Convert to DNG

[billm58768003]

In the "Convert Photo to DNG" dialog if I check the "Delete originals after successful conversion" does this erase the raw original from the catalogue or from the source file as well?

[JP Hess]

The original file is erased from the drive. You can find them in the trash or the recycle bin.

[Just Shoot Me]

Both.

Is this with the Stand Alone DNG Converter program and the option to Copy as DNG in the LR import dialog?

IIRC the option you mention doesn't apply to the LR import dialog.

[billm58768003]

Thanks

[Just Shoot Me]

billm58768003  wrote

Thanks

Ok I always forget about the option in the menu system to convert to DNG in LR.

Yes if you tic the option to remove the originals it will remove them from the catalog and delete them.

If you don't select the option to Delete the originals that converter will still remove the original RAW files from the catalog. And even if the RAW is left you can re-import it. For some reason LR still sees the original as being in the catalog. And maybe it is and LR is hiding it.

If I'm going to convert to DNG I do it with the stand alone DNG Converter program outside of LR.

[JP Hess]

I usually don't even bother converting to DNG. But since I almost always only shoot raw, sometimes I have a few images that don't really mean a lot and I don't need to keep a big raw image around. So I'll convert them to lossy DNG file and reduce the size by about 80%. I still have an image to refer to, but cut down on disk space substantially. Kind of a handy feature to have sometimes.

[JP Hess · Accepted solution]

I wasn't referring to the import dialog. I was referring to the library option to convert to DNG. When an option is chosen, there are several choices to be made. You can choose to preserve or delete the original raw files, and you can choose full-sized DNG files or lossy DNG files. These choices aren't available on the import dialog.

[billm58768003]

That’s understood. It was the library option I was looking at to convert after already importing.

[JP Hess]

That's kind of what I thought. But you have a choice, as you can see.

[billm58768003]

So if I was to check “delete” original but also check “embed original raw file” then I should still have the raw to work with in archive?

[Just Shoot Me]

billm58768003  wrote

So if I was to check “delete” original but also check “embed original raw file” then I should still have the raw to work with in archive?

No you have that wrong.

If you select Delete Original the original file will be deleted and the other option, Embed, places a copy of the original file inside the DNG file.

May I ask what you are trying to accomplish by converting images to DNG.

Most people do that so they have all one type of file whether the original RAW comes from many different cameras.

Others convert to DNG, outside of LR, so an older version of LR can import images from a newer camera that there copy of LR doesn't support.

[JP Hess]

And that's what I'm wondering. Why are you converting to DNG?

[billm58768003]

I thought by embedding the raw into the DNG file then I would save space. I to shoot almost all in raw but thought the conversion was to save memory. I’m just starting to set up the workflow for lightroom and would like to hear you reasons for not converting. I was of the option that it was the file type that LL classic deals with and also photoshop.

[Just Shoot Me]

Yes converting to DNG might save disk space with some RAW files, actually most RAW files will see a reduction is the amount of disk space used by the image file.

For new images I suggest you do the converting while importing the images to the LR catalog and copying them from the memory card from the camera.

LR will copy the originals, Convert them to DNG then discard the originals.

Embedding the originals when using the menu item "Convert to DNG" will create a file 1.5-2 times the size of the DNG that is created or of the original file.

The only benefit to embedding the original is you can Extract that original from the DNG file if you need to.

This thread over at the Lightroom Queen Forums has more info on that.

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/threads/extraction-of-original-raw-file-from-dng.22953/

[JP Hess]

My question is, why convert to DNG if you don't have to? Yes, it does save a little space. For my NEF files, if I don't use lossy DNG it only saves about 25%. Adobe's argument is that the DNG format is open source and ensures long-term compatibility. There is also the argument that the conversion can check for integrity or something like that. But I'm happy working with the NEF files. Others argue that they don't like the XMP sidecar files that accompany the raw files. I don't use the XMP file option in Lightroom, so I don't ever have XMP files anyway. Everything is just recorded in the catalog. Sometimes when I'm just experimenting and take a bunch of photos that don't really mean a lot, but I don't want to throw them away, after I have worked them over and deleted the ones I really don't want, I'll convert them to lossy DNG files. This reduces their size by about 80%. That's my main use for DNG. Everyone has their own opinion about this issue. There isn't any right or wrong answer. If you feel that converting to DNG is the best thing ever, then you're right. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a good format. It works. I'm just happy with the way I'm using it.

[AlainD2]

Strong word of caution: I converted all my pictures (JPG & RAW) to DNG in 2014 - the worst decision I ever took with my pictures. Now, I cannot view or edit 30.000 of them natively on my Mac (Preview or Photo app). I can view them in Windows and this might an Apple issue (it might also be a bug in Lightroom 3.6) - but the very purpose of converting them was to secure long term access and the result, 4 years afterwards, is the exact opposite.