I know this subject has been beaten to death in other forums, but I will bring it up again for the D800.

I have been converting my RAW NEF files to Adobe's DNG format for the past couple of years because of the benefits expressed by Adobe at the following link:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html

I have Bridge do the conversion when I transfer the files from CF cards to my computer.

With the D300, the conversion was not an issue even though it added significant time to the transfer process. However, with the D800 images I now have two issues:
1. It is REALLY taking a long time to transfer and convert these large NEF files.
2. I cannot view the focus point(s) for images once they are converted because View NX2 only works with NEF/JPEG formats and software from other vendors such as BreezeBrowser do not yet support the D800 file format. I need to view the focus points because I am having some focus issues with wildlife.

I am about to stop doing the conversion so I can get more sleep while on the road doing a shoot (instead of waiting for file transfers to complete) and so I can use View NX2 to view where the camera is focusing.

Do any of you feel strongly about doing the conversion to DNG?

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Larry: I would love to hear more about this topic as well.
I have been converting to DNG for the past 4-5 years. I convert on importing into LR. I like the fact that there are no .xmp files I have to worry about in the future as the info gets embedded in the file once and for all.

But I know that this is controversial and look forward to see my position challenged.

Reza Gorji
-------------
Please visit my galleries: Reza Gorji Photography

I agree Reza. Not only do you have to store and manage the XMP sidecar files along with the NEF files, there are software applications that do not read and use the information in those sidecar files. Photomatix immediately comes to mind.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Taking it one step further some of Adobe's assertions may not be so important:
"• DNG format helps promote archival confidence, since digital imaging software solutions will be able to open raw files more easily in the future.
• A single raw processing solution enables a more efficient workflow when handling raw files from multiple camera models and manufacturers.
• A publicly documented and readily available specification can be easily adopted by camera manufacturers and updated to accommodate technology changes."

Point one: Nikon not going to go out of business so the NEF files will be valid for a long time.
Point two: Correct; most of us are using one or at the most 2 manufacurers
Point three: Clearly Nikon has not taken the bite. Hassleblad and Leica allow you to shoot in DNG.

Reza Gorji
-------------
Please visit my galleries: Reza Gorji Photography

Agreed. Don't think Adobe is going anywhere soon, either...

D700 l N90s l AF-S 16-35 f4 l AF-S 24-85 f3.5-f4.5G VR l AF-S 70-200 f2.8G VRII l AF-S 50 f1.8G l AF-S 300 f4 l TC-14EII l 2x SB600 l Autometer IIIF.
https://www.facebook.com/tony.johnson.photography
http://www.eyesonboulder.com
My Nikonians Gallery

interesting topic. subscribed...

D700 l N90s l AF-S 16-35 f4 l AF-S 24-85 f3.5-f4.5G VR l AF-S 70-200 f2.8G VRII l AF-S 50 f1.8G l AF-S 300 f4 l TC-14EII l 2x SB600 l Autometer IIIF.
https://www.facebook.com/tony.johnson.photography
http://www.eyesonboulder.com
My Nikonians Gallery

I use DNG because of the non destructive edits and archive security. That said, Adobes upgrade path is the road to perdition for hacks like me who don't make our living with photography. I was disappointed to see that DxO does not support Dng. The short path to using DxO as a raw converter and editing in Adobe isn't short. I get as good of results from ACR as DxO, but it takes longer. I hoped I could do it all in DxO, But it doesn't support some of my favorite lenses, 300 f4 for one.

I was surprised by how long the nef to Dng took. It doesn't bother me all that much because I usually import while I am working. The other issue is the loss of Nikon specific information. As you mentioned, focus points. There is other Meta data that Adobe ignores including camera settings that don't effect the NEF. In truth, I don't miss any of that stuff. I rarely care where I focused if the image is what intended. Other than testing the left focus points of my second D800, I have never looked for focus points in edit.

David

David:
I've never used Nikon Software to edit my pics. Can you tell me what info (metadata) is lacking with DNG format?
As a side note, CinemaDNG has not taken off which was an adobe initiative as well. There are cameras where you can shoot in DNG.

