I'm planning to restructure the digital workflow for my company.
Long story short, we have people shooting on location and in the studio, and we're all using different computers, etc. Since Lightroom isn't really a friendly system for multiple users, I thought we'd each have our own LR catalogs, and then we could process and export the selects as DNG files into a master LR catalog or some other DAM database.
Anybody using DNG files on a regular basis? Any drawbacks I'm not aware of? Anything I should consider about the format?
There's really no reason to use the DNG format. It's a solution to a non-existent problem.
You can export files in their original format from Lightroom. It will even export the XMP sidecar files with them, so the photographers can make adjustments, if they like, and they'll automatically show up when importing into LR or opening them with Photoshop.
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: There's really no reason to use the DNG format. It's a solution to a non-existent problem.
You can export files in their original format from Lightroom. It will even export the XMP sidecar files with them, so the photographers can make adjustments, if they like, and they'll automatically show up when importing into LR or opening them with Photoshop.
I can export NEF files as NEF files? That would be cool.
While I respect @Leggy's opinion, I use the DNG format largely because it puts the XMP sidecar file INTO the DNG file, making it less likely you get them separated down the road.
At this point in time, Leggy is right that nobody (that I know of) has scuttled support for old file formats, which is supposed to be one of the benefits of the DNG format. But then the oldest such are less than 15 years old -- give 'em a few decades.
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: There's really no reason to use the DNG format. It's a solution to a non-existent problem.
When I purchased my Nikon D600, I found that it had a new file format not supported by Photoshop CS5. The only way I could open the files in a workflow I was used to, was to convert them to DNG using Adobe's free converter software.
IMAK Photo wrote: When I purchased my Nikon D600, I found that it had a new file format not supported by Photoshop CS5. The only way I could open the files in a workflow I was used to, was to convert them to DNG using Adobe's free converter software.
That's just Adobe's way of nudging you towards upgrading your Photoshop.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,625
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
IMAK Photo wrote:
When I purchased my Nikon D600, I found that it had a new file format not supported by Photoshop CS5. The only way I could open the files in a workflow I was used to, was to convert them to DNG using Adobe's free converter software.
Have you tried looking for a plug-in for CS-5 that'll enable you to use the files from a D-600? Or is that what you mean by "not supported"?
Mike Kelcher wrote: Why not use TIF files? I think most image software will handle TIffs which are fairly universal in nature and can be uncompressed or compressed.
Hey Mike!
A few reasons I wouldn't use TIFF files. First, they're actually larger than NEF files, so fewer files per gigabyte.
Second, raw files -- and DNGs from what I understand -- can be more easily and extensively manipulated.
David M Russell wrote: I can export NEF files as NEF files? That would be cool.
Yes you can. Absolutely.
Also, I love those little XMP files. Imagine you and another photographer (or image editor, etc.) are collaborating with the same set of master files. One could e-mail that tiny little XMP file to the other and have the adjustments he made quickly available to the other. That is a tremendous advantage, IMO. Embedding never made any sense to me. That is a recipe for a corrupted file down the line.
David M Russell wrote: I'm planning to restructure the digital workflow for my company.
Long story short, we have people shooting on location and in the studio, and we're all using different computers, etc. Since Lightroom isn't really a friendly system for multiple users, I thought we'd each have our own LR catalogs, and then we could process and export the selects as DNG files into a master LR catalog or some other DAM database.
Anybody using DNG files on a regular basis? Any drawbacks I'm not aware of? Anything I should consider about the format?
Thanks in advance for your input.
I've been using DNG for years. It's one of the native formats with Pentax. I haven't seen any drawbacks to it. The ones mentioned above don't apply to me, though they might to others.
What I like about DNG is it's backwards compatibility with Photoshop. When I bought my K10, Adobe was being really slow about updating camera raw to the camera's PEF format, so I switched to DNG and had compatibility with ACR. I don't like being forced to buy new software when a new camera comes on the market. One can use the DNG converter after Adobe gives it support for the camera manufacturer's native format, but it's one more step, and you still have to wait for them to upgrade the converter to work.
