JPEG & TIFF FILE FORMATS ?

[Redeyejedi]

there is a reason software vendors have updates. this is to account for changes in the industry that occurred after the version release.
adobe camera raw seems to read raw files just fine for me. each time you add a step to the workflow process, you introduce possibility of error.
i opt to store originals in raw and edited tiffs or jpegs depending on final destination.

gav, i am curious as to why you think raw files won't be "supported" in the future. gif, bmp and pic files don't have the "popularity" they did previously but i can still open/edit/save those files.

the vast majority of image editing softwares may not support raw, but most people with cameras arent shooting raw, nor do most people with an image capturing device even know what raw formats are. i still hear people say, "i shoot 'arr ahy dubblU'"

my .02

 

[Dao]

Just wondering, are you saving all your document in ODF format?

No, and in fact I actually bought MS Word about a year ago specifically so that I could save my files reliably in the most common, standard format.

For some reason, open office, even when I told it to save in word format, caused issues where my colleagues were unable to effectively read tracked changes and comments. Perfect example of quirky proprietary formats having issues and at least partially failling as a storage medium, even when they supposedly promise compatibility.

But the ODF is a open source document format (hence ODF) while MS Word is a proprietary format. Are you worry about MS may disappear in the future and the document saved in MS Word format may not be able to open? I will assume not.

What I am saying is it is fine to store in the manufacturer RAW format. Just as it is fine to store your document in MS word format. I do not think one is better than the other. However, for me, I'd rather just store the RAW files that come out from my cameras. I will convert them "IF" they become an issue. Until then, I'd rather not wasting my time to convert them.

 

[Gavjenks]

gav, i am curious as to why you think raw files won't be "supported" in the future. gif, bmp and pic files don't have the "popularity" they did previously but i can still open/edit/save those files.

gif, bmp and pic were all GLOBAL, STANDARDIZED files used by everyone in every industry for images everywhere. Hundreds of millions of people. They are all open-source, well understood, and any decent programmer could basically write a program from scratch in a day to save or load these formats, for as long as the information about how they work is available (which it is, redundantly, all over the place, in print and online etc.)

raw files are proprietary software owned and managed by individual camera companies. Each RAW format is ONLY used by some thousands of photographers who own specific camera models of one particular brand (the companies don't even maintain consistent raw formats across their own camera models over time necessarily). No other industry cares about these formats, vastly fewer people use them than the common formats. They also have SECRET source code, not open source code. So they are not easy to re-code or adapt or port by third party people, after the original company goes out of business or whatever. You can reverse engineer them with decompiling, but this takes a lot of time and effort and skill, and most formats nobody has bothered to do this for as a rule (at least not publicly)

There are dozens of these random, incompatible raw formats designed every year by various companies. Which means that every year, image processing software has to add on dozens more raw formats that it supports. This adds up. Over many years, you end up with a huge junk pile of hundreds of formats to support. At some point, it is likely to stop being cost effective to maintain that junk pile of old code and to provide support for all of it and all of the weird bugs it can produce.

You've already heard from a person in this very thread who had files in an old raw format, only 10 years old, that were no longer supported by default by modern image processing software. He was lucky enough to get a plugin from the company that made them, but they could easily not have been in business anymore. Then he would have been screwed, and would have had to hunt around for some hackish workaround or ask/beg/pay some programmer to decompile the old format and attempt to port it over. Which means no access to the files while waiting for that to be done, $$$, and possible bugs or fewer features (like not carrying over metadata, etc.)



As I suggested earlier, it's the equivalent of storing your documents on standard, A4 printer paper (jpeg, png, bmp, pic, tiff, etc.), versus storing them on calfskin vellum parchment rolls, or on receipt ticker paper, or something (random raw formats). Sure you can probably still recover your data from some half faded crinkled receipt paper, but it won't be nearly as easy or cheap, and there's NO REASON to subject yourself to the extra headaches.

 

[Gavjenks]

But the ODF is a open source document format (hence ODF) while MS Word is a proprietary format.

MS Word is used by millions and millions of people and is thus reverse engineered within like... a week of any version of it being released. Where do you think ODF came from? It's obvious after 5 minutes of using it that it's just a complete ripoff of MS Word format, but with the minimum number of trivial changes to avoid copyright infringement lawsuits.

MS Word is therefore effectively open source for security and future accessibility purposes.



The dozens of individual camera raw files are not routinely cracked in the same way, because they are used by a tiny tiny fraction (easily <0.1%) of the people who use something like MS Word. It could still be done, but generally won't be guaranteed as accessible or cheap to obtain conversion software if support is withdrawn 10-15 years after the camera that made the files left production and became obsolete.

