Prediction: RAW is going to eventually be a deprecated file format

[ben_hutcherson]

What also hasn’t changed is that there have always been more and less serious photographers, those who are everyday shooters less interested in the nuances available and those who relish the more nuanced, craft-oriented approach. And many in between on a spectrum of interests and abilities.

 

No question on that.

 

In fact, I would almost argue that it's easier than ever for someone interested in getting more hands on to do so these days. Perfectly capable DSLR kits that can get you in the door of a comprehensive system can be had for $400 on sale. I've never explored it, but I understand that it's possible to get RAW files out of many smart phones these days.

 

Getting hands on in the film era required you to devote space in your house to a darkroom plus outfit it with an enlarger and plenty of other equipment. Now, even a basic computer can make a competent-if not overly efficient-editing station that can also do a lot of other things.

[BeBu Lamar]

No question on that.

 

In fact, I would almost argue that it's easier than ever for someone interested in getting more hands on to do so these days. Perfectly capable DSLR kits that can get you in the door of a comprehensive system can be had for $400 on sale. I've never explored it, but I understand that it's possible to get RAW files out of many smart phones these days.

 

Getting hands on in the film era required you to devote space in your house to a darkroom plus outfit it with an enlarger and plenty of other equipment. Now, even a basic computer can make a competent-if not overly efficient-editing station that can also do a lot of other things.

 

Even if one goes relatively high end with computer equipment and software for may be $5000 it's still a lot less expensive than a typical darkroom back in the days if you factor in inflation. You can buy used darkroom equipment cheap these days but for a few new ones you can still buy they are quite expensive. Of course plus the fact that you need a room plus plumbing facility. Also during the learning phase mistakes are very costly with film. So the percentage of people who have darkroom is significantly less than the percentage of people who do PP with digital.

[Nick D.]

But if I could choose JPEG 2000 or a similar format, I would shoot that exclusively.

I am sure you can shoot JPEG in any camera today, it's pretty similar.

[Vincent Peri]

Even if one goes relatively high end with computer equipment and software for may be $5000 it's still a lot less expensive than a typical darkroom back in the days if you factor in inflation.

 

I don't think I spent more than $300 for my Beseler 23CII enlarger back in 1978. "In other words, $300 in 1978 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $1,181.41 in 2019. That's not even close to $5000.

[ben_hutcherson]

According to the internet, RAW is just a name brand, like Kleenex while every company has their own version of facial tissues. If all the camera companies make their own version of raw format, its not going to be useful across platforms.

 

It makes sense to me that each camera's sensor dumps/processes its raw sensor data differently, and consequently there would be differences in the files.

 

Regardless, Adobe does a good job of seamlessly handling any supported camera(and the list is pretty darn long) through Adobe Camera RAW. Apple also keeps Apple Camera RAW, which is baked into the OS and allows viewing RAW files in built-in programs like Preview and Photos-up to date for the current OSs. I've yet to run across a RAW file from Nikon(.nef), Canon(.cr2), Fuji(.raf), or Kodak(.dcr) DSLR that I couldn't open in Lightroom or Apple Photos, even with Nikon D1 or Fuji Finepix S1 in the current Lightroom Classic version(which I've only used on trial-I still use Lightroom 6.14 as my main processor) or macOS Mojave.

 

BTW, I'd like to see a basis for the assertion that you degrade the quality of a JPEG every time you open it on magnetic media. With that said, I don't know who in their right mind would store photos on a floppy or a ZIP disk these days. I don't think I have a camera in regular use where I could fit a straight out of camera JPEG fine on a floppy disk, and a ZIP disk would hold 5-8 JPEG Fines from my D800. I store my files in a couple of different ways, but unreliable small capacity removable magnetic storage is not one of those ways.

 

There is also an open "universal" RAW format called .dng, short for "digital negative." Adobe holds the patent for it, and when I import RAW files of whatever format to Lightroom they get converted to .dngs. With that said, some cameras do use .dng directly.

