Comments on: Google gives respite from a raw camera deal

Picasa bailed CNET News.com's Stephen Shankland out of a minor crisis recently, but lesson spotlights the industry nightmare that is supporting cameras' raw images.

[basraw]

compressed but can't uncompress? hahaha

"I have managed to read and compress the file, but re-creating the original file again is giving me nightmares."

It sounds like he doesn't have an original file compressed properly if he can't back out the steps he took to produce the original file.

[SachinGargIndia]

Uncompressing is different from recreating the file :-)

> It sounds like he doesn't have an original
> file compressed properly if he can't back
> out the steps he took to produce the
> original file.

My first guess was same as what you mention :-), but I have verified that part. Problem is not uncompressing the data, but recreating the original file (while parts should go where?).

Its just that different cameras (even from same manufacturer) do their thing differently, making it harder to track. Nothing too complicated, but just needs some time (actually lots of it, try counting no of camera's released ;-)

[djacobow1]

proprietary format bonanza!

I only own Canon, so I perhaps don't see the pain of proprietary RAW formats as acutely as someone who reviews cameras, but in general, I have to say that camera manufacturers love to make everything as proprietary as possible.

<rant style="relation: tangential>
God forbid that they open-source, for example, their lens mounts or flash hotshoe protocols. No, everyone who wants to make something compatible has to reverse-engineer it -- repeatedly. This is less common in the computer business only because people generally won't stand for the most egregious forms of this behavior. Only the most powerful like MS can get away with it.

What's odd to me is that despite all the supposed intense competition in the DSLR space, the trend is getting towards increased proprietariness (a word?) not less.

I for one will cheer the day that someone like Sigma makes *cameras* with Canon and Nikon mounts as well as lenses. Let the big guys put that in their pipes and smoke it.
</rant>

-- dave

[digitalzen]

DNG RAW format

My Pentax K10D supports Pentax's own RAW format AND DNG. If they can do it, so can Nikon, Canon and the rest.

[gjl229]

Thank you, Pentax !

Ditto from here: my Pentax does just fine with DNG - no need for a proprietary format.

It's just arrogance that leads other manufacturers to stick with only their own formats. Nikon even adds encryption, presumably to drive sales of their own software.

File formats and communications protocols (with flashes?) should be common among devices and applications, right? This RAW format stuff is intolerable.

Thanks, Pentax!

[gggg sssss]

dont buy wierd brands

if Olympus actually cared about their customers they would assist/ beg / PAY Google to support them. No, they would rather play coy and be an also ran - like Brother printers. Why buy a Brother when you can get an HP and know it will actyually WORK? Why bother with an Olympus when you can buy a Canon?

[aaydogan]

Because Canon can't even make a pro-SLR that focuses!

Seriously, though, Canon optics and mechanics are great. The
software, especially in the image processing area are really pretty
lame. Fuji and, to a lesser extent, Olympus, are way better in
image processing, color and dynamic range issues. Part of the
necessity for shooting RAW in the Canon is all the fiddling you have
to do just to get a decent image. I shoot JPEG in my Fuji S3's and
the extended dynamic range plus decent skin tone rendition have
all but eliminated any need to shoot in RAW at all.

[SFSDCris]

Full disclosure on affiliation with Google?

This article seems pretty one sided. There are plenty of raw viewers, Microsoft gives one out for free with XP, Adobe Photoshop (which includes Bridge) has a free trial period download, as does LightRoom.

Does your girlfriend work at Google, your best friend? or do you just own GOOG stock?

[Shankland]

I have no affiliation with Google

I'm just saying I liked Picasa, which helped me out in a bind on deadline, except where it failed me with the E-3 format. I'm not making any claims that this piece fully surveys the raw-image editing landscape. (And I did mention the free trial of Lightroom.) For some thoughts on other software I've used, here are some opinions on Lightroom and Aperture:

http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9875221-39.html

I don't own any Google stock (unless it's a part of some mutual fund, but I honestly don't know), and my wife and best friends don't work at Google.

I've also written about Microsoft's image viewer (I needed an editor, so WIC wouldn't have helped me much), BreezeBrowser, ACDSee, Phase One Capture One, Adobe Camera Raw, Corel Draw, and probably other raw sofware. I don't own any stock in those companies or have spouses or best friends there either.

[MadLyb]

Good grief

The article was about the freaking mess that is RAW.
Picasa is mentioned as an example of how the tools struggle to keep up with manufacturers hell-bent on chasing their own agenda.

[DeanAllman]

Ummmm...

I have a little trouble with the original premise here. You're shooting in RAW, which you admit was a mistake as you usually shoot JPEGs for CNET, but you don't have RAW conversion software on your laptop? I think that a little advanced planning would have saved you a lot of worry and trouble. I have a version of Photoshop CS3 on my desktop and on my laptop - as I may want to shoot either one or both when I am in the field. You're at a trade show, and you "dread" trying to find a network connection? (I usually find I have to sort through about a zillion hot spots when I am at a large show, and now I just use a Sprint wireless card when I travel). And you don't want to go through the hassle of downloading a trial of Lightroom? That "hassle" takes all of 10 minutes on a broadband connection.

