the Live News feed, probably even more rarely now). However it looks pretty slick. I don't know if there are any real advantages over IDC, but the presentation is much improved. There's no database as per LR, but for occasional informal use that's not a problem.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Bryan

[Allan Bell]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

 

 

Allan I wasn't aware that your reasons for not going with the subscription model were financial. I had assumed they were idealogical especially as you just purchased a very expensive piece of kit. Now you have explained it I will not suggest it again but I have nothing else to offer here as I have no experience with any of the other programs. I hope you find my answers to your questions useful though.

 

Thank you for your reply Mick. Sorry I did not explain sooner. Even so I think there are a lot of people like me who do not like the idea of the subscription model even though they can afford it and feel that Adobe has effectively locked them into it. If I had a reasonable income from my photography I would consider the subscription route and  probably run with it but under duress.

 

Allan

 

 

[Allan Bell]

3 hours ago, KHA said:

 

Oh, stop with the drama. People can read my thought process and make their own decisions. You don't need to baby them. 

 

There is no need to speak to people with comments like that. The use of such is seen as an attempt to get peoples backs up and/or start an argument.

 

So please if it is possible would you kindly retract that statement. Thank you.

 

Allan

 

 

Edited June 8, 2019 by Allan Bell

[Allan Bell]

11 minutes ago, Bryan said:

Back to Allan's original question, and this isn't the answer!

 

Are you aware that Sony has come up with a new raw converter to replace Image Data Converter (IDC)? It's called Imaging Edge and is free and downloadable. 

 

I have installed it on our laptop, which I only rarely use for photo processing (and given my expulsion from the Live News feed, probably even more rarely now). However it looks pretty slick. I don't know if there are any real advantages over IDC, but the presentation is much improved. There's no database as per LR, but for occasional informal use that's not a problem.

 

Thank you Bryan. Yes I have seen it and already downloaded it onto my desktop. I had a look at it in detail but at the time I stuck with LR. Now with the Sony A7mkIII I will have to take another more in depth look ans maybe even try it out.

 

Allan

 

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Thank you Bryan. Yes I have seen it and already downloaded it onto my desktop. I had a look at it in detail but at the time I stuck with LR. Now with the Sony A7mkIII I will have to take another more in depth look ans maybe even try it out.

 

Allan

 

Will you report back if you go down the DNG/LR route? I'm sure there will be some interest here from other subscription refuseniks or just don't-really-want-to-niks.

[Allan Bell]

1 minute ago, spacecadet said:

Will you report back if you go down the DNG/LR route? I'm sure there will be some interest here from other subscription refuseniks or just don't-really-want-to-niks.

 

Will do.

 

Allan

 

[KHA]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

As spacecadet says, propagating false information on a public professional forum is not a great idea.

 

Okay, I have kept very light-hearted about this whole discussion, but when people outright make up lies about me is when I start to get pissed.

 

I have NOT propagated any false information. I have stated a workflow precaution I take  because I like to have a backup in case technology fails. That's it.

 

And FYI, this forum is absolutely chock full of people propagating false information that has to be corrected all the time. It's the nature of open discussion. People have theories, people make guesses, people interpret things differently from others, people misremember things, etc.

 

So I'll be sure to look out for yours and Spacecadet's comments on all the other threads with opinions that differ from yours calling people mad, irrational, crackpots, inciting "danger", etc.

[spacecadet]

 

Opinions are one thing but fallacious arguments are another, and you haven't been called "irrational ", "mad" or "crackpot". Your idea has.

16 minutes ago, KHA said:

So I'll be sure to look out for yours and Spacecadet's comments on all the other threads

MDM, looks like we've got ourselves a stalker. How exciting.

 

Edited June 8, 2019 by spacecadet

[KHA]

28 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

There is no need to speak to people with comments like that. The use of such is seen as an attempt to get peoples backs up and/or start an argument.

 

So please if it is possible would you kindly retract that statement. Thank you.

 

Allan

 

 

 

So I have two people all over me, calling me all sorts of derogatory names, over a simple comment about making an extra set of backup files, and somehow I'm the one who's starting the argument.

 

Hmmm.

 

To quote Spacecadet, I call a spade a spade. And I smell a drama mama! So the comment stands.

 

Remind me not to try to help you again. Later, and best of luck with whatever workflow you choose!

[M.Chapman]

23 hours ago, KHA said:

I remember reading a discussion somewhere within the past year, I think, about how some software update couldn't recognize Adobe DNGs, and people were complaining there were files they couldn't open, or were missing with the update, or something. I can't remember what software it was. It might've even been a Mac operating system update. Or maybe it was a Nik program? Maybe you could do a web search and see if you can find a discussion like that. 

 

But I've always kept the original files directly from the camera untouched anyway, and made copies, and then had Lightroom work from those copies. I was told it was overkill, but I'm always paranoid about touching originals of anything. You never know what software screwups can happen, even if LR is supposedly non-destructive. I'd rather use the hard drive space and have virgin originals I can always go back to if need be. Maybe you could do that as a safeguard against any cons you might not find out about until it's too late.

 

Here's a thought.... If "copies" are on the same disk when running the latest Mac OS and using APFS, they may not be separate copies at all... The second "copy" could just be a link back to the original file with any changes made to the copy stored being stored as small "incremental data files".

 

I agree with keeping a separate copies (on a separate disk and location), not because I fear LR might damage the files on my machine, but because of the risk of hardware failure or other local catastrophe.

