"RAW" a Matter of Choice.

I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation.

Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation.

Ben

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benjikan

I would strongly suggest that all of you who have the capacity to shoot in RAW do so. The latitude potential for future requirements are such that you can always go back to the original files and tweak them using the newest software available, which in the future may be capable of extracting even more of the nuances that our software is capable of doing today. JPEG is like analogue tape. The more you open and adjust the more the degradation.

Just a bit of advice that I feel is crucial for all of your future file manipulation.

Ben

---

But the formats differ so much, brand-to-brand and even camera-to-camera in the same brand, that it is very likely that these RAW files will be unreadable in the future.

I now use a conversion that changes RAW into 48-bit TIFF files (though Picture Window Pro) which are capable of storing much more than even a RAW file contains. The TIFF format is bound to be around for quite a long time.

This is certainly not a new topic or idea but one worth repeating from time to time and reexamining.

The latest converters and software may not always make a dramatic improvement, but some do decidely have advantages in speed and output options. I have seen some dramatic improvements with some of the smaller sensor RAW data including the G5 and G6 Powershots from Canon when using 'newer' conversions. Even some older DSLR images are more 'consistent' and it is easier to parameterize the entire shoot.

As someone who's upgraded/changed/altered RAW processing several times from multiple cameras(formats), I would also suggest seriously considering DNG.

ADOBE has made a serious commitment to this and it provides some security in that now your data has two possible means of recovery, the OEM and ADOBE.

My workflow has always included multiple backups and type of storage both volatile and non-volatile (if there is such a thing in the Digital Realm) and with the latest tools (i.e. Lightroom) it is a matter of an option to create a DNG copy on separate medium/volume/array/etc.

I am also converting a portion of my film scans to a standardized format system.

Several contributors here at PR have written rather extensively about the topic of storage, RAW, media durability and there entries are worth searching out and reading, including some in the blogs.

I shoot in RAW myself, because it offers the best image quality from my camera, and it also give me an extra dimension of control over the process of photo creation. In a way RAW helps me to become the brains of my image processor, or in the very least more of an equal partner with it.

I have to believe that in the future when these files are no longer readable, something I really don't see happening for a very, very long time, there will be a conversion program that will negate any threat of the loss of images. Until the other day, when I sold my Olympus E-500, I was using a DNG workflow. I could see something like this for older antiquated formats. So I am not worried.

I shoot in RAW myself for the control. But I then convert my better images into high res tiffs. To be honest, once I've done that, I rarely go back to the original RAW files - for that reason, if they became unreadable, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Mike