Converting to dng when camera tether

Hi All,
I've been playing around w/ camera tether using a nikon D700. When the raw file is uploaded it is displayed as the nikon native nef file and I noted it doesn't make a copy to my backup folder. Is there any way I can make lightroom convert the files to dng on upload and back it up? if not can someone walk me through the conversion, I'm a little fuzzy on reimporting
Thanks
Mike

Your jpegs will remain jpegs, although if you've indicated that your files should be moved or copied during import, the jpegs will be moved/copied - just not changed to DNGs. After the import, Lr will let you know that it didn't convert your jpegs because they weren't RAW.
Hope that helps!

Similar Messages

Converting to DNG - which Camera Raw compatiabilty and why?

When converting camera Raw files in Lightroom 2.5, a dialog box asks which Camera Raw/Photoshop version I want to make DNG file compatible with. (See my screengrab below) I understand why Adobe made different vesions of Camera Raw and stopped supporting older versions (so users would buy the upgrades of Photoshop and Lightroom). The question I ask.. Does a DNG file created to be compatible with Camera Raw 5.4 have superior qualities/algorithms/technical mumbo jumbo/ finese /or what not over a DNG file created to be compatible with Camera Raw 2.4 and later?
Seems sort of silly to not use the 2.4 setting if 5.4 has no advantage (other than keeping older versions of Photoshop and Lightroom from opening it ).
What is the scoop?

Camera Raw does evolve over time. There are changes to the rendering algorithms. Additionally, new camera support is added with each new iteration of Camera Raw. The older versions are offered so that if you are still using older versions of Camera Raw and Photoshop you can generate compatible DNG files.
If you are using current versions then I suggest you choose the most current version in the dialog box. If you are still working under ACR 4.6 then choose that. It's there so you aren't "forced" to buy upgrades to PS and LR.

Is it wise to keep the Nikon camera files "DSC's" after downloading them and converting to DNG files via Adobe converter for lightroom use. In other words do the DNG files have all the raw data I would ever need in processing or should I save the camera'

Is it wise to keep the Nikon camera files "DSC's" after downloading them and converting to DNG files via Adobe converter for lightroom use. In other words do the DNG files have all the raw data I would ever need in processing or should I save the camera's DSC files?

DNG files do not contain some metadata supplied by the camera, which can be used by the manufacturer's software. Thus, if you don't keep the original Raw photo, you will lose this information.
If your 1000% sure you're never going to use the manufacturer's software, then this isn't a problem. But who can be sure what software you will be using 10 years from now?

Convert to .DNG at Tethered Capture?

Is it possible that Lightroom V5 can convert to DNG upon ingest of tethered capture images? In other words, when I'm tether shooting, can the image I capture show up in the Library already converted as a .DNG? This would be optimal for my workflow, rather than have to export my native camera raw file as .DNG after the session is completed. Would love to know if this can be accomplished.

Does any know ?

Convert to dng is greyed out in CS3 Bridge Photo Downloader

I have no idea what has happened, but when I use the Photo Downloader in Bridge (CS3) to copy using my card reader, the option to convert to dng is greyed out and is not available for me to select. I can convert to dng using the stand alone dng converter and also from within Camera Raw with no problem, but I like the convenience of doing the conversion using the Photo Downloader. This option was available to me and worked perfectly up until a couple of weeks ago. Any ideas and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. thanks in advance.

Bridge Windows

Convert to DNG not available in Bridge photo downloader?

All of a sudden when I try to upload RAW photos from my Nikon D5100, "Convert to DNG" is shown in grey and will not let me select it in the photo downloader. I am having to use an outside converter instead. Also, the Camera Raw application is acting up - not letting me open images with Command + R, not saving image ratings of 5 stars, etc. Any ideas on how to resolve these issues? I am guessing that they are linked...

It was all of a sudden...randomly and not after an upgrade as far as I am aware.
Since you mention 10.9.3 which is a recent update it may well be caused by this update. Read the article Yammer provided and try that. Also as described in earlier post, restart Bridge holding down option (alt) key and from the menu choose reset preferences.
But there have been some problems with recent ACR and DNG in photodownloader that should have been solved with latest ACR. So also try the manual download and install of the link Yammer provided.

How do I convert to DNG for CS3 without demosaicing?