 

Mark  

Edited June 8, 2019 by M.Chapman

[KHA]

4 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

 

MDM, looks like we've got ourselves a stalker. How exciting.

 

Seriously, stop with the drama. How old are you?

[Allan Bell]

Found a work around to get A7 mkIII images into LR6.14 but is rather technical for me so will probably give it a miss. But if anyone wants to give it a try it is here.

 

Allan

 

 

[M.Chapman]

1 minute ago, Allan Bell said:

Found a work around to get A7 mkIII images into LR6.14 but is rather technical for me so will probably give it a miss. But if anyone wants to give it a try it is here.

 

Allan

 

 

Yes EXIFTool is a wonderfully powerful (but complex) program. I've used it to turn auto distortion correction on and off before now, as well as automatically adding keywords from an Alamy downloaded spreadsheet into a folder full of image files. EXIFToolGUI makes life easier.

 

Mark

[MDM]

3 minutes ago, KHA said:

 

So I have two people all over me, calling me all sorts of derogatory names, over a simple comment about making an extra set of backup files, and somehow I'm the one who's starting the argument.

 

Hmmm.

 

To quote Spacecadet, I call a spade a spade. And I smell a drama mama! So the comment stands.

 

Remind me not to try to help you again. Later, and best of luck with whatever workflow you choose!

 

I was simply presenting a constructive rational argument about your thinking and I never called you anything except KHA. I did describe what you said as irrational which it is. I am a former professional scientist and I enjoy a rational debate/ argument. But this is ridiculous. I am out of here. Adios.

[spacecadet]

10 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

I was simply presenting a constructive rational argument about your thinking and I never called you anything except KHA. I did describe what you said as irrational which it is. I am a former professional scientist and I enjoy a rational debate/ argument. But this is ridiculous. I am out of here. Adios.

I'm with you and HAL.

This conversation can serve no purpose anymore.

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, Bryan said:

Back to Allan's original question, and this isn't the answer!

 

Are you aware that Sony has come up with a new raw converter to replace Image Data Converter (IDC)? It's called Imaging Edge and is free and downloadable. 

 

Thanks for the link. I just downloaded Imaging Edge and tried the Editing module but find it's really, really slow, it's slightly faster than IDC but still pretty awful. The sliders aren't interactive at all on my 2012 MacBook. Move the slider, wait 1 second then the display updates. I know my machine is getting old, but other software (PS CC, LR CC, Affinity, RawPower and Picktorial all run pretty well).

 

Mark

[Simon]

Hi Allan,

 

At the moment I convert from Raw to DNG automatically on import into Lightroom,  based on research I did a couple of years ago when I started to sell pics. However I thought it was worth doing some digging on the subject, and came up with this interesting piece.

 

https://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng

 

I'm going to do some checks on file sizes of compressed lossless RAW vs the DNG on my Nikon and see how they compare, not sure about Sony,

 

regards Simon

[spacecadet]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

Hi Allan,

 

At the moment I convert from Raw to DNG automatically on import into Lightroom,  based on research I did a couple of years ago when I started to sell pics. However I thought it was worth doing some digging on the subject, and came up with this interesting piece.

 

https://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng

 

I'm going to do some checks on file sizes of compressed lossless RAW vs the DNG on my Nikon and see how they compare, not sure about Sony,

 

regards Simon

The writer seems to have missed the point- surely you only use DNG if you can't use the RAWs. There doesn't seem much point converting otherwise. And I'm sure Allan wouldn't be deleting his RAWs.

[Allan Bell]

On 09/06/2019 at 08:39, Simon said:

Hi Allan,

 

At the moment I convert from Raw to DNG automatically on import into Lightroom,  based on research I did a couple of years ago when I started to sell pics. However I thought it was worth doing some digging on the subject, and came up with this interesting piece.

 

https://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng

 

I'm going to do some checks on file sizes of compressed lossless RAW vs the DNG on my Nikon and see how they compare, not sure about Sony,

 

regards Simon

 

Thank you for your input Simon. Read the link above and not sure what to make of it. Look forward to the result of your investigations.

 

 

22 hours ago, spacecadet said:

The writer seems to have missed the point- surely you only use DNG if you can't use the RAWs. There doesn't seem much point converting otherwise. And I'm sure Allan wouldn't be deleting his RAWs.

 

No never delete RAWS, even if it is necessary to buy more disc space, which it isn't.

 

Allan

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Allan Bell

[John Mitchell]

It looks as if DxO PhotoLab will support your new Sony's RAW files.

 

Very good RAW conversion software IMO. The DxO lens modules (based on DxO lab tests) are effective as well. I believe you can download a trial version of PhotoLab for free.

 

I'll run along now...

[Betty LaRue]

I’m usually convinced with sound logic. Not always. Sometimes what I do or feel flies in the face of conventional wisdom.

We all must remember that our thoughts, feelings or convictions belong to us. For whatever reason, we stick with them, and that’s not wrong as long as we’re not hurting anyone else.

It was plainly and reasonably stated how LR works by knowledgeable people. If someone feels differently, that’s ok.  Anyone new reading this thread can easily make up their own mind without it being suggested that they are too dumb to figure it out for themselves. No real harm done however you think.

It’s  not like someone is trying to convince us that the car we see barreling straight toward us in the road won’t hit us.

Betty

[Alamy]

Hi All,

 

Please remember to stick to the topic of the thread.

 

Many thanks,

Alamy