DNG vs RAW – What, Why, and should you convert?

Not sure whether to convert Raw files to DNG? Or whether you’ve done the right thing over the years, keeping your files in your native camera raw format? Well let’s answer those questions now and tell you the differences, pros and cons between using DNG’s over your camera native Raw file.

Support us:

Grab a Freebie:

Join our learning community on social media:

Follow my personal photography work here:

And remember – Learn photography properly at The School of Photography

NB: Above are some affiliate links and TSOP will receive a small percentage of some purchases made.
#shootinginraw #photography #photographytutorials

[berlinerffm]

I used to use DNG but I am not anymore. Two things to consider: If you save metadata to your files and you backup your files, you have to backup the full dng instead of a small raw file. This makes backups much more efficient and can also save a lot of space if you keep older versions, since you only backup the xmp-sidecar multiple times instead of the dng. Another thing is compatabilty. E.g HDR-DNGs from Lightroom cannot be read in Capture One. Also Adobe Super Resolution DNG cannot be read properly by some programs. So you have to weigh in these things and see if the outweigh the advantages of DNG

[i_want_to_be_amused]

Having used a stand alone version of Lightroom for many years, I had to convert to DNG when I changed my camera because my version of Lightroom didn’t cover my camera. I didn’t want to switch to a subscription version of Lightroom because I couldn’t justify the cost. When I changed my computer last year, I then found I couldn’t open the DNG files, luckily I always save the RAW files onto DVD so I still had the originals. I found that Affinity software that covers all my needs and opens DNG files, apart from catalogue activities, so I downloaded the stand alone version of Adobe Bridge only to find that my carefully indexed could not be found because Bridge doesn’t recognise the old Lightroom indexing! It is a good job I file in year/month folders so things are easy to track.
I would suggest you think carefully before switching to DNG.
Also I can still open Nikon Raw files that are twenty years old so longevity doesn’t seem to be a problem but I would suggest that once you have edited your ‘keepers’ to add to your portfolio you convert to high quality TIFF or JPG to lock in the adjustments you have made making printing easier, you can always reduce the quality of that file to make copies for web or other purposes.

[c.augustin]

One point to mention: ACR can be set to always use XMP sidecar files with DNGs. So if you don't like to have changes always written to the DNG (for whatever reason), you can have it that way!

[TheBigBlueMarble]

I like the use of an XMP file. It allows me to complete my post-processing without actually writing changes to the original file. That writing process introduces the risk that the original could be corrupted. Yes, the risk is low, but anytime you write to a file, the risk is there. Multiple updates = multiple writes = higher risk.

[jacobh]

I’m just very happy Leica opted for DNG as their native raw format. It was one of the factors when deciding to switch fully to Leica for my fashion and beauty photography. That and the fact that last year, Capture One and Profoto started to support Leica. We were already converting the raw files of published work into DNG for archival purposes. Not for disk space (we keep the raw as well), but like you said: you never know 15 years from now…

[diklongley]

Bingo!...i needed this explanation so much.

Sony / Lightroom user here. I bought a second body only to have my old LR unable to import the files unless i used the Sony proprietary software....been using a DNG converter ever since.

[eyesonly]

I used to keep my .NEF and .MOS camera raws because I thought that was the "purest" thing to do. But I eventually realized the issues with maintaining sidecar files was too much of a hassle. Besides, ACR will pass all proprietary raws through a DNG sieve during Photoshop loading anyway. So I've been converting my raws to DNG for at least a decade now, and have no regrets. Plus the Adobe software environment is basically seamless with DNG. The only exceptions to DNG are JPGs for proofs/email, and TIFs for film scans and saved print finals.

[HairyNick]

Brilliant. Searched the question in Youtube, found the answer explained clearly and consicley.

Subbed.

[PhotoReddy]

I found out the hard way that the NIKON GPS information is stripped by the DNG format - others may be also since the "standard" for EXIF information varies between camera brands (extended ESIF information).

[erik]

Thank you very much for taking the time to break all of this down for us. I was already pretty familiar with DNG as opposed to RAW files and was already following your idea of turning everything into a DNG.

