Read the forum code of contact
By: - 24th May 2005 at 22:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the post, spt. As an amateur user, the RAW format issue does not affect me, but it is of obvious interest to those who use it. However, may I use this thread to raise a similar question on longevity of storage media?
I have heard from a couple of friends that some CD ROMS on which images are stored may be susceptible to deterioration - rendering data retreival impossible - with a deterioration timespan to 'useless' being as little as 10 years. Is this hogwash? And if it's not, could the same problems occur to DVDs?
Hope you don't mind going slightly off thread.
By: - 24th May 2005 at 22:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My camera outputs in RAW, TIFF, or JPG.
I can't discern any difference between the RAW images and the Tiffs. Can anybody tell me briefly and in layman's language why I should ever save my happy snaps in RAW?
Moggy
By: - 24th May 2005 at 23:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Print the bloody photos and you don't have to worry do you?
By: - 24th May 2005 at 23:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My camera outputs in RAW, TIFF, or JPG.I can't discern any difference between the RAW images and the Tiffs. Can anybody tell me briefly and in layman's language why I should ever save my happy snaps in RAW?
Moggy
Moggy a RAW is just like a negative or Slide. It’s the bare data collected by the Camera with no processing. RAWs need to be processed before they can be viewed. This gives the photographer choice when processing the files. Tiffs are processed, without loss of data and retain all the original quality. JPEGs are compressed but lose information so that each time you process the file you may run the risk of losing quality. Conversion to JPEG is the last stage in saving the finished photo.
If you shoot Tiffs the files are large and you have relied on the camera to do the processing. This can slow the camera down. The camera will also generally not process as well as a RAW converter Hope this helps.
By: - 24th May 2005 at 23:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The camera will also generally not process as well as a RAW converter
Those were the words I was looking for. Thanks.
Moggy
By: - 24th May 2005 at 23:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Those were the words I was looking for. Thanks.Moggy
You’re welcome :)
By: - 25th May 2005 at 03:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My camera outputs in RAW, TIFF, or JPG.I can't discern any difference between the RAW images and the Tiffs. Can anybody tell me briefly and in layman's language why I should ever save my happy snaps in RAW?
Moggy
I'd say that one other difference is that TIFF is a non-proprietary format, whereas RAW is manufacturer dependent. TIFF however tends to produce larger files than RAW.
Richard.
By: - 25th May 2005 at 08:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'd say that one other difference is that TIFF is a non-proprietary format, whereas RAW is manufacturer dependent. TIFF however tends to produce larger files than RAW.Richard.
RAW is what all digital cameras shoot, and you are correct in that unlike Tiff's and JPEG's etc, RAW files are all different. Cheaper consumer cameras all process their RAW files and it is only the Professional and pro-sumer (Yuck) cameras that generally allow shooting in RAW. In fact top Cameras will produce a RAW and a JPEG so that the photographer can sort out their photos quickly and not waste time processing worthless shots
This area is a source of concern in Professional Photography circles at present. If I remember correctly Nikon will only allow conversions of RAW files taken with a Nikon Camera with their own software, where as with Canon, Olympus etc you can use propriety software from the manufacturer or a third party utility such as Capture One, Adobe RAW Converter, or any number of shareware offerings.
What this ultimately means I think, is that as well as keeping a RAW file, you should keep a TIFF original, if you are a serious photographer. This presents a storage issue as the Volume of data can be daunting. So we will have a RAW, a TIFF and a processed and corrected Hi-res JPEG and a low-res jpeg for posting or email. Couple that with CDs that will not last, so we copy it all to DVD, and then in a few years we copy it all to the next generation of storage media, that Toshiba and Sony are throwing bricks at one and other over. Oh dear, have we been here before???? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
By: - 25th May 2005 at 08:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If I remember correctly Nikon will only allow conversions of RAW files taken with a Nikon Camera with their own software, where as with Canon, Olympus etc you can use propriety software from the manufacturer or a third party utility such as Capture One, Adobe RAW Converter, or any number of shareware offerings.
As a Nikon user, I can confirm this is not so. Nikon RAW can be opened and converted by Photoshop, Adobe RAW converter, Pixmantec RawShooter, etc. In fact I use any of these instead of the Nikon offering!
Ken
By: - 25th May 2005 at 09:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As a Nikon user, I can confirm this is not so. Nikon RAW can be opened and converted by Photoshop, Adobe RAW converter, Pixmantec RawShooter, etc. In fact I use any of these instead of the Nikon offering!Ken
I stand corrected but I think you will find that the D2X recently released has encrypted white balance data, and this has caused much consternation. Camera makers should stick to what they do best, making cameras, and not trying to write software that others are much better at. It pays to read the article in the first post, and ask your self, is this the thin edge???
By: - 25th May 2005 at 09:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TN is correct the D2X has encrypted white balance data, which PSCS2 cant act on but CS2 does support the D2X in most other RAW areas. Nikon's own software obviously does support it and I believe that Bibble also does.
