OpenRAW

Sorry, long post...

It is not so much that they own the image; they own the process that you chose to buy and use to manufacture/convert the basic data when you purchased their camera. And it is a complex process in many cases.

This all started because in the early days of digital camera development there were no standards and no commonly adopted generalizations. The camera makers chose to invest millions of dollars seeking a "better" way to process data. They did NOT want to give competitors the cost advantage of using work they paid for against them. A few licensed RAW conversion technology from earlier developers or bought them and had to pay back that investment.

Additionally, camera makers had collateral issues to think about. Many were developing other software and/or processes that had to recognize their camera work product. File development was only one step in their manufacturing chain. (Think Fuji & Kodak) They chose a proprietary file format and name to ensure that these processes worked together in a manufacturing chain. Then, in addition to these issues, the WAY they chose to process the RAW data (the sequence of the steps and how they were accomplished) made the need to seperate themselves and their recording of data from others.

Then, there was the issue of the evolution of recording potential and iles. The increasing bit depth meant that calculation requirements were diffferent for different cameras. The increase in dynamic range of image sensors and noise shielding made defining black point and white point in files different in each camera, and that needed specific prodcesses that only the camera maker could know since they designed the hardware. Everything was in a state of rapid change.

Then there are the variations in what camera makers think will be significantly valued by image makers. For example, we are now seeing an effort to simulate various film emulsions and to add an increased number of "preset" corrections for lighting conditions (i.e. sun, shade, florescent, etc.). Image size and multiple format recording and conversion (i.e. RAW+ JPEG). And increasded competition in rendering intent (i.e. portraits, landscapers, etc.). ALL of these features impact RAW development. Contrast, tone, dynamic range management, processing step order and process time. All of these instructions come from the camera side. Manufactures may not want to wait for a common standard to define how they can compete and bring better products to market. And more changes will come in coming years.

In recent years, some of these issues have begun to sort themselves out a little. At least consumer vs. PROfessional requirements seem to be seperating themselves, at least generally. Refinements driven by competition have insured that improvements have been made to the point where some more generalization might occur. But the variation and evolution in sensors, noise management, dynamic range and increased bit depth is still occuring and will for years as we move to 32 bit and then possible 64 bit image files and as new sensors capable of 32 bit scaling.

The entire issue may resolve itself, particularly with pressures like from this organization, but it will take time. Essentially, it will end when camera makers can find no competitive advantage from their manipulation of the RAW data ( i.e. Kodak, Fuji, 3M and Sakura are not spending a lot of time fighting over improving film now that they will get little competive advantage by doing so.) Additionally, Adobe's DNG and work by Tom Knoll (and companies like Bibble Labs) are making development using their processes of files coming from various camera makers possible). They are making businesses by providing image editing capabilites and recently by adding RAW file development to their products.

PS: Sorry for any typing blunders, I am workig with a broken hand.

John