RAF files

[marimagen]

I have several hundreds raf files I took with my old Fuji S2 camera. I'm afraid one of these days the raf format will no longer be supported by photohsop and the like. I think it would be wise to save them to a more universal raw format. What do you think I should do, and more specifically how can I avoid losing information in the process.
Thanks in advance,
Marie

[teddillard]

I have several hundreds raf files I took with my old Fuji S2 camera. I'm afraid one of these days the raf format will no longer be supported by photohsop and the like. I think it would be wise to save them to a more universal raw format. What do you think I should do, and more specifically how can I avoid losing information in the process.
Thanks in advance,
Marie

You really only have one RAW choice, that is DNG format.  Adobe suggests conversion to DNG, but also saving your original RAW files too.  If you're really worried, I'd also consider processing them to a 16-bit TIFF, too.  

Also, not to scare you, but you do have to consider what media you're storing to, and how many "mirrored" copies you are making...  

That all said, and beyond standard archiving procatices, I really don't see the point of a DNG conversion until Adobe actually drops support of these files.  You can always run the DNG conversion in the previous Adobe version, and they have yet to actually drop a format of any RAW files they have previously supported, to my knowledge.

[marimagen]

Thanks Ted. The thing is that Fuji is so far behind now. I fear at some point big software companies will no longer make the effort to support their special raf format anymore. But as you say, I'll worry when it'll happen! Marie

[john beardsworth]

You should read up on DNG in any case, because while Ted might not see any advantage, a lot of us do - even when our file formats are more common and therefore less vulnerable than yours. I put a few of the advantages in the later posts in this thread - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....c=28828&hl=

In your position, I would definitely convert the files to DNG and archive the raw files.

John

[teddillard]

You should read up on DNG in any case, because while Ted might not see any advantage, a lot of us do - even when our file formats are more common and therefore less vulnerable than yours. I put a few of the advantages in the later posts in this thread - http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....c=28828&hl=

In your position, I would definitely convert the files to DNG and archive the raw files.

John

Actually, I certainly agree with John...  that you should read up on it so you can make a good choice for yourself.  The Adobe page is here, there's an valid opinion on DNG for every photographer out there...  
 http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/

One of the sites that deals with the bigger issues is here: http://www.openraw.org/  OpenRaw.  They are dealing with just the issues you're facing.

[john beardsworth]

You link to OpenRaw? Isn't that the site for people who don't see the point of DNG and believe the camera makers will give up their secret formats?

[teddillard]

You link to OpenRaw? Isn't that the site for people who don't see the point of DNG and believe the camera makers will give up their secret formats?

Yes, I do, because it's an important point of view, and source of good information.  As you've noted, I personally don't see the need for most of this.  However, other people may, and it's an informative read.

[Schewe]

As you've noted, I personally don't see the need for most of this.  However, other people may, and it's an informative read.

Then I would argue you don't understand the problem. OpenRaw.org has their collective heads in the sand and are trying to force the camera makers to open up and document something that the makers are disinclined to do. They are far more likely to adopt DNG as an alternative than lift the kimono entirely. Add to that the fact that Adobe is taking steps to mitigate the camera makers' remaining objections to DNG like offering DNG to the ISO as the basis of the next TIFF-EP format update *which is what almost all of the current proprietary raw file formats is based on except Foveon, and adopting the DNG Profile schema to address color rendering looks and I think that the walls blocking will eventually come tumbling down.

Look, we NEED a standardized and normalized raw file format whose documentation is open and that allows for private maker notes to remain private. OpenRaw.org doesn't get that...that's why DNG is so important to the industry, not sure why YOU don't get that?

[Ben Rubinstein]

Then I would argue you don't understand the problem. OpenRaw.org has their collective heads in the sand and are trying to force the camera makers to open up and document something that the makers are disinclined to do. They are far more likely to adopt DNG as an alternative than lift the kimono entirely. Add to that the fact that Adobe is taking steps to mitigate the camera makers' remaining objections to DNG like offering DNG to the ISO as the basis of the next TIFF-EP format update *which is what almost all of the current proprietary raw file formats is based on except Foveon, and adopting the DNG Profile schema to address color rendering looks and I think that the walls blocking will eventually come tumbling down.

Look, we NEED a standardized and normalized raw file format whose documentation is open and that allows for private maker notes to remain private. OpenRaw.org doesn't get that...that's why DNG is so important to the industry, not sure why YOU don't get that?

