.nef vs .dng

[NN636139655180027490UL]

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

[Bobtographer]

RAW always

[Keith Reeder]

And what are DNGs, Bob?

[David532]

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.

[Bobtographer]

And what are DNGs, Bob?

Converted RAW files Keith...

[NN636139655180027490UL]

Thanks, Dave! That's good to know. However, does anyone have the answer to my question?

Mike

[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.

[Bobtographer]

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)

[cdc]

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".

[Bobtographer]

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

[Franz1]

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.

[NN636139655180027490UL]

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

[Paul_Steunebrink]

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.

[bpfunk]

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.

[Bobtographer]

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