Thinking of the future:

[RonFrank]

The RAW Flaw
By Michael Reichmann and Juergen Specht
May, 2005

No. Actually it isn't, because this is exactly the situation that we now face with our digital camera's RAW files. Let's see if we can understand what's going on and why the current situation has come to a head.

____________________

I tried to paste the entire thing, but it's too long...for the rest of the article please go here:
http://www.digitaldiver.net/raw_flaw.php

I've read this before, and my thought is that it's paranoia.

The author makes a point about Nikon issues with RAW in Adobe, and Phase One. He says, who is looking out for us, nobody? Well that is simply NOT true. The reality is that this issue was worked out, and quickly. Adobe, PhaseOne, and Nikon ALL have a vested interest in making SURE that digital shooter has RAW converters.

Adobe, Phase one and others ALL have RAW converters for most every camera that supports RAW going back as far as the first Digital camera's.

The author suggests a Digital RAW standard that would work across all camera's. Unfortunately while that sounds good, it's NOT a solution given what a RAW file is. What is RAW? It's output directly from the sensor, and given that there are two major sensor types (CMOS/CCD), every sensor implementation is different, if the RAW image was *processed* into some standard format, it would no longer be RAW. There is a good reason that Nikon D200 RAW files are NOT the same as Nikon D2x files, and that is because the sensor are VERY different by design.

If you want processed images, shoot jpg.

Adobe has come out with DNG, which is ONE attempt to standardize RAW images, however after the shooting. If people are worried about RAW obsolescense the solution is simple.... do a mass conversion to another format. Here is the catch, who is to say WHICH format looses support?

Personally I will NOT bother with this unless I fear the loss of NEF/RAW support. If the time comes that support is looking iffy, that would be the time to convert the files into a new format whatever that may be.

I'm am MUCH more concerned about getting hit by a bus than I am about my RAW files. I will be dead long before my RAW files become useless!

 

[RonFrank]

If the lament is that we can't have a reliable physical representation of our work, why not process the image to the best available quality, just as great great grandpa did with his tintype, and transfer it to a high grade color negative for storage and future photographic reprocessing?

Color slides have a shelf life that is going to be MUCH less than digital media when properly backed up. Transfering digital media to a negative results in a second generation backup with the associated quality loss.

The big question becomes what happens to your images upon your death?

That is where I see images truely getting lost.

 

[RonFrank]

This is such an ugly issue - I doubt that CD's have 10years life in them, and DVD's will shortly be in the same boat. Formats are not any better. Make lots of high durability prints and hope there is not a fire.

Hmm, I have CD's from the 80's that play fine?

I've spent a LOT of time researching the issue, and my thought is that putting prints, slides, negatives, CD's, DVD's in some artifical environment and attempting to determine archival quality is rather bunk.

Once a print has survived 100 years, one can accurately say it has an archival life of 100 years, but not before then.

Keep a backup, or three. I have my images on two seperate drives, and on DVD.

 

[RonFrank]

Here's an interesting read on the potential legalities of RAW and encryption.

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

GAD, leave it to the lawyers to muck things up!