Is there any advantage to converting images to DNG?

[Some Idiot]

I use bridge to import all my images and have always just worked with the RAW files.

There is an option to convert the files to DNG.... Is there any reason to do this? Just wondering, thanks in advance for the replies.

[thaddeussmith]

it's more future-proof than company xyz's ever changing raw formats.

[z-monster]

Give this a read over

http://lightroomkillertips.com/2010/...or-not-to-dng/

[Some Idiot]

Originally Posted by z-monster

Give this a read over

http://lightroomkillertips.com/2010/...or-not-to-dng/

Cool, thanks. the arguments (especially if you read the comments), sound like the old use UV filters or not......

A lot of facts that may or may not be true, Some people say smaller files, others say no they will be larger.....

I guess I will roll with RAW until they offically switch to DNG in my camera, or stop supporting RAW files, then switch over....

thanks again for the link

[Skydawg]

One of the advantages of dng, is the portability factor. When making adjustments to raw files, the adjustments are saved to a 'sidecar file' which is an XMP file format which describes to the raw processor the changes made to the image. With dng file format, the changes are saved inside the dng file. So, when moving or sending the image, only the dng file has to go. With the sidecar or XMP file, both the raw file and the XMP file have to be sent together or whatever raw processor is used to open the raw image, will not be able to know what adjustments were made.

[Phanee]

John,

If I modify a DNG file in Lightroom and if I open that file in Aperture, will it contain the changes I made in LR?

[Skydawg]

I am not familiar with aperture, but if it supports dng file format, then yes it would.

Look here
DNG From Lightroom To Aperture Photofocus
And here
Adobe Forums: Does LR render native RAW...