Reza Gorji
-------------
Please visit my galleries: Reza Gorji Photography

I am not sure there are data missing after the conversion to DNG. I think it is a simple matter of what formats the vendors choose to support.

I need to view where the camera is focusing because I am having trouble with focus points using the 200-400mm f4 on the D800. I can view the focus points with Nikon View NX2. I have found no other software that will allow me to see those focus points with D800 files.

I can use BreezeBrowser to view focus points in images taken with the D300 and D700 in either NEF or DNG format. This leads me to believe the focus point data is transferred during the conversion.

Unfortunately, BeezeBrowser has not been updated to support the D800. This leaves me with keeping my files in NEF format so I can use View NX2 until BreezeBrowser is updated. I cannot wait for the vendors to catch up; I need the data now so I can solve the focus issue.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

Not a fan of DNG, I suggest shooting RAW on one card and Large Fine JPEG on the other.
Then compare the JPEG with the DNG.
JPEGs are easy to work with if you save the original.
And now you can save your work to "LossLess" JPEGs.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I've tried DNG for a bit. However, I am not a fan. My primary issues were as follows:

1. It was taking the better part of a day to convert my files.
2. Exporting JPGs from the DNG files was NOT keeping my modifications (cropping, etc.)
3. I have a LOT more faith that Nikon will be around vs. Adobe.
4. I was doubling my storage space because I wasn't about to delete my NEFs
5. DNG is not widely supported at all
6. Despite Adobe's propaganda, the files were most certainly not smaller.

All in all, it was a lot of work for zero gain.

------
Webpage: http://www.ptfphoto.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi,

I don't believe in converting files just to get them into a certain format either. Having said this though, DxO 7.5 is part of my workflow and is a raw converter that takes NEF files and produces DNG files, JPEG files, or TIFF files. There is an export command in DxO that imports to LR so I wind up with a DNG file in LR on which I can make minor adjustments.

I don't convert files to DNG from lenses such as the 85 PC-E or Zeiss 100 mm Makro-Planar since they don't get processed by DxO but I am willing to live with different formats.

Tom
Puget Sound Nikonian

I don't think that export command in DxO works with LR4 yet, does it?

Chris

When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.
- Ansel Adams

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

DNG never interested me:

1) DNG did not add anything regardless of the software being used.
2) Nikon and NEF aren't going anywhere.
3) If NEF did disappear sometime in the future, I can always convert to DNG then.
4) Adobe is never going anywhere; they are simply the most important company graphic arts and photography and always will be.

Jon Kandel
A New York City Nikonian and Team Member
Please visit my website and critique the images!

The whole DNG proposition seems ridiculous to me. Adobe can't add anything to what the OEM vendor produces. They can subtract stuff, but my whole workflow is centered around NOT losing anything. They claim that DNG will be around when the other formats become unsupported. If that were to happen, there'd be enough notice for players such as Nikon or Canon. Personally I have three formats and while one of them (Fuji x10's) may disappear, it'll be a very long time before my processing software deletes support for it. (That software is, incidentally, Adobe's.) If some future version of Adobe's software were to appear without support, I would have the old copy or copies to bail everything necessary, probably for years if not decades. (I can still run Photoshop 4.0 if necessary. Not CS4, Photoshop 4.0 - the CD is dated 1997.)

Finally, the .xmp sidecar files actually help me: my NAS device deduplicates redundant copies of blocks, and when the .xmp data is in a separate file, it makes it pretty trivial for it to dedup all of the bigger raw file blocks while not dedup-ing the little .xmp's that are of close to no consequence to my storage.

So what would DNG conversion improve? I can't think of a single thing.

I'll certainly agree that cameras that produce DNG natively (e.g., Leica M9) are in a different situation.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Its not so much what Adobe takes away, its what Nikon does not give away!

They have only licensed their white balance to Adobe so none of the other settings can make it into DNG.

I'm afraid though despite being a big fan of Adobe products because I work in the document production world, I just can't be bothered with DNG Either.

