All of the software I use can read/open/edit DNG files, so that isn’t an issue, but there is the question of whether or not I actually am losing any data in the conversion, and whether or not it is significant enough to care about. I’ve seen a post where someone does a fancy diff between the native RAW and the converted DNG and there are some (minimal?) differences.

Oh well, for now I’ll save the cpu cycles and just still with NEF+JPG.

I looked at converting my .NEF to .DNG, but that still assumes Adobe is going to still be around. Besides, .DNG is not widely adopted. OpenRAW was an interesting format, but not enough adoption to view the images. I ended up keeping everything in their native raw plus a .JPG full resolution copy. Until the world and manufacturers can find a true native raw format, keep your images in two formats.

My simple rule, Native Raw + Jpg just in case.

The purpose of the camera-specific raw file is to dump the raw sensor data that the camera provides, thus allowing the digital equivalent of the film negative. By converting to the DNG, you are doing the digital equivalent of making a copy of the negative, and although the equipment may allow for a very good copy, there are still losses in the process.

Also, for what it’s worth, I’ve found JPGs to give good results not only on screen, but also at the one-hour photo lab. A 2633×1881 crop of a JPG I had printed very nicely for me at 10×8.

Keep the camera original raw files. I honestly wouldn’t suggest using the go-between of the DNG format unless a submission or program requires it. I also suggest using UFRaw, if you don’t already, as part of your digital darkroom setup.

Good luck,

Henry

Although it’s not quite ready for prime time, Dmedia is meant to handle photos also, and is able to automate your backup process, working between multiple computers, etc. You might checkout the Dmedia import workflow:

http://vimeo.com/32867613

Personally, I’d definitely keep the original RAW files.