ronald_byram_7945346's profile

85 Messages

 • 

1.2K Points

Thu, Sep 10, 2020 9:10 PM

Lightroom Classic: DNG conversion quality less than RAW

I shoot Canon *.RAW and tried conversion to DNG. But when i compare RAW to DNG, the quality of the DNG appears poor. the Photos are not as crisp.  (Windows 10)  Any thoughts? could I have a incorrect setting?

Champion

 • 

3.7K Messages

 • 

61.6K Points

1 y ago

When you convert a raw file to dng, you simply place the raw data in another envelope, nothing else. The raw data themselves are not changed. That means that something else must be going on, probably in the way you compare them.

2.3K Messages

 • 

26.4K Points

1 y ago

Lossy or lossless DNG?
A lossless DNG is as raw as the original

Champion

 • 

1.3K Messages

 • 

20.2K Points

1 y ago

Andrew, there was a very interesting discussion and explanation from Simon Chen about lossy DNG which seems to be no longer accessible. To summarize, 'lossy' DNG uses indeed jpeg compression on the raw (unprocessed, not rendered) data. He detailed a few kinds of edits where that offered better processing as well as flexible compression.
I understand that a 'lossy' version of a raw is still raw, but being 'lossy', you should be able to see a difference between the orginal and the lossy raw even rendered with the same editing settings?

2.3K Messages

 • 

26.4K Points

Lossy DNG no longer accessible? 

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Champion

 • 

1.3K Messages

 • 

20.2K Points

No, the discussion with Simon Chen.

Champion

 • 

1.3K Messages

 • 

20.2K Points

Ok, thanks Google, I found the discussion indirectly:
http://mikepasini.com/corners/2014/06/24-lossy-dng/index.htm

Edit, sorry for my mistake, it was Eric Chan, apologies...

2.3K Messages

 • 

26.4K Points

I'm not sure what that is supposed to uncover. There is lossless DNG which is as raw as the original. There is options for lossy DNG which isn't. There is Linear DNG.

That's what I asked the OP, what option for conversion was used. One can embed a plain vanilla JPEG into a DNG; it's a JPEG. DNG like TIFF is a container for all kinds of rendered or un-rendered image data and more. 

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Champion

 • 

3.7K Messages

 • 

61.6K Points

The OP says he converted using Lightroom Classic. AFAIK, Lightroom Classic has no options for converting as lossy DNG. The only option you have in the preferences is whether or not you want to embed the original raw file.

Johan W. Elzenga,

http://www.johanfoto.com

85 Messages

 • 

1.2K Points

1 y ago

I will grab a sample and submit to team. I used LRC to convert and see a difference. 

Champion

 • 

3.7K Messages

 • 

61.6K Points

1 y ago

Did you perhaps import the images with 'Embedded & sidecar' preview settings? The standard setting for DNG conversion in Lightroom Classic is to generate a preview that is not full size and may be compressed stronger than Canon's embedded previews. That's just the embedded previews however, you should compare a Lightroom edit on both files.

Champion

 • 

3.7K Messages

 • 

61.6K Points

1 y ago

Did you perhaps import the images with 'Embedded & sidecar' preview settings? The standard setting for DNG conversion in Lightroom Classic is to generate a preview that is not full size and may be compressed stronger than Canon's embedded previews. That's just the embedded previews however, you should compare both files with Lightroom edits applied to them, so both previews are Lightroom-generated previews.

85 Messages

 • 

1.2K Points

1 y ago

Anyone suggest proper setting in LRC to convert RAW file to DNG?  I tired and it doubled file size.

2.3K Messages

 • 

26.4K Points

Are you embedding the original proprietary raw? Otherwise, the size is often a little bit smaller due to better compression.

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

85 Messages

 • 

1.2K Points

1 y ago

Ok gang here are 3 picture and a link. The original RAW.  then I did a export where the files size doubled then a Convert.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b05csntzbxl9y8k/AABJ8FBfAS9xzImAlUcTstiGa?dl=0

85 Messages

 • 

1.2K Points

Maybe I am doing the wrong think for convert?

Champion

 • 

2.4K Messages

 • 

39.2K Points

You are selecting 'Embed Original Raw File' option, which will double the file size (DNG + Original data).


Here's what you should be using:



BTW- I see no difference in quality between the three Dropbox files (2-DNG, 1-CR2) when assigned the same settings (i.e. Camera Standard for all three).

Champion

 • 

3.7K Messages

 • 

61.6K Points

That brings me back to my earlier question, that wasn't answered so far:

Ronald,
Did you perhaps import the images with 'Embedded & sidecar' preview settings? You may be comparing apples and oranges if you compare unedited images that were imported with embedded previews.

Johan W. Elzenga,

http://www.johanfoto.com

85 Messages

 • 

1.2K Points

Yes I do use the Embedded & sidecar option. Thus am I in error selecting this?  Maybe my whole issue is I have been importing files in the past with he wrong import settings?  But I will say I did go back and do a CR2/DNG compare and Now I dont see a issue.  

Champion

 • 

2.4K Messages

 • 

39.2K Points

Embedded & Sidecar Preview option speeds the import process because it uses the embedded JPEG preview inside the raw file. Depending on your camera's picture style settings the embedded preview will look quite different than the Standard and 1:1 previews. That's probably what you're seeing. However, the first time you switch an image to the Develop module or Zoom to 1:1 the Library preview is built and the embedded preview is no longer used. More here:

https://blogs.adobe.com/sunil/2017/10/18/embedded-preview-workflow-in-lightroom-classic/

There's nothing wrong with using Embedded & Sidecar preview option as long as you understand the limitations. In the case of Canon EOS cameras the embedded preview is full-size JPEG file so the "quality" should still be pretty good.