You are still not paying attention - every RAW image is at risk currently, PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE.
The fact that YOU regard this as FUD says much more about you than the issue at hand.
Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney are world-class authorities on matters photographic yet you have been telling them over and over for the last few days that they are talking CRAP (FUD).
Nothing that you have said gives anyone with even a smatter of knowledge on this subject of Digital Asset Management any confidence that you have the slightest idea what you are talking about yet you are dismissing individuals who do actually know their stuff.
In an earlier post on this thread you complained that you respect their point of view (not from my reading of your posts anyway) but no-one respects your point of view (could it be that you are the one talking crap?).
In fact Jeff Schewe in particular has been remarkably restrained in handling the faeces that you have been throwing at him. Not known as someone who tolerates fools lightly he has actually been very polite to you.
In the quote above you say that you have thought carefully about the issue and cannot see it as an acute problem.
I would suggest that you have not mainly because nothing in your contributions so far gives me any reason to believe that you have any grasp of the problem at hand.
As I said, it would be really nice not to concern oneself with issues of Digital Asset Management but we are NOT currently residing in that sort of universe.
Without a universal standardized open RAW format ALL digitalized RAW images are currently at risk.
Frankly, if you want to stick your head in the sand then, for you, the solution is easy - don't torture yourself by reading and replying to threads such as this.
Tony, it is not an acute problem, that is one which will stop us from successfully processing our images. Nor is there imminent danger of not being able to process our images in the near term. There is a potential future problem, which may be alleviated with an open RAW standard....but it still does not provide a guaranty of no future loss...those who care still need to be vigilent
I have stated that an open RAW standard would be nice and something that I would be glad to use. (though I doubt it is the total solution and others have posted that it might even be a problem as other may not accept it or see the economic advantage of using it).
I have used the term FUD (not CRAP, which is your term). FUD has been and still is an accepted term as one method for attempting to convince consumers/buyers to not buy a competitor's product/idea/concept using uncertainty and/or mistrust vs. using factual features and benefits. In this case, it is being used continually to rally the mass of photographers to be unhappy with the "selfishness", "stupidity", "pride", etc. of the camera manufacturers.
OK....let's assume you had 100% of the photographers agreeing that an open RAW standard was really wanted. However, there is no suggestion that these photographers take any action as far as buying cameras or using the RAW formats currently being provided. Also, at that point (this is still an assumption) there would still need to be work done to translate/convert native RAW to Open RAW.
So, the status is...camera manufacturers still producing native RAW. Photographers still buying those cameras. Open RAW available for use, but work needs to be to to prepare for use and then users need to convert if they want to use...and their only net gain is some potential archival potential....a lot of work for little gain.
What is need? Get the camera manufacturers to produce Open RAW. Great idea..!! What is the value proposition for them to do it? The 100% of photographers that would like Open RAW, but are still buying there products that do not have it? As I said to Jeff and Andrew in the other thread, this needs to be accomplished in the back rooms and board rooms of the camera industry...both hardware and software.
Brad said earlier in this thread, what I have been saying all along, "...I think people have a too romantic view of commercial manufacturing companies. They are not in this world to secure the future of our Kodak moments, they are here to make money. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is what it is. They will only adopt something universal, if it brings a lot of clear (competitive) benefits, and no downsides..."
Yes, Data Asset Management is a concern. I have never claimed to be a expert in it. I am concerned about it and attempt to be vigilent in my actions, directions, and buying patterns relative to it. However, I do not go about daily worrying about items I can not have any effect on any more than I can personally have any effect on world peace. If this forum were continually pushing me and being filled with assorted post about believing in world peace (with out any action statement), I would react quite similar as I have to the believe in Open RAW (with no action statement).
BTW....this forum is entitled "Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques". It is not a place for world peace. It is a place to discuss "making beautiful pictures". I question if it is a place for statements like, "...it would be nice if all we had to think about was how to make beautiful photos rather than how to guarantee the survival of our digital negatives." But you have the right to make that....I have the right to ignore it or comment that your statement is "...FUD about the end of the world..."