Other than forensic reasons for legal pictures, are there any really important reasons to save the original RAW files once one has converted to DNG? I cannot really come up with any in my mind except just plain nervousness. It seems that DNG, even if it does not end up being the universal open source file type down the line, will still be convertable in the future if there is a change to a new universal format. Any thoughts?

Scott

scott ...

in theory ... no, but it may be prudent to wait and see how RAW standards play themselves out.

for instance, many Nikon photographers wonder why Nikon is so zealously obfuscating third party RAW conversion utilities? do they have something--as of yet unannounced--in mind? can we be sure? will camera makers form a consortium to support a different universal format?

also, some converters--such as Nikon Capture--offer features third party converters do not support. features such as fisheye-to-rectilinear conversion. while this can be done with pano-tools, it is not done using the camera/lens makers optic algorithim. and would that make a difference--who knows?

imo, at this point in time there's still insufficient data available to formulate a conclusion. however seeing it's all just real estate on your disk drive, you can archive one disk full of your camera's RAW files and another with DNGs.

if these issues are not significant enough for you to be concerned about-- by all means proceed with the delete key. in the end, i suspect early adopters of DNG will have made the correct choice. either way, until there is a definitive consensus--it's your gamble to play. :-)

scottbjones:

My "formal advice" is to do what nunatak says, and what Adobe says, etc. Keep copies of everything. (I had a colleague whose policy was "never throw away a pice of paper until you've taken a photo-copy"!)

My own practice is the opposite. Life's too short to waste time, when you could be out there taking more photographs.

I convert to DNG straight from the card onto a disc other than my working Photoshop disc, without embedding the original. I copy the contents of this folder to my Photoshop disc. I verify the copies on the latter in Bridge / ACR. Then, with copies of the DNG in 2 places, I re-format the cards in the camera.

I sleep easy at night.

I have judged that using DNG in this way is the least problematic and worrying aspect of my entire RAW processing system. When I print successfully on A3 or A3+ paper, what is the point in worrying about what metadata I have lost for ever in this process? If it didn't matter when printing at A3+, when would it ever matter?

I do worry about some things: the firmware in my camera; the firmware in my CompactFlash cards; the longevity of CD storage; the longevity of hard disc storage; whether my house will fall on me; whether this glass of wine will destroy my liver.

But I have stopped worrying about DNG itself. Neither do I worry about alien abduction. (Must stop there ... I've just heard a strange noise outside ...)

Thanks for two quite thoughtful replies. This was helpful to me in making my choice. I think I am going to do the conversion and live a DNG only "RAW photographic lifestyle". This user to user forum has been so helpful!

Scott

whether this glass of wine will destroy my liver




i'm sure that's just a wicked rumor started by the milk marketing board ... ;-)

On 09:16am May 30, 2005 scottbjones wrote:

are there any really important reasons to save the original RAW files
once one has converted to DNG?




Scott,

The most obvious reason is currently only ACR can convert DNG. You lock yourself into an Adobe workflow and therefore limit your choices, paradoxical to what the whole DNG concept is about.

While I too love PS CS2 it isn't the only game in town. Who knows what RAW converter is just around the corner in this ever changing digital photography world?

-- Robert.

Robert:

At the end of April, about 25 non-Adobe products read and/or wrote DNG. The number increases month by month. It was about 15 non-Adobe products at the end of February.
<http://avondale.typepad.com/rawformat/2005/04/index.html>

Although this won't matter to you, (nor me!), Leica have just announced the shipping date (15th June) of their DIGITAL-MODUL-R for the R8 and R9, which uses DNG for its Raw format.
<http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/rsystem/digitalmodul/index_e.html>

DNG is not Adobe-only. I stopped worrying about this issue months ago.

Barry,

Most of those 25 non-Adobe apps are image browsers or asset managers.

The key RAW converters do not support DNG, apart from ACR. C1DSLR (still) does not, Bibble doesn't, no camera manufacturers converters do, and last I checked RSE didn't either. Some promise to but have yet to implement it.

While I support DNG and ACR is my most often used RAW converter, I still have a handful of other converters that are used regularly. Sometimes I get a better result and/or the workflow dictates which one I choose for a particular job.

To me it would seem foolhardy to dispose of your original RAW files at this stage.

YMMV

-- Robert.

I have to agree with Robert here. It's best to save the RAW and the DNG for now. I'm tempted to embed the RAW in the DNG, but what other program can extract the embedded RAW besides the Adobe's DNG Converter? It may seem like a small/picky thing, but I just don't yet have that 100% warm and fuzzy feeling that DNG will be the "way of the future" as Howard Hughes kept reapting at the end of "The Aviator" ;) It certainly may, but it may not. So a DNG only workflow is not a sure bet yet, unles you just use Adobe products. Neither is embedding the original RAW. If there were at least 2-3 programs that could extract the RAW from the DNG, it would be a different story there I think. Are there? Maybe I just don't know, but I haven't see any.

I also realize that nobody has stated that DNG will be the standard, but what HAS been stated is that it's a standard that is open - TRUE. But I want to see apps that start to support it more. I know it's early and my gut tells me it will happen, but until then, no way/shape/or form can I advocate to throw away your original RAW files after converting to DNG. I can't even advocate embedding them (although I wish I could!).

Also, looking at the RSE notes, what does it mean to say that DNG is only supported for the supported cameras?? I thought support of DNG means support of a standard - implicityly supporting ANY camera. Isn't that the point? Even Phase One says that is not true - that it's still camera dependent. That has me confused..