DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> world wide open RAW petition
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 16 of 16, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/24/2005 10:29:59 PM · #1
I'm just curious as who decided to join the petition available here!

For myself I participated sooner today and sent email to 3 company. Canon because I own one. Sony because I owned 4 of them (2 of them actually able to shoot in RAW) and Nikon because while I do not have, never had and do not have plan to have someday a Nikon camera I think that they're one of the major company out there in the RAW game an it's important to get all the majors.
05/25/2005 12:46:21 PM · #2
Bump!
05/25/2005 01:01:47 PM · #3
i would like more image applications to open raw, i never shoot in raw simply because i dont have an application with the capability to open raw
05/25/2005 01:16:59 PM · #4
Originally posted by Fetor:

i would like more image applications to open raw, i never shoot in raw simply because i dont have an application with the capability to open raw


That's why an open RAW format is so important.
05/25/2005 01:19:39 PM · #5
Here's the copy of the petition:



Dear Sirs,

I am writing to add my name to the list of photographers from around the world that are requesting that your company, as well as the other major digital camera makers, adopt a policy of open documentation of RAW formats, past, present and future.

I am also requesting that your company adopt a universal RAW format. The DNG format has been put forward as such a possible standard, but we are willing to accept any truly open standard as the industry may agree upon.

I support the position on this taken by the OpenRAW Working Group (//www.openRAW.org/).

Please add my voice to those that are against proprietary and encrypted RAW file formats. I urge you to act swiftly to support your customers so as to ensure our continued loyalty to your company's brands and products.

Sincerely,

(Your name)


Nick -- i also added a couple of words to your thread title to draw some attention. :)
05/25/2005 01:32:27 PM · #6
Email sent. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
05/25/2005 01:54:28 PM · #7
Thanks for posting this Nick, It was a good read and I'll be emailing everyone on that list later today.
05/25/2005 02:12:36 PM · #8
I've been on the OpenRaw mailing list since its inception. This is probably one of the most significant movements in photography since digital became relevant.

The education component of OpenRaw is one of the more important aspects. Most people think it's all about the Nikon D2x, and aren't aware that Sony, Canon, and almost every other vendor out there has some "closed" aspect of their format that causes a hurdle to archiveability.

I liken the whole thing to choosing a lab to develop your film. Different labs may use different equipment, paper, techniques, etc. to produce the results you like. Similarly, there are different Raw converters which all produce different results. I don't want my camera vendor to choose for me; I want to make the choice. I also want to be assured that in 50 years I won't have to worry about who is still supporting format XYZ...

Opening up the raw formats is critical.
05/25/2005 02:22:53 PM · #9
Originally posted by cghubbell:

I don't want my camera vendor to choose for me; I want to make the choice. I also want to be assured that in 50 years I won't have to worry about who is still supporting format XYZ...


Well you do have professional options such as photoshop. As far as I know, they try to offer all camera models the ability to open raw.

Of course this option isn't for everyone photoshop is expensive unless you like illegal :-)

You also have to think of the manufacturers making their camera write data that specific to their brand. Kodak, historically speaking, has had different papers than canon, or other. Why should they have to be forced to use the same raw now? If Canon's raw contains more data than that of nikon or visa versa, should one have to conform to consumer level dislikes of not being able to open the raw image in your raw processor..

I think the real battle, is making the industry openly support software developers who make the raw processing software to include all forms of raw. You also have to think of the change that would occur too if all cameras started using the same raw format, anyone using a pre-dated camera may not be able to use current software that only feels the need to support the industry standard Raw file.
05/25/2005 03:17:59 PM · #10
Originally posted by Fetor:

i would like more image applications to open raw, i never shoot in raw simply because i dont have an application with the capability to open raw

There were two such applications that came with my 20D, -- EOS Viewer Utility and Digital Photo Professional. If you didn't get them with your camera perhaps you can download them from the Canon site, I have downloaded updates.

And there are several good RAW converter programs available for free, try a google search.

RAW Shooter from pixmantec is probably the most full featured of the freebies.

But getting a really open RAW standard is essential to these type of programs being free, or even available, in the future.
05/31/2005 11:28:55 AM · #11
Originally posted by dpakoh:

Originally posted by cghubbell:

I don't want my camera vendor to choose for me; I want to make the choice. I also want to be assured that in 50 years I won't have to worry about who is still supporting format XYZ...


Well you do have professional options such as photoshop. As far as I know, they try to offer all camera models the ability to open raw.



