RAW file lament

[Tarn]

Back in the days of film photography (remember that?), I could buy a roll of film almost anywhere. I speak of the 35mm format, very common, widely available. From Norman's Camera shop, to K-Mart the film could be had. And while you might not have been able to get the specific type of film you wanted; you could even get color print film at the grocery store check out lane.

The beauty of 35mm film was that you could put it into any 35mm camera and it would work; barring camera malfunctions or other unusual circumstances. I could put my Kodachrome into any Pentax; Nikon, Olympus, Canon; or even them cheap children's toy cameras. You remember those cameras; the ones that had a face of Barney, or Barbie, or a lion on the front. The viewfinder looked out of the face's nose, and the lens looked out of the open mouth. Anyway, the roll of film that I bought at 7-11, or K-Mart would work in any of those cameras.

And better still, I could you could develop it almost anywhere, too! You could take it to Norman's Camera shop; you could drop it off at the local drug store; you could even take it back to the grocery store where you purchased the film in the first place (much cheaper than taking it to Norman's); or you could even mail it in. But no matter where you took it, you (usually) got back good quality prints.

My point? Is that everyone, meaning the camera manufacturers, did the same thing the same way. They all used the same size of film; all of the sprocket holes were the same distance apart, and the same size. The film came in standard 12, 24 and 36 exposure rolls. Except for specific purpose, Tungsten, Daylight, slide, etc, the film was all the same. All of the cameras would take the 35mm film magazine. And all of the developing labs used the same chemicals, paper and such. Everyone did the same thing, the same way.

But those days are gone. Now we have digital and that seems to mean that nobody can do the same thing, the same way. I have to wonder if there is a law, that I don't know about, that stipulates that Nikon cannot save their RAW data in the same format as Olympus, or Canon. A law that make it illegal for any manufacturer to store image data in the same field as another.

All the manufactures seem to be able to use the JPG and TIF format with little trouble. Why can they not do the same with RAW files? What is so hard about defining a set format for RAW files and having everyone use that format (kind of like they do with JPG)?

If you want to use the "That format is copyrighted" plea, go ahead. But I ask you to remember, that a guy by the name of Martin was the first to come up with how to create a photograph (Tintype actually). It was even patented in the US and the UK. But every one used Martin's process and idea. Even though they refined and changed it a little, the basic process was still the same as Martin's. The same for celluloid film based photographic film. One guy came up with the way to do it, and everyone else used it. So why can't we do the same with digital "film"?

I'm sure that there exists some type of consortium that deals with digital image formats. Do we, as photographers, need to plead our case to them? Do we need to find a way to grant them more power, in order that they can enforce a standard? Of course there is the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium). They deal with HTML, setting the standards so that all HTML code does the same thing, the same way; and Microsoft doesn't pay any attention to them. So I guess that would be the same in the case of a  DIC (Digital Image Consortium). Only those that felt like it would pat attention to them.

Granted, I wrote this to be tongue in cheek; to poke fun at those who determine how images are stored, and what information gets stored with them. But I ask you to consider the overall impact. As for me... if I can no longer read my image files in ten years... I will be pi.... ah... upset. But there are photographers that have image files that are worth no small amount of money. Many photographers make their living with these files. Some have them insured. But sadly, insurance only returns money in the even of lost files; it does little to bring those files back.

My concern is that: with the instability of the file formats, combined with the instability of the current storage media; our images are in danger of becoming unreadable withing a few years. Compare this to how long film negatives could last (if properly cared for), and our digital images seem little more than a twinkle in the night. Allow me to put this into perspective. I recently found some negatives that my Grandmother took with her "Brownie" over fifty years ago. And, while they are slightly discolored, they could be used to create an acceptable print. I pulled out some CDs that I had burned only four years ago. Every one of them had problems. A few were nothing more than coasters, unable to produce a single image stored on them. I have opened "Zip" files that have been stored for only two years, and found many, sometimes all, of the images were corrupt.

Now let us look at the formats. Anyone here having trouble opening RAW files, today, that they used to be able to open with no problem years ago? Even within the same manufacturer, the RAW image format changes. Many of the changes are for the better. But it seems that backward compatibility does not seem to be one of these new changes. Just the same way that earlier versions of image editing software did not do a thing with Exif data, yet it is a common feature now; earlier versions of RAW formats are problematic for newer software to read. Thus, emphasizing the need to bring about some form of standardization.

There is little we can do about the media that our files are stored on. That is something that technology will have to overcome. But the format issue is something that, I believe, can be solved today, with the current technology. Maybe we, the non professional photographers need to do as the professional photographers are doing and add our voices to the cry for standardization.

Remember this was written as a lighter look at the format situation; and is by no means intended to be the cure.
I hope you enjoyed it.

[StarGeek]

You might want to read up on the DNG format.  It's basically Adobe's attempt to make a common raw format that anyone can use.  But the opinion I've read from most photographers is that it's an extra step to convert to that format and as long as they can still access the current RAW format that their pictures are in, they won't bother.

[Phil Harvey]

Just a couple of observations:

Pentax uses DNG.  My K-5 can produce either PEF or DNG, but I use PEF because Adobe Lightroom has modified my DNG's without asking, but it won't modify a PEF.  I don't trust my RAW images to Adobe software (they have made it clear that they don't care about loss of proprietary information in these images, and even the Pentax DNG contain proprietary maker note information).

David Coffin has the lofty goal of producing software that supports all RAW image formats, allowing the images to be accessed even after they become unsupported by the manufacturer.

- Phil

[Tarn]

StarGeek

The DNG concept is, in fact, what I am talking about. While I don't propose that DNG become the defacto standard; mostly because Adobe came up with it; the concept is what I advocate. One standard, one format! No ORF, no NEF, no nothing except a single format that all cameras write the RAW data to. A file format that would be readable by all software, no matter what camera created the file.

Phil

What makes Mr. Coffin's goal so lofty is the myriad of RAW file formats. And that is the basis of my lament. Every camera maker uses their own format of saving the RAW data. And some manufactures have more than one format for their own, propitiatory, format. Much like the problems, that I'm sure you have run into, of same information stored in different tags by different manufactures. A single standard would almost eliminate the need for maker note. I'm sure that even with a standard that allows maker note information, someone would come up with some tidbit that was not foreseen.

And what you say about Adobe is true. About 15% to 20% of my problems are due to Adobe not caring about, or not being skilled enough to deal with, other manufacture's information. Again, one standard, one format would reduce, or eliminate this problem. Forgive me, I'm being harsh on Adobe. I suggest that they may not be skilled enough to deal with other manufacturer's data. In reality a portion of the problem is that manufactures don't make it easy to deal with their information. It would seem that the "Take over the world" mentality still exists, and even prevails.

But still, I think we all can get a laugh at how the digital industry has taken over a media like photography, and turned it from something that was pretty straight forward, into something that chaos reigns supreme. Could someone remind me, again, how computers are making our lives simpler... I forget.