Any advantage of not converting to DNG?

[nubins]

I have read many of the posts that are similar to this topic of DNG conversion but none of them seem to answer the question if there is any "real" advantage of not converting to DNG.

Is there any quality in the file lost when I convert from say an NEF to DNG in Lightroom?

I have read that Capture NX and Capture One do a better job of RAW processing than Lightroom so is there any quality lost by converting to DNG on import into Lightroom to use as a image database and general image processing but using that same DNG in say Capture One for the images I want maximum image quality?

Or should I be saving the NEF and converting to DNG as well and use the NEF in Capture One?

Thanks

[DarkPenguin]

Does C1 even support DNG?

[nubins]

Yes. C1 supports the Leica M8 and that only makes DNGs. Since it supports those DNGs I assume it would work with Adobe converted DNG files as well but I could be wrong.

[sandymc]

Yes. C1 supports the Leica M8 and that only makes DNGs. Since it supports those DNGs I assume it would work with Adobe converted DNG files as well but I could be wrong.

Afraid not. C1's DNG support is only intended for the specific cameras it supports, and the format it uses to store its own DNGs. Anything else is hit and miss. Mostly miss.

Sandy

[nubins]

Thanks for the comments but my main question is there any quality in the file lost when I convert from say an NEF to DNG in Lightroom?

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I have read many of the posts that are similar to this topic of DNG conversion but none of them seem to answer the question if there is any "real" advantage of not converting to DNG.

Is there any quality in the file lost when I convert from say an NEF to DNG in Lightroom?

I have read that Capture NX and Capture One do a better job of RAW processing than Lightroom so is there any quality lost by converting to DNG on import into Lightroom to use as a image database and general image processing but using that same DNG in say Capture One for the images I want maximum image quality?

Or should I be saving the NEF and converting to DNG as well and use the NEF in Capture One?

Thanks

Yes - if you use a Phase back you will lose their lens corrections (the 28 mm for example) if you've converted your raw files to DNG. Convert only after initial processing - though I prefer not to.
Bill

[Nick Rains]

Thanks for the comments but my main question is there any quality in the file lost when I convert from say an NEF to DNG in Lightroom?

For NEF and CR2, no. Same data repackaged is all. Process the NEF in LR or process it's corresponding DNG also in LR and you will get the same result.

Can't speak for other MFDBs but I do know that Hasselblad files exported as DNGs and opened in LR are inferior to those processed in Phocus

[NikosR]

For NEF and CR2, no. Same data repackaged is all. Process the NEF in LR or process it's corresponding DNG also in LR and you will get the same result.

Can't speak for other MFDBs but I do know that Hasselblad files exported as DNGs and opened in LR are inferior to those processed in Phocus

Your above statement regarding NEF/CR2 vs Hasselblad is true but somewhat misleading since it's an apples to oranges comparison IMO.

If you make the Hasselblad Phocus/LR comparison why not make the Nikon NEF NX/LR comparision then? It is equally valid I believe from the point of view that NX supports corrections based on metadata and exif data (e.g lens used) not available in LR.

BTW Capture One have just introduced their own packaging format (.EIP) which is not unlike DNG and Nikon NEF in the sense that it can store the original raw data + correction instruction metadata and camera/lens metadata.

[Nick Rains]

If you make the Hasselblad Phocus/LR comparison why not make the Nikon NEF NX/LR comparision then?

It's quite different since, unless something has changed, you can't process Hasselblad files directly in LR - you have to export to DNG from FlexColour or Phocus and then open the DNG in LR. The results are distinctly inferior since theres a lot of lens correction and other stuff missing. I found the DNG/LR converted images noisier too, compared to Phocus.

NEFs can be opened directly in LR or NX so there is nothing to compare in this case.

Besides, we should not comparing the different processors here, as that would be pointless - my point is only that a NEF converted to DNG and then opened LR can give the same results as opening the same NEF directly in LR. For NEFs and CR2 files there is no quality loss. For Hasselblad files there is a loss but it's really moot since you are introducing another processor into the mix in which case all bets are off.

