Shooting Raw as a Matter of Fact

[benjikan]

I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation.

Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation.

Ben

[dang]

While I agree RAW is the best way to go, for those who must shoot jpg, they have options which help maintain their images. When saving, the original can be converted to TIFF for future use.

Actually, there's no guarantee that RAW, TIFF, jpg or any file type will be around in 20 years considering the advancements being made today. Currently RAW files aren't 100% standard across brand lines. It's still possible they'll need additional conversion at a future date also. I'd think a better comparison to analog, would be RAW it's self. Jpg is only the finished product, much as a print from film, for using on the net. With the RAW file the negative.

[dougj]

I agree with Dang.

RAW is a digital negative and offers several advantages over JPG. The concern I have is that each camera manufacturer has their own proprietary RAW format, which frequently changes with subsequent new camera models. There is a risk that companies like Adobe may choose to cut off compatibility with early RAW file formats.

I envision a time when I’ll need to go back to my early RAW files and convert/process them to a different format that retains as much of the detail as possible.

[halesr]

You might want to read this discussion from Photo.net. It seems to be pretty much the question you are asking.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KgTB

Have you read about DNG files for archiving? At a workshop in August in Sante Fe the recommendation by Katrin Eismann was to keep both your RAW files AND convert to DNG and keep those files too. At sometime, especially since RAW files are specific to the camera you shot with, converters MAY not open your RAW files. That is why DNG is being pushed as an open standard that could allow for future access.

I read a recent article, but can't seem to find it online. It might have been in a magazine on why to use DNG. Anyway, the next link provides inforamtion on incorporating the DNG archiving into your photo workflow using CS2. It is a PDF and requires Acrobat Reader to open.

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_digitalwf.pdf

Hope this helps. BTW, I shoot RAW and archive my RAW files. I have not gone back and converted all of my RAW files to DNG, but I think I should.--Rene

[madlights]

I agree also that RAW files are important although as dang says, jpg is a standard, and a finished product..and if we keep our original jpg...convert to 16 bit and back when editing a copy...it would seem that loss is minimized as much as possible. It worries me in a way that Canon's first generations of digital SLR(through the 10d and the 1DS I think) cameras are not supported in Vista for direct transfer of files..at least yet (you can use a Vista compatible card reader). It worries me that Olympus cameras that used Smart Media are becoming harder to find memory cards for...and some of those cameras cost well over $500 (US). So it does seem things change quickly. I always backup my RAW (both CRW and ORF) to DNG, which makes them sort of compatible with each other also..and insures, to a degree, forward compatibility with Photoshop and some other programs that handle DNG ( Still to keep the Originals seems a good idea) I believe Pentax's new DSLR gives an option to save in either DNG or Pentax RAW (correct me if wrong). I can remember when in film cameras, there was a certain paper, think from Kodak, that faded really badly after a short time...so people who didn't have their negatives were out of luck. And certain Polaroids faded quite badly. With digital it probably will be the support will fade...we don't even know which camera companies will be around in 5 years, much less in 10. So DNG 'seems' a good archive in that regard at least...if our hard drives, CD's and DVD's that we've got them on last that long.

[chrispo]

Hi All,
I have a new Canon EOS 400D that I am using in the RAW format. Is there a patch from Microsoft that I can download so that I can see my images in my XP Professional program before I download them into the Canon editor?
Thanks,
Chris

[castledude]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/usin ... o/raw.mspx

Don't know if it works for the 400 though...

The other way is with a simple patch...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/arc ... -9806.html

--------------------------------------------

I use a variation of the registry patch for my Minolta and Sony files (the microsoft viewer doesn't work for it).

[jstuedle]

Camera manufacturers have spent millions to get there data out of there cameras and into a format we can use. Most of this development has been done by Nikon and Cannon, but others have invested deeply as well. None of these manufactures are going to abandon this vast investment and go with DNG, at least not in the foreseeable future. Each one of these guys think there method works best with the hardware they have created. It would be like Kodak becoming the engine manufacturer for Ford, Chevy, BMW, Merc, VW and Toyota. They might be able to do it, but it would only perform adequately at best. All manufactures would need to make allowances to be compatible with a common powerplant. If the leading camera brands adopted DNG, performance would be negatively affected, and we would have a hand full of camera brands so much alike that the lens mounts might even become interchangeable. Besides, Kodak has not been leading edge since the 1960's. <LOL>

JMHO, John