[samstevens]

I'd like to see a basis for the assertion

The Internet and bases for assertions sometimes seem mutually exclusive! :rolleyes:

[Ed_Ingold]

BTW, I'd like to see a basis for the assertion that you degrade the quality of a JPEG every time you open it on magnetic media.

Opening a file does not degrade it, regardless of the medium. Even saving the file again does not necessarily degrade it. Only when changes are made which require re-compression is likely to cause degradation.

[tomspielman]

There are many RAW formats and they are being deprecated on an ongoing basis, - so it's a safe prediction. :)

 

I think it will be a long time before camera and smart phone manufacturers agree on a single format. There doesn't seem to be a lot of incentive for them to do so and adding features to their own formats is one way they can differentiate themselves from the competition.

[BeBu Lamar]

I don't think I spent more than $300 for my Beseler 23CII enlarger back in 1978. "In other words, $300 in 1978 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $1,181.41 in 2019. That's not even close to $5000.

You don't need only an enlarger. You need the dichroic head. You need easel, lenses, focusing aid, processing stuff.

[paddler4]

According to the internet, RAW is just a name brand, like Kleenex while every company has their own version of facial tissues. If all the camera companies make their own version of raw format, its not going to be useful across platforms.

 

 

jpeg and other file extensions DO loose graphic quality in the conversion when dealing with color images. but png bmp tng tiff when used with black and white or line drawings DONT loose on quality.

 

Jpeg stored on a floppy disk or even zip disk WILL lose quality quickly, like every time you open the file on a disk

 

RAW is not a brand name. Raw is simply an adjective, meaning not yet processed (like raw vegetables). There is no "raw" standard. JPEG is an acronym, standing for Joint Photographic Experts Group. Unlike RAW, it indicates a file that conforms to specific standards, just as TIFF or PNG does.

 

Opening a file has no effect on its quality, regardless of the file format. Saving a file can affect the quality of JPEGs if the save causes an additional round of compression, which is where data is lost.

[conrad_hoffman]

There will always be people that want access to the unprocessed sensor data; it's already there and requires minimal effort to save so why would a camera company eliminate the option? Seems like a made-up worry.

[Vincent Peri]

You don't need only an enlarger. You need the dichroic head. You need easel, lenses, focusing aid, processing stuff.

 

I never printed color, so no dichroic head. The lens cost me about $50 (Rodenstock Rodagon), and the other misc costs were another $75-$100. Still nowhere near $5000

[BeBu Lamar]

I never printed color, so no dichroic head. The lens cost me about $50 (Rodenstock Rodagon), and the other misc costs were another $75-$100. Still nowhere near $5000

The majority of people who did their own processing did B&W but if you compare to today how many people post process B&W. In my case, since I can't visualize images in B&W I almost always shot in color (except for a period about 6 months when I took a photography class) so I had to be able to process color.

However, the $5000 budget for PP is in the relatively high range. One can do well for about $2000 and the computer can be used for other purposes which most people would need anyway.

Edited October 20, 2019 by BeBu Lamar

[samstevens]

I don't think I spent more than $300 for my Beseler 23CII enlarger back in 1978. "In other words, $300 in 1978 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $1,181.41 in 2019. That's not even close to $5000.

$5,000 is pretty high end. I wouldn’t use that as a baseline for cost of the ability to post process digitally.

 

And, regardless, is it really cost that determines these decisions? I suspect cost is a rather minor factor in determining whether someone uses a darkroom or doesn’t. It’s much more likely that it will be their relationship to the craft, their emotional attachment, and comfort or preference for a way of doing things. Those are certainly valid enough reasons (and there may be more) without having to artificially inflate or deflate costs, both of which I suspect have been done in this particular Internet argument.

[conrad_hoffman]

DIY wet processing for color always sucked. It was expensive, time consuming and the most of the results were second rate, save for the few that really mastered it. Digital has raised the bar so high that I'd never look back. Black and white, OTOH, could be enjoyable and your results could equal the best, even with modest equipment. I used to visualize in black and white with no trouble, but I suspect I've completely lost that ability, not having done wet process black and white in about 15 years. Back to the raw argument, I still save raw with my jpegs, but unless I see some great advantage in doing it, I'll probably stop, save for special circumstances.