No. Photoshop / ACR does not support the encrypted white balance of the Nikon D2x due the potential for lawsuit under the DMCA and other copyright protection vehicles. Sure, you can apply manual WB using those tools and work around, but an additional manual workflow step isn't what anyone was hoping for.

I currently use the only professional tool which I know of that does provide this support, Bibble. At this point they were willing to risk lawsuit in order to publish software that supports encrypted WB using reverse-engineering.

I have no problem with vendors storing specific information unique to their cameras to pursue unique advantage. What I have a problem with is when they encrypt, or deliberately obfuscate that information for the purpose of locking you into their processing tools. At this point nearly all vendors (incl. Nikon and Canon) have at some point acted in this manner. I'm still going to buy the $5000 camera, but let's see more competition in the post-processing options.

If the vendor truly was protecting their formats, why would they encrypt only one field out of the many EXIF compliant ones available? Further, why would they encrypt it using a weak form of encryption that can be (and has been) easily broken? Most are speculating that by applying a minimal level of encryption it would allow a vendor to pursue legal action against 3rd party raw converters.
05/31/2005 11:45:26 AM · #12
Done. I sent it to Canon and Nikon.

I also added this postscript:

PS My husband and I currently own a Canon SLR and a Nikon SLR and will be making a decision on which brand to give our loyalty to in the long term in coming months. The issue of a universal and open raw format is a sufficiently important factor to us both that we will take it into account when making our decision.

05/31/2005 12:00:40 PM · #13
Originally posted by Kavey:

Done. I sent it to Canon and Nikon.

I also added this postscript:

PS My husband and I currently own a Canon SLR and a Nikon SLR and will be making a decision on which brand to give our loyalty to in the long term in coming months. The issue of a universal and open raw format is a sufficiently important factor to us both that we will take it into account when making our decision.


There's an interesting article on Luminous Landscape that talks about the legalities (under Canadian law) of the raw debate. It's an interesting read.

What struck me was the concept of lock-in. Although some people can talk about switching, it's not really practical for normal consideration as far as I'm concerned. If I've invested years learning the capabilities of a system, not to mention the insane investment of $$ in glass and accessories, it's a tough business justification to switch no matter how religious the end user.

I very much want to continue shooting Nikon because every other aspect of their system is better for me. I'm trying to direct my thinking towards effecting their change rather than my own changes :)


05/31/2005 12:09:04 PM · #14
Originally posted by cghubbell:


No. Photoshop / ACR does not support the encrypted white balance of the Nikon D2x due the potential for lawsuit under the DMCA and other copyright protection vehicles. Sure, you can apply manual WB using those tools and work around, but an additional manual workflow step isn't what anyone was hoping for.


In that respect, do you want to loose that feature because of a standardized raw format that may not contain the data container that would allow you to edit that field? What do you think happens when everyone has to use the same file? A standardized RAW format would take out the ability to have Nikon specific WB. You'd then be forced to use a manual WB adjustment because Canon, olympus, kodak, probably wont adapt nikons standard.

Again this is an issue that should lay on the heads of software developers.. If there is a possible lawsuit, the petition should be towards dropping that. Standarization of a single format raw will drop the specific features that someone bought a certain brand camera for.

I bought canon because I liked the way the colors and tones come out compared to nikon and such. If they all use the same raw, they would have alot more limitations on what color specs and such they can encrypt in the the raw container. Either that or all the raw files will be rather large having to contain all the information thats possible with all makes and models of cameras that can use it. Making people have to buy a 4gb mem card to get 50 pictures.
05/31/2005 12:48:20 PM · #15
@dpakoh:
I think that you may not have researched the Adobe DNG spec thoroughly. Although it essentially is an "open RAW" specification it does not in any way limit what the camera manufacturer can implement. All the DNG file is is a "container" for the original RAW file that tells a RAW converter how to convert. As long as the camera manufacturer writes the instructions properly, any DNG-enabled application can then understand the format.
05/31/2005 01:29:01 PM · #16
Originally posted by kirbic:

@dpakoh:
I think that you may not have researched the Adobe DNG spec thoroughly.


The petition doesn't garauntee nor ask for only the DNG. Who knows what they will pick if anything.. The point remains the same. Why should the camera manufacturers change when its easy enough to change the software that uses it. Nikon, Canon, Kodak.. etc should make it throughouly available to the software world as well as open source public their reverse coding for reading their raw format.

If you buy a honda car, and you go to a ford dealer, would you expect to get the ford muffler to fit or work with the honda? They haven't changed that yet.. Why would they do it this way? Petitions don't always change anything. Reasonable requests do.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/17/2021 11:59:38 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/17/2021 11:59:38 PM EDT.