But it's also nice to have someone, who's more knowledgeable than myself validate my opinion!

I look forward to watching more of your videos in the future; this is the first one. I have subscribed and again, thank you.

[stefanwagener]

Biggest drawback of DNG is that you cannot use the original image processing tools of the manufacturers as they only support their own RAW format. Once converted and for saving space also deleted the original ones, then no chance to come back and use the original tools for your old photos.
Standards in any industry always keep having the problem of lagging behind latest technology and that's the reason why manufacturers use their own format: if they come up with a great invention or new feature they don't need to wait to get it implemented as a standard. They just can implement it themselves and might be able to keep it as an competitive advantage. That's also the reason why you don't see any standards in the car industry except for the gas nozzle size or charging plug. Not a single screw is standardized in the car industry after more than 100 years!
And because of this it is somewhat questionable if DNG will actually live longer than CR3 or NEF. And then any image processing tool that wants to attract customers will likely support old image formats as well ... especially as they aren't that many and isn't that complicated to implement.
And even if Lightroom would stop accepting RAW formats in 20 years you still could use Adobe DNG-converting tool then. So I don't see any reason to convert now.
Much more concerned than about file format I am about the incompatibility among imaging tools: if your preferred imaging tool seizes to exist (e.g. because of bankruptcy or any other reason) and that could happen already tomorrow and not in 20 years, then you have no chance to convert all your editing into the new tool. If you edit your images in Lightroom with changing colors, using masks, and so on, you have no chance of converting these editing steps to any other imaging tool that exists today (like Capture One, DxO PhotoLab, ...). So if you want to modify an older image in a different tool then you have to start from scratch.
And for that reason it is much more important to have lifetime-licensed imaging tool than a subscription based tool or consider how long your imaging tool might survive. In comparison to that the file format is basically irrelevant.
So at the end the question is rather if your imaging tool will survive the next 20 years, not the file format!

[TheDmwwoody]

What you never mentioned If you're shooting pentax camera it has its native raw file But it also has dmg in the camera settings

[StephenHolst]

At one time I switched to converting my NEF raw files to DNG on import. Shortly after I stopped. My issue was related to exactly what was being presented as a positive at about 5 min in the video. It is nice having all the edits in the DNG file but when you make any processing change the file registers it as modified and your backup software will want to update the file. This may be fine for local backups but when you have your files sync'd to something like Google Drive every time you change the processing of an image Google Drive will want to upload the entire DNG file. Leaving them as NEF means it only needs to re-upload a small XMP file or your LR catalog. It clogged up my Google Drive syncing so much that I abandoned it and went back to just using the native raw file.

[InfoMans]

I've been working with DNGs for many years, and never seen any downside to it. As the man said, the main reason I do it is to save space. I have many tens of thousands of images, and the ability to save space with a slightly smaller file format is valuable to me.

[enduringtech]

Here's another reason to use DNG. When I bought a Lumix G95, I found that my editing software, the Photo Director 8 (and if you ever use Cyberlink, you know there is new version every year but they don't update support for previous version) does not support the RAW file. I converted them to DNG and then I could use them again.

[sarahbatsford]

Just started LRc & didn't know DNG! Thanks for clearing up afew things.

[paulmorrall]

If you’re converting to DNG to save space surely you need to delete your original camera raw file😮. Not something I’d be comfortable with. I don’t see any advantages in converting at the moment.

[DavidCampling]

In the past i converted to dng in lightroom until i entered a photo competition and found they would not accept DNG if selected as a finalist.!!

[Steven-lnsm]

My far greater issue than DNG vs RAW is the unavoidable conversion to TIFF when using NIK collection plugins or PS when working mainly in LRC. First major drawback is leaving the ever so great feature of the non-destructive workflow of LRC. Secondly the option to later adjust white balance properly is lost or the use of presets yield different colouring results. How are you dealing with this? Did I miss something?

[paintswithdarkness]

In my pentax k1 I can chose the native (pef) or dng as a raw file. I have set on dng so it's dng right out from the camera.