the RAW flaw ( a must read for photographers who work with RAW )

article courtesy of Michael Reichmann and Juergen Specht

 

article explaining this issue

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml

 

May 31, 2005

 

By now most readers are familiar with what is currently the most

important issue facing photographers this decade. That is ? the

closed, proprietary, and proliferating number of RAW file formats.

Even more distressing is that there are now camera makers who are

encrypting some of their RAW data.

 

An article on this subject and a petition to the camera makers asking

them to adopt open standards was published here and on several other

web sites last week. Response from photographers has been positive,

though I must say that the disinclination of some of the larger

commercial photography review sites to even mention the current issue

is disappointing. But, regardless of which side of the debate one is

on, there is more to the issue than photographers asking for

unfettered access to their own files. There are legal ramifications

as well.

 

For example, we know that Adobe has stated its concerns about the

legal ramifications of breaking Nikon's encrypted white balance code,

that has prevented Adobe from incorporating this data in their Nikon

D2x interpretation in Camera Raw. But, there is another side to the

legal coin. Are the various digital camera makers that encrypt and

otherwise impede photographers and software writers from freely

accessing the data in their RAW files breaking any laws by doing so?

 

In an exclusive article for this site, titled RAW File Encryption and

Competition Law, one of Canada's leading competition law lawyers,

Andrew J. Roman, takes a look at issues such at Tied Selling, Refusal

to Deal, and Abuse of Dominant Position. While these observations

pertain to Canadian law, Mr. Roman makes it clear that most countries

have similar laws, and so these practices may well be found to be

contrary to laws and regulations in other countries as well. And,

unlike much of the posturing and opinions that appear in web

commentaries, these are from an experienced litigator who has

presented cases to the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

Camera makers would be advised to take his observations with greater

seriousness than they have thus far shown to the concerns of their

customers.

 

 

 

Update: Firmware updates are now available for the Canon 1D MKII and

1Ds MKII. These are reported to fix some of the lockup and lost file

problems reported on here and on various other sites over the past

few months.

 

______________________________________________________________________

______________

 

Below is an open letter to all of the major digital camera makers. If

you agree with its basic premise, we urge you copy it off the screen

and paste it into an email to the camera maker of your choice, or to

each of them for that matter. Just copy the text of the letter, click

on a manufacturer's e-mail link, and past the text into your mail

program. If you prefer you can print it out and mail or fax it

instead.

 

This petition is being posted on a large number of web sites; sites

with a combined readership of more than one million photographers

from every country in the world.

 

Add your voice today.

 

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

(http://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)

 

 

 

 

Keep in mind that Mr . Roman's comments are pure speculation from an attorney versed

in Canadian law.

 

Yes encrypting portions of RAW data is perhaps not a good idea. Let's assume for a

momentthat Nikon (and Canon, etc.0 are correct in their claims that you get the best

image quality from using their proprietary software which is tailored (no matter how badly

coded) to the cameras they manufacturer. You still should have the ability to use other

more necessarily generic software (more necessarily generic because "one size must

accompdate all 'raw' formats".

 

While the slings and arrows of this general argument are directed at Nikon for encrypting

the WB info in NEF files fro mthe D2X, Nikon isn't the only high end digital imaging device

manufacturer who either want you to use (as Nikon does) or as is the case of several of the

"medium format' digital back manufacturers force you to use, the proprietary software for

image processing.

 

And these 'raw' formats are not as raw as they seem. Canon for example forces your raw

images through an embedded unsharp masking process that can't be turned off. This is

done in camera.

As long as the camera manufacturers provide free software to users for conversion of their RAW format into standard formats like JPEG and TIFF, I really can't see any reason why they should use a standard RAW format. Sure, it would be way more convenient for Adobe and other 3rd party software makers if they did, but the camera companies have no obligation to help out Adobe.

 

I think most companies offer an SDK (software developers kit) for those who want to develop programs which use RAW formats.

Nikon provides something that sort of resembles software free, but for anything decent you've got to pony up another US$100 on top of the cost of the camera (I'm a Nikon shooter, and SHAME on Nikon for this)...I've tried a number of third party RAW converters, and Nikon is right, for Nikon RAW files, their hundred dollar wonder is phenomenal. The free one is quite simply crap.

Canon provide several different programs which do RAW conversion. All are free and all updates are free and downloadable from their website.