Rod W
Brisbane, QLD, Australia

I made the command decision this week to stop converting to DNG while transferring my images into the computer. I needed to use View NX2 to see where my camera was focusing, and NX2 will not open DNG files. After seeing the speed of the transfers, I decided I can live without ALL of the Adobe benefits. My time is worth more to me than their benefits.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

I've been converting to DNG since I started using Lightroom 1.0. Have been perfectly happy with the results. Non-destructive editing is a very cool thing...

D700 l N90s l AF-S 16-35 f4 l AF-S 24-85 f3.5-f4.5G VR l AF-S 70-200 f2.8G VRII l AF-S 50 f1.8G l AF-S 300 f4 l TC-14EII l 2x SB600 l Autometer IIIF.
https://www.facebook.com/tony.johnson.photography
http://www.eyesonboulder.com
My Nikonians Gallery

I got into DNG because DNG is the Leica Raw format. One point I have not seen made is that the Adobe DNG converter is a free download which Adobe keeps current with the new bodies. Virtually any image processing application that supports DNG can then open any raw file that has been converted to DNG. So new D800/D4 owners are not forced to upgrade to Lightroom 4.1 or Photoshop CS6, but can instead convert their D800/D4 NEFs to DNG and continue to use their existing programs.

Places We Have Been

www.peppermill-multimedia.com

DNG is the only open, non-proprietary raw format out there. One thing nobody has mentioned is that if you shoot various cameras, even if the raw formats all say ".NEF," they're all slightly different. Nikon tries very hard keep the details of their raw formats secret so they can make an extra buck selling their crappy software. Nikon has some great hardware engineers, and their cameras are marvelous machines. Adobe has some great software engineers, and their software is the best in the business. Happily, Adobe doesn't try to make cameras. Nikon might learn something from that.

Russ Lewis
www.FineArtSnaps.com

My understanding is that NO information is lost when converting to DNG that effects the image quality. Am I incorrect?

Before I go back to nikon Raw, I need to be more informed.

I really do not want to use Nikon software; its buggy and not up to par IMO.
-------------
Please visit my galleries: Reza Gorji Photography

I have never seen image quality change after converting from NEF to DNG. However, Nikon says there are data not transferred. They will only accept unaltered JPG or NEF files to evaluate the left-side AF issue because of the data that they say are lost.

There are companies who make products that can show you what View NX2 shows you even with DNG format. They can show the focal point and distance to that point. Thus, that data is not lost during transfer. I may be moved to another place in the file format.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

> My understanding is that NO information is lost when converting to DNG that effects the image quality. Am I incorrect?

Adobe claim that none is lost. To date I've never seen any substantiated claim that any is. However, it's a certainty that DNG carries no information that is NOT in the NEF file: it can't simply make stuff up that wasn't captured.

> Before I go back to nikon Raw, I need to be more informed.

There's no reason to go back to Nikon software. Lots of us don't use Nikon software but do use Adobe software; I do, for one. I just don't use the DNG format.

> I really do not want to use Nikon software; its buggy and not up to par IMO.

I agree, and as a result, I use Lightroom and Photoshop.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Larry, Sounds as if you're still using a 32 bit system for conversion. As long as your computer's limited to accessing a total of 2 gigabytes of memory it's going to take a long time to convert the files. A 64 bit system with at least 8 or 12 gigabytes of memory will make a world of difference.

Russ Lewis
www.FineArtSnaps.com

I can only echo a few other comments, which have led me not to convert.

1) I don't want to get rid of the NEF's just in case one day we find the DNG really did lose something, so DNG's are a bit redundant.

2) For archival reasons if NEF's ever become harder to use, I will just do a mass convert then -- why do it now? 10-15 years from now I will have a lot more to convert but my computer will be a lot faster as well.

3) I actually prefer the idea of non-destructive edits. That way I can checksum all my NEF's periodically and see that they haven't changed (e.g. unrecognized disk failures, copy errors, etc.).

If DNG's had become a standard AS the raw file for cameras that would be something else. But they are not. To me it's a solution in search of a problem.
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://captivephotons.com

>2) For archival reasons if NEF's ever become harder to use, I
>will just do a mass convert then -- why do it now? 10-15
>years from now I will have a lot more to convert but my
>computer will be a lot faster as well.

