DNG without RAW?

[dds]

I don't, in general, shoot RAW (or RAW+jpg) -- for CF card capacity, shooting speed, and post-processing hassle reasons. However, Peter's book has convinced me I should be using DNGs for archival storage of originals. While DNGs are obviously intended for RAW images, is there a way to use DNG when you have only a (high-quality) jpg (or, maybe tiff) files. It seems to me that it should be theoretically possible -- either by converting the jpg to a pseudo RAW image with a null set of adjustments, or by creating a null RAW image and use the jpg as the "pretty good" embedded file. BTW, I shoot with a Nikon D200 with a D70 as backup.

I'm in the processing of redesigning (OK, making consistent and more systematic) my workflow along the lines proposed in the book, but the DNG issue is causing me some concern - not to mention my 50,000 plus original images with nary a RAW file to be found. Is this a non-issue (i.e., just use the damn jpgs as originals -- which I do now), or do I need to get with the program, act like a professional photographer, and start shooting RAW?

[peterkrogh]

Lightroom should offer this capability.
Peter
ps. Please do not cross-post

[Mike Guilbault]

or do I need to get with the program, act like a professional photographer, and start shooting RAW?

I used to shoot only jpg fine, thinking it was good enough if I was careful in my shooting, etc.  About a year and a half ago, I read Bruce  Fraser's book - Real World Camera RAW (CS2) and now shoot RAW exclusively.  I too use the D200 (and D1x... and D70) and shooting RAW was like upgrading my camera.  I go back to my old jpgs and bang my head wishing I had shot it in RAW (especially now that I'm using a colour managed workflow).  Once you get the hang of it (reading Bruce's book was my turning point) you'll never go back.  Heck.. I even shoot RAW for my pesonal family photos, candids, everything!   
The other advantage that isn't apparent, is that as RAW processors advance and get better (which they are), you'll be able to go back and re-process these older files even better.

[Marc Rochkind]

I could have said the same thing as Mike (although I wouldn't have said "colour," of course)... it was Bruce Fraser's book that turned it around for me, too. For me, it's not the quality difference, but rather the ability to apply non-destructive conversions and--especially-croppings to raw files that's most important.

Also, raw allows you to use DNGs, and that leads to embedded previews that reflect the editing in ACR, as Peter so often points out.

Anyway... back on the subject... a DNG containing a JPEG makes all the sense in the world from a workflow point of view, even though it makes no sense from the technical imaging point of view. I hope it happens to DNG Converter someday.

(Some ImageIngester users ingest JPEGs with the DNG Converter checkbox checked and are surprised when they discover that their JPEGs didn't get converted to DNGs.)

--Marc