Any benefit to convert NEF to DNG

The problem with this strategy IMHO isn't related to degrading since you're staying within lossless formats. What you do lose by starting off with a DNG is everything related to RAW: larger control of exposure, white balance, shadows and highlights, basically everything that's great about working in RAW. You'd be baking in an interpretation of the RAW file as step one of your workflow, which would negate all the advantages of the format.

The reason for the lag on RAW files versus PSD or TIFF is that Aperture is working on a live rendering of the file - it's not set in stone yet, which means more computations. But if you want a quick way to see what you'd be losing try this: take a picture with blown out highlights. Then create your DNG and import it along with the RAW file into Aperture. Now try to get back your highlights... I guarantee you'll be able to see the difference. You can try the same thing with shadows or a messed up white balance.

If you really want to go this route, you should invest in Capture NX2 to at least get the D300 internal settings translated to your RAW file. Then export to TIFF and into Aperture. It's really the only case where I'd see a slight advantage. But in my case, the weight of that workflow makes it a non-starter.

Now don't get me started on how I'd like Aperture to render my D300 files...!

Jade Leary wrote:
What you do lose by starting off with a DNG is everything related to RAW: larger control of exposure, white balance, shadows and highlights, basically everything that's great about working in RAW. You'd be baking in an interpretation of the RAW file as step one of your workflow, which would negate all the advantages of the format.

Sorry Jade, but this is simply wrong. DNG is a RAW file* - that's the entire point of the file format, and in theory a NEF converted to DNG and then imported into Aperture should allow the same adjustments and results as the original NEF.

musicmaker wrote:

I ask because Aperture has a tendency to lag making adjustments. But I noticed Aperture doesn't lag if I make adjustments on the PSD file or a DNG file. Adjustments are in real time.

You shouldn't be seeing any substantial difference in responsiveness between a NEF file and a DNG file.

Ian

*I think it's technically possible to embed JPEG and TIFF files in the DNG format, to take advantages of more robust metadata handling, but it's rare to do so.

Ian: Wow man. Thanks for the clarification and my apologies to Musicmaker for steering you wrong. I've never had to use the DNG format and assumed it was a rendered file like psd or tiff. Bzzt - bad answer, next contestant please!
Next time I'll look before I walk...

As for Aperture and the D300: without getting into yet another debate of LR vs AP, I'm pretty confident the next version will blow our socks off. For one, this is a make or break release in view of the competition and Apple knows it. And like all overdue pro apps I'm convinced it'll be a showcase for Snow Leopard technologies, which accounts for the delay we're seeing. Not inside information mind you - just a feeling. A +fingers-crossed-hope I'm-right-please-please+ feeling 😉

musicmaker wrote:
Does anyone convert their NEF (D300 in my case) files to Adobe DNG and then start their workflow?

DNG is just Adobe's proprietary attempt to sell the world on using Adobe's RAW conversion format ("DNG," the result of converting camera makers' individual RAW files using Adobe Camera Raw, "ACR"). Adobe benefited greatly with PDF and wants to do the same with RAW DSLR capture.

DNG is not better. In fact most folks (at least the ones not already sleeping with Adobe) will most often find conversions by Aperture and/or individual camera vendors' converters (like NX2) to be visually better than ACR to DNG. However differences among converters are usually slight enough anyway to make RAW-conversion quality irrelevant when compared to workflow.

The conversion of RAW data is different for each individual camera, no RAW converter is best for all cameras, and the results of conversion are a matter of individual taste in any event.

Note that most camera vendors keep RAW algorithms and protocols very secret, so folks like Adobe and Apple do a lot of deduction (some say speculation) when building each camera's RAW converter based on imperfect information. That is why most folks consider Nikon's conversions of NEF files "best;" but unfortunately Nikon's workflow is atrocious.

...is there any significant advantage to converting (to DNG)?

No, there is significant disadvantage in converting NEF to DNG. You would be seriously disrupting Aperture's workflow just to achieve what most folks consider to be less-good RAW conversions.

Some photogs do find significant advantage in first using NX2 to convert Nikon NEF files to TIFF. Others find the differences from Aperture small enough not to justify the weight of the NX2 workflow.

I read the Adobe site regarding how DNG is more a standard then NEF or any proprietary camera file.

That is just disgusting Adobe marketing BS. Nikon was around supporting standards like their lens mount for decades before Adobe even existed. Even if Nikon self-destructed today there will always be plenty of RAW converters for the billions of NEF files already created.

Of course Adobe would love it if the world lowered their standards to some Adobe-defined lowest common denominator, but then we would probably not see the various consistently fast tech advances like the low light performance of the Nikon D3.

-Allen Wicks

NX2 has a non-intuitive (OK, clunky) interface, but it is MUCH better in RAW conversion than Aperture, and the U-point adjustmentm features are really good once you get a grip on them.

I use Aperture to manage my files, and for non-critical work, but on select images that I want to make as good as possible I use either NX2 or (better) CaptureOne.

As for the inital question - no, in my view there is no point in converting to DNG. If, at some future time, Nikon go out of business and there is no support for NEF, then you will be able to convert your images to a new format using a computer that is 10 times faster than the one you have today.

I don't know what Sierra Dragon is saying.

The benefit of converting to DNG, to answer the question, has to do only with the fact that NEF or CR or what-have-you are proprietary formats and DNG is open-source. If Nikon goes out of business, the code for their RAW format dies with them and thus the support. Even if Adobe goes out of business, the code for DNG is published and available and anybody, in theory, could build a DNG reader. It is as future-proof as is possible.

Given, though, that there are already many, many applications that can read and render NEF files, it really seems to me like in the event Nikon goes out of business (no comment on the likelihood of that), that you could convert the NEF files to DNG at that time, or at some later time. As long as a NEF to DNG converter exists, there's no real need to convert the DNG files. Plus, you lose some flexibility by going to DNG, specifically again the ability to use applications like Nikon's own applications, which many regard as doing the best job at rendering the NEF files.

I personally see very little benefit to it. It's painting yourself into a corner to solve a problem that may never, ever exist. Unless the camera manufacturers themselves move to producing DNG files in camera, I have no plans ever to convert my RAW files to DNG.

TW3 wrote:
I don't know what Sierra Dragon is saying.

The benefit of converting to DNG, to answer the question, has to do only with the fact that NEF or CR or what-have-you are proprietary formats and DNG is open-source. If Nikon goes out of business, the code for their RAW format dies with them and thus the support. Even if Adobe goes out of business, the code for DNG is published and available and anybody, in theory, could build a DNG reader. It is as future-proof as is possible.

I think the key phrase there is "in theory". It's my understanding that Sierra Dragon is correct, and that DNG is actually pseudo-open-source.

DLS

And ...

AIUI, DNG is described publically, but is still a proprietary Adobe format, and they could, in principle, start charging money to use it at some point. That is also true for TIFF (I think)