Keeping both files when converting RAW to DNG

[Allan Bell]

I do not know if anyone else converts their RAW files to DNG, but if they do, do they retain both files on their system?

 

At the moment I have retained both because I have always kept my RAW files as they are definate proof of ownership of the image should it ever be needed.

 

Do you think the DNG files can be classed as proof of ownership?

 

Allan

 

[Chuck Nacke]

First thing that I do when I come in from a shoot is to save the RAW

files to a separate drive.

 

Chuck

[Bill Brooks]

I convert my (camera make) RAW files to DNG RAW files. Both files are RAW. I discard the (camera maker) RAW file. I do not embed the (camera maker) RAW in the DNG RAW because it increases the the file size of the DNG RAW. I archive a processed DNG RAW file, and a final TIFF version made in photoshop of the same file. I often use both ACR/Lightroom to do initial RAW processing, output the TIFF, that I then tweak in Photoshop. Alamy JPG output using photoshop from the final TIFF.

 

I have SONY RAW, Nikon RAW, and Canon RAW files to contend with, so it brings more order to things.

 

I use Adobe software to process the DNG RAW file. DNG RAW was  developed and promoted by Adobe as a way to bring order, so it is more future proof universal than the (camera maker) RAW files. Camera makers can go out of business, change the structure of their RAW files on a whim, or to force you to use their software. For instance sometime around 2004 Nikon encrypted the white balance metadata in their RAW files. It was seen as a way to force photographers away from Adobe products towards the inferior Nikon software. Uproar followed, and Nikon backed off. Last straw with Nikon for me, and I purchased a Canon

 

I do not think the DNG RAW file proves ownership, and more than the (camera maker) RAW file proves ownership. They both contain the same metadata. It is just ordered differently within the file.

[Harry Harrison]

Do you mean prove ownership in the sense that the file is tied in to your camera or particular lens by embedded EXIF information? I believe that can be true in certain circumstances but I don't think it's widespread and I don't think you'll see it in LR or PS anyway, forensic investigators might know different. On the other hand presumably it is extremely unlikely that any of us would distribute our RAW files so Camera RAW or DNG would be proof enough. That said I'd feel very uneasy about getting rid of the original RAW files but then my workflow doesn't involve DNGs anyway.

[DJ Myford]

The Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition - and presumably other such prestigious contests - require RAW files for authentication (during the second round of judging, if you've made the shortlist). DNG files are only accepted if they were generated in camera at the time of capture. Obviously this is a special case, but worth keeping in mind if you think you may choose to participate in such events.

[dlmphotog]

Allan,

 

I would keep the original RAW file.

[M.Chapman]

16 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

I do not know if anyone else converts their RAW files to DNG, but if they do, do they retain both files on their system?

 

At the moment I have retained both because I have always kept my RAW files as they are definate proof of ownership of the image should it ever be needed.

 

Do you think the DNG files can be classed as proof of ownership?

 

Allan

 

 

Given the limited number of image/raw editors (other than Adobe's) that can properly open and process DNGs (they haven't become the standard that Adobe hoped) if you delete the original RAW you risk restricting your choices for (re)processing your images in the future. Especially as Adobe seem to be trying to lock folks into their subscription model which you may not wish to pay. This article gives a good review. https://photographylife.com/why-i-no-longer-convert-raw-files-to-dng

 

You may also want to watch out for DNGs being used as "sidecars". Once edits have been made and stored in the DNG metadata, LR and PS can assume you always want to apply the same edits again. It's not as easy to remove this metadata from the DNG as it is to simply delete a separate xmp sidecar.

 

I'd always keep the RAW. You can always use the free Adobe DNG converter in future (download a copy now and keep it) to produce DNGs in future if you need.

 

Mark

Edited July 4, 2019 by M.Chapman

[MDM]

Have you backed down from the subscription then Allan? If you are going to take the plunge, then why use DNG at all (as in Mark's article link)? 

[Allan Bell]

2 hours ago, MDM said:

Have you backed down from the subscription then Allan? If you are going to take the plunge, then why use DNG at all (as in Mark's article link)? 

 

For the time being I have backed away from the subscription. I have changed a set of RAW (Sony AWR) files from the new camera and copied to DNG(RAW) to process in the perpetual license LR6 software. {The one which does not recognise the RAWS direct from the new camera.} The RAW(AWR) files are separate from the DNG(RAW) files but makes an extra step to rename the original RAWs. They are filed side by side.