Just on the outside chance it's useful to anyone else, I'll post the following from a PM sent to the OP after he gave me some info on his particular needs.
But first, my own take on the DNG debate. With DNG I have all the information I need from the raw file, with NO danger of losing edits made in Lightroom or ACR. Trusting that XMP file to always follow along while transferring from cards to folders to external drives to servers just doesn't work. BTW, I'm not referring to a personal computer with one user - I work in a production environment with multiple sources of images, myriad projects under way at one time, and numerous in-house graphic designers & illustrators accessing the files. It isn't a one-size-fits-all issue.
Now - info that may be useful to the rest of you.
========================
Good morning! Quite a number of similarities between our storage systems, so this may actually be helpful! Just a few notes that should help avoid problems I've run into with Lightroom.
-be sure all players have the same version of Lightroom and have ALL preferences set up the same way (distribute a cheat-sheet)
-Lightroom > Preferences > General
IMPORTANT - look at your workflow to decide whether or not you should be checking the box "Treat JPEG files next to raw files as separate photos" My JPG's are for web use only, while DNG and/or TIFF are destined for 4c printing. Therefore I want them separate in Lightroom. You can save or create a lot of headache's depending on which way you need to go with this option!
-Lightroom > Preferences > File Handling
dng
Camera Raw 7.1 & later
JPEG Preview: Full Size
Embed Fast Load Data
DO NOT check Embed Original Raw File
->I convert all to DNG and pitch the original raw. NEVER had any regrets about that decision.<-
-Catalog settings > File Handling
Preview size - 2048
Preview quality - High
Discard 1:1 - Never
->Takes longer to build the database yet reduces time to view/edit images later. Also takes more space on server, but disk space as cheap, FINALLY!<-
-Catalog settings > Metadata
Include Develop Settings inside JPEG, etc
->this makes your image files cross-machine compatible without needing to share the LR database. That helps mitigate the issue you stated as your "biggest fear". The edits are now written into the header of each JPEG, TIFF or DNG!<-
Automatically write changes into XMP
->If NOT checked, you must manually save your edit session to the files. I lost hours of work on several occasions before I discovered this one!<-
I agree with your "new thought". Once you've set up your Master LR Catalog there's a rather simple way to have it do most of the work of updating itself.
-Have your entire library of images in a master folder, or several sub-folders. Mine are Photography in Process, Released Images, Photo Archive & PrePress Archive. Each has multiple folders pertaining to individual books. You can easily imagine the correlation to your own folder structure.
-In LR you can right-click on any of those folders, then select Synchronize Folder...
->CHECK Import New Photos (It will search the sub-folders!)
->UNCHECK Show Import Dialogue (you don't want it to hang waiting for an OK? at 3:00AM!)
->CHECK Scan for Metadata updates
-This took around 68 hours the first time I had LR build a master catalog of images (over a weekend while I was at the ocean). Now it's only a few hours scheduled at the end of each week (while I'm home eating or sleeping).
I don't bother with the LR catalog "backup". I am just very rigorous about clicking File > Optimize Catalog... a couple times each week. I also have ChronoSync handle the backup of all images along with the LR catalog (which is stored in a folder on the same drive as the original image files).
I hope that helps. Selfishly, this gave me a reason to write some more of those options into my procedure file for Lightroom. Thanks for that!!
MILLAR STUDIO
Posts: 13
Kilwinning, Scotland, United Kingdom
Purely from listening to the concerns of a few pro photographers regarding support for RAW files, I now use DNG files. No probs with them, in answer to your original question.
Michael DBA Expressions wrote: While I respect @Leggy's opinion, I use the DNG format largely because it puts the XMP sidecar file INTO the DNG file, making it less likely you get them separated down the road.
At this point in time, Leggy is right that nobody (that I know of) has scuttled support for old file formats, which is supposed to be one of the benefits of the DNG format. But then the oldest such are less than 15 years old -- give 'em a few decades.
DNGs also have the advantage of being quite a bit smaller than Raw files and as an open format and so if a manufacturer eliminates an older format you would still be able to open your old images in the newer format.
