Essential reading re. RAW & JPEG

[v6gto]

This'll make you think...

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml

Martin.

[simpo two]

Shoot JPG

[LongQ]

v6gto said:

This'll make you think... http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml Martin.

I have long thought that our computer age may be one fo the first where history will need to be re-written on the basis that much of it will not exist in a form which can be stored long term and interpreted by nothing more than the human eye and an ability to work out codes.

The issues outlined apply across the computer software (and hardware) spectrum - as the article points out.

Analog media - film and video for example - are digitised to preserve them - but what will be available to preserve the digital versions?

And if they are not preserved - will it matter?

[beano500]

simpo two said:

Shoot JPG

JPEG




There you go!

[v6gto]

simpo two said:

Shoot JPG

I knew that was coming from you

Martin.

[v6gto]

Before everyone gets suicidal, the other side of the coin is argued here...

www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75809

Martin.

[Phil S]

I wouldn't really call those problems with shooting RAW files, as is compared to ageing of negatives, more minor compatability issues. If you want something to process Canon 20D RAW files in 20 years time (for example) then there will always be a way of finding it if you look hard enough, and programs are generally backwards compatible - future versions will pretty much always read them.

If companies wish to encrypt their RAW files (such as Nikon seem to have done) then they will provide suitable software to read them, but it is their loss in the long run if industry standard tools such as Photoshop cannot read them. If the demand is there i'm sure a quick search on Google would find something to convert it.

As for storage media, there are so many millions of CD drives out there now, if in 20 years time you really need one then i'm damn sure you will be able to buy one! To use the example in the site with 5.25" floppy drives, you can still get one if you really need one, and to be honest; if you have kept important information stored on such a disc yet thrown the drive away that can read it then you deserve all the trouble you get

[simpo two]

Phil S said:

If companies wish to encrypt their RAW files (such as Nikon seem to have done) then they will provide suitable software to read them,

A great deal of sense there Phil. I think Nikon are being very shortsighted to encrpyt data so only Nikon software can read it. That kind of stunt might work for the hard of thinking, but pros like to choose their own software and don't ever seem to go for what the camera-makers supply.

So - if you were deciding whether to buy Nikon or Canon - and one make forced you to use software you didn't like - you'd buy the other one. Nor smart, Nikon - a few extra sales of Nikon software at £100 a go, but fewer Nikon users.

[GetCarter]

I can understand what is being said here. We had an almighty row in the music biz about 25 years ago - and for once everybody got round a table and MIDI was universally accepted as the transfer protocol, solving all compatibility issues in one stroke.

However - I'd point out that Photoshop can read RAW files from the D2x (I ignore the Nikon software), and any decent photo manipulation software now or in the future will hardly likely ignore Nikon.

Lastly - I can see that storing as RAW is the perfect (keen) solution, but if I shoot in RAW I backup any decent shots as tiffs (after any cropping etc). Personally I'm not that keen to go back to photos I took 5 years ago and need to mess about at 16 bit...

..But I can see that some might be.

[trackdemon]

GetCarter said:

Lastly - I can see that storing as RAW is the perfect (keen) solution, but if I shoot in RAW I backup any decent shots as tiffs (after any cropping etc). Personally I'm not that keen to go back to photos I took 5 years ago and need to mess about at 16 bit... ..But I can see that some might be.

Quite. If you shoot jpeg from the camera and store that you're forever stuck with the rather unsophisticated RAW processing that the camera applies. Surely best then to store both RAW & JPEG (I ALWAYS create jpeg's from RAW's I keep) and give yourself the option . More likely I suspect is that RAW processing software will become more advanced and - as with the chemical darkroom - you'll be able to revisit and reprocess your 'negatives' and generate even better images in years to come.
In summary I really don't think there's anything to worry about, but I'd certainly advocate a single standard for RAW output.