Image Preservation Through Open Documentation

OpenRAW Group writes "The OpenRAW Working Group launched a website today at http://www.OpenRAW.org designed to solve issues crucial to the future of photography. Digital technology is revolutionizing the photography industry, and an emerging part of that technology is the set of RAW camera file formats. Most professional photographers prefer using RAW image capture because it offers the highest quality and the greatest creative control. The grass roots OpenRAW group arose out of photographers' frustration with camera manufacturers' refusal to openly document their proprietary RAW file formats. That lack of file format information inhibits innovation, limits image processing choices, and endangers the long-term accessibility of millions of photographs. The goal of the new website is to obtain complete documentation by manufacturers of their RAW file formats."

Nikon White Balance Encryption

[Hulkster]

For those interested in the recent related Slashdot stories that are very relevent to OpenRAW's efforts, there was discussions last week [slashdot.org] and also this weekend [slashdot.org] about Nikon encrypting the white balance information. Michael Reichmann asks a rhetorical (IMHO) question of Do You Really Own Your Own Raw Files. [photoshopnews.com]

Enjoy my fun little christmas hoax [komar.org] - help me do it for real in 2005! ;-) [komar.org]

Adobe DNG

[shirai]

I know the story is about getting manufacturers to open up their RAW formats but I think the preferred goal is to have camera manufacturers standardize on ONE format.

Note that Adobe has already developed an open raw format called DNG (Digital Negative). They have a good track record with open formats with PDF files. You may or may not like them, but you they certainly can be generated by non-Adobe products and as far as I'm aware, nobody pays any license fee for that.

Another plus for DNG is that Adobe has a free DNG converter which will convert RAW files from many popular cameras to the DNG format.

You can find more info here about DNG [adobe.com].

Note that Photoshop (the most common photo processor) supports RAW formats for over 80 cameras. You can See a complete list here [adobe.com]

Re:Nikon White Balance Encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

Acording to the author of dcraw [cybercom.net] it's not only Nikon who are encrypting their metadata...

Re:Nits...

[AviLazar]

Actually, RAW is also an acronym "Rules As Written" :)

prior art

[morcheeba]

Here are some examples... [camtech.ca]

I first saw this on the Korean war memorial [nps.gov] in Washington DC (see images at top of that page). That one is low resolution, but a really neat effect. closeup of surface [americanfa...itions.com]

Re:Shooting RAW is not so great anyway

[Hays]

That guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Well, most of what he says isn't factually wrong, it's just very misleading. He makes it sound like it's a bad thing to process your RAW files later instead of having your camera apply some half-baked conversion on the fly. It's like arguing that film camera's are crap because polaroids can do the conversion for you on the fly.

Shooting in RAW is very powerful.

Re:Professionals GO HOME!

[dazedNconfuzed]

Nikon's plugin costs $100. While that's a pittance compared to the cost of the camera, it's an extra cost I probably can't afford after buying a camera that expensive.

Re:Standardized RAW = non-sequitor

[mrchaotica]

It can't just support "multiple" bit depths and patterns, it would have to support arbitrary ones. In other words, the bit depth and pattern would have to be described in the file, not just identified.

DNG not RAW for all cameras

[SuperKendall]

If you read the DNG spec carefully, you'll note that some camera data is normalized into plain old RGB values - still logarithmically arranged to keep the most of the sensor data, but still not the exact RAW data obtained from the sensors.

This is because the DNG file format can essentially hold two kinds of sensor data - Bayer grids, and RGB values as mentioned before. If you start to do anything different (like the diagonal arrays of the Fuji cameras or stacked sensors of the Foveon chip, the format just has no way to hold the "real" RAW data and has to transcode it.

For that reason I think the OpenRAW group is a much better idea, because as sensors evolve open specs are the only way to get real raw processors built. DNG is just not enough to handle a space that is still evolving very quickly.

Re:Shooting RAW is not so great anyway

[Hays]

Sure, for a lot of shots it won't make a difference... I can accept that. But at the same time I don't see any harm in it. It's twice as much space. Big deal, so I can take 130 pictures instead of 260. Memory is cheap even for my 8 megapixel camera. Also it's not any trouble to convert them. A couple of clicks in a raw conversion program and it will batch convert them all to jpegs.

But the beauty is in the exposure control. You can't expect your camera to properly meter all scenes. It's an AI-hard problem. Where to clip the highlights and the shadows depends on your subject matter. It's so nice to be able to take some time and think about it later.

It's not entirely different from the considerable amount of skill that can go into developing a negative (versus using a polaroid).

You don't seem to be aware

[^BR]

That there is more than bit depth that vary. Bayer based camera and Foveon based are so different that they can't really share a format...

Re:Shooting RAW is not so great anyway

[n6mod]

Umm, he has a lot of opinions on the subject. That is NOT the same as knowing a lot about it.

"RAW is NOT a digital negative. Unlike a real negative, it still has restricted resolution and dynamic range..."

Whereas negatives have *un*restricted resolution and dynamic range? Bzzzt.

RAW is a digital negative in that it is as close as possible to what the sensor captured.

Most of his arguments come down to the time spent waiting for the conversion process. If you can't figure out how to use one of the myriad tools out there to do a basic RAW>PSD batch conversion at least as well as the camera, (and then walk away from the computer while it works) then you should stick to wet processes.

Having the raw image is insurance. If something is wrong with a critical shot, you might be able to do a little more with the RAW than you would with a JPG.

Unless you're a sports photographer working on a deadline measured in minutes, shoot raw. Storage is cheaper than a reshoot.