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."

Professionals GO HOME!

[disposable60]

These camera makers obviously don't want professional photographers buying their equipment. If I (hobbyist) can't use the Industry Standard photomanipulation package (PhotoShop; my own money, too) with my prosumer camera's highest-quality-mode's files, I ain't buying the camera.

Pinhead control freak MBAs have ruined everything.

Re:Adobe DNG

[myc_lykaon]

but I think the preferred goal is to have camera manufacturers standardize on ONE format.

How can camera manufacturers standardise on one raw format, unless they all agree to use exactly the same technology to capture the image in the first place? I thought the idea of raw was that it's what is pulled off the CCD (or whatever other technology is there) with no preprocessing? Unless all manufacturers agree to have a set of given 'constants' in camera manufacture it ain't gonna work.

Guess it depends on what you mean

[Sycraft-fu]

Good digital cameras already exceed teh resolution of 35mm film. You can blow their images up to 8x10 or larger and they look flawless.

Well digital ever look the SAME as film? No, probably not. They deal with light in different ways. However that doesn't mean film is better, just different.

Re:Film versus Digital?

[Em Adespoton]

This is the same argument that goes on in every other area where there are digital and analog ways of storing data.

Just remember -- you don't see the same colours with your eyes that I see with mine; even the colour skew will be slightly different.

As for quality of enlarged photographs, digital images have pixel halos, but these can be compensated for with digital algorithms; with a digital camera, *every* aspect of what has been recorded is a fixed known value.

With Film-based photographs, there are many uncontrollable variables that go into the recording process; not all films are identical, film is not 100% even across its surface, and most importantly, film is not your retina. When enlarging images recorded on film, there will be a grain effect caused by lack of information in the film. To combat this grain effect, many people *digitally scan* the film and use a computer algorithm to reconstruct the lost pieces. Sound familiar?

The main thing is that film and digital imaging are *both* lossy, and store different bits of visually captured information. Both can be of exceptionally high quality (much higher than the human eye can detect), but both have different limitations on what data actually gets recorded. Film has been around long enough that we accept it, with all its flaws, as "standard". Eventually, this spot will probably fall to digital imaging/storage, as a new generation of people who aren't used to seeing film-based images grow up.

Standardized RAW = non-sequitor

[dazedNconfuzed]

Standardized RAW files don't make sense precisely because they are "raw".

Each camera, particularly as technologies progress, has its own peculiar nuances regarding how the image is captured. It's up to the manufacturer to decide the appropriate way to store that data in a "raw" format. Complying with a standard for unprocessed data will add unnecessary bulk and/or change data values (wrecking the point of "raw" image files).

I don't want a standard RAW format; I want the camera to give its data unmodified. If I need a camera-specific driver to interpret that data into a useable form, fine. If I want the camera to produce standardized formats, pick TIFF or JPG or such from it's menu. There is a place for standards; unprocessed data is not it. I want the unprocessed data unprocessed.

Re:Shooting RAW is not so great anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to think Ken Rockwell's site was a good source of information on current photography equipment too. That is until I actually understood what he was talking about and realized he is a crackpot with his own agenda.

He writes opinions as facts and pushes Nikon despite obvious flaws in logic. FE: His main complaint against the Canon 20D? Max flash sync of 1/250. He goes on and on for pages on how this is The Suck and how his 1/500 D70 is so great because Nikon made it so. Big freaking deal. Every external flash for the past 20 years has supported a high speed sync option which just fires the flash longer than the intended exposure length. Yeah you lose more battery than necessary. You still get the picture. Then Nikon comes out with their new flagship, the D2X. It's max flash sync is 1/250. Oh but thats just a minor problem, after all the rest is Nikon.

He doesn't attempt to hide his bias. Refering to the DX sensor as 'industry standard'. Nikon's 1.5x sensor is only Nikon standard, Canon's is 1.6, others may vary.

Back to the topic at hand. Even if you shoot perfect exposures and manually set your white balance perfectly every time, RAW is at least 12 bit. It allows you to recover shadow detail far better than the 8 bit contrast adjusted, sharpened jpgs the camera produced. For the rest of us that arn't perfect like Ken, pushing or pulling exposures 1 stop or more is not uncommon. It looks just fine when I do so with my 20D. Guess if I had a Nikon I could only go 1/2 stop. Looks like I made the right choice despite Ken's best efforts.

Re:When?

[BrianJacksonPhoto]

When does digital exceed film? 5 megapixels? 6 megapixels? More? It seems when digital cameras came out, the sales people said 2 megapixel is better than film for 4 by 6 prints, and 3 megapixels is better for a full page.

Megapixel does an image not make. Judging based on megapixels has ZERO bering on the quality of the image. That's like comparing Mhz/Ghz in CPU speed. Does the higher the number always equal a faster system? NO.

I have 2 different 4 megapixel cameras(from the same manufacturer even). Canon 1D, and Canon S400. Now the battery of my 1D is larger than the entire S400. You want to tell me that these 2 cameras will produce the same images? I think not! I'm not saying that battery size determines the quality of an image, but the sensors on these 2 cameras are no where near each other. Megapixel is NOT a good indicator of image quality.

I'll put my 4 megapixel 1D up against a 6 megapixel P&S camera anyday.

Instead, film is more concerned with lighting conditions, the time of the exposure.

So, you're saying that I don't care about lighting conditions nor my exposure? Are you NUTS!! Properly exposing digital is the same as exposing for chrome. Just because you're shooting digital doesn't mean you no longer care about lighting and exposure.

What will last longer? Film or digital content? What can you be 100% certain to be able to view in the future? CD's get rot, and go bad.

Never hear of negatives crumbling? I have. Heck, I had a printfile get stored in the wrong place and those negatives are gone. That was only a 15 year old roll of film. Negatives are useless from that shoot. Now, they're gone because of my fault granted, but still...they're gone.

Sure, CD's and DVD's will eventually need to be replaced, but that's easier to convert than the thousands of rolls of film I've shot over the years, esp when they start to degrade. Film is NOT permanent. Not saying that digital is, but film not either.