[BeBu Lamar]

DIY wet processing for color always sucked. It was expensive, time consuming and the most of the results were second rate, save for the few that really mastered it. Digital has raised the bar so high that I'd never look back. Black and white, OTOH, could be enjoyable and your results could equal the best, even with modest equipment. I used to visualize in black and white with no trouble, but I suspect I've completely lost that ability, not having done wet process black and white in about 15 years. Back to the raw argument, I still save raw with my jpegs, but unless I see some great advantage in doing it, I'll probably stop, save for special circumstances.

 

Yes it always cost me more than having the lab did it. I did it for the same the reason I need RAW because nobody even expert can make a print my way.

[Dieter Schaefer]

But if I could choose JPEG 2000 or a similar format, I would shoot that exclusively.

I wouldn't. And with digital is easy to provide a choice. Thus no reason to not have the option to save the RAW file - ever. BeBu gave the reason - wanting the meal cooked his way. As opposed to those who are happy with pre-cooked - be it TV dinner or restaurant food.

[2d]

While I agree in the future Raw will probably go away but when is the real question. More than likely not for the next twenty years. I can see computational processes and the cameras processor equaling out to where the camera could do an in-camera pixel shift, focus stacking or produce a 32bit hdr file where the outputted file had enough info as too basically allow a wide white balance adjustment after the fact. This is not going to happen in the next ten years and I question what the file format will be

 

I thought jpeg 2000 was already being outdated to jpeg Xr?

[mikemorrell]

My advantage in shooting is Raw is that the final quality of my photos is determined by my PP skills and not by my camera, I think this is true for all audio/visual genres. The trend is towards PP skills. Microphones, cameras and video-recorders deliver raw data which are edited to produce audio and video clips and photos.

[ben_hutcherson]

If every company can have their own extension, they can have their own different compression formula. Until its made coherent industry wide, like say the standard size for 35mm film stock and frame size.... it will always be unable to keep itself around.

 

If this were as big of an issue as you claim, I wouldn't be able to take RAW files from a Nikon D1 made in 1999 and open it using software from 2019.

 

In this year, I've both shot a number of frames on a D1 and processed them in current software. There again, I can plug a card reader into a Mac running macOS Mojave(released fall 2018) and open/manipulate files from a D1 using software that's packaged/bundled with the operating system. The OS can read them well enough to generate a thumbnail preview of a D1 .nef in Finder(the basic GUI/file browser in the OS).

 

You're imagining a problem where none exists.

 

Even at that, I save all of my files both in their original RAW format(.nef) and the Adobe .dng conversions. This is as close to a RAW "standard" as we will get.

[leo_papandreou1]

JPEG 2000 has arbitrary bit depth and can do lossless compression. It's a better tiff. If you absolutely need RAW in post processing you might be making pictures rather than taking them. Nothing wrong with that but it does take your picture-making process further into the synthetic realm occupied by traditional visual arts such as painting -- different pictorial standards, creative issues, challenges etc. Different art forms. Also raises some social issues, see Reuters, which accepts only in-camera jpeg submissions (traditional dark room effects (cropping, curves) are still permitted).

[tomspielman]

as to my experiences with jpegs back in 2000-2007 storing jpeg on magnetic media did indeed hurt the quality over time. In school they had just upgraded to computers that had zip drives and usb. but in order to make money on students, they forced us to only use zip disks. Sure it took 8 30$ zip disks to equal the storage power of a 10 dollar usb thumb drive...

 

Now, I would save to both, and would open the same image on each storage format at the same time. After a month of being on zip, the color image jpeg would actually have less quality then the same image stored on usb thumb drive. Its like the degradation you get from using VHS tapes. Every use degrades the quality that will be seen the next time. Like how you can copy a brand new vhs movie onto another vhs tape and the copy tape will have inferior picture quality.

 

If every company can have their own extension, they can have their own different compression formula. Until its made coherent industry wide, like say the standard size for 35mm film stock and frame size.... it will always be unable to keep itself around.