The OP asked "Is there any quality in the file lost when I convert from say an NEF to DNG in Lightroom?"

The answer is no - as long as you intend to process the file in LR. Comparing a NEF/DNG processed in LR to a NEF processed in NX is not really meaningful since they will be different, which is better is open to debate.

[NikosR]

I believe the issue and the OP's question is more subtle than that. I quote from the OP:

'I have read that Capture NX and Capture One do a better job of RAW processing than Lightroom so is there any quality lost by converting to DNG on import into Lightroom to use as a image database and general image processing but using that same DNG in say Capture One for the images I want maximum image quality?'


I think that the answer should be: If you intend to use a non Adobe converter to process raw files (either exclusively or for selected cases) then, even if that other converter can read and process DNGs created by an Adobe product (not very common), IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA to retain and use the original raw file instead.

 The reason for this is in effect the same reason why DNG files from Hasselblad processed in LR can appera inferior from raw files processed in Phocus: Loss of metadata which some (usually camera manufactrurer's own converters) can deploy to 'improve' the quality of the resulting renderings.

[James R]

I tried saving LR adjusted images as DNG.  It works fine if you are using LR of Adobe to view the image.  All other image editors only see the original raw image, so...

I convert all original NEFs to DNG for archival purposes.  These files are not post processed.  All files tweaked in CO! or LR are saved as TIFs.  This ensures that these files can be read by  any image editor.  IMO, TIF if the best format because it is universally recognized.

[Nick Rains]

I tried saving LR adjusted images as DNG.  It works fine if you are using LR of Adobe to view the image.  All other image editors only see the original raw image, so...

You need to update the embedded DNG preview, this is one of the advantages of DNG so why not use it. Any app that can see RAW images will display the corrected image.

[James R]

You need to update the embedded DNG preview, this is one of the advantages of DNG so why not use it. Any app that can see RAW images will display the corrected image.

Nick,

What do you mean "update the embedded DNG preview..."?  Have you actually processed a CO1 corrected image in the DNG format and been able to see your CO1 adjustments in LR or CS4?  I have tried and only see the original raw file, except when saved as a tiff.   CO1 does not see LR2 created DNG's.

Maybe I'm missing something.  Can I work in DNG and have all image adjustments seen in an app opening the dng file?  If so, please tell me what I'm doing wrong.

[Panopeeper]

Nick,

What do you mean "update the embedded DNG preview..."?  Have you actually processed a CO1 corrected image in the DNG format and been able to see your CO1 adjustments in LR or CS4?

I had the impression, that Nick misunderstood your All other image editors only see the original raw image; he was thinking of the preview, while you were thinking of "applying the adjustments recorded by another raw processor".

In case this is so, you have to consider, that being able to read the adjustment parameters of another raw processor is the smaller issue. The real issue is, what to do with them. There is no standard of "contrast" or "fill light" etc., apart from more raw processor specific adjustments like "vibrance" in ACR or masked sharpening. For example the "Brightness" adjustment of ACR is not linear; but how it works exactly is not described, nor would other raw processors apply every idea of Adobe equally - however, such an adjustment must work together with the others, like Recovery ad Fill; if the other raw processor does not reproduce the effect of one of those, the others become nonsensical.

Thus "passing" the adjustment parameters between raw processors is rather illusory.

[James R]

I had the impression, that Nick misunderstood your All other image editors only see the original raw image; he was thinking of the preview, while you were thinking of "applying the adjustments recorded by another raw processor".

In case this is so, you have to consider, that being able to read the adjustment parameters of another raw processor is the smaller issue. The real issue is, what to do with them. There is no standard of "contrast" or "fill light" etc., apart from more raw processor specific adjustments like "vibrance" in ACR or masked sharpening. For example the "Brightness" adjustment of ACR is not linear; but how it works exactly is not described, nor would other raw processors apply every idea of Adobe equally - however, such an adjustment must work together with the others, like Recovery ad Fill; if the other raw processor does not reproduce the effect of one of those, the others become nonsensical.

