1 2 Previous Next 43 Replies Latest reply on May 4, 2013 12:19 PM by station_two Go to original post
      • 40. Re: Inadequate camera raw 6.4.1 updates for CS5
        Yammer Level 4

        Peter.King wrote:

         

        From this thread, I gather that the conversion from native Raw to DNG is lossless.  If there is no loss in the conversion, is there any any need to retain the original Raw files?  By saving both the native Raw files and the DNG converted files, I am doubling up on the storage space needed, and I wonder if I could recover half that space by deleting the native Raw files after conversion.  What would be your advice Jeff?

        You could always buy one of his books:

        http://www.amazon.com/The-Digital-Negative-Processing-Lightroom/dp/0321839579/ref=sr_1_1?i e=UTF8&qid=1367594910&sr=8-1

        http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Camera-Adobe-Photoshop/dp/0321713095/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&i e=UTF8&qid=1367594944&sr=1-4

         

        Some people might say it's good to double up, in case one of them gets deleted. You could keep the original Raws as a separate backup. But then you didn't ask me.

        • 41. Re: Inadequate camera raw 6.4.1 updates for CS5
          ssprengel Adobe Community Professional & MVP

          If you only ever use Adobe software on your raw files and Adobe isn't converting to a linear-DNG like they do for Fuji X-Trans files so the demosaicking is locked-in, then you probably don't need the native NEFs.

           

          If you want to use other brands of software with some of your raw files or worry that Adobe may go belly up before your archive of files is obsolete, then retaining the native raw files might be wise. 

           

          I have a converative-enough mindset that I purposely don't convert to DNGs just so I will always have the image data in a freeist possible format.  Others may have a more transient interest in their raw files, and so DNGs might be a better choice.

           

          Some might argue that the DNG format is more universal and has options to detect corruption and the raw-adjustments are self-contained, or any number of other reasons why using DNG is better, but my counter-argument is that DNGs aren't usually supported by the camera manufacturer's licenced software so you  will have less choices for processing if you delete the NEFs.  I rarely would use the camera-manufacturer's software, but I don't want to preclude myself from doing so by converting to DNG and deleting the original raws.

          • 42. Re: Inadequate camera raw 6.4.1 updates for CS5
            Yammer Level 4

            ssprengel wrote:

             

            I rarely would use the camera-manufacturer's software, but I don't want to preclude myself from doing so by converting to DNG and deleting the original raws.

            Me too. Tried CaptureNX and hated it.

             

            There's something about deleting the original Raw file which is anathema to me. I mean, we choose to shoot Raw because we want to Keep the original data, so it seems slightly peverted to then throw it away.

             

            I personally don't use DNG. I'm one of those weirdos who actually likes having a sidecar with each Raw file. I know that the Raw file is never opened for writing, and I can always delete the sidecar if something goes wrong. Also, if Nikon does ever come up with a 'killer app', I'm ready for it.

             

            Of course, if I was stuck with CS5, I wouldn't have the choice, so I'd probably convert to DNG, and move the NEFs to offline storage.

            • 43. Re: Inadequate camera raw 6.4.1 updates for CS5
              Level 5

              • The cost of hard drive space keeps plummeting and has reached levels that make it trivial.

              1 2 Previous Next