Recently purchased the Sigma 60mm 2.8 lens for my Sony NEX-6, which shoots ARW raw files. When converting to DNG (using the newest 8.2.0.94 version), the files increase in size from ~15MB to ~60MB. This appears to be because I have the compatibility settings set to Camera Raw 4.6 compatibility, and the converter believes this means it has to demosaic the image. This is done with no override and no warning that information is going to be discarded, despite the fact that I shoot raw files because I want raw data. How can I produce DNG files compatible with Photoshop CS3 and Camera Raw 4.6, without discarding data and producing huge files?
This is doubly frustrating since manual lenses convert fine. I do not care about any lens correction information in the original ARW files, as only very minor corrections are needed anyway. Losing this information to produce good DNG files is perfectly acceptable to me.
Similar threads show that newer versions of DNG can be converted to without the demasaicing being applied, but this is not helpful to me. See http://forums.adobe.com/message/4312768, http://forums.adobe.com/message/3333887.
I have no plans to upgrade photoshop (especially the CC versions), so need something that works with CS3.

Okay, so I lied. I'm going to answer one more time. In my opinion, it isn't necessary to change your "entire workflow". Take the example of a panorama image. As in ACR, I make adjustments to the raw images using Lightroom. Of course, I have imported those images so I'm able to see that folder of images in my Lightroom library. Lightroom has an adjustment where I can highlight all images and choose to "match total exposure". I have found that using that really simplifies the merging to panorama process.
When I have done all that I need to do in Lightroom, I highlight all the images and choose the option to merge to panorama. Photoshop opens, the images that I've highlighted transfer to Photoshop and the panorama dialogue appears listing those images. I set my options and let Photoshop build the panorama.
When I'm through with Photoshop I save the panorama image and return to Lightroom. The panorama is there automatically added to the catalog. I can take that image back to Photoshop if needed. And I can export images in different formats for different purposes. But I only have the master images and the one panorama that I have to maintain. If changes are decided upon in the future I only have the one image to worry about.
The postprocessing in Lightroom is much more elegant (in my opinion) than ACR. You know, you can download Lightroom and try it for 30 days and see what you think. I still believe you are anticipating much more change than is really necessary. So my original answer still stands.

Trouble with CR2 and converting to DNG

I am new at using camera raw files. I recently got a Canon EOS Rebel XS/1000D as well as Adobe Lightroom 3. I tried loading my CR2 files into Lightroom by "copying as DNG." Once I did this, the program said "the files are from a camera which is not recognized by the raw format support in lightroom." I then tried downloading the latest DNG converter from Adobe.com to convert my files, but this program also said "the source folder does not contain any supported camera raw files." The third route I tried was loading my photos into brindge directly from my camera and checking "convert to DNG." This did not work either. When I looked on Adobe's website, I saw that Camera Raw 6.3 should be downloaded for Lightroom 3, but it is not compatable with CS4. I did not do this because I did not want to interfere with the other CS4 programs and I am not sure if this has anything to do with it (I have camera raw 5.7 I beleive) I have also tried saving my photos to my computer, then importing them, as well as directly importing them from the camera into Lightroom.
Can anyone help me with this? LIke I said, I am very new to using camera raw and Lightroom and I am not sure what I am doing wrong.

CG_1225 wrote:
also, I am not sure why the size of the photo was so small. Could this be part of the problem?
Almost certainly. I suspect the file got truncated. The header info is there, but it looks like most of the image data is just missing.
Buy some new good quality media and do not trust the card these images came off of until you can verify them. Even if the media is suspect, a card reader might have better luck extracting all the data, so just put the media away and look at it later.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. It isn't about /if/ your media or hard drive will fail, but /when/. Flash media is tricky because it can go bad in really inconvenient ways like this. Pro cameras are starting to accept dual media so you can at least have a JPEG copy on the other media if the raw write fails. But, as suggested elsethread, ALWAYS format the media in-camera so that the firmware on the card can spread the writes out over the entire card over time, and map out bad spots as they occur. And they always occur. Flash media starts to fail the moment we buy it and stick it in the camera.

Sony RX100 raw files converted with DNG converter not recognizable

Since installing Maverick 10.9.4 on the Mac, Sony RX100 raw files converted with DNG converter are no more recognizable.
Somebody else the same problem?

