OpenRAW

That is my policy too.

What puzzles me is how little few people posting to this website mention DNG. Even when this website mentions that Adobe has created a common format, it doesn't mention "DNG" by name. Some people appear to have the view that documenting the variety of Raw formats, rather than eliminating unnecessary variety, is the answer.

Is it that many of the people here don't know about DNG? Yet it has received publicity world-wide.

Is there a problem with DNG, that I am not aware of, that makes people cautious about it? If so, I REALLY want (need) to know soon!

Is there perceived to be something wrong with the philosophy of a common Raw format? Or perhaps it is seen as a non-urgent matter compared with immediate problems?

(I think the title of this website is excellent - a slogan and an injunction in one! And I agree with all the principles about ownership & longevity).

Having a common file format and having open standards are both important to the future of digital photography.

I believe most people participating in this site know about DNG. This site offers a complimentary perspective. Since getting many vendors to support one file format could take a long time, an alternative solution is needed. Likewise, even if all vendors started to support DNG today, we would still want them to freely document all of their past raw files.

There is another benefit to pushing for open file formats. Raw files are by design meant to be unique to the hardware of the camera. They are meant to capture and store all of the capabilities of the camera, which hopefully will grown and expand. A unique raw file allows the camera manufacturer to innovate their technology, and record those innovations accurately. However, the fluidity of these formats is also their greatest weakness, making them unstable for the long haul.

By fully documenting their file formats, camera makers can still create unique raw formats to fully support their specific technology, yet still give all software makers and photographers the ability to access all of the saved information.

We need both DNG and open standards.

Hi, Daniel. I would like to pick out a few sentences and respond to them. I'll start at the end.

"We need both DNG and open standards".

I suspect, from the themes of this website, that this may mean "we need both open standards and publication of proprietary specifications". (I would put DNG in the "open standards" arena, although many would not).

But I question what progress would be made by publication of existing Raw specifications. Yes, I like to have everything out in the open. There may be some useful extra information to be gained. But, with s/w already available that can convert lots of existing Raw formats to DNG, which IS a published standard, what extra would be gained for any of us here from publication of those Raw formats?

"Likewise, even if all vendors started to support DNG today, we would still want them to freely document all of their past raw files".

This really follows from the above. I am in favour of clear documentation, and I hate secrecy of formats that affect lots of people.

But - what would you or I gain from this, for any Raw format that is already supported by DNG? What could we do after such publication that we can't do now? I already know the single most important thing about the Raw format of my camera - I can convert it to DNG, a fully documented standard, whenever I want. (And when I have done so, I throw the original away).

"Raw files are by design meant to be unique to the hardware of the camera".

If we agree, (as surely we do!), in the principle of "no unnecessary differences", there will be very little of any new Raw format that represents innovation. Already DNG supports the non-rectilinear format of the Fujifilm cameras, non-square pixels, and the 3-colour pixels of the Foveon/Sigma sensors. It can handle de-mosaiced Raw formats.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that the next camera simply cannot be handled 100% by the current DNG specification. But there surely isn't an excuse for the camera manufacturer not to use DNG, or an equivalent standard, for everything that CAN be handled. Since major variations in sensor design can already be handled with ease, I suspect that future major changes will also be handled with changes to only a small percent of the standard. And I'm sure that Adobe will be willing to enhance DNG for the purpose.

As long as the manufacturer is motivated! Point a gun at the head of a camera manufacturer and insist they use DNG, and they will use it 100% or get close. Give them an opt-out, such as using an alternative and publishing the result, and that is what they will do! It is human nature.

"By fully documenting their file formats, camera makers can still create unique raw formats to fully support their specific technology, yet still give all software makers and photographers the ability to access all of the saved information".

I'm not interested in whether software makers have "the ability" to access the information. I'm interested in whether they DO, in practice, access that information! I want my images ready to use NOW, not potentially ready to use if someone gets around to writing the software.

If we wound the clock back 2 years or so, then "published Raw formats" would be an important issue. But once so many people have reverse-engineered those formats, and put the results into real products to handle them, the importance of documenting those formats decreases. Yes, let's ask the camera manufaturers to release the documents they must surely already have internally! But the priority for that is lower than "please use DNG for your next camera". Then they wouldn't even need to publish the specification!

How many people would actually care whether their Raw format was published, if they could convert their Raw files to DNG anytime they wanted to, and if all key software supported DNG?

Barry we are just talking about two different maneuvers in the same battle. Or to use another metaphor, it's the old saying of not putting your eggs all in one basket.

Yes, DNG is important. Yes, I hope it gets adopted. But I've been in digital world for long enough to know that this will take a long time, if ever, to happen. Luckily, DNG movement already has a huge engine behind it with Adobe.

While that campaign is being waged, we need a simultaneous campaign to encourage all vendors to publish their raw file formats. Having published formats would guarantee that our raw files never get lost in the dustbin of history.

With two simultanuous campaigns, whichever side makes progress first will benefit the other. Either way, we as photographers get out ahead.