Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eduard" data-source="post: 171437" data-attributes="member: 986">(Mount Soapbox: ON)This is an old debate - but a fun one too! Personally I keep my images as NEFs because they are the equivalent of a negative and record exactly what was captured in the purest form. Nikon, and all manufacturers, have a proprietary format and embed undocumented information in their files. Adobe, Apple and other software vendors interpret the data in their own proprietary manner. IMHO if you translate a NEF into a DNG (or any other format) you potentially are losing access to the source of the image and the undocumented metadata. I don't mean to imply that interim, work-in-process or output formats are bad. Far from it as how would we be able to do any post processing without them? Why do I believe in preserving the original file? Have you ever tried to go back and reprocess an old image after a significant update to your favorite software? As the software vendors improve their product and better understand the manufacturer's formats, you may be amazed at the difference an upgrade makes. This is an old thread, but <a href="http://nikonites.com/computers-software/919-example-lightroom-2-versus-lightroom-3-a.html#axzz2Z0xsPcgb" target="_blank">here</a> is an example of a comparison of the same image from LR2 and LR3.Bottom line, until manufacturer's agree to use a single common documented file format - and DNG is certainly a great option - I prefer to save the native file format and utilize a non-destructive method of post processing. For me that means NEFs and Lightroom. Your mileage may vary. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />(Mount Soapbox: OFF)</blockquote>

Verification