Am I really losing much converting NEF files to DNG

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

jfbacks

jfbacks

Well-known member
Member's gallery
I lost a bunch of side car NEF data files quite a few years ago. Admittedly they didn't lose themselves, it was something I did, I can't remember what at this point. I got so irritated I started converting all my NEF files to DNG as part of my work flow so I wouldn't have to worry about moving extra files around again. I've always considered my ability as a photographer more of a limiting factor than any difference between a NEF an DNG file. When I got my Z9 I started using star HE raw files as you were less likely to run into buffer problems and more images could fit on a particular card. I have been able to convert star HE files to DNG from day one. There was a real advantage to this as I prefer to use DxO PureRaw for most of my noise reduction. DxO still doesn't accept star HE files but will accept the converted DNG files. I've tried post processing a few images as NEF vs DNG and can't tell any difference. I couldn't get anymore feather detail in the shaded areas of the eagle image and the face of the owl wasn't sharp enough to make any difference either. Converting to DNG does significantly bloat the file size, frequently more than double. I don't care once they're off the memory card. I did a non scientific test taking an image of a tissue box and found that an uncompressed NEF and a star HE raw converted to virtually the exact same size, 67-75MB and 31-75MB. I presume Nikon gave Adobe the secret sauce. I believe you lose a few things like focus point converting to DNG, but I don't care about that, you can't change it. I'll probably start using uncompressed once cards get a little faster......and cheaper.
48777x.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
48710.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
48710x.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
I think dng is nothing more than a container, the image ends up as a lossless tiff type file, and the raw can be imbedded in there as well as what would otherwise be in a sidecar. It is lossless. However you lose the ability to use the camera makers raw converter, so I wouldn't discard the nef just in case you want to use NX Studio or Nikon invents some future AI that requires nef raw files. I believe you can choose to imbed the raw in the dng, of course this increases the file size, and if you needed the raw the Adobe dng converter software could extract it for you. Myself I'd just archive the nef just in case.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
This question has been discussed a lot over the years at the LR Queen forum, and it now resembles a Coke vs. Pepsi discussion. There are advantages and disadvantages to both file formats. For years I converted my raw files to DNG, but always kept the original raw files with my backups as well since storage is cheap. DNG does address the sidecar issue, but then takes longer to backup if there are file changes. Since I use LRC for my processing, I do not write out the changes to the DNG or to a sidecar. I rely on catalog backups and image file backups. But YMMV depending on your workflow.

Good luck,

--Ken
 
Member's gallery
I stick with the original NEF files. Not sure if I am missing anything but so far everything has worked very well. Yes I use XMP files and have not had any problems. Not sure which has a bigger risk, NEF or DNG. I am not too worried about that since I don't expect to see a time when neither are supported.
 
Member's gallery
Two years ago I used a D5/600mmF:4gVR at lock and Dam 14. I shot thousands of raw images that I had to convert to Dng. My photoshop CS6 is not updated for the D5. So I coverted the images and I compared a NEF file to the same Dgn file. The only difference was the Dgn file was 5 MG smaller, see for yourself.
004.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Larry Shuman said:
Two years ago I used a D5/600mmF:4gVR at lock and Dam 14. I shot thousands of raw images that I had to convert to Dng. My photoshop CS6 is not updated for the D5. So I coverted the images and I compared a NEF file to the same Dgn file. The only difference was the Dgn file was 5 MG smaller, see for yourself.View attachment 52630
Click to expand...

You didn't show us the nef image to compare it with. Though I think everyone agrees that dng is lossless.
 
RichF said:
I stick with the original NEF files. Not sure if I am missing anything but so far everything has worked very well. Yes I use XMP files and have not had any problems. Not sure which has a bigger risk, NEF or DNG. I am not too worried about that since I don't expect to see a time when neither are supported.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. Why throw away the original especially if it means one can't ever use the camera makers software.
 
Larry Shuman said:
Will saving the orginal nef about double your file saving usage since both are about the same size
Click to expand...

I think it would have to. Same with imbedding the raw in the dng. Another reason to not use dng. We don't want to discard the original raw because there might be some future use for it and Lightroom maintains the edits in the catalog so we don't have to use the sidecar if we don't want the extra baggage.
 
Member's gallery
I still use my Photoshop CS6 and if I get a D500, D5, D6 or Z9 from NPS none of those will open on my CS6. I have to convert them to DGN before opening the shots on my CS6. Photoshop has not updated me since CS6 but I don't need anything but CS6. It does all I need now. So after I covert the shots now I have the same amount in NEF and DGN. For me I delete all NEF shots after they are converted. If I don't delete them it doubles the amount on me saving them on the 6tb it the computer.
 
