OpenRAW

OpenRAW rejection of DNG

OpenRAW once prominently displayed a document called "The RAW Flaw". The authors were Michael Reichmann (of Luminous Landscape) and Juergen Specht (of OpenRAW). It was published on both sites:
http://www.openraw.org/actnow/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml

There were illuminating differences in the OpenRAW version:

The Luminous Landscape version said:

"The Solution? There really is only one solution – the adoption by the camera industry of...
A. Public documentation of RAW formats; past, present and future
or, more likely...
B. Adoption of a universal RAW format"

The OpenRAW version didn't have "or, more likely..."! This increases the emphasis on public documentation, and reduces the emphasis on a universal RAW format.

Another difference in the OpenRAW version was lack of the paragraph:

"Finally, consider the problems of digital asset management and the cataloging of files. Many pros as well as amateurs have literally Gigabytes of RAW files. The various asset management programs can't hope to keep up with the ever increasing number of proprietary formats. And as time passes and these programs are enhanced, what are the chances that they will still be able to read your older RAW files?"

That paragraph made the point that it isn't sufficient to have public documentation, but it is also important to have a universal RAW format to reduce the proliferation. This was not the message that OpenRAW wanted to give.

Other parts of the page DO mention the use of a a universal RAW format, and mention DNG by name. That page is no longer prominently displayed at OpenRAW. People who didn't know it was there would probably not find it. The concepts of "a universal RAW file format" and "Adobe has put forward the DNG format as an open standard" have been hidden by OpenRAW. Whereas Michael Reichmann (of Luminous Landscape) is enthusiastic about DNG!

----------

OpenRAW said on the page "The RAW Problem", up to end March 2006, "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".

From April 2006 it omitted "(and Adobe has created)". In effect, this retracted their 11-month position that DNG is indeed a common, open file format.

----------

Just after OpenRAW redesigned their web site at the start of April 2006, they prominently published a large article "DNG is not the answer" by Stuart Nixon:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/assets/prominent.jpg

This article was edited and renamed "Notes on the future of Open RAW formats, and a look at DNG" a few days later. The theme remained the same, including the words "DNG IS NOT THE ANSWER".
http://www.openraw.org/node/1482

That article has been much-quoted in forums, with no attempt at a retraction by OpenRAW or Stuart Nixon. It has promoted "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" about DNG, using the "OpenRAW" brand. In fact, it does not stand up to scrutiny:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/commentary1.htm

That article, and the way that OpenRAW CHOSE initially to display it in that manner, (Stuart Nixon couldn't have done that by himself), indicates the antipathy, perhaps hostility, of OpenRAW towards DNG.

----------

More recently, Juergen Specht has been quoted as responding to "Is the Adobe DNG format the pragmatic solution or maybe the same old song?":
http://www.ladinamo.org/english/raw-format-the-captive-photo.php

"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".

That is simply "fear, uncertainty, and doubt":

The fully documented information is sufficient to render high quality images. (Typically, products that support DNG need only the fully documented parts of DNG files). If a camera manufacturer puts in private data, the DNG file becomes "a file with documented data capable of rendering a high quality imaage, plus some other stuff which may or may not be useful".

Adobe intends to release the full PDF 1.7 specification to AIIM for the purpose of publication by ISO. PDF for Archive (PDF/A) and PDF for Exchange (PDF/X) are already ISO standards, and PDF for Engineering (PDF/E) and PDF for Universal Access (PDF/UA) are proposed standards. Additionally, PDF for Healthcare (PDF/H) is an AIIM proposed Best Practice Guide.

TIFF has similar status to DNG - an openly specified file format owned by Adobe. Who worries about what Adobe may do to TIFF?

From the license: ""DNG Specification" means any version of the Adobe Digital Negative (DNG) Specification made publicly available by Adobe". If it isn't documented, it isn't a DNG specification!

----------

OpenRAW never had a balanced attitude towards DNG. Over time, its antipathy towards DNG has hardened, even while DNG has been making significant progress towards "Digital Image Preservation Through Open Documentation". Why?