You got there before me In 10 years you will be able to convert all your NEF files to whatever the new flavour is (may not be DNG) on your smartphone. Until then, I don't see a compelling reason to spend time and disk space on DNG.

I don't feel all that strongly about it, but use DNG's at times. Here are a few things on the other side of the ledger (positives for DNG):

- They create a means for seeing the results of edits made with Adobe products in non-Adobe browsers or catalog tools (Photo Mechanic, Media Pro, etc.). That's because an updated embedded preview is placed in the file. This works independent of the original raw type (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, etc.), which can give you commonality across a variety of camera brands and browsers/catalogs.

- If you need to exchange a raw file with someone else and want to embed the edit information and metadata in that file rather than also providing a sidecar, it provides a means for that.

- In their latest version, DNGs have far more options for reducing file size, including something often requested by D800 users: a raw format that is smaller due to increased compression (including lossy compression) and dimensions (kind of like Canon's sRaw and mRaw files). If you want to create DNGs that have reduced pixel dimensions and dramatically smaller sizes, you can do that. These are actually linear DNG's (de-mosiaced), but behave like regular raw files in most every way. In addition to appealing to photographers who shoot images on occasion that don't need the benefits of high resolution (but want to keep the advantages of raw), it can also be a good format for exchanging raw files due to the much smaller file size.

Rick Walker

My photos:
GeoVista Photography

Download from our library of Image Doctor podcasts here

Those are all really good points. On the other hand, they are also arguments for using DNG as a derivative format, rather than as a source or archival format. To avail oneself of these capabilities, one does not automatically convert to DNG upon ingest and discard the NEF (or NRW, or RAF, or...) original. Virtually all of the discussion above is about DNG use as a source or archive format.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

I am a beginner. Have enjoyed the dialogue. I keep it simple. Import into Aperture 3 on my MacBook Pro. Edits are nondestructive. Master NEF is kept in that format in a separate folder for masters. Converts super fast. Metadata includes focus points and more information than I know how to use and the metadata HUD, as it is called, can be customized to show only the data I care about. If I must go to Adobe PhotoShop I can do so from within the application and Aperture will take it back and put it next to the photo exported.

I am evaluating DxO based on conversation on the forums. So far I can tell a difference in only 20% of my masters as imported by Aperture and those done on the default settings in DxO. Interesting. But the differences can easily be achieved in post with Aperture (it does however save time).

Looking forward to more discussion.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

PhotoSpydie:
I've been converting to DNG for the past 6 years right when I import into LR. Am I wrong; no I don't think so; its my preference. The quality of discussions on this post is very high. High enough that I started to research DNG versus NEF again not only here but by parties that are really neutral.

I think the most crucial factor is actually that when important pictures are taken, RAW is the way to go; not lossy jpg. As you stated, you want your edits to be non-destructive.
-------------
Please visit my galleries: Reza Gorji Photography

I'm enjoying this discussion because I'm seeing different points of view and may need to change my workflow, and maybe not. I import into LR converting to DNG. I also back up through LR to a second drive. Those files are never converted to DNG by default in LR as far as I know because that is how they have backed up on my second external drive. What I can't tell is if the side car info is lost. If it isn't, as I seem to be able to open the images, then this may offer some fellow Nikonians another option if they want DNG and NEF. If the info is lost, then I might need to reevaluate how my workflow happens!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I don't want to deal with the side xmp file; one of the reasons I use DNG.
-------------
Please visit my galleries: Reza Gorji Photography

What exactly do you have to do to "deal" with the xmp files? My software has been set to write them for many years, 5+ maybe and I really can't remember even seeing them let alone having to deal with them. Is there something I need to be doing with them to protect them for the future? I just always assumed they went with the master file.

.
.


Scott Martin Sternberg

Scotts Fine Art

For Adobe image editors, XMP files contain all of the Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) changes that you make to an NEF before you start to edit the file in PS or LR. If you lose the XMP file or delete it by mistake, you will not have your ACR modifications the next time you want to process the image. If, after processing you store the results in a PSD or PSB file, you can always start there with your processing.

