I find it very interesting that this post was not even conceived when I sat down to write; however, just like my photography, I follow where the road leads, I suppose, and don’t really know, from one outing to another, where I’ll end up.
I was going to write a post about the efficacy of the Nikon D300′s sensor cleaner, but that will have to wait. Here’s how I got here:
In preparing to write the other post, I wanted to find out how many photos I’d taken with my camera. Unfortunately, this information can only be gleaned from raw data. From CS2, you can get to this information via: File->File Info…->Advanced->http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/aux->aux:imageNumber.
So, I went back and gathered up one of my few raw files, attempted to open it up, and:
Presto Chango I got an error message:
Could not complete request because it is not the right kind of document!
WTF? After trying Adobe Bridge and getting the same message, I went to Google, searched, and found that many people had had this problem. Long story short, CS2 does not support Nikon D300 raw files! You either have to upgrade to CS3 or later, or convert to DNG. Yet another reason, for me, not to use raw! Incompatibilities between versions of software and cameras!
Lightroom to the rescue
Fortunately, Lightroom supports the D300 format, so I opened the images in LR2, right clicked on them, and exported them as DNG, then I was able to open them, get the information that I needed, and move on with life. 
Score 1 for LR2, add another point for DNG.
Unexpected side affect
After looking at the directory and seeing the .NEF (Nikon Raw) and .DNG (Digital Negative) file side-by-side, I noticed that the DNG files were some 50-60% smaller! Assuming that they contain the same data, I can only conclude that Nikon’s format is not very efficient in its storage, or that they have lots of overhead that Adobe strips out. Now, comparing a DNG file to a typical JPG file, I see that the DNG is only slightly larger, perhaps 10-20% larger. FYI: My settings on my D300 are for Large JPG (12.1 MP), minimal JPG compression (1:4), optimized for quality, so my JPGs range in size, depending on the scene, from 5 – 8 MB. The DNG files, 6 – 8 MB, the raw files (uncompressed), about 18 MB each.
No wars, please!
As I’ve said before, if I cannot see a difference in the print or on the screen, there is no difference! Also, I guess that I don’t shoot so much on the fringes so that I need to be able to recover that theoretical one extra stop, if it really exists! Were I to decide one day, in a fit of insanity, to shoot raw, I’m sure that I would import and convert to DNG. This would save disk space, and more importantly, future compatibility issues.
For now, and the foreseeable future, I’ll be sticking to with my JPG! It’s so much less hassle! Please understand, this post is not meant to convert you. You’re convinced with what you use, as am I. We both get what we want. It is merely a post to dump a bit of information that I have learned this morning!
Related Posts :
Spear-it I've heard that there's a first time for everything. Well, add another one of thos ...
I've not seen this mentioned anywhere prominently, so hopefully if someone is in a similar predi ...
OK. I'm ready to face it. The iPad is a very limited device. It's great for listening to music ...
9 Responses to “Your choices: Upgrade or convert!”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m certainly not wanting a war of words here about what format or method is best. To each his own. I’m simply sharing what I’m doing.
For a long while I shot in JPEG, with the same settings as you currently use, Paul. I’m now shooting in RAW and converting all to DNG as I import them into LR/LR2.
Why?
My thoughts…it gives me that little bit of extra of RAW, is lossless and doesn’t take much if any additional storage. This also allows a common format for both my D300 and D700 photos instead of two different versions of Nikon RAW files (also an advantage of JPEG).
I still shoot JPEG for action/sporting events or when I want or need to improve the cameras continuous shooting rate with a faster writing speed to the CF card.
That’s my logic at the moment…subject to change of course upon finding a better solution.
Earl, that’s sort of where I was heading. I can see the advantage of DNG. The numbers are very similar and if, just if, there really is a difference, it would be playing to the safe side to shoot raw and then convert to DNG, discarding the raw file. Also, with the throughput of JPG, I would certainly stick there for sports!
Paul -
You could always download Adobe’s DNG Converter (free) and the newer versions will convert D300 images to DNG, which could then be processed in CS2. And don’t quote me on this, but I think you can get one of the newer versions of ACR, install it, and CS2 “might” read the D300 NEF files directly. I know that was true for a few versions of Photoshop and ACR, but I’m not sure which ones matched. (You might have to read Adobe’s release notes on ACR to find out.)
Also, check your prefs in Lightroom for DNG conversion. The inclusion, and size of the JPEG preview in a DNG file will certainly affect the final file size.
BTW, my usual procedure is to let Lightroom convert any imported files to DNG format upon import. That’s what Peter Krogh recommends in his book “The DAM Book”, considering DNG to be a near-universal format that’ll be read by future versions of programs.
As for the difference in file sizes between the DNG and the NEF file: DNG files use a lossless compression algorithm but NEF files do not. Canon’s RAW format, on the other hand, *is* losslessly compressed.
I imagine that Nikon chose not to use compression because the computer power in digital cameras used to be small and the time to compress an image was longer than the time to be saved by writing less data to the memory card.
Yet another reason, for me, not to use raw! A lame reason, I think.
More to the point is how much post processing do you do? If not much then jpg are ok I guess. Or websize output. Me even my snapshots are RAW
There are other methods for determining how many clicks you’ve done. Also the D300 must have alternative files storage options even for RAW files ie compression strategies that would reduce the file size.
I have to ask: did you check Adobe for a new version of Camera Raw which would be a free download and may correct the raw issue?
They do have a free version that handles the file, but I would have to upgrade to CS3. It does not work with CS2.
Interesting. I shoot RAW because when I edit it seems to be a more powerful format for me, ie. more options for White Balance etc. in Lightroom, and it just seems to yield a better final result for me.
I haven’t used the DNG at all but I wonder what happens when you edit a DNG. Is it non-destructive? You may have covered this already but I didn’t go back and look.
I keep the RAW file and when I am done editing I save as a JPEG (or TIff as my clients require) and keep the RAW file.
I like that you cannot “truly” edit a RAW file and that the original file stays completely intact with no possibility of accidentally damaging the original image during editing. Which is why I shoot RAW.
I had to upgrade to Lightroom 2 to support the D700 RAW files. Not entirely a surprise but rather a minor annoyance since I don’t like and won’t use the Nikon software.
I still use CS2 with no trouble. I don’t care for Bridge and use Lightroom instead.
@Laurie: If you try to open a D700 raw file directly in CS2, you won’t be able to. As long as you edit in Lightroom, then launch a copy (.PSD) to CS2, you’re fine. As DNG is a raw ‘standard’, Photoshop, and other applications, respond the same way they normally would, with the raw dialog box. Then, when you go into PS, you are working with a copy, or PSD. So, there are no changes to the DNG file. You can make ‘changes’ to the file … sort of. When you adjust your sliders in the raw dialog, then hit done. The changes, or offsets, are saved inside of the DNG, not in a sidecar file, as with raw, but the original image is never touched.