Previous Nikons are unaffected by the problem, interesting to see that according to that article the new baby Nikon also uses the same format, looks as though Nikon will be using this in all their future releases...bugger...
Cheers
Paul
Nikon user
By: - 25th May 2005 at 09:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi Guys,
Follow this link for the full information on longevity of CD-Rom, CD-R and CD-RW. It is very clear about what you should and should not do to your CD's. http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=2131
Cheers
Tom Docherty72
By: - 25th May 2005 at 10:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have just read the article on the link, and the comments made in response. The Open RAW working group have a lot of flaws in thier comment, and users of RAW files should not believe a lot of what is said. Technology does move on, and we all know that, but the imaging software manufacturers are aware of back compatability issues, and will strive to ensure it does not become an issue. The article mentions third party software developers being often small, this is true of some but I am sure that Adobe would argue that point. Even more basic software packages now offer RAW converters, so I don't believe the format is not for the long term.
As already stated in other posts, RAW is a great format if you want to control the final results. Yes, it is a pain to proccess all the files, but you can batch proccess if desired. I personally batch proccess all the files so that I can view them on a full screen, and then go back to the best shots to reproccess shot by shot. Store your RAW files as your negatives, and use your TIFF's or JPEGS as your viewing files.
By: - 25th May 2005 at 10:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Out of interest Darren, what do you see as the flaws in the Open RAW argument?
Jonathan
By: - 25th May 2005 at 10:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Out of interest Darren, what do you see as the flaws in the Open RAW argument?Jonathan
Jonathan,
Fair question.
As Damien has already pointed out, there are some simple answers to the points they have raised. The article is more scare mongering than factual. I'm sure that RAW will be superceeded but technology moves so fast, that this is just going to happen. This does not mean that it's a format to avoid.
By: - 25th May 2005 at 10:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
#18 "You'd be foolish to rely on CDs or DVDs in the first place."
What alternatives are there for the average amateur? Continuously buying new camera cards? Buying a dedicated external hard disk drive (which may not even last 5 years)?
By: - 25th May 2005 at 11:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Looks like it is just another variation on the "digital sucks" posts posted before.If you believe in film, fine with me. in a few years most film will be gone anyway, and it will be a digital world of photography only.Shot slides for 30 years, but I haven't touched my almost new Eos 1vs for almost 3 years now.I only shoot RAW and if they can't be read in 20 years isn't my problem to be honest, by that time I'll be long gone. My archive of almost 130.000 slides, 50.000 black and whites and god knows how many digital files (by then), will all be given to a national aviation museum, as is already registrated in my last will. So my archive is as safe as possible. Think this is a much more historical responsible act than scaring people that their RAWs can't be read in a few years/decades time. Who cares as most of what people shoot today is going to the carbage compound in the long run, wether it be on film or digital base. BW Roger
By: - 25th May 2005 at 16:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep it's all a load of hokum and scaremongering. The arguments against digital in the link in the first post are complete nonesense. As we have discussed before.
It is up to the individual to ensure they use a reliable backup medium, and to monitor those backups. That always has been, and always will be the case - regardless of whether you use film/analogue or digital media.
By: - 25th May 2005 at 22:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I transfered my 8mm cine film to VHS then to 8mm Video Tape then to DV tape.
From glorious Kodacolour (1957) to monochrome mush. Still got the original though all it needs is a light source and a lens.
Microfiche thats the answer!
Digital will change and will change faster over the decades so we will have to transfer them from one medium to another faster. Difference now is that digital should not lose quality. Not sure if its progress yet. Get back to you in 20years.
In the meantime I will print my 5000 digital shots I took last month and photograph them with my 35mm loaded with Agfachrome 50 --------- Just to be on the safe side you understand. What if my hard disk fails and my dvd backups get damaged along with the copies my parents and my mother-in-law hold offsite and also the Archos and Freecom disk go?
NURSE WHERE ARE MY PILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!
I Love the Sixties!
By: - 26th May 2005 at 00:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think we may be missing the point here chaps. The argument is not anything to do with digital vs film. It’s about open standards and openness. Read carefully what is said. If you want an analogy then imagine you have a film in your camera and it can only be processed by the manufacturer and viewed using a special projector produced by the same manufacturer. And what if you had brought a shiny new camera that suddenly could only take this film. It doesn’t take much imagination if your mind is open to see where this leads.
This appears to be what Nikon have tried. I believe it will backfire on them, because as clever as they think they are, there are even cleverer geeks out there that seem to be able to crack these things in hours of release. The point is that why do it in the first place. We don’t want the digital camera industry to end up pull a stunt like the music industry is trying, suing its own customers. It beggars belief what goes on in the minds of some modern day executives. Oh I forgot they are all Lawyers.
Rant over
Posts: 58
By: spt - 24th May 2005 at 21:54
The document here is one that all the digital photographers who post here should read. It identifies grave implications regarding the possible future access to proprietary RAW file formats and therefore the future accessibility of a digital historic aviation image archive.