Member's gallery
If you're using Lightroom, my understanding it that it converts your NEF to DNG of editing, so DNG is basically the format you're editing in anyway. For me, the biggest reason I might go to DNG one day is that it holds the processing data in the file. That way, if your catalog is ever messed up beyond repair with no backup, the DNG will still have all the info. I don't think this is a major issue if you keep the catalog backed up (mine is backup up to back blaze every day).

BTW - a DNG should be smaller if you're not embedding the NEF.
 
Member's gallery
jfbacks said:
I lost a bunch of side car NEF data files quite a few years ago. Admittedly they didn't lose themselves, it was something I did, I can't remember what at this point. I got so irritated I started converting all my NEF files to DNG as part of my work flow so I wouldn't have to worry about moving extra files around again. I've always considered my ability as a photographer more of a limiting factor than any difference between a NEF an DNG file.
Click to expand...

I uniformly and routinely convert NEF files into DNG excluding embedded previews/jpgs to save space - this can be done in either DNG converter or Lightroom Classic.
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
If you're using Lightroom, my understanding it that it converts your NEF to DNG of editing, so DNG is basically the format you're editing in anyway. For me, the biggest reason I might go to DNG one day is that it holds the processing data in the file. That way, if your catalog is ever messed up beyond repair with no backup, the DNG will still have all the info. I don't think this is a major issue if you keep the catalog backed up (mine is backup up to back blaze every day).

BTW - a DNG should be smaller if you're not embedding the NEF.
Click to expand...
I have not heard that LR does any kind of conversion to DNG when editing in the Develop module, but that does not mean that it or something similar, is not happening "behind the scenes". And you are correct that having the DNG file contain everything is handy, but that is conditioned on your writing the data to the file (which is not a default setting) and knowing that that data is really only readable by Adobe products like LR and PS. The other feature of DNG files is that they can be checked for file integrity as they have a hashtag which allows them to be checked.

--Ken
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Replytoken said:
I have not heard the LR does any kind of conversion to DNG when editing in the Develop module, but that does not mean that it or something similar, is not happening "behind the scenes". And you are correct that having the DNG file contain everything is handy, but that is conditioned on your writing the data to the file (which is not a default setting) and knowing that that data is really only readable by Adobe products like LR and PS. The other feature of DNG files is that they can be checked for file integrity as they have a hashtag which allows them to be checked.

--Ken
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wish I could remember where I read that the file is basically converted to DNG for editing. If I find it, I'll post it :)
 
Member's gallery
Steve said:
Yeah, I wish I could remember where I read that the file is basically converted to DNG for editing. If I find it, I'll post it :)
Click to expand...
Would love to know. There are lots of things going on that are not visible, and it is always interesting to learn more about what they are. Any info. you can find would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

--Ken
 
Member's gallery
You didn't state in the OP which sidecar file you're referring to (Nikon or Adobe). Nikon's system is flawed and it's changed over time; Nikon Capture once stored edits within the NEF file itself (long ago) and that was a buggy system, now they keep a sidecar system in a subfolder and that just looks ugly to me (admittedly, I haven't checked how they do it for a few years, so it may have changed again).

I keep the NEF. Edits are stored in either the LR catalog, an exported XMP file (LR or ACR generated) if another app needs access to the data, or the PS created PSD/PSB file (especially when using Smart Object layers).

But really, if you can lose Nikon sidecar files, you can lose Adobe created XMP sidecar files. You can lose the LR catalog. You can lose DNG and of course you can also lose the camera generated RAW file itself. Changing your storage story from one thing to another doesn't change that.

So I see no real advantage to converting to DNG and saving both that and the NEF.

NEF + sidecar​
NEF + DNG​
NEF + sidecar + DNG?​

I don't get it.

Chris
 
Member's gallery
I guess it's an Adobe side car file. I would import the NEF files into Lightroom and add info such as people's names, bird species, and GPS coordinates and have Lightroom save
metadata. I guess I'm just a lucky knucklehead, apparently when I decided to switch to DNG I did have the NEF imbedded. I didn't remember doing this. I just downloaded Adobe's DNG converted and was successful extracting the NEF file. I haven't tried importing an extracted to Nikon's software.
 
MikePapple said:
Most photo competitions require you send them the original RAW file. They want to make sure you are not Photoshopping in a few extra birds.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine a regular dng would count as a raw file. A linear dng maybe not.
 
Member's gallery
I'm not sure why, but DxO Pureraw 2 will not import NEF star HE files yet but will if they are converted to DNG. I turn off global corrections because I don't think there is
much barrel or pincushion distortion at 500mm and I don't want any sharpening done that I don't have control over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top