Why I don’t delete my NEFs
Someone asked on Flickr if they should delete their camera raw files after converting to Adobe DNGs. Certainly you can see a strong pressure from Adobe to do so in order to save some hard drive space.
I don’t. Adobe’s DNG converter has the option of storing the original raw file along with it so I don’t see any theoretical harm in deleting the RAW file if that option is checked. Then again, since it increases the file size as much as two files stored separately, I don’t understand the advantage in that other than in file management for those who don’t have an adequate one (i.e. you are using Adobe Bridge or iPhoto instead of Aperture or CaptureOne).
The problem is that without this option checked can you reconstruct the original raw file from the DNG alone? I know of no tool that does this. I know of no incentive for one to be built by Adobe.1
So what? Well look at the DNG file, it is double the size of a compressed NEF (Nikon raw). Why? Because Adobe’s de-mosaic recipe has already been added/embedded with the RAW.2 What if I don’t like Adobe’s recipe?3 What if I’d prefer my vendor’s RAW conversion because they are aware of their own anti-alias/bayer filter and optical design assumptions in their lenses and bodies? What if I use a a 3rd party tool made by real optics engineers that adjust for lens and camera body defects? What happens as these RAW processing tools improve? What option do I have at that point?
None.
I use DNG as part of my photo workflow because unlike TIFF, they can carry metadata. I store and archive DNGs along with the Nikon NEFs in Aperture. But will I don’t delete my NEFs.
And neither should you.
December 22nd, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Apparently this post confused the questioner. Here is a less politically-correct, more opinionated response that has some stuff I was saving for a future blog entry.
@Gordon: DNG is future-proofed and hardware-independent. It is also a very simple specification to implement (it’s just TIFF spec with a standardized metadata format). It is because these advantages that it is useful. Imagine if your camera comes from a vendor that might go out of business, or Canon decides to stop supporting your old digital camera, or your image editing tool is made by someone really lazy.
But hardware independence is a BAD THING(tm). An NEF converted into a DNG has the unique camera data as a string (like “Nikon D50″) in the header field. For all intents and purposes, that file is identical to the Nikon D70s NEF converted to a DNG, other than that string. Applications that process and handle DNGs will handle images from both cameras identically. It will handle images from different lenses identically. It will handle almost any image from any digital camera nearly identically. DNG is an attempt to treat all images almost identically.
(There are some arbitrary parameters in the DNG spec such as “anti-alias filter strength†that can make a difference in processing, but these are qualitative numbers, not quantitative and thus aren’t camera-specific, aren’t accurate, and aren’t precise.)
The problem is cameras aren’t identical.
The Nikon D50 and Nikon D70s RAWs are not the same and shouldn’t be treated as such. The anti-aliasing bayer microlenses placed in front of the sensor and the exposure system are different between those two cameras. Nikon Capture 4 knows this and treats them with a slightly different recipe when processing. DxO Optics Pro does the same and even adjusting for lens defects and lens-body combinations.
You need the NEF file to take advantage of either program. Can you reconstruct the NEF file from a DNG file? No.
Sure, replacing your RAW files with DNGs is a view that is shared. It is shared among people who think that a RAW file format is no different than a TIFF with metadata who “rave†about how “great†Adobe Camera Raw is.
Among those of us who know better, doing so is just buying into some Adobe marketing bullshit.
DNGs are future-proofed and hardware-independent and that is a great thing. They are not your digital negatives and should not be treated as such.
December 22nd, 2005 at 5:25 pm
I agree completly.
I actually don’t convert to DNG. Mostly because I do use Nikon Capture and then “transfer” to Adobe if I need further processing. I found I am willing to put up with it’s slowness (which isn’t so bad on my dual CPU PC) for it’s better more pleasing results.
Though the thought of support for NEF or whatever other format going away is real. I dought that a company going under will mean instant loss of support for the file format from other vendors like Adobe.
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:51 am
There are some inaccuracies above. Here are some corrections:
1. It says: “Because Adobe’s de-mosaic recipe has already been added/embedded with the RAW”. Not true, (unless a specific non-default option has been requested). By default, (whether or not the original raw file is embedded), the DNG file contains the original sensor data, ready for any raw converter to process as it chooses.
2. A reply says: “But hardware independence is a BAD THING(tm)…. It will handle almost any image from any digital camera nearly identically. DNG is an attempt to treat all images almost identically”. Most certainly not true! For example, if the D50 and D70s had a different colour response, the calibration tables in the DNG file be different. A DNG file contains the original sensor data, plus lots more information which identify the specific characteristics of the camera concerned, for example colour response, anti-aliasing amount, sensor configurations, and many others. Where cameras need to be treated differently by the raw converter, the DNG file is intended to hold the detailes that the raw converter needs to do so.
3. The same reply actually added: “The anti-aliasing bayer microlenses placed in front of the sensor and the exposure system are different between those two cameras. Nikon Capture 4 knows this and treats them with a slightly different recipe when processing”. So what? DNG doesn’t lose anything, it adds metadata! A raw converter can either use the camera name such as “D50″ or D70s” to make its decisions, if it knows about the camera, or use the “anti-alias strength” if it doesn’t know about the camera. More, not less, choice.
A DNG file contains a superset of the contents of a NEF, even when the original isn’t embedded.
July 4th, 2006 at 10:39 am
[...] In order to get the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 (or Leica DIGILUX-2) to work in Aperture you first have to convert it to DNG using Adobe DNG Converter. Then you follow these directions which a commenter provides the trick. [...]
July 9th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
[...] The Woodwork » Blog Archive » Why I don’t delete my NEFs (tags: photography raw dng) [...]
July 16th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
[...] http://terrychay.com/blog/article/why-i-dont-delete-my-nefs.shtml [...]
February 24th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
[...] reason there has to do with the fact that the NEF’s are un-demosaic’d, which means the NEF data is actually [...]
February 26th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
The only thing DNG “future proofs” is Adobe profits. They have a long history of planned obsolescence by design coupled with abandoning support for last year’s Adobe products. Where’s the CS2 upgrade for the D3 and D300 . . . CS2 owners have already been abandoned.