Thus "passing" the adjustment parameters between raw processors is rather illusory.

That is what I'm thinking also.  You have covered the issue with the "rather illusory" phrase.

[Gurglamei]

I had the impression, that Nick misunderstood your All other image editors only see the original raw image; he was thinking of the preview, while you were thinking of "applying the adjustments recorded by another raw processor".

In case this is so, you have to consider, that being able to read the adjustment parameters of another raw processor is the smaller issue. The real issue is, what to do with them. There is no standard of "contrast" or "fill light" etc., apart from more raw processor specific adjustments like "vibrance" in ACR or masked sharpening. For example the "Brightness" adjustment of ACR is not linear; but how it works exactly is not described, nor would other raw processors apply every idea of Adobe equally - however, such an adjustment must work together with the others, like Recovery ad Fill; if the other raw processor does not reproduce the effect of one of those, the others become nonsensical.

Thus "passing" the adjustment parameters between raw processors is rather illusory.

This is very interesting for me. I am considering to use DXO for some of my images and have been pondering on what format to save the results in for further processing in Lightroom and later Photoshop.  

If I understand this correctly, there can only be one RAW conversion. Saving from DXO as a DNG will not give me RAW-processing abilities once again apon opening the DXO-converted DNG in Lightroom?  It will only give me the ability to work non destructively with Lightrooms tools.  Is this correctly understood?  If so, I would guess that saving as a TIF from DXO gives me the same options in Lightroom as a DNG?

Reading the following post;  
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=234366
I get the impression that if I use the optical corrections in DXO, and little else, the RAW conversion will be reversed when saving to a DNG, and I will have an optically adjusted RAW file that can be converted i Lightroom if I for some reason wanted to do the actual raw conversion there instead of in DXO. It appears that Lightroom will correctly understand these optical adjustments?

[viahorizon]

One more downside of converting RAWs to DNG format is you cannot use lens correction tools of C1 with (converted) DNGs. C1 renders RAWs waaaay nicer imo then LR (sharper, less plasticy details).

[Panopeeper]

If I understand this correctly, there can only be one RAW conversion. Saving from DXO as a DNG will not give me RAW-processing abilities once again apon opening the DXO-converted DNG in Lightroom?  It will only give me the ability to work non destructively with Lightrooms tools.  Is this correctly understood?

Hold on, this is not so simple.

James' point was All other image editors only see the original raw image, meaning that if you keep the raw data and record the adjusrtments as metadata, different raw processors will not/can not take over the adjustment parameter from each other, with some exceptions.

My understanding is, that the DNG created bx DxO is not the raw data any more. This means, that certain adjustments are now in the image data as opposed to the metadata. In this case the next raw processor has no choice but to take the already adjusted data.

If so, I would guess that saving as a TIF from DXO gives me the same options in Lightroom as a DNG?

I don't know if you can achieve the same degree of "half baked" state. Does DxO offer linear output in TIFF? (For example Canon's DPP does offer this option.) Furthermore, I am sure that the TIFF is always in a target color space, not in the camera's color space. Perhaps already the DNG output of DxO is in the camera's color space.

[sandymc]

My understanding is, that the DNG created bx DxO is not the raw data any more. This means, that certain adjustments are now in the image data as opposed to the metadata. In this case the next raw processor has no choice but to take the already adjusted data.

DxO creates a "linear" DNG, aka one in which the demosaicing has already been done. In that regard, a DxO DNG is no different to a TIFF. DxO has no ability to correct lens aberrations in raw data.

Sandy

[terence_patrick]

I've regretted converting my CR2 files into DNG since I'm now using C1 as my raw converter. C1, while it does work with DNG files, does not treat a CR2 converted DNG the same as a it does a standard CR2. The file appears much flatter and when a specific camera's profile is applied to the DNG, the results lead to too much saturation usually. If Adobe is your main converter there's probably no harm in converting to DNG, but if using C1, I'd say keep the native raw file as is.