I know my DNG files themselves and the info they contain are fine. But they're not properly supported in Mavericks 10.9.4 and I don't plan on switching to Windows. A file that I converted to a DNG using Adobe software is now listed as an unrecognized file in OSX. No thumbnails, no iPhoto, no Aperture. Essentially, no support. And this is a problem. A quick search will show you people with various Sony cameras (A7, RX100 mkI and mkIII, at least) having the same problem.
No matter where the blame falls, the simple fact is that if you shoot with various Sony cameras, use Adobe software to convert the file to DNG and happen to be an OSX user, you're files are no longer compatible with OSX or Apple's photo software. They will only open in Adobe software. You literally get a warning message from OSX saying, this is an unsupported file type when you try and open it.
Like I said previously, I've had a managed iPhoto library for about 5 years now, numerous hours of tagging and organzing, and every DNG file converted from a Sony ARW RAW is currently unsupported. Original ARW files work just fine. It's nuts. Maybe it's Adobe's fault. Maybe it's Apple's fault. It really doesn't matter. If DNG is not a reliable standard format under certain edge cases (Sony ARW, DNG converter, OSX Mavericks), it's not a reliable standard format at all. I just hope that Apple or Adobe figures this out, so that I can get those photos back.
In the mean time, certain users such as myself just can't rely on DNG. End of story.

Should I use default Raw or convert to DNG?

Hello,
I have olympus SP570UZ and use LR 3. I'm not a professional photographer but do a lot of photography and shoot in raw. My question is should I use the default raw file for import/editing or should i convert to dng? does it effect editing capabilities and degrade the result when i convert to dng?
I work on laptop and it seems a lot slower in loading default raw files. Will this improve my overall work time and lower load on cpu and space, but my first priority is picture quality?
Thank you.

Converting to DNG is really a matter of choice not necessity. If your camera is already supported by Lightroom / Camera Raw then there is little to be gained by converting the images to DNG at the beginning of your workflow. Many who champion DNG will keep their images in the camera vendors raw format until they've completed their edits and only then convert the final image to DNG.
In answer to other questions. Performance - DNG is not some magic bullet that will increase the performance of your family saloon into that of a Porsche. Space - The lossless compression used by DNG is more efficient than that used by the majority of other raw formats, but only saves space if you trash the originals after conversion. (Note - trashing your original raw files is not something that I would ever recommend let alone suggest.) Quality - There should be no difference in quality between the original raw file and the DNG version.
FWIW, DNG was originally proposed as standard "capture format" but as time has gone by and few camera vendors jumped on board Adobe's position has changed to "DNG is ideal as an archiving format". The latter is probably the less time consuming and more future proof approach. As mentioned above,it's also the approach adopted by many of those who champion the DNG format.
No doubt someone else will come along and add their tuppence worth for one or the other, but if previous threads on the same subject are any guide you'll still be left wondering. Try typing your original question into Google and see the mass of info and opinion that already exists. I can hear the sound of Hornets buzzing already.
Disclosure - I use DNG not raw throughout my workflow. This means that my thumbnails and previews accurately reflect the Adobe rendering in all of the applications "I" use. "I" don't use the camera vendors software (i.e. Canon DPP), so have no issues with the fact that it does not support DNG.

Converting to DNG but saving the original sequence # of image

When I am shooting, I keep a log of what I shot using the sequence number assigned my camera. When I convert to DNG and rename my images and renumber, is there a way to keep the original numbers visible so that I can easily refer to them so that the data can be input easily? Otherwise transcribing the information from my logs will be tedious.

Yes, the DNG converter will keep the "document name" plus allow the addition of numbering (right side , top box and menu).
I always keep camera original name but add subject name to that on import into LR. When clients want dngs along with their originals, then it is a simple matter to add enumeration, among several choices, in a renaming process.
I should add that I do NOT use the dng convertor within LR. I prefer the standalone convertor, because it can be working in the bkg while I continue work in LR. Dng conversions are not exactly fast.
I should also add that I discourage clients from using DNGs unless they use cameras that receive little support in most apps. I have had unexplained troubles doing 1:1 preview rendering in LR with some dngs. That may be my configuration, or it may be something in LR.

Auto Import feature lacking convert to DNG and move to subfolders...

Folks,
As many of you may be aware, when setting up a folder for auto import, LR 3.3 does not give you the same options as you might see in the regular import functionality. Namely, the ability to convert to RAW images to DNG on the import as well as move to subfolders is not available. This is a real bugger for me as I have a nice new Eye-Fi Pro card that I have setup to dump all images from my camera to a "watched" folder which is then imported into LR automatically. Unfortunately, auto import doesn't solve the issue for me, so I am back to doing the same old import routine I had done before which is tethering the camera back up via USB (or popping out the card and mounting it instead) and use the regular import feature.
I realize a lot of the design impetus for auto import is around tethered usage, where a photographer may want to see the images as fast as possible, but why would Adobe cripple the auto import functionality deliberately. Give the auto import the same functionality as the regular import and let the customers decide which works best for their setup. Geez!!
~David

I believe I watched a tutorial that indicated that Lightroom now downloads the raw files first and then does the conversion. This speeds up the download process and enables you to go back to my room to do other work more quickly. I cannot comment on the speed of the conversion because I don't convert to DNG. But my thoughts are that 700 raw files will take some time to convert.