 

Thank you to all the above contributors above with their ideas and methods. I have read all with interest and have taken note of comments regarding proof of ownership in the image too.

 

Allan

 

Edited July 4, 2019 by Allan Bell

[Harry Harrison]

9 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

I have changed a set of RAW (Sony AWR) files from the new camera and copied to DNG(RAW) to process in the perpetual license LR6 software

 

Does the resulting DNG file bring up Sony options in LR, assuming there are any? I'm thinking really of Profiles in the Camera Calibration section, there would usually be an extra set of camera specific options, there certainly are with my Fuji & Canon image files.

[Allan Bell]

Just now, Harry Harrison said:

 

Does the resulting DNG file bring up Sony options in LR, assuming there are any? I'm thinking really of Profiles in the Camera Calibration section, there would usually be an extra set of camera specific options, there certainly are with my Fuji & Canon image files.

 

I don't usually use the "options" section. But I will check this out later.

 

Allan

 

[Harry Harrison]

No, I forget that they are there but the Fuji has their Provia, Astia and Velvia profiles together with a straight monochrome and 3 other monochrome profiles simulating Red, Yellow & Green filters. The Canon has Camera Faithful, Camera Standard, Camera Neutral, Camera Landscape & Camera Portrait, I presume that they are there to complement the in-camera jpeg options.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Harry Harrison

[Allan Bell]

2 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

No, I forget that they are there but the Fuji has their Provia, Astia and Velvia profiles together with a straight monochrome and 3 other monochrome profiles simulating Red, Yellow & Green filters. The Canon has Camera Faithful, Camera Standard, Camera Neutral, Camera Landscape & Camera Portrait, I presume that they are there to complement the in-camera jpeg options.

 

Had a look and cannot find anything for Sony in LR6 wether it is RAW or DNG.  This could be that I have all my cameras working in RAW only files. Perhaps this option only shows up if you are taking JPEGS as well?

 

I am a wus! Had another look and found Sony equivalent settings with their RAW files BUT not with the DNG files.

 

Sorry for the confusion. Put it down to age.😣

 

Allan

 

Edited July 4, 2019 by Allan Bell

[Harry Harrison]

 

6 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

found Sony equivalent settings with their RAW files BUT not with the DNG files.

Thanks Allan, I did wonder if that might be one difference between the original RAW & DNG.

[Allan Bell]

2 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

Thanks Allan, I did wonder if that might be one difference between the original RAW & DNG.

 

Always stayed with the Adobe standard 2012 for my images. Don't know why I never tried the camera alternatives, maybe thought it was not worth it as I always fully process the RAW in the standard settings to how I want it to look.

 

Allan

 

[Harry Harrison]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

Always stayed with the Adobe standard 2012 for my images

I have done some of my own profiles using the Colorchecker and the plugin for when I was copying some artwork (felt like the professional thing to do!). I do actually prefer one of them for my 5D MkII but it's pretty subtle. I imagine if someone made be do a blind test I'd probably fail, it's all in the mind....

[Bryan]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Always stayed with the Adobe standard 2012 for my images. Don't know why I never tried the camera alternatives, maybe thought it was not worth it as I always fully process the RAW in the standard settings to how I want it to look.

 

Allan

 

 

I've played around a bit with the camera profiles, but almost always gone back to Adobe standard. The Sony camera landscape rendition looks unreal to me, greens far too vivid, but I guess some customers might like the look?

[Allan Bell]

14 minutes ago, Bryan said:

 

I've played around a bit with the camera profiles, but almost always gone back to Adobe standard. The Sony camera landscape rendition looks unreal to me, greens far too vivid, but I guess some customers might like the look?

 

Thanks for vindicating my actions Bryan.

 

Allan

 

[Vincent Lowe]

On 03/07/2019 at 19:28, Bill Brooks said:

....DNG RAW was  developed and promoted by Adobe as a way to bring order, so it is more future proof universal than the (camera maker) RAW files.

 

I wouldn't be too sure of that.  From Mario Westphal, developer of IMatch.....

 

"Unfortunately, Adobe seems to have ruined the initial idea of DNG for good. By adding new stuff to the DNG format every time they needed something for their software, they created so many flavors and variants of DNG that it is not funny anymore. So much for 'standards' and Adobe."
 

https://www.photools.com/community/index.php?topic=4377.msg29317#msg29317