<div dir="ltr"><div>Here is the recommendations we are talking about.<br></div>I am going to remove everything related to converting to DNG unless someone tells me that is a bad idea.<br><br><div><div>...<br><span class="gmail-command"><span class="gmail-command"><b>RAW</b></span></span> format.<p>
My recommendation is clearly to <span class="gmail-command"><span class="gmail-command"><b>abstain from archiving in RAW format</b></span></span>
(as opposed to shooting in RAW format, which I recommend). It has all
bad ingredients: many varieties and proprietary nature. It is clear that
in a few years time you cannot use your old RAW files anymore. I have
already seen people changing camera, losing their color profiles and
having great difficulty to treat their old RAW files correctly. Better
change to DNG format!
</p><p>
<span class="gmail-command"><span class="gmail-command"><b>DNG</b></span></span>
Digital Negative file format is a royalty free and open RAW image
format designed by Adobe Systems. DNG was a response to demand for a
unifying camera raw file format. It is based on the TIFF/EP format, and
mandates use of metadata. A handful of camera manufacturers have adopted
DNG already, let's hope that the main contenders Canon and Nikon will
use it one day.
</p><p>
I strongly recommend converting RAW files to DNG for
archiving. Despite the fact that DNG was created by Adobe, it is an open
standard and widely embraced by the Open Source community (which is
usually a good indicator of perennial properties). Some manufacturers
have already adopted DNG as RAW format. And last not least, Adobe is the
most important source of graphical software today, and they of course
support their own invention. It is an ideal archival format, the raw
sensor data will be preserved as such in TIFF format inside DNG, so that
the risk associated with proprietary RAW formats is alleviated. All of
this makes migration to another operating system a no-brainer. In the
near future we'll see 'non-destructive editing', where files are not
changed anymore but rather all editing steps will be recorded (into the
DNG as it were). When you open such a file again, the editing script
will be replayed. This takes computation power, but it is promising as
it leaves the original intact and computing power increases all the
time.
</p><p>....</p><p>XMP</p><p>...<br>
</p><p>Many photographers prefer keeping an original of their
shots (mostly RAW) for the archive. XMP suits that approach as it keeps
metadata separate from the image file. I do not share this point of
view. There could be problems linking metadata file and image file, and
as said above, RAW formats will become obsolete. I recommend using DNG
as a container and putting everything inside.
</p>
...<br><h3 class="gmail-title">A Typical DAM Workflow</h3><p>....</p><p>2. RAW are converted to DNG and stored away into an RAW archive.
</p><p>.....<br></p><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Best regards, <br></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:21 AM, Remco Viëtor <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:remco.vietor@wanadoo.fr" target="_blank">remco.vietor@wanadoo.fr</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On vendredi 12 janvier 2018 01:14:00 CET longozrouge wrote:<br>
> Maybe not remove, but rewrite the recommendation.<br>
><br>
> If your camera can create picture files in DNG format, it's a different<br>
> story than using the different manufacturers raw format (pef, nef, orf<br>
> ...).<br>
><br>
> And if you do not archive in some raw format (DNG being one), what are<br>
> you going to do ? Not in jpeg , which is lossy ; tiff ? but that would<br>
> be extra work for conversion.<br>
><br>
> Jean-Max<br>
The problem is not DNG in itself, nor the archiving of raw formats; it's the<br>
recommendation to *convert* all raw formats to DNG for archiving that's to be<br>
reconsidered (or, I'd suggest, removed).<br>
<br>
If your camera uses the DNG format for its raw output, /of course/ you'll use<br>
DNG for storage/archiving/backups.<br>
<br>
And indeed, best is to always keep the raw files, most often /in addition to/<br>
the jpgs/pngs/tiffs you got after editing. As in the film days: you keep the<br>
prints and archive those, but you *also* archive the negatives.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Remco<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>