Converting to DNG - is it safer?

I know this have probably been covered many times before, so please go easy on me... plus sorry if I'm talking crap!!!
I'm always worried about getting a corrupting database again... I've set LR to always back up the database on each launch... but this wouldn't prevent the loss of any work done after the backup say at the end of a long session the database corrupts - I've lost everything up until the last backup!!!
I liked the option to automatically write XML files, but its too much of a performance hit in LR v1.1
So I'm thinking about converting everything to DNG files as my understanding is that all changes are stored inside the header of the file, thus should the database corrupt, all is not loss (except for virtual copies, flags & ratings etc)... is this correct or am I talking crap????
Is there any disadvantages to converting to DNGs?
Any suggestions welcome...
Thanks,
Stewart

> "Where we tend to collide on issues, be it here or on other forums, is where you publish fluffy statements such as : DNG helps to make your data "future proof", or DNG is the only raw archival format. It's precisely that kind of fluff that I feel misleads and propogates "fear, uncertainty, and doubt"."
Name ANOTHER raw file format designed as an archival format! BUT ... use the characteristics used by archivists and librarians, and tell us what they are. The problem with this sort of discussion is that people make up their own definitions of archiving and the characteristics needed for it. But I have spent a lot of time reading academic and practical literature on this topic.
Archivists and librarians have a number of requirements, and the following page (for the US Library of Congress) is a good summary of them. They include disclosed specifications; wide adoption; self-documenting metadata, especially metadata formats that are also widely adopted; reduced or no external dependencies; no impact from patents; no encryption or other technical obstacles; etc.
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/sustain/sustain.shtml
People who believe that camera manufacturers' raw formats are suitable for archiving presumably use some other definition of their own. I believe they are typically talking about "back-up": being able to use the file in circumstances similar to today's circumstances. If that is all they want, that is fine - as long as they don't mislead people into believing that future workflows and tools will be sufficiently like today's that this will still work. Some of the tools we will be using in a decade haven't been thought of yet.
> "Even if DNG were more universally accepted, the format is designed to enable the blackboxing of data -- although another poster recently described it more like trolling through a tackle box than a black box ...".
If you simply mean "DNG files can contain DNGPrivateData that may not be documented by the creator" then please say so. That talk of "blackboxing of data" is just a FUD-phrase, and largely meaningless. Then you have to ponder that ALL of a NEF or CR2 isn't "documented by the creator". In other words, your criticism of DNGPrivateData is criticism of the whole of a NEF or CR2.
Now switch your attention to the parts of a DNG that ARE documented - by Adobe, rather than the creator, but so what? The parts that ARE openly specified are sufficient for high quality rendering, or previewing, or metadata-processing, etc. That is one of the key things that means it is false to say that DNG is "just another raw format" or "just another container". It is something that many people haven't understood - DNG is a self-contained raw file format, which can be handled by software products that don't have any built-in details of the camera model concerned. Name another raw file format with that characteristic!
This is one of the archival features of DNG. To write a new software product in future to handle the camera manufacturers' raw files from today's cameras, it will be necessary to build-in camera-model data for today's cameras. (But it won't for DNG). Now - where are they going to get that camera-model data from? Today, they get it by obtaining such a camera and testing it. In future ...? (My best guess is that they will either not bother for less popular cameras, or will extract the details from dcraw or similar for more popular cameras, or get it from DNG - which is where dcraw got some of its information, of course!)
> "For example, there is no assurance the work one invests into a Lightroom DNG -- e.g. spot remover, red eye remover, crop overlay, can be used by another application. That data, to the best of my knowledge, is locked away inside the file so that it is only available to Adobe applications. The portability of the value added by the user can only be realized within an Adobe workflow."
Your knowledge is wrong. Have you ever looked inside a DNG file to see what is there? (I suspect you haven't). Open one with Word - you will find the settings metadata in XMP format (nicely tabbed!) near the start of the file. It is exactly the same as the data in an XMP sidecar file. (It has tag 700 in the DNG file, in case you want to use a TIFF-tool to handle it).
The editing metadata, whether in an XMP sidecar or in a DNG file, is largely (not entirely) based on ACR or Lightroom sliders. But the editing metadata for any other raw converter is based on the controls of that raw converter - this isn't a problem specific to DNG or Adobe, but is industry-wide. Editing metadata tends to be editor-specific. But I'll bet that there is more editing metadata created every day based on ACR or Lightroom sliders than any other editing metadata.
I haven't seen a proposal for the commonality of editing metadata values; and I emphasise, this is not a fault of DNG, it applies to all editors and all raw file formats. But Peter Krogh recommends creating a full-sized JPEG (rendered using that editing metadata) and storing that in the DNG, either for general use or to identify the original rendering intentions. (It is trivial to put such a preview there and extract it later).
> "1. Nothing is future proof, only future resistant. That resistance depends on the current and future consensus -- which when it comes to DNG is still anything but clear."
One thing is clear - in this respect it is far better than any alternative! It is VITALLY important to examine alternatives using the same criteria, and NEF and CR2 don't stand up to the same scrutiny. (Too many people appear to use the argument "there are these problems with DNG, therefore we'll use these other formats", forgetting that they have all the same problems plus lots more!)
> "Before accusing others of spreading FUD, I think you need to put your own practices under the loupe."
I have published my analysis, and it is available for anyone to scrutinise. My pages give the information and evidence that analysis is based on. Where is your information, evidence, and analysis for us to scrutinise?
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/

