Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

.nef vs .dng

Michael Rogers
Is there any advantage to using one over the other in Capture One? I read something a while back saying that Nikon .nef files work better than their converted to .dng's do in Capture One.

Mike
0

Comments

22 comments

Date Votes
  • Robert Whetton
    RAW always
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    And what are DNGs, Bob?
    0
  • Dave R
    Having just gone through a big exercise in recovering all my old camera RAW files to replace those I mistakenly converted to dng I would say it is better to stay with your .nef. Certainly for Fuji .raf converted to .dng Capture One seems to be sensitive to the version of Adobe DNG converter used for the conversion.
    0
  • Robert Whetton
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    And what are DNGs, Bob?

    Converted RAW files Keith...
    0
  • Michael Rogers
    Thanks, Dave! That's good to know. However, does anyone have the answer to my question?

    Mike
    0
  • cdc
    It's easy enough to convert an NEF to DNG and make the comparison yourself, no?

    Unless the software or job required DNG I don't understand why anyone would want to make the conversion.
    0
  • Robert Whetton
    [quote="cdc" wrote:
    Unless the software or job required DNG I don't understand why anyone would want to make the conversion.

    I know a photographer who converts to DNG to save space.. (Lightroom user however)
    0
  • cdc
    [quote="Bobtographer" wrote:
    [quote="cdc" wrote:
    Unless the software or job required DNG I don't understand why anyone would want to make the conversion.

    I know a photographer who converts to DNG to save space.. (Lightroom user however)


    I just converted a 44MB NEF to DNG, it went down to 39MB. So that doesn't make much difference.
    With Lossy compression turned on it went down to 14MB, I suppose that would make a difference if you're willing be "Lossy".
    0
  • Robert Whetton
    [quote="cdc" wrote:
    [quote="Bobtographer" wrote:
    [quote="cdc" wrote:
    Unless the software or job required DNG I don't understand why anyone would want to make the conversion.

    I know a photographer who converts to DNG to save space.. (Lightroom user however)


    I just converted a 44MB NEF to DNG, it went down to 39MB. So that doesn't make much difference.
    With Lossy compression turned on it went down to 14MB, I suppose that would make a difference if you're willing be "Lossy".

    *shrug* storage is cheap, not sure why they do it.. but I guess they read it in some Lightroom Expert Book
    0
  • Franz Scherz
    One thing I can say is that's worse to use DNG than nef themself.

    I did a test and converted pictures taken with the 24-70/4 lens with DNG converter a Z7 Nef to DNG and developed it on 1v2 to full sice jpg with same defaut settings.
    The outcome was that the DNG file was somehow cropped a view pixel, even showing same size of pixel and both color rendering and ligtning was different!

    I had same experience with Lightroom as well, it applies DNG default settings instead of Z7 camera settings!

    I stoppend using DNG unless camera delivers it as it's own RAW.

    p.s.: my files did not get much smaller unless I used lossy compression or other format, the difference was mainly the smaller jpg attached as preview.
    0
  • Michael Rogers
    I find that converted .dng"s from .nef"s don't show the correct lens profile in the "Lens Correction" tab in CO 12. Shows lens as "Generic". Nef's, no problem. Using dng converter 11.1. I guess that something is lost in the conversion process.

    Mike
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    [quote="NN636139655180027490UL" wrote:
    I find that converted .dng"s from .nef"s don't show the correct lens profile in the "Lens Correction" tab in CO 12. Shows lens as "Generic". Nef's, no problem. Using dng converter 11.1. I guess that something is lost in the conversion process.

    Yes, lens correction is lost in the conversion to DNG. Another reason to stay with the original raw file.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    I know a photographer who converts to DNG to save space..


    I use DNGs for some of my pictures, because of disk space. I use compressed DNG, because not every picture needs to be stored in best possible quality.