The range of operating systems that the SDK and vendor software (bought or free) run on is limited now, and backward compatibility for software over 10, 20, and more years is highly dubious.

 

Documented RAW formats free of patent encumbrances are very desirable from the point of view of photographers.

 

Giles

The fact that camera manufactures generally give you free software or not to convert your raw files is not really related to the issue. If they didn?t provide such software for free, it would simply mean that they were charging for optional additional functionality. Not unfair. Although I believe not in their commercial interests, but that?s another debate.

 

The problem is that there can be no guarantee that such software will be available, free or otherwise, when I retire in 30 years. Products go obsolete, companies go to the wall and there is no way we will be using ?PCs? or ?Macintoshes? or anything else that can run the current software in 30 years time. Almost 20 years ago I was running the equivalent of unsharp masks and the like on a Vax for the Voyger flyby of Uranus. Thankfully NASA are open because boy have image processing tools changed since then! Personally I would like to know that HAL will be able to read my digital negatives. Hmm. With my permission at any rate. :)

 

I implement corporate IT migrations and from experience I can assure you, there is a long history in the software industry of proprietary formats and the software to read them going obsolete. With huge costs to corporations in some cases. Now open access to the information corporations spend money gathering and creating, is a vital criteria for selection of new products.

 

The issue for camera manufactures is that they have and will continue to create new and improved techniques for processing the sensor data. Quite naturally they will want to keep it close to their chests for commercial reasons.

 

So, to some extent whether you support the OpenRAW working group or not comes down to what sort of photographer you are.

 

If say, you are a wedding photographer, then the long term access to raw negatives may be less of an issue than the quality of the images on day one. There is a debate as to whether open competition will produce better results but I would suggest you don?t worry and let the market work it out. Instead email them to let them know what you DO want.

 

But if you place value on being able to store away those ?un-printed? negatives, in the belief that some may take on new meaning when you are seventy, then I would suggest you do no more that let the manufactures know that it concerns you.

 

Provided your statement is clear and reasonably concise, the manufactures will be grateful for your opinion. Do you know how much market research costs?

 

If history repeats itself they will go the way of most other software. Most will go open format. If one or two manage something that is of high value to us photographers, they will remain proprietary but perhaps give you a fully automated tool to convert your images to the open format for long term storage.

 

I hope one day electronic catalogues of images (albums) goes open. I can?t be bothered entering ratings, categories and descriptions against images at the moment because all the applications use proprietary formats to store the meta data and I don?t want to type it all in again in a couple of years. If anyone knows of any open standards for image meta data, please let me know!

microsoft have just reliced a raw viewer

 

I haven't installed it yet but here is a link

 

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=d48e808e-b10d-4ce4-a141-5866fd4a3286&DisplayLang=en

 

or

 

http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/b/3/bb35c5c1-8059-4bef-83ba-3c44a5c0b2f1/RAWViewerSetup.exe

RAW is an ancient format; it has been used in scientfic fields before most folks even heard of a digital camera.<BR><BR> Photoshop 3.0 will use RAW; if you have the right stuff to decode the raw file variant.<BR><BR><b> It is just the way RAW has ALWAYS BEEN; just like there are different oil filters for different cars.</b> Just like Canon lenses wont fit a Nikon or Ektra. Or folks wear different sizes of shoes. <BR><BR>It is really greenhorn to even think RAW is a universal format; it has never been; and never will be. There are hundreds of secret RAW variants; going back a decade; some even not having anything to do with photography at all. Maybe this is a newbie thing; abit simpleminded; wanting companies to make a universl product; like prison shoes.<BR><BR>The petiton is like demanding a universal shoe; a universal oil filter; a standard camera mount; a standard song a teenager must listen too. Non open hardware and software is what a company wants; to lock in profits. why isnt there just one razor blade? Why are there a zillion lens mounts; a zillion cars; a zillion ink cartridge types; a zillion song titles? <BR><BR>Some folks dont want socialism; a governments fingers in the pie; or dumb lawyers who dont realize that the RAW format was purposely made to be custom modified; for your own application. Maybe the same dumb crew will attack the hot rod industry; because there is not a single universal turbo; carb; shock; tire; gasoline. <i>There are legal ramifications as well</i> The ramification is that the lawyers are idiots; and dont know why RAW was even developed.

And if all debit card transactions were made on identical key pads.

What a wonderful world this would be.