Archiving in Raw vs. DNG

[itznfb]

50 years is a long time. With technology evolving the way it is I'm not sure it's possible to plan something like this even 10 years down the road. As you said something like Google to put Adobe out of business in 5 years even. Highly unlikely but it is possible.

 

[manaheim]

I can't argue with your experience but have there really been that many times that you've needed to go back to what is effectively the latent image and change the processing? If you had a correctly 'developed' image that hadn't been modified in any way would that not have been as good?

Does it happen often? I would say it happens occasionally... not often. It happened this week... I noticed I oversharpened an image... a good example of something you cannot recover from with a TIFF.

But getting rid of the RAW (and keeping a processed but unmodified losslessly compressed image) is not getting rid of the negative, it's more akin to getting rid of the latent image but keeping the negative.

errr... I don't see how you would say that. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by latent image.

The negative is that which captures the broadest range of available image data for processing... it is the least developed part of the imaging process (shy of an undeveloped negative, of course)

The RAW file is far more analagous to a negative file than it is to a processed TIFF. I understand you have more variance with a TIFF than you would, say, a print... but the RAW file has the broadest range of available image data for processing, and is the least developed part of the imaging process.

It's true that you would lose something moving from RAW to any lossless 'developed' format.

What I'm saying is that what you give up by moving to a non-proprietary format is only a very small amount of flexibility ( for TIFF, microscopic for DNG) but what you gain is the guaranteed ability to be able to get at your data.

It may well be that in 50 years time it's impossible to get at music stored in apple or sony proprietary formats (or indeed anything crippled with DRM) but you can pretty much guarantee that you'll be able to access MP3 or FLAC.

I've been in technology for eons now... erm... god... almost 30 years. I've seen formats, operating systems, and whole computer technologies come and go... and to date I can still recover past technological lives with almost zero effort.

What's more is I don't think I've seen a single format die so suddenly or so quickly such that you would not be able to either convert your files in the waning light of the format... and what's more is that I cannot think of a single time when a format actually evaporated, even when for all intents and purposes it actually should have. GIF and the "ARC" (pkxarc) compression format being excellent (though very dissimilar) examples.

So, basically... on the REALLY unlikely chance that .NEF (or select versions of NEF, or some other brand equivelent RAW) start to be phased out...

1. We will all know well in advance.
2. We will have tools available for many years that will still be able to read the format.
3. We will have tools available for many years that will still be able to convert the format.
4. On the off chance that we crawl under a rock to emerge 10 years too late, we'll still have older tools on CDs lying under 5" of dust that will still be perfectly valid for converting the old format.

So, really, what I'm saying is if you are converting to a different format out of fear of not being able to pull up your RAW images again at a later date... well, I think it's a bit more panicky than warranted.

What's more is that if you choose to convert to DNG, I'd say you're stepping out of the frying pan into the fire. After all, it's just another RAW format... and whose to say that one won't die? In fact, it hasn't been fully adopted by the vendors so it probably has just as much chance of success as Nikon's .NEF does of becoming the de-facto standard for Canon.

I kid, but I assume you see my point.

I think the options are:

1) Store in proprietary and risk not being able to process the image at all at some point in the future.
2) Store in non-proprietary and risk losing a tiny amount of re-processing flexibility
3) Store in both and accept the extra storage cost.

I think the possible risk in 1 is very very low. I might be bold enough to say the risk is very very low as a matter of fact, not opinion.

I think the risk in 2 here is kinda grossly misrepresented. You assess it as tiny, but it is variable based upon what you do to your image, how skilled you are, how much your opinions change on interpretations over time, etc. I suppose you could keep multiple COPIES of your TIFF as you make changes which would SOMEWHAT reduce this problem... but that seems a bit crazy when you can just keep the RAW.

Three seems a good compromise if you're really that concerned, but again... I see it as way too much work and effort given the true risks involved.

 

[Moglex]

Having given this a bit more thought I think you are correct on saying that RAW is the better way to go.

If you're really thinking about archiving something for 100 years that may be a different matter but for those of us who are mere mortals what you're really balancing is an immediate reduction in flexibility against the possibility that some images will become unreadable many years in the future.

Presumably people will have their best images stored in TIFF or very high quality JPG anyway so you are really only worrying about someone deciding 10-15 years down the road that they must retrieve an image they have never before thought worth processing.

 

[Moglex]

But getting rid of the RAW (and keeping a processed but unmodified losslessly compressed image) is not getting rid of the negative, it's more akin to getting rid of the latent image but keeping the negative.

errr... I don't see how you would say that. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by latent image.

The negative is that which captures the broadest range of available image data for processing... it is the least developed part of the imaging process (shy of an undeveloped negative, of course)

The latent image is the undeveloped image.

It depends on exactly how you look at the 'developing' analogy.

The physical developing process can be considered an analogy to RAW processing because it is possible to push or pull the development and use a more or less contrasty developer.

So in that sense the RAW image is akin to the latent image.

What you get with digital that you don't get with film is the ability to 'have another go' at the 'development' if you don't like your initial (or an subsequent) result.

So the analogous elements are:

RAW image == Latent image
Processed RAW == Negative
Post processed RAW* == Print

* And the print itself, of course.

Of course, if you wish you can consider the RAW to be the equivalent to the negative but that doesn't work for me because you can do thing to the RAW that you can't do to a negative (e.g. push process after you've already developed).

 

[manaheim]

The latent image is the undeveloped image.

It depends on exactly how you look at the 'developing' analogy.

The physical developing process can be considered an analogy to RAW processing because it is possible to push or pull the development and use a more or less contrasty developer.

So in that sense the RAW image is akin to the latent image.

What you get with digital that you don't get with film is the ability to 'have another go' at the 'development' if you don't like your initial (or an subsequent) result.

So the analogous elements are:

RAW image == Latent image
Processed RAW == Negative
Post processed RAW* == Print

* And the print itself, of course.

Of course, if you wish you can consider the RAW to be the equivalent to the negative but that doesn't work for me because you can do thing to the RAW that you can't do to a negative (e.g. push process after you've already developed).

Ah ok, I get your meaning. I wasn't aware you could have variable results in the process of developing the negative, though it instantly makes sense the second you mention it.

Well, I guess then the best way to say it is "a raw image is as close to a negative as you'll ever get".

 

[Moglex]

Well, I guess then the best way to say it is "a raw image is as close to a negative as you'll ever get".

True, and in the sense of processing flexibility, at least, it is superior to a negative.

 

[manaheim]

Awesome.

Hey, nice chat. Thanks, I enjoyed it.