I use dng files when I need to share them, or when I shot with Pentax as its the native RAW format. Exporting two files or different types makes catalog and share cumbersome. In a large organization it is simply not a solution, where single files in a common format could be stored in any document management system. Even an open source one like knowledge tree could be used - maybe overkill for a small company but it all depends on what assets are being shared along with images. If I was integrating with marketing then it would work well.
Veit Photo
Posts: 563
London, England, United Kingdom
Connor Photography wrote: I love DNG file and love Adobe, I think they will last forever. What else i need to know or use.
We will see what happens to Adobe when home computers start to die out and become prohibitively expensive, specialised things. Adobe's margins seem partly reliant on the fact that hardware is cheap so software can be expensive. Can't see them easily moving to another platform - unless Apple come out with a 24" iPad. But this is thinking many years in the future.
David Nelson Photograph wrote: DNGs also have the advantage of being quite a bit smaller than Raw files and as an open format and so if a manufacturer eliminates an older format you would still be able to open your old images in the newer format.
Most newer RAW files are compressed and converting them to DNG won't result in a smaller file.
I did free up a lot of storage space by converting my older RAW files to DNG, but for my newer bodies I leave my RAW files in their native format. I already know from past experience that if there is a compelling reason to convert my old RAW files to DNG that I can do that in a reasonable amount of time, however at this point, I don't have any reason to do that. It seems like an unnecessary step.
I prefer the XMP sidecar files. I'm a little nervous about having all of the metadata information exist only in my Lightroom database and the sidecar files take up very little space.
I'm not sure I understand the second part of your statement. Why would my files suddenly not open because the manufacturer eliminated that format?
I do think that there could be advantages in standardizing on a single format for the scenario described in the OP.
I've long found the "compatibility" issue puzzling. I'm unaware of any program that will open a DNG file from a camera that won't support the camera's native format. Well, any program that's not made by Adobe.
On the other hand, try opening a DNG in Nikon Capture or Canon's Digital Photo Professional. And as I said earlier, writing changes into master files brings with it the very real risk of file corruption. That's one thing I like about leaving master files untouched, with the sidecars holding the info.
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: I've long found the "compatibility" issue puzzling. I'm unaware of any program that will open a DNG file from a camera that won't support the camera's native format. Well, any program that's not made by Adobe.
A while back, I had my main computer in the shop, and was using my old one during the repair. The old computer has CS3 on it, which will not open the PEF files from my K5, but would open the DNG files with no problem.
For fun one day, I fired up an older computer, which still had Photoshop 7 (pre CS days, and I believe the first version of Photoshop to come with a raw converter). It had no problem opening the DNG files from my K7.
With manufacturer native formats, Adobe will force you to either upgrade to newer software or use their DNG converter at some point, while if you use a camera that supports DNG as the native format you will not run into this particular problem.
Phil Drinkwater
Posts: 4,231
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
GM Photography wrote:
Most newer RAW files are compressed and converting them to DNG won't result in a smaller file.
I did free up a lot of storage space by converting my older RAW files to DNG, but for my newer bodies I leave my RAW files in their native format. I already know from past experience that if there is a compelling reason to convert my old RAW files to DNG that I can do that in a reasonable amount of time, however at this point, I don't have any reason to do that. It seems like an unnecessary step.
I prefer the XMP sidecar files. I'm a little nervous about having all of the metadata information exist only in my Lightroom database and the sidecar files take up very little space.
I'm not sure I understand the second part of your statement. Why would my files suddenly not open because the manufacturer eliminated that format?
I do think that there could be advantages in standardizing on a single format for the scenario described in the OP.
Tend to agree, especially with the bit about the file format being eliminated.
As far as I'm concerned, dng is as likely as any other format to stop being supported.
Newer cameras do mean you need to update though, but Lightroom is my life so it's no issue for me personally.
Capture in NEF, RAF, and whatever the Phase One Back creates. Upon import the files are converted to DNG:
1. RAW format allows for maximum versilility
2. As Software improves older files can be reprocessed (D1 files look great with LR)
3. DNG offer lossless compression (I have 200k of archived DNGs this is a big issue)
4. Consistency- CRW, CR2, DCR, NEF, RAF. I want to be able to open these files long after older formats are not supported.