Will PSE 11 open RAW D7100 files in ACR without having to convert to DNG?

I have a D7100 and PSE10 -- I learned (after the fact...) that PSE 10 can not open D7100 RAW files. I have tried using the DNG converter but do not want to have to do this. I also purchased Lightroom 5 in ordert to solve the problem, but again (after the fact...) learned that LR5 doesn't work with VISTA, which is that my desktop has. Getting quite frustrated, I know mostly my fault for not researching enough.... but I really just want to open the D7100 RAW files directly in ACR. Will PSE 11 support D7100 RAW files without having to convert to DNG first?

Suggest you download the trial version using the link below and try it free for 30 days. Also bear in mind that PSE12 is due out soon. So you could run another trial of that product when available, assuming Vista support.
After downloading and installing the trial you will need to update the ACR plug-in to get support for the D7100.
Launch Full Edit (Expert Mode in PSE11) and on the menu click:
Help >> Updates
Install version 7.4 of ACR and your NEF files should open, with one proviso. Ensure your raw files have not passed through older versions of Nikon Transfer/ Nikon software; only the software that shipped with your camera.
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_elements&loc=us&PID=2159997

RESIZE option in LR4's Convert to DNG and DNG Converter 7

Besides the option for lossy compression I would love to see the Resize option from LR4 Beta's Export dialog in DNG Converter 7 as well as in LR4's "Library>Convert to DNG" function.
In the wake of cameras like the Nikon D800 and others with huge image files and easy option to convert to smaller sized DNGs would be very helpful.

Mark Alan Thomas wrote:
Right. I'm not into the whole lossy compression thing. I like the idea of making smaller raw files, but I want the megapixels which remain to be good megapixels.
Now I get what you mean. Apologies.
That would be interesting and of course I absolutely second it: DNG with variable resolution but lossless compressed!
That would be a great option. So why not just offer both independently - resolution and compression?
Just don't disable the "Resize to fit" switch when "Use Lossy Compression" is off.
I understand the perils with this and I also understand that it's kind of counterproductive to the thought of a RAW/DNG file. But in the end, isn't it about flexibility and not purity of a system? Bring on some big fat warnings that make it clear to the user: "you are now leaving the path of a non-destructive file format!" But let the user decide.
For more safety you could even add the need to unlock this functionality in the Preferences.
Side note:
There have been plenty of high-res DSLRs so far, Nikon D3X, Canon 5D MkII, 1Ds MkIII, Sony SLT-A77, SLT-A55, NEX-7, Alpha A-850 Alpha A-900 - but none of them seems to have stirred up the discussion about need and sanity of high megapixel DSLRs like the D800 now does.
It's probably because it's the highest so far and Nikon offers no lower resolution RAW as Canon does. What most seem to agree on however is that the high megapixel count can be nice for many and provides flexibility, but it can also be a burden at the same time.
No idea why Nikon don't offer sRAW like Canon do. But considering all this, a flexible option for smaller DNGs with individually settable compression and/or Resize would be a tremendous accomplishment!

Converting to dng when camera tether

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for