Polite isn't he? Can't give over his point of view without sarcastic personal insults. A great asset to Adobe's customer relations.

[john beardsworth]

Ooh, looks like the heavy squad has turned up....

In the original poster's position, with one of the more obscure raw file formats, there's even more advantage in having at least one copy of the original in DNG format.

OpenRaw was always a haven of wishful thinking over commercial reality, and more liable now to mislead rather than enlighten.

John

[teddillard]

Then I would argue you don't understand the problem. OpenRaw.org has their collective heads in the sand and are trying to force the camera makers to open up and document something that the makers are disinclined to do. They are far more likely to adopt DNG as an alternative than lift the kimono entirely. Add to that the fact that Adobe is taking steps to mitigate the camera makers' remaining objections to DNG like offering DNG to the ISO as the basis of the next TIFF-EP format update *which is what almost all of the current proprietary raw file formats is based on except Foveon, and adopting the DNG Profile schema to address color rendering looks and I think that the walls blocking will eventually come tumbling down.

Look, we NEED a standardized and normalized raw file format whose documentation is open and that allows for private maker notes to remain private. OpenRaw.org doesn't get that...that's why DNG is so important to the industry, not sure why YOU don't get that?

uh, OK.

...not sure if I really deserved that.  I actually do know quite a lot about the issue, spoken to a few of the product managers at Adobe, actually, had discussions with many others in the field, and have come to my own conclusions.  I think it's an issue that everyone should learn about, and this post is a great example of that need.

It's not really fair to assume that because we don't agree, I don't know what I'm talking about, is there?  Beyond that, I'm really not trying to push my viewpoint on anyone, was I?

[DarkPenguin]

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/shoootrawsmart/

You need one less 'o'.

[john beardsworth]

Ted,

Jeff's last phrase did seem a bit strong, but when you're recommending the deluded OpenRaw and processing the Rafs to 16-bit TIFFs, in preference to DNG, it seems fair enough to question whether you do understand the problem or have thought about it from enough angles.

John

[teddillard]

You need one less 'o'.

HAHAHA!

Thanks

[teddillard]

Ted,

Jeff's last phrase did seem a bit strong, but when you're recommending the deluded OpenRaw and processing the Rafs to 16-bit TIFFs, in preference to DNG, it seems fair enough to question whether you do understand the problem or have thought about it from enough angles.

John

I recommended reading the OpenRaw.  I still do.  You may think they're deluded, and others here, but I know a lot of very credible people who don't and it's part of a good education.  If it was a simple answer, it wouldn't be such a complex discussion.  Sorry, I'm not willing to say I, or anyone, can peer into the future and claim to have the truth about this very important issue.  

Please read what I posted again:
You really only have one RAW choice, that is DNG format. Adobe suggests conversion to DNG, but also saving your original RAW files too. If you're really worried, I'd also consider processing them to a 16-bit TIFF, too.

Does that suggest TIFF in preference to DNG?  No.

[john beardsworth]

You really only have one RAW choice, that is DNG format. Adobe suggests conversion to DNG, but also saving your original RAW files too. If you're really worried, I'd also consider processing them to a 16-bit TIFF, too[/i].

Does that suggest TIFF in preference to DNG?  No.

Accepted + apologies.

OpenRaw merely restates the problem which the original poster already recognizes. As for offering a solution, it's even less credible today than it was when the site was launched, while DNG has moved steadily forward, with smaller camera makers adopting the format and the choice of processing software, Adobe and others, having continued to expand. There's not much sign of those trends coming to an end - quite the contrary.

John

[teddillard]

Thanks Ted. The thing is that Fuji is so far behind now. I fear at some point big software companies will no longer make the effort to support their special raf format anymore. But as you say, I'll worry when it'll happen! Marie

I'd suggest a couple things, though...  keep very close tabs on the issue, and be very careful before you upgrade to a new version of Photoshop to make sure your files are still supported.  Your safety net is going to be keeping at least one system "behind the wave", so you can fall back on that to process files if support gets pulled.  

Also, you've got to consider the amount of files you have, and how much longer you're going to shoot with that camera.  If it's a lot, (and "several hundreds" really isn't) I'd suggest getting to work on doing DNG conversions sooner rather than later...  you don't want eleventy-million files to convert, if you're like me, it just won't happen.  (I still have files from OS9-only cameras/software, dammit.)

[teddillard]

Accepted + apologies.

