OpenRAW

DNG beats all other raws

Let's clear. DNG is better than ANY other raw file format for archival purposes. The DNG specification provides a lossless raw file format. Anyone with evidence to the contrary should provide it, instead of resorting to "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" to further their own agenda.

Any losses are the result of policies of camera manufacturers, not the DNG specification itself. Major formats such as NEFs, CR2s, PEFs, are believed to be converted to DNG without loss, because they are understood well enough, and are well-formed enough, that the conversion can copy everything across. (Indeed, the DNG file contains a SUPERSET of the original information). Some other formats are not (yet) understood well enough. But at least the raw image data is copied across, which is what matters to serious photographers. Anyone with an obsession about every last detail of metadata, for example perhaps which lens was used, or perhaps the JPEG preview used in-camera, may not like this. Do they expect that information to improve their results?

If camera manufacturers don't publish their formats, DNG is better than the camera manufacturer's own format, because, except for those last details, the result is openly documented. (As in "Digital Image Preservation Through Open Documentation"). If the camera manufacturers DO publish their formats, then for the cases where all the data is copied across, we will understand what all that data means. And where it isn't, the DNG Converter can be improved, and the result will still be that DNG is the better format.

It is obvious that the problem isn't just about undocumented raw file formats, but also about their proliferation. The evidence is that software developers don't support formats just because they are documented, but rather based on the business case of supporting a particular camera. Therefore, mere documentation of vast numbers of raw file formats won't enable people to be sure of being able to process their images in the future with the tools of their choice. They may have to use older tools that can't get the best from the raw image data concerned.

What OpenRAW should have done from the start was tackle the "proliferation" problem as well, and promote the need for a common raw format. I supplied a useful definition of "common raw format" to OpenRAW that could have been used. It is interesting that OpenRAW used to say: "Many have suggested (and Adobe has created) a common, open file format for RAW image files for all camera makers to use as a solution to the RAW problem". Then the bit about "Adobe has created" was deleted. Was DNG getting in the way of OpenRAW's own agenda?

If you go back through posts from OpenRAW's supporters, you will find that a proportion of them think that OpenRAW is trying to devise such a format, or else they specifically request such a format. Now that DNG is becoming so well known and used, if OpenRAW is ever to be taken seriously, it needs to adapt to DNG. It should be trying to raise the quality and documentation of DNG conversion, and encouraging companies, (camera manufacturers, software developers, etc), to use it.

OpenRAW doesn't exist in a world where DNG can be ignored for purposes of "Digital Image Preservation Through Open Documentation". The US Library of Congress identifies DNG as the preferred alternative to other raw formats. Librarians and archivists across the world are starting to watch DNG to make a judgement about when it becomes their recommendation. (I have read a number of papers on this topic that mentions DNG). Such people want identifiable formats that they can recommend, not just a proliferation of formats. They are starting to talking about DNG in the same sentences as TIFF and PDF, etc. They certainly aren't talking about NEFs, CR2s, etc, in that way! They never will.

We have TIFF (now owned by Adobe) largely as an alternative to each scanner manufacturer using their own scanned file format. Look how successful TIFF has been in opening up the industry. We need the equivalent for raw file formats, and there is now only one contender. Many photographers have voted with their feet. They weren't going to wait for some hypothetical future where camera manufacturers open up about older formats.