    Here's an example:
    Nikon D7200 NEF = 30,9 MB
    Nikon D7200 NEF converted to DNG = 7,6 MB

    FujiFilm X20 RAF = 18,5 MB
    FujiFilm X20 RAF converted to DNG = 3,9 MB

    Everything with nearly unnoticeable loss of quality.


    storage is cheap, not sure why they do it


    I am running out of capacity of my 4 TB disks. So I will need new 8 TB HDD (+ another one for backup) which costs about 480 EURO, so I don't see the "cheap" part of the story.
    0
  • Robert Whetton
    [quote="NNN636827167704545316" wrote:

    I am running out of capacity of my 4 TB disks. So I will need new 8 TB HDD (+ another one for backup) which costs about 480 EURO, so I don't see the "cheap" part of the story.

    Actually, 1 extra drive is a redundancy, not a backup..
    You need to keep all of your photographs local?

    Cheap yes. 1 8TB HDD costs the same as i paid for a 120GB back in early 2K
    0
  • Ernst Pisch
    Raw vs. DNG sometimes is a very emotional discussed subject. I do not convert my images to dng anymore because of bad experiences. You can read here my personal point of view: https://ernst.pisch.at/Fotografie/RAWvsDNG_EN.html
    Hope, that you will find the best way for your workflow. Good luck!
    0
  • Keith Reeder
    [quote="Bobtographer" wrote:

    Converted RAW files Keith...

    And in terms of the image data they contain, they're byte-for-byte identical to the source Raw (I've been around on this topic for a long time), so - to all intents and purposes- they are "Raw" data files.

    "Converted" (in the usual sense of the word) they are not. There's no meaningful difference between a Raw file and an uncompressed DNG derived from it. That's the whole point of them, so an arbitrary recommendation only to use "RAW always" is meaningless advice.
    0
  • Robert Whetton
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="Bobtographer" wrote:

    Converted RAW files Keith...

    And in terms of the image data they contain, they're byte-for-byte identical to the source Raw (I've been around on this topic for a long time), so - to all intents and purposes- they are "Raw" data files.

    "Converted" (in the usual sense of the word) they are not. There's no meaningful difference between a Raw file and an uncompressed DNG derived from it. That's the whole point of them, so an arbitrary recommendation only to use "RAW always" is meaningless advice.

    So, I can just rename my CR2 files to DNG, or do I need to download the Adobe DNG Converter?
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    [quote="Bobtographer" wrote:
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
    [quote="Bobtographer" wrote:

    Converted RAW files Keith...

    And in terms of the image data they contain, they're byte-for-byte identical to the source Raw (I've been around on this topic for a long time), so - to all intents and purposes- they are "Raw" data files.

    "Converted" (in the usual sense of the word) they are not. There's no meaningful difference between a Raw file and an uncompressed DNG derived from it. That's the whole point of them, so an arbitrary recommendation only to use "RAW always" is meaningless advice.

    So, I can just rename my CR2 files to DNG, or do I need to download the Adobe DNG Converter?

    No you can't just rename it!

    Ian
    0
  • Ian Wilson
    Moderator
    Top Commenter
    Is this article helpful?

    Ian

    Edited to add: and see his longer explanation here.
    0
  • cdc
    [quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:

    "Converted" (in the usual sense of the word) they are not. There's no meaningful difference between a Raw file and an uncompressed DNG derived from it. That's the whole point of them, so an arbitrary recommendation only to use "RAW always" is meaningless advice.


    If there is no meaningful difference then what is the point of converting to DNG?
    0
  • Graham-Hill
    How can it be meaningless difference as there is a weight difference?
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Actually, 1 extra drive is a redundancy, not a backup..


    I mean external HDDs, so actually, it's a backup, but that's not important.

    You need to keep all of your photographs local?

    I prefer keeping my files local. I could use some cloud service for backing up some of my pictures, but it would be only better protection for some of my files, not solution of whole situation.

    Cheap yes. 1 8TB HDD costs the same as i paid for a 120GB back in early 2K

    Perhaps, but it is 2019 now. Files are larger, higher resolution, movie files… hard to compare. For me, storage is affordable, but definitely not cheap.

    Back to the main question. I experienced some difficulties in Capture One with DNGs converted from Fuji X20 RAF. The pictures were blurry with strange artifacts and some of them with strange colors, but it fixed somehow itself and now it's OK. The DNG files from D7200's NEFs, are OK. DNG files seems little less reliable to me, but I will continue converting my less valuable pictures, and the only reason for this is a file size.
    0

Post is closed for comments.