OpenRAW

OpenRAW's views on DNG -

You say: "DNG could be so much better IF camera makers would document openly their file formats."

And I have been saying that for a long time, here and elsewhere. Here is what I said nearly a year ago: "OpenRAW are doing the right thing, except for their antipathy towards DNG. And if they succeed with their lobbying, the world of "raw shooting" will transform faster into the world of "DNG shooting". That will be good for the future health of top-end digital photography."
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/openraw.htm#conclusion

You say "We have absolutely nothing against DNG, but a file format which so far (at least the converted DNG) throws away data, is lossy and its too early to throw away data at this stage."

But OpenRAW has shown antipathy and even hostility towards DNG. For example, it published "DNG is not the answer" very prominently:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/commentary1.htm
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/assets/prominent.jpg

And I repeat: "DNG files are capable of holding all the raw image data from cameras with CFA-based sensors, including those with offset sensors such as Fujifilm cameras. They are capable of holding all EXIF data, including Makernotes. They are capable of holding lots more, for example TIFF/EP metadata and XMP metadata". Do you accept that statement?

More recently, in response to "Is the Adobe DNG format the pragmatic solution or maybe the same old song?", you responded:

"I wish it would be a solution, but Adobe decided for marketing reasons that they allow a backdoor to camera makers to store information in so called private tags, which remain undocumented. So even if some cameras can save DNG formats natively, some of the information a camera decides to conceal can be saved inside the DNG format and it becomes another undocumented RAW format after all. Plus Adobe stopped documenting their PDF and PSD format after it reached a certain market share, so they can at any time release a DNG V2.0 format and decide not to document it. No, DNG is unfortunately not a solution".
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/commentary2.htm#juergenspecht
Note how inaccurate some your response was.

At various times, OpenRAW has expressed "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" about DNG. OpenRAW could have stated a policy towards DNG that included helping to improve the specification, and/or helping to improve the quality of DNG conversions, and/or helping to promote the use of DNG. It has done none of these. (More precisely, I have done some of those things on the OpenRAW website, but the originators of OpenRAW didn't).

For example, OpenRAW disparages the idea of using a common, openly documented RAW format for solving this problem, in favour of a proposal for which there is no supporting evidence:

"Many have suggested a common, open file format for RAW image files for all camera makers to use as a solution to the RAW problem. A common, openly documented RAW format would fulfill many of the goals of OpenRAW, but is likely to face significant resistance from manufacturers who feel their "creativity" and ability to innovate would be constrained. Open documentation of all RAW file formats by manufacturers is the quickest and most satisfactory way for OpenRAW's goals to be reached".

Where is the evidence that "Open documentation of all RAW file formats by manufacturers" will achieve "Digital Image Preservation"? The latter requires software products in future which can extract and exploit the raw image data from image files. That requires knowledge of both RAW file formats and of the details of the cameras that created that image data so that it can be processed. And it requires the software company to believe there is a suitable business case. Where will those camera details come from in future? What will be the business case? It is just wishful thinking!

You say: "But your statement about 'anyone with an obsession about every last detail of metadata' really just shows how incredible clueless you are and how little you understand about this topic."

Chuckle! Some of the world's experts on digital imaging and asset management for image archiving agree with the views I express, rather than the views you express. More precisely, I agree with the views they express!

But I have made an open offer (to any readers) on my website: "If you know of errors in my pages, please let me know, with suitable supporting material, and I'll correct them". And another: "You may not agree with all of my opinions. If you publish an alternative position in some consolidated form, such as a web page, (rather than responses in forums), please let me know and I'll link to it". Given that I have published more than 20 pages on this topic there, where is your evidence that I am "clueless"? (I wonder if you have even read those pages? Or made any significant use of DNG? Or analysed DNG and other raw files using tools such as the DNG SDK and others?)

NEFs, CR2s, PEFs, etc, are NOT suitable for "Digital Image Preservation Through Open Documentation". They never will be (and Pentax at least accepts that). Mere documentation of camera manufacturers' raw file formats is not the solution to "The RAW Problem". The only raw file format specifically designed for that purpose is DNG. What is the alternative?