 

VHS is analog format, not a digital one. With something like a jpeg, either the file is correct or it is corrupt in someway. There's no halfway. They can be corrupted in a way that they're still readable, but even losing one single bit could result in an image that's clearly messed up in a compressed format like a jpeg. It wouldn't just start looking a little bit worse over time. It would like fine, then suddenly really bad, - like chunks of it missing, lines running through the image, or parts of it substantially darker. Look up "bit rot" and jpeg if you want to see examples.

 

This is one reason why archiving digital data can be more problematic than archiving something like film.

 

What you might have been noticing, (as others have mentioned) is that the image in a jpeg can degrade if it's getting re-saved and re-compressed, not just read.

 

Think about a movie on VHS that gets played over and over vs a scratched up DVD. The VHS movie will play unless until the tape breaks or gets tangle up in knots. A scratched DVD may not play at all or may skip entire scenes. The scenes that do play will look like they did on a brand new DVD. I had kids that grew up during the transition from VHS to DVD. We still have VHS tapes from the late 90's and early 2000's that will play. Kids and DVDs didn't mix so well.

Edited October 21, 2019 by tomspielman

[Ed_Ingold]

Data is stored on magnetic media as bits with opposite magnetic orientation. Eventually these bits will interact causing a decrease in signal to noise ratio, consequently reading errors. Magnetic tape is particularly problematic, since this interaction can occur between layers (bleed-through). The domains on hard drives are very small and close together, and magnetic interaction is inversely proportional to the 4th power of separation. This deterioration is mitigated by redundancy, and for hard drives, the domains are automatically refreshed when the drive is running. Placed on a shelf, hard drive data and magnetic tapes have an expected life of only about 5 years.

 

Digital media in general is subject to rapid obsolescence. The disks and tapes remain, but the means of reading them are disappearing. For those cherished VHS tapes, who is making the players? I recorded, professionally, on analog tape for decades, and assure you that their longevity is not that great. Furthermore, the machines required frequent cleaning and alignment. Digital audio and video tape was even worse, where dropouts plagued their use even in the short term. At the moment, I can't seem to load, much less play, DAT tapes from the mid 80's.

 

The real weakness of digital media is the loss of the means to read it. I chuckle a bit over the mention of ZIP drives. They've been gone for over 30 years, and were never a truly viable means of archiving data.

 

Film is perfect though, never fades, suffers water damage, nor eaten by insects. NOT! That's why it's so important to digitize film before those images are irretrievable.

[samstevens]

I get preservation and think about it myself. As I age, though, I’m constantly reminded that life is fleeting. So are moments. There’s a connection between photography and life, between photography and moments, between photography and what’s often fleeting. Maybe the potential impermanence of negatives and digital files is a feature and not necessarily a bug. Shoot for NOW.

Nothing is written in stone. So don't prepare yourself for a long and lucrative career. You might die tomorrow. Your gold holdings might become dust. Just make the music you want to make now and enjoy it. —Yoko Ono

[tomspielman]

JPEG 2000 has arbitrary bit depth and can do lossless compression. It's a better tiff. If you absolutely need RAW in post processing you might be making pictures rather than taking them. Nothing wrong with that but it does take your picture-making process further into the synthetic realm occupied by traditional visual arts such as painting -- different pictorial standards, creative issues, challenges etc. Different art forms. Also raises some social issues, see Reuters, which accepts only in-camera jpeg submissions (traditional dark room effects (cropping, curves) are still permitted).

 

Well sure. Reuters is a news organization. They don't want images that have been manipulated in a way that ends up misrepresenting what was captured.

 

But, if I deliberately get up before sunrise to get to a spot where I want to take a picture of fog and early morning light, am I taking a picture or making one? What if I set the aperture to maximize bokeh while shooting a portrait or leave the shutter open awhile when taking pictures of a waterfall? Or use supplemental lighting? Having the RAW data just gives you more opportunity to hone the image to what you want it to be. I don't think it's any less valid of an approach as what you may do with the camera itself or even all the work that may have been done prior to pressing the shutter button.

 

A jpeg can still be manipulated in ways that make a photo appear radically different from what was in front of the camera.