Question re: use of Adobe DNG converter

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When configuring Adobe DNG Converter, one has the choice of embedding the original RAW image or not.

 

Seems to me a strange question. If I'm converting, say, a Digilux 2 file to DNG:

 

1) I'm converting to DNG because it's supposedly more future-proof than RAW, so why save the RAW?

 

2) A program that reads DNG can't read an embedded D2 RAW.

 

3) A program that reads D2 RAW can't extract it from a DNG.

 

4) So basically, if I wrap the DNG around the RAW, haven't I lost access to the RAW file anyway?

 

So is there an advantage to embedding the RAW image? If so, what is it?

 

And if not, why is the option offered?

 

Thanks.

 

--HC

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[spylaw4]

You will note in the DNG converter Preferences that it says that embedding the RAW will allow it to be extracted later. Clicking on the "extract" button brings up a window that asks for the location of the DNG and where to put the extracted RAW. So you have not lost access.

 

I use DNG purely as an archive format and when converting I always embed. I can see the time when I will have to delete older Lightroom referenced RAWs to conserve disc space, so by including the RAW I can always return to them should I need to.

 

I suppose that strictly speaking one needn't keep the RAW, but hey, keep your options open!

[phlogiston1]

Yes use the DNG converter and don't embed the Raw file... not much point really.

DNG is cool, write all the meta data into the file... NO side car files hangin' around.

In Bridge enter all the meta data in "file info", very powerful tool. Make a template of your usual info, so simple.

Go to Bridge prefs and check " use distributed cache files... " this usually makes life simpler too, esp. if moving files around. Bridge is very powerful, and will save you heaps of time.

[erl]

I made a decision when I first started using DNG. I asked myself 'why' I was using it. The answer was something like "future openess and accessability with maximum perceived flexibility".

 

So I decided to convert all RAW files, regardless of source, to DNG and dump the original bloated RAW file. The DNG saves in approx half the disk space and I can detect no loss of any data except 'propritary' gumph stuffed in by camera makers. It appears ideal and compact.

 

Obviously, Leica agree.

 

Cheers,

Erl

[ho_co]

Thanks to all of you for the input!

 

Brian, thanks for pointing out that DNG offers the option of retrieving the original RAW files. I hadn't noticed that, sad to say.

 

And you all explain the choice you made in deciding whether to keep or dump the RAW and whether to embed it in the DNG. Very helpful to see how you've thought about the matter.

 

Thanks for the assistance!

 

--HC

[squanmis]

HC:

Thanks for raising the question. I too wondered why save the RAW file after you converted to a DNG file. Everybodies response was helpful. My choice is to delete the RAW file and save the space. John