bclaytonphoto opened this issue on Dec 09, 2007 · 9 posts
bclaytonphoto posted Sun, 09 December 2007 at 5:11 PM
OpenRAW
This group has a lofty goal of trying to get the world to come together with a universal RAW format for Photography.
Some interesting stuff ...
[http://www.openraw.org/
](http://www.openraw.org/)An open source RAW format is the only answer in my opinion..but then again, the various camera makers couldn't fight about who's format is the best..
It's interesting to see that at one time there was support for the DNG format, but that changed..
bclaytonphoto posted Sun, 09 December 2007 at 5:17 PM
Here's Adobe's spin on the discussion
[http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/index.html
](http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/index.html)The question becomes, is DNG truly a loss-less format?
TomDart posted Sun, 09 December 2007 at 8:05 PM
Maybe I missed something but I have to go with Adobe on this one. DNG seems a workable option. Tom.
bclaytonphoto posted Sun, 09 December 2007 at 8:39 PM
There are some issues with the DNG format according this page
[http://www.openraw.org/node/1482
](http://www.openraw.org/node/1482)"DNG is not an open standard in that it does not document all the essential information contained in current RAW format files"
DNG
Yet another TIFF variation, this one pushed by Adobe. Has a number of advantages and disadvantages:
Good:- Defines a standard way to encode raw sensor data
Defines a standard way to transform colour
Bad:- Takes the proprietary RAW format problem and makes it much worse, with MakerNotes et al now being moved about.
Offers the option to include the entire original raw file - but unless everyone actually uses this (thus doubling file size) just gives a false sense of security.
Makes no attempt to define a standard way to store all the data currently stored in undocumented ways in MakerNotes.
[Section removed on clarification of Adobe RGB profile status]
Takes MakerNotes and moves them into another format, both perpetuating the problem and making it worse (as decoders often rely on absolution location information in Makernotes)
Makes no attempt to extend EXIF or TIFF/EP in a coherent fashion.
Controlled by a single manufacturer - Adobe - who given don't have a good history of managing the TIFF standard or allowing software developer of Adobe controlled software profiles or standards.
I understand the dilema with making a file format the standard that is owned by a specific software company.
I would prefer to see an open source solution.
TomDart posted Sun, 09 December 2007 at 8:47 PM
After reading this, I must agree. Tom.
Tanchelyn posted Mon, 10 December 2007 at 1:34 AM
In my opinion, Adobe is already powerful enough. Or better: too powerful. To avoid one company to dictate the law - think of how badly Microsoft supports css and uses its situation of power to try and impose their choices- a generally accepted RAW format cannot come from one company but should be open source.
Otoh: what is the advantage? If you buy a camera, you get software with it. Software that is capable of handling the raw files you shoot. If you buy another one, you get other software. If you fidn the quality is not sufficient, there are alternatives, like using Photoshop's raw, like Bibble and like others. In these applications, you can usually open several raw formats. So why do we really need a standard? Why not specify that there should only be one lens-mount so that I can use, say, Nikon lenses on my Olympus?
When the different brands don't have to compete no more, the research either stops, or should be adapted so as to fit a general rule. It's not good (pmy opinion) that one big brother controls it all. Diversity leads to improvement. Generalisation only to standards.
There are no Borg. All
resistance is fertile.
PeeWee05 posted Mon, 10 December 2007 at 2:51 AM
Cisco's going to take over the world!!!
Rights Come With Responsibilities VAMP'hotography Website VAMP'hotography Blog
danob posted Mon, 10 December 2007 at 10:11 AM
DNG does have a few saving graces after having lost all my files after a HD crash some time ago, I was able to recover all my files, but on recovery all of the exif dates and XMP data were lost, and the dates and times were all from the day I recovered the files from the HD.
By converting the images to DNG and then back to Raw I was able to restore the lost data, may not be important to some but, I tag my images by dates and times..
There are three other pretty big advantages to DNG: 1) they're smaller; 2) they can store embedded XMP metadata, negating the need for sidecar files or proprietary databases; and 3) they support embedded full-size JPEG previews for quick rendering. Of course all of this is moot if you're using one of the unsupported programs, but if you're asking this question you're probably not.
Besides, I'm not entirely sure anyone really needs anything other than Lightroom/Aperture and Photoshop. The other software supporting DNG is just icing on the cake.
Danny O'Byrne http://www.digitalartzone.co.uk/
"All the technique in the world doesn't compensate for the inability to notice" Eliott Erwitt
MGD posted Fri, 14 December 2007 at 1:26 PM
I see that danob went through the unpleasant experience of,
having lost all my files after a HD crash some time ago,
Did you read my message thread entitled, "Some thoughts about backups"?
Do you have any comments?
--
Martin