future of digital files

[walter_groves1]

i have read in various places on the web that some are concerned that some digital files

might not be usable because of changes in technology. is this really serious concern?

[frank_skomial]

Concern is not valid for standard (ISO, ANSI, DIN, etc.) file formats like JPG, TIF. The standards, once wtitten up and followed will always be present with us for the forseenable future.

 

Propriatory file formats, like most RAW formats, is a bit more likely to convert and evolve as the technology changes. E.g. Nikon RAW format from the new D2X is already different from the RAW file produced by Nikon D70.

 

If I were to keep my photos for next 20 years, I would certainly keep them in one of the standarized formats.

[robert_roaldi1]

It will mean active participation on your part. Throughout your photographic life you will have to monitor the support for whatever proprietary file format you happen to use (e.g. Nikon D70 RAW). If they announce that they are dis-continuing support for that, or that Nikon and Canon are merging or something, you will have to "do" something to be able to use those RAW files.

 

If you take a break from photography for 15 years, like a lot of amateurs do from time to time, you will have to "do" something in order to preserve your old images, the same way you'll need to "do" something to preserve your old tax returns or spreadsheets or other important correspondence. That is, you will have to ensure that you have backups, that the backups can be read and restored to use, etc. Once the data, whether photographic or otherwise, is digitized it implies that you must take steps to preserve the integrity of that data. It will not necessarily stay intact all on its own.

 

In the "old" days, you could leaves negatives in a drawer in your parents' house when you went off to college and return to print them 25 years later when your kids have grown up. In a digital world, you have to operate differently.

[basscheffers]

No concern at all. Just make sure you can convert your "non-standard" files to a "standard" file on your new computer/OS BEFORE throwing the old one out! :)

[bill_chiarchiaro]

"Nikon RAW format from the new D2X is already different from the RAW file produced by Nikon D70."

 

<p>But, it seems the difference is minor. I've already processed D2X NEF files (from other people's cameras) through the dcraw and ufraw raw converter programs. These programs (note that ufraw is based on dcraw) don't yet know anything specific about the D2X. However, the only problem I've noticed is that they don't use the D2X's white balance setting. This is not a surprise, because the programs do contain camera-specific details about white balance. Dave Coffin, the author of dcraw, has been pointed to sample D2X NEF files, so this issue will probably be rectified soon. In any case, the user still has the choice of manually setting the white balance, using spot WB from the image, or letting the programs automatically determine the WB.

 

<p>I suspect that with other programs, such as Nikon Capture, each version has a list of which camera models were in existence at the time the version was released, and they refuse to work at all on files produced by other models.

 

<p>dcraw and ufraw are open-source programs, so no matter how computer hardware or software evolve, it will always be possible to use them. These programs were primarily developed for use on Unix computers, but pre-built dcraw executables are available for MS Windows computers. See:

 

<p><a href="http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw">dcraw Web site</a>

 

<p><a href="http://ufraw.sourceforge.net">ufraw Web site</a>

 

<p>The ufraw Web site has links to sites for MS Windows executables.

 

<p>--Bill

[kelly_flanigan1]

There were several hundred variants of the TIFF format in 1996. Today there are more. Some oddball variants are readable by older Photoshop versions; and the new versions. There are a mess of RAW formats; some are decades old too. If you save only in an oddball TIFF dialect; the chances are less that it will be readable. Use a plain jane TIFF dialect; and a raw format too. Also larger files tend to fail easier when a CD goes south and fails. Here we have some burned CD's that cost 5 bucks each; are "archival" gold; and have failed after 5 or 6 years. These were kept in jewel cases; in a humidity & temp controlled storage area. Your cheapie ammo pack 25 cent disks may not last as long; when thrown loos in a shoebox :). Having some smaller 1/2 and 1/4 size files has allowed us to retrive old files; that are rotting on high buck "archival" gold CD's. Only storing the largest file size is a fools game; one defect can line wrap the image; or turn it to a mess.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I have stored images on cassette tapes; mag tape; 8 " floppy; 5 1/4" floppy; 3 1/2 floppy; zip disk; jazz discs; disc pack; scsi drives; ide drives; cd's; and now dvd's. At some time you have to bit the bullet and move your data to a new format. Saying there will be no problem requires using file formats that are forward readable. Old hardware is harder to maintain. When a format goes obsolete; the quality of the media often tanks. Todays new 3 1/2 inch floppies are crap. Ones from 2 decades ago are readable; new ones are made overseas; and fail right out of the box. One should have a readme of what the heck is on your DVD or CD. Often images survive another generation or two; and who is who in the images is not known anymore.

[ted_marcus1]

Not all "standard" formats have a future. I'm thinking of JPEG 2000, which is standardized and superior to the ubiquitous earlier JPEG (including a very good lossless compression option). But nobody seems to be rushing to adopt it. Unless Microsoft uses it in the upcoming "Longhorn" version of Windows, it's likely to disappear.

 

Since there are so many JPEG (not 2000) and PNG files out there, those seem good bets for long-term storage. There's also the basic, uncompressed 24-bit TIFF format, since it's also so common and so many applications support it. Photoshop's native format might be another good choice because that application is an "industry standard" and there are lots of files in that format.

 

I would be skeptical of RAW formats from digital cameras, as those represent a rapidly-evolving proprietary technology. Canon, for example, has supplanted the RAW format used by the 10D and the original Digital Rebel. Adobe is now trying to solve this problem with an open-source "Digital Negative" RAW format and free tools to convert proprietary formats to it. Given Adobe's clout, it might well become the next PDF. Or the Japanese manufacturers might be so unwilling to part with their proprietary formats that it will go nowhere. I would thus keep RAW files around, but save copies as a 48-bit TIFF and a 24-bit PNG.

 

The main advantage of digital files is that they can be duplicated indefinitely without degradation. So it would make sense to devise a schedule for periodically copying CDs to DVDs, and then to whatever technology replaces the DVD.

[dean_g]

Just as you can back up your image files, you can also back up the software that can decode your raw format. With a bit of redundancy there's little chance you won't be able to run the software and convert in the future, especially if you keep up with the various sw updates and operating systems as they evolve. The worry about this is excessive IMO. Or do the above plus store in one of the standardized formats in addition to the RAW format.

[jack paradise]

The problems about the future use of digital files will arise when the support on which it is written is no longer current. It will not be a problem if you stay current on technology and transfer your images to new support.

 

However, images written today on CD and DVD may not be readable in, let's say, 30 to 50 years because of technological changes where today's technology is no longer valid, and also assuming that today's discs can withstand the ravages of time.

[digitmstr]

with amount of TIFF and JPGs files in professional workplaces (newspapers, magazines, etc...) you can reast assuredif/when new formats come out you will still be able to read those and even convert them to whatever new format comes out.

 

Look how old gif and bmp are, just to name a couple of very common files.

[greg s]

File formats are basically arrangements of numeric data vals. While they do change, the good news is that it is relatively easy to write conversion scripts to translate one format to another. There is a high probability that such scripts/applications will exist to deal with formats that are used less (or not at all) through time.

 

The media that those files are stored on is a different issue, and a bit more problematic.