31 Aug
2011
31 Aug
'11
7:07 p.m.
On 31/08/11 9:52 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 08/31/2011 09:34 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
JPEG is an inferior option, especially for pro users, as you know. The
user really is corralled here (and in other cases).
I agree with this 100%, for the same reasons you're aware of. However,
at issue here is whether or not the images will be LOST simply because
they're stored digitally, which is, at this point, all but impossible.
You have to concede that if they are archived as vendor RAW - which is
pretty much the only pro option - they are not necessarily
reconstructible at some future point unless all the proprietary
toolchain can be made to work. And since this typically depends on
closed source tools full of obsolescence bombs (e.g. Activation, runtime
compatibility, etc) - it's far from a sure thing.
Yes, it's all avoidable human silliness, na?vety and greed...
--T
This is where Dave's "idiots" argument
is completely cancelled. If your
camera spits out data in an indecipherable format, what choice do you
have? Only to boycott the manufacturer, and that hasn't seemed to work.
*sigh*
I guess you really don't have anything better to do.
What you said might be true if the only way these cameras stored data
was in "RAW" format. Fortunately, this is not the case. -Dave