5. If DNG dies, it will be one large migration to the new format.
Mike Kelcher wrote: Why not use TIF files? I think most image software will handle TIffs which are fairly universal in nature and can be uncompressed or compressed.
+1
I only use .psd's because my workflow is mostly Adobe-based now. When I need to make some controls/manipulations in a non-Adobe piece of software, I copy the .psd to a .tif then make the controls. I then make the .psd a complete blank, layer the TIF onto the PSD, and flatten the image. All the original info stays'put in the .psd, so it's lossless in more ways than simply the obvious Lol!
Disclaimer:I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work – which may/may not be supportive.
Edit: No, it is not too time-consuming. I'm still under 2-weeks 100% of the time with my turnover's
That's just Adobe's way of nudging you towards upgrading your Photoshop.
Which I refuse to get caught up in. Also Apple's OS (at least Snow Leopard) doesn't currently support icon preview for the files in the Finder, but they do for DNG.
IMAK Photo wrote: When I purchased my Nikon D600, I found that it had a new file format not supported by Photoshop CS5. The only way I could open the files in a workflow I was used to, was to convert them to DNG using Adobe's free converter software.
I use DNG currently as well because I got the Canon 6D which does not support CR2. They are similar in size. Haven't noticed any great changes.. I use a free converter
It opens just like Raw
Hi MK...I have the Canon 6D also. I am shooting raw and using my CR2 files in Lightroom and CS6. I'm not clear what you mean that it doesn't support it?
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: There's really no reason to use the DNG format. It's a solution to a non-existent problem.
**********
Untrue....
There are *many* reasons NOT to use JPG.
DNG is superior to JPG in every respect: lossless format, 8 & 16 bit imagery, better color, smaller disk space footprint, free DNG converter updates available from Adobe....
Leggy Mountbatten wrote: There's really no reason to use the DNG format. It's a solution to a non-existent problem.
RSM-images wrote: **********
Untrue....
There are *many* reasons NOT to use JPG.
DNG is superior to JPG in every respect: lossless format, 8 & 16 bit imagery, better color, smaller disk space footprint, free DNG converter updates available from Adobe....
.
Who's talking about jpeg's? We're talking about native camera formats, such as CR2's and NEF's.
When you use DNG's, you get a larger storage footprint, because you have to keep twice as many files: the masters and the DNG's.
DNG is superior to JPG in every respect: lossless format, 8 & 16 bit imagery, better color, smaller disk space footprint, free DNG converter updates available from Adobe....
.
Pretty sure we were talking about native formats (RAW) and/or alternatives like PSD or TIFF. I didn't see anyone say JPG was the solution to the OP's challenge.
i personally dont see the use of DNG. its more of a political format that Adobe is trying to impose.
its only real benefit to me is to be universal if native formats are not supported. however that benefit is itself a bit as a non sense. if native formats are not supported, how can you convert them into DNG? camera makers wont provide a DNG converter either. that would acknowledge the weakness of their own format.
so far canon nikon and most vendors have their formats supported and very few embrace DNG saving in their camera. i dont see that changing in the future. everyone wants to promote their format.
Moreover, DNG is often not supported by other makers and remains quite proprietary to Adobe. that is another non sense for a universal format. Capture NX doesnt support itfir instance.
last issue with DNG is that it requires extra processing. with hundreds or thousands of pics it is definitely a huge drawback.
David LAI wrote: i personally dont see the use of DNG. its more of a political format that Adobe is trying to impose.
That is somewhat like saying that 35mm perforated film and the 24 x 36 format was a political format that Leica tried to impose. The DNG format has the advantage of backwards compatibility, so if your new camera will write DNGs, you may not have to buy the latest and greatest version of Photoshop or Lightroom to use your new camera, nor wait until Adobe has written an update to ACR.
This was why I started shooting DNG in the first place.
Lol!
| 
| 
| edu