As new versions of CS come out, I find myself going back to the original RAW files to start over processing some images to see if I can produce a better result than I did the last time I edited the image. I have recently gone back to images I originally edited with CS3 to reprocess with CS6 to take advantage of new ACR capabilities.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

>start to edit the file in PS or LR. If you lose the XMP file
>or delete it by mistake, you will not have your ACR
>modifications the next time you want to process the image.

I've been using ACR or LR since ACR first came out in around 2003. I have never, ever lost or accidentally deleted even one XMP sidecar file. If I were to do so in the future, I would restore one from my back-up files. I just don't see this as a big deal.

Rick Walker

My photos:
GeoVista Photography

Download from our library of Image Doctor podcasts here

And with Lightroom, by default, the sidecar info is in the Lightroom database. So even less likely to be lost. And you can export it at any time.

I don't see it as a big deal, either. And there's something to be said about not modifying the original file.

I made a decision to convert to DNG a few years back and after reading this thread am wondering if it is necessary. If I did not want to convert to dng but still use Lightroom how would I import the raw into Lightroom? What option would I select upon import? Are my raw files protected from destructive edit the same way they are w/dng?

Thanks in advance!

Art is the only way to run away without leaving home.



www.TinkersRealm.com

Just don't select the option to convert to DNG. Lightroom doesn't destructively edit anything (DNG, NEF, JPEG, TIFF, PSD) until you export an image out of the program.

Rick Walker

My photos:
GeoVista Photography

Download from our library of Image Doctor podcasts here

No difference. It's just a different file type. You would just turn off the conversion to DNG. You'd see no effectual difference in lightroom and your workflow would be completely unchanged.

Ok-so instead of selecting convert to DNG-I just select Copy or Move?

Thanks for the clarification.

Art is the only way to run away without leaving home.



www.TinkersRealm.com

Personally, I use copy from the memory card and then after verifying the images I format the card in camera.

Ok-I think I am going to quit converting to DNG & see if I like working w/my images better w/ a few of the NIK programs too-Thanks for all of the information in this thread!

Art is the only way to run away without leaving home.



www.TinkersRealm.com

Rick, these are exactly my thoughts as well. I guess I don't understand what all the fuss is about in having them. It can't be HD space as the 47000.00 I found on my computer only accounted for about 150 meg's.

>
>>start to edit the file in PS or LR. If you lose the XMP
>file
>>or delete it by mistake, you will not have your ACR
>>modifications the next time you want to process the
>image.
>
>I've been using ACR or LR since ACR first came out in around
>2003. I have never, ever lost or accidentally deleted even
>one XMP sidecar file. If I were to do so in the future, I
>would restore one from my back-up files. I just don't see
>this as a big deal.

.
.


Scott Martin Sternberg

Scotts Fine Art

One other factor to consider is how this affects your backup solution.

Most workflow strategies I've heard that are "DNG-centric" and use Lightroom include "refereshing" the DNG files after an editing session in order to make sure that all meta-data (and edits?) are written to the DNG. Rather than do this just on individual files and potentially miss one (leaving the DNG out of synch), the recommendation was to select all the files in the working folder and do a Ctrl-S to "Save Metadata".

When doing that, ALL of the files in that folder will be updated from the OS perspective (archive bits, last modified dates, etc.) and thus require another backup to be done on that file, even if nothing actually changed for a given image.

I include a cloud-based storage option in my backup strategy as well as local backups to a secondary disk on a separate computer (CrashPlan does a nice job of managing both the off-site and local backup copies very well by the way). Because of the file attributes being updated for all of the DNG files, both the local and especially the off-site backups were having to move a LOT more data than was actually changing. This can end up taking a very long time depending on the number of images you're working with and your bandwidth.

One answer to the above is obviously to not update the metadata for images you haven't changed, but that puts the burden back on me to remember which images I touched since the last metadata refersh - not a good idea in my case

Visit my images on SmugMug.