OpenRaw merely restates the problem which the original poster already recognizes. As for offering a solution, it's even less credible today than it was when the site was launched, while DNG has moved steadily forward, with smaller camera makers adopting the format and the choice of processing software, Adobe and others, having continued to expand. There's not much sign of those trends coming to an end - quite the contrary.

John

We agree, John.

[john beardsworth]

And the other viewpoint would be not to worry about watching for any wave. You're going to have x backups of your originals, so it makes sense right now that at least one of them will be a more archival format. Even if you only treat the DNG as a backup file, you're already in a better position. And the DNG has advantages other than the greater likelihood of surviving software change.

John

[Schewe]

I recommended reading the OpenRaw.  I still do.  You may think they're deluded, and others here, but I know a lot of very credible people who don't and it's part of a good education.  If it was a simple answer, it wouldn't be such a complex discussion.

It really is much more simple than many make it. The camera makers have struggled mightily to deal with digital photography. The Nikon/Canon/Kodak triad broke down and both Nikon and then Canon rushed into this with little or no expertise. Nikon took the dubious position of calling THIER raw file format NEF, which was an incredibly stupid thing to do because Nikon already had a non-raw file format from their scanners of the same extension. Canon flailed around first with CRW, then TIF (how stupid was that-open an early 1Ds file without Camera Raw-it opens the EXIF JPEG and if you hit save, it overwrites the original raw file). So, they both have screwed up royally. They had to adopt TIFF-EP to get their heads out of their arses...which if you know TIFF-EP (an ISO standard that Adobe gave the right to use TIFF 6 for) and finally, later NEF and CR2 files were better formed. So, the software divisions of the camera companies resorted to all sorts of gyrations to keep control over their less faulty formats my claiming only Nikon can possibly know how to process a Nikon file (same with Canon only Canon wisely chose not to try to sell software).

So, along comes an upstart Adobe, teaching Nikon and Canon a thing or two about how to write and specify file formats (something Adobe has a lot of experience with and the camera makers none) and they have the gaul to write a piece of software (Camera Raw) that not only works on NEF & CR2 files but opens almost 200 DIFFERENT raw file formats. It's a pain so Thomas Knoll decides the industry needs a standardized raw file container format, DNG.

The ludites at OpenRaw.org decided that simple standardizing on a container format isn't good enough so the dummies go on a rampage denigrating DNG (and playing right into the camera makers' hands). Course, then Nikon screwed up and accidently encrypted the white balance data on a new camera (yes, it was encrypted, yes it was "accidental" as in incompetent further proof that the container format for raw files should NOT be in the hands of the camera makers). And all of this got really serious...

So, here we are in 2008 and there are STILL photographers who for one reason or another (generally FUD based) still think it's ok for the camera makers to cling to their undocumented, proprietary raw file formats, than only Nikon and Canon could possible know how to open their own files in an optimal manner and somehow don't understand just how critical it is that the "raw file format" needs to be standardized ASAP if you care at all about the long term preservation and conservation of digital photographs.

It's simple, the industry is currently at risk because Nikon and Canon have not been forced to the standards table by people who are too willing to accept the Kool-Aid spewed by the camera makers and their advocates...

So, yeah, I take a very dim view of any photographer that isn't pro DNG and anti-proprietary raw file formats. But there is a distinction. The people in OpenRaw.org seem to have their own agenda to try to strip the raw file formats secrecy rather than standardizing the way that whatever proprietary data is stored in a standardized way.

If you have ANY doubt that the way it is now is indeed risky, read this: Digital Preservation. The problem is real and pressing. No, not now or next year but the longer it goes before being addressed, the bigger the problem will be.

So, yeah, I see it as very simple. Letting Nikon and Canon get away with not standardizing is NOT in the best interest of photographers. I don't have any sympathy for anybody who would quibble on that point. Yes, it's useful to read and learn, but the way it currently is in the industry is not good for us, and that's not a debatable point. How do we fix it? Refuse to tolerate Nikon and Canon's current behavior, accept the realities that Nikon and Canon do need to have private maker notes (something OpenRaw.org rejects) and that we need to arrive at a standardized and safe container for raw digital capture. And personally, I can't think of a better or more experienced person (decoding about 200 raw formats already) than Thomas Knoll. While Adobe is a for-profit corporation, if you knew the inside story you would realize that the primary reason Adobe is doing DNG is because Thomas thinks it's a good idea. That's really about it. That's Adobe's agenda...