 

[Redeyejedi]

gav, you have several valid arguments.
perhaps i don't see it as much of an issue.

 

[Gavjenks]

You're right, it's not a big issue. You're almost certainly not going to lose your images no matter what, and it's more just an issue of some likelihood of headaches and annoyingness later on.

I therefore fully understand people just not bothering at all, or doing RAW because "that's what they've always done and who cares?"

What I don't understand, though, is people actively advocating for RAW as a legitimately better storage option. Because it really isn't, in any way.

 

[SCraig]

What I don't understand, though, is people actively advocating for RAW as a legitimately better storage option. Because it really isn't, in any way.

IN. YOUR. OPINION.

 

[Gavjenks]

No, not just an opinion. Nobody has as of yet offered a single valid reason why RAWs are superior for storage in any way whatsoever.

Sparky said "because they don't store metadata," but they do. Even more metadata than any RAW formats I'm aware of do in the case of DNGs and TIFFs.
Some other people said "because they don't degrade your images" but neither does any other lossless format (like PNG or DNG or TIFF).
Some other people said "because you want to store the full 12-16 bits of original sensor data," but this is easily accomplished by any common format above 8 bits (like PNGs or DNG or TIFFs again...)

Yet they offer numerous disadvantages. Such as higher likelihood of not being supported, less community usage and thus interest in reviving or protecting them, inability to save in those formats (thus they can only store unedited photos usually), lack of as much flexibility in what kind of metadata or compression is available, fewer programs that can edit them natively, multiple different formats to juggle if you happen to own more than one type of camera that don't share RAW formats, etc.



Zero advantages + At least one disadvantage = objectively worse option.

The only possible advantage seems to so far be "RAW happens to be what is right in front of my nose, so I don't have to bother thinking about any other alternatives." Which isn't really an actual technical advantage of a format.

 

[SCraig]

No, not just an opinion. Nobody has as of yet offered a single valid reason why RAWs are superior for storage in any way whatsoever.

Perhaps it's just because there is no point in wasting time trying to tell you anything. Just MY opinion, of course.

 

[Gavjenks]

So, in other words, your argument is "I'm so obviously right that it's not worth taking the time to explain why I'm right... even though I did just take the time to write multiple posts telling you that I'm right."

Convincing stuff.

 

[SCraig]

So, in other words, your argument is "I'm so obviously right that it's not worth taking the time to explain why I'm right... even though I did just take the time to write multiple posts telling you that I'm right."

Convincing stuff.

Nope. My argument is that I'm going to do things my way regardless of how you prefer to do things since I disagree that your way is right.

 

[o hey tyler]

This thread delivers.

 

[tecboy]

Raw and dng are very little differences from each other. That doesn't convince me to export my currect raw files to dng. If dng is 50% smaller than raw and maintain highend picture quality, I would use dng. For now I'm using raw.

 

[table1349]

I believe that Michael Karbo sums it up quite nicely in chapter 30 of his book The Digital Camera when he states "RAW files contain the maximum number of image details and are, therefore, the best kind of files for storage of valuable recordings."

 

[manaheim]

No, not just an opinion. Nobody has as of yet offered a single valid reason why RAWs are superior for storage in any way whatsoever.

Sparky said "because they don't store metadata," but they do. Even more metadata than any RAW formats I'm aware of do in the case of DNGs and TIFFs.
Some other people said "because they don't degrade your images" but neither does any other lossless format (like PNG or DNG or TIFF).
Some other people said "because you want to store the full 12-16 bits of original sensor data," but this is easily accomplished by any common format above 8 bits (like PNGs or DNG or TIFFs again...)

Yet they offer numerous disadvantages. Such as higher likelihood of not being supported, less community usage and thus interest in reviving or protecting them, inability to save in those formats (thus they can only store unedited photos usually), lack of as much flexibility in what kind of metadata or compression is available, fewer programs that can edit them natively, multiple different formats to juggle if you happen to own more than one type of camera that don't share RAW formats, etc.



Zero advantages + At least one disadvantage = objectively worse option.

The only possible advantage seems to so far be "RAW happens to be what is right in front of my nose, so I don't have to bother thinking about any other alternatives." Which isn't really an actual technical advantage of a format.

Gee... 58 posts in this thread. I wonder why.

Gav... You do bring up one very good point, which is the possibility of older RAWs not being supported... however... like any technology INCLUDING FILM, you have to account for the eventual sunset of the equipment necessary to use your source materials. I keep copies of old operating systems, software, and at least one older computer at all times ... just in case. A lack of preparedness and foresight, however, does not make a current technology a bad idea.

Some day we may run out of gasoline... so gas powered automobiles are useless!

See the point?

All that said... I can still open my D100 RAW images with no problem so it hasn't been an issue yet.