ACR or DNG? - DPChallenge Forums

09/04/2012 03:57:44 AM · #1

Currently I use ACR and CS4, and I have enjoyed that process well enough up until this point (at some point I may do LR but I've been happy with how I can manage things with Bridge up until now). The problem is that now I have picked up an LX5, and there is no CS4 compatible ACR for it. So this means I must upgrade to CS5/6 to maintain my current workflow or begin using DNG. I know the additional features of CS5/6, but I'm not a huge editor and CS4 works for what I choose to do and I'm happy with it. I don't always do editing beyond LR's abilities, but because I like keeping things consistent, I'd prefer to keep this route over LR unless I changed the type of approach I used (which might hypothetically happen, but that's another subject...).

I know some folks love DNG and use it, and some people only use it until a new ACR patch is released to support their camera. At this point, I'm pretty sure I know what my next body will be, and it will be compatible with ACR and CS4, but I'm wondering if I should begin using DNG for everything because I'd prefer to have things be consistent.

What would you do to keep your flow consistent?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/04/2012 08:53:14 AM · #2

Derek, that's a tough call, IMO. You probably know that I'm a "Lightroom believer," so no need to belabor that, only to say that the current cost of Lr gets you the most recent version of ACR at a very reasonable cost.
I hear you on CS4 vs. CS6 capability. For me, there were some nice things about CS6, but if I'm being very honest about it, CS4 did almost everything I wanted it to do (the big thing missing was video).
As for DNG, I think it's a good alternative where a camera is not supported by the RAW converter but DNG is. I don't see a trend of acceptance of an open RAW standard such as DNG by the camera manufacturers (which I truly don't understand) and therefore I see no real benefit to going all DNG. I'd keep the compatible RAW files in their native format, if only to avoid the additional step of converting them.
OK, just a little nudge: consider Lr, not only for the updated RAW conversion capability, but also for the streamlined workflow. It's a learning curve, to be sure, because the user interface is kinda different, and because it can take a while to get your head around why letting Lr manage your catalog is a good idea (I usually *hate* software that does this). The one downside to Lr is that you need pretty quick hardware to get good performance out of it.

Devinder

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

09/04/2012 09:08:13 AM · #3

I donnot if my experience is going to be useful, but:

After my images are ready for backup, i generally tag and save as DNG. I feel like itd be useful to have them in that format for the future, and for some reason - i can manual search my DNG's keywords via windows search, in a way that i cannot with Tiffs all the time. I don't know if thats a computer setting on my end but its a useful trick. I haven't done a 1-1 analysis but dng is supposed to save some space too.

I took some considerations from wiki and other sources before making my decision.
//mansurovs.com/dng-vs-raw was also a clean simple answer to some of my basic questions.

I do use lightroom so the process has a 2 click ease to it.

Hope this helps -.-

Kamlan 28mm F1.4 MF for APS-C

09/04/2012 02:02:14 PM · #4

Devinder, that link is a nice overview. Here's the parsed link.
I read through the overview, and I mostly agree. With regard to the sidecar files, however, I actually see this as mostly and advantage, which he actually alludes to. If I change the develop settings on a bunch of shots, I only have to re-back-up the (tiny) sidecar files. Also, since the RAW files never get modified, I don't have to worry about corruption when they are re-written.
He also states that DNG can take up less space, and this is true, but the small benefit in space is really not a big deal; storage capacity per dollar spent is increasing faster than file size.

Manic

DJI Mini 3 Pro

09/04/2012 02:09:38 PM · #5

Just a reminder that for challenge purposes we only accept the original RAW files as valid (i.e. unless your camera natively creates DNGs, you can't use those), so for anything you think you'll want to enter, you'd have to keep the original RAWs regardless of whether you edit via DNG or not.

09/04/2012 09:17:01 PM · #6

Originally posted by kirbic:

Well, as you can see in my original post, I'm not really surprised by your answer ;0
I'd prefer to keep things .NEF as well, so I was half expecting that I'd need to perhaps use Lr. How snappy of a system are you thinking? Due to the way my life is, a desktop is quite impossible as I'd never get any pictures off my camera (I don't do much but sleep at my house, and I spend half my weekends in a city 180 miles away), so I've been using a laptop. It's 32 bit because 64 bit compatibility was still sorta iffy at the time that I got it, maxed RAM with a 2.41 C2D w/ dedicated 256 mb graphics card. So while it isn't slow and it was as fast as you could purchase at the time, it's a laptop that isn't brand new. What are your thoughts on that?
FWIW, I am a student, so Lr is pretty affordable for me, and something I have actually considered, so I'm much much more for that idea than shelling out for CS5/6...

09/04/2012 10:12:56 PM · #7

Derek, the laptop should be OK, the biggest limitation is the 32-bit OS, which will limit the RAM that Lr has to play with. Lr does not use GPU acceleration; Adobe is aware that it's a much-desired feature, but apparently it is difficult to implement in Lr. You can certainly install Lr for a 30-day trial, and when you import you can tell it to import photos at their current location. That way, should you decide to uninstall, the only leftovers will be the sidecar files.
I run Lr 3.X on a Dell Latitude 820 with a COre2 Duo processor, 32-bit XP and a 3GB of RAM, and IMO this hardware is just too old. So that gives you a reference point.

09/04/2012 10:27:44 PM · #8

hmmm...
Mine is an xp with 4gb ram installed, and whatever 3.xx magic amount that's actually allocated...
What's the speed of your c2d?

09/04/2012 10:39:00 PM · #9

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

What's the speed of your c2d?

I believe it's the T7200, which is 2.0GHz. Lr 4.1 should be somewhat faster than 3.x, FWIW, but still will be a bit slow I think. I have no direct experience installing a 64-bit OS such as Win7 on hardware of this vintage; don't know if the CPU limitations would render the 64-bit OS a no-go... you'd need to check if your CPU supports the EMT64 instruction set. Some Core chips do, others don't, notably some of the mobile ones.

09/04/2012 11:08:54 PM · #10

Hmmm... well crap. I hadn't realized Lr4 doesn't work with XP... wonder if I can scrounge up a Lr3....