I think it's legitimate to argue for a standard RAW format (although I struggle with how that might stifle innovation if everyone has to subscribe to the same standard). But I think you have easier ways out of your dilemma, and blasting the camera manufacturers for the proliferation of RAW formats ignores your own options at your disposal. They can't meet everyone's needs, nor can they anticipate every situation that a user might find themselves in.

[Shankland]

Sure, advance planning would have helped. So

We all make mistakes when it comes to advance planning, and I'm no exception. But there are limits. I could have had an infinite amount of fallback--EVDO cards, Lightroom pre-installed, spare batteries, extra laptop, blank CD-Rs, backup flash cards, point-and-shoot camera, flash, Ubuntu rescue thumb drive, power cord, polarizing filter, tripod, whatever. Over the years I could have used all those at one time or another. But when it comes to preparing for every possible contingency, there are limits to the spare time I have to futz with technology and to the amount of products I can buy, convince my employer to buy, and lug around. So sure, I could have been prepared better, but exactly what mistake I'd make is easier to see with 20-20 hindsight.

Finding a network was an issue because I was on deadline (there were none at this particular location that weren't encrypted--I did check--and the press room was about five minutes' walk away). For me, at a big trade show right after Sony has announced a full-frame SLR and unveiled it and shortly before I had an interview with a Sony exec, I didn't have 1 or 3 or 10 minutes to spare.

To be clear, I wasn't trying to blame my deadline problem on Canon--I was the one who set my camera wrong. I just think there are lots of problems that ripple out from the profusion of proprietary raw formats, and that particular plight might have been easier in some alternate universe. The personal experience I relayed isn't a "premise" that Canon's raw files left me in the lurch, it's an anecdote to illustrate the plight the industry is in.

[coder531]

hmmm

So, you are covering a photography trade show but you don't
understand the technology that you are covering... good to
know... and i'm not referring to shooting raw only, thats a
mistake anyone can make but rather not understanding raw
format.

Windows, Mac and i'm sure Linux (can't say 100% since I haven't
tried my cam on my linux box) all support canon raw format.

But, lets say you had 0 net connection, considering you probably
had to upload your story or email it and with wi-fi spots a dime
a dozen... i'm guessing you do ... but for sake of argument ...
lets say you don't...

I'm pretty sure at photo marketing trade show you could
probably find 1 person who happen to have the canon cd that
came with your camera (or any canon digital slr camera), that
includes both downloading, viewing and editing software as well
as conversion to jpg.

You have shown yourself to be quite inept.

[Shankland]

Oh, I understand raw images all right

I'd dispute your characterization that I don't understand the technology I'm covering. I shoot raw and JPEG very deliberately at different times, but I screwed up and left my camera set to the wrong option. To be clear, the bind I was in was a result of being on deadline, where every minute or three counts, and when you're covering photography at a photo show with lots of news, there's not much in the way of spare time.

I knew exactly where a network was--in the press room about five minutes' walk away from where I was and I had to return to shortly. Obviously I got to that network to file my story and post my photos, but I didn't have time to waste. I was editing some photos in the middle of Sony's press conference (don't tell Sony), which I didn't want to leave.

I have Windows XP on my work laptop, and it can view raw files, not edit them, and then only if you have downloaded Microsoft's WIC software and installed it, which I haven't. Apple's Mac OS X and Linux were not terribly useful options to me since I had neither installed on my machine.

My point was not that there wasn't software available to me--I mentioned Lightroom, and I could probably have used other trial software, too--rather that I didn't have time to go get it, and Picasa happened to be installed and it only occurred to me then that it could bail me out.

[pauliusp]

Canon digital photo professional is what you need

You just had to download canon's digital photo professional from canon! It is made by canon, handles all canon raw formats, it is free and fast. It is a matter of personal taste of course but I use DPP more than adobe lightroom. Lightroom is just too slow for me.

[thekomodo2001]

Good Grief - Someone does not have the proper tools for his profession!

If you are in the profession, the recommended laptop is a Mac. The operating system have built in support for RAW images. You don't need any special software to edit or to view those raw images. A Mac laptop/computer is a must have for any professionals working with images.

[Fil0403]

Good Grief - Someone still thinks a Mac has everything you need!

Whatever your profession is, the recommended computer is a PC with Vista. The operating system has built-in support for RAW images too plus built-in compatibility for more image-editing applications than any other operating system. You don't need any special software to virtualize Windows on your Mac or to dual-boot in Windows in your Mac to run specific software. A Mac laptop/computer is for people who don't know how to work with serious computers.

[Fil0403]

Time to install Adobe Lightroom on your Vista.

That is if you're a real professional, otherwise you'll want a Mac with Apple Aperture 2.0.

[SachinGargIndia]

Compression tool update: working demo now available, finally

Just to let you guys know that I have (finally) managed to get the compression tool working on all Nikon and Fuji camera raw files.

20 to 60% compression, totally lossless.

Check it out :-)
http://www.sachingarg.com/compression/sgraw/