1 Sep
2011
1 Sep
'11
11:44 p.m.
On 09/01/2011 08:51 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
I agree with what you're saying, due to the lossy nature of JPEG, but
there's another important point here: RAW files contain a lot more
information than a photographic negative. Is it reasonable to assert
that, from a data future-proofing perspective, digital photography is
inferior to film photography, if what will most likely be lost in the
future is the ability to get at the data that will never exist in the
film world anyway?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
So how DO we fix this? Stallman's spent the past
25 years trying to get
this concept through thick heads. Sure, he started the biggest software
revolution in history, but until we break reliance on
closed-proprietary-obsolescent code (such as camera firmware and
drivers), we live in a house of cards. Often it's commercial users who
are the most screwed.
It is a tough problem to solve. I tend to say "screw the commercial
users" due to my utter contempt and overall disdain for profit-mongering
suits, but I realize not everyone feels that way. (walk a mile in my
shoes, etc)
TL;DR: The open source revolution has barely impacted
_devices_
(including computer components& peripherals).
Except for the fact that a great many of them RUN open-source
software, or software derived from open source. I do see and agree with
your actual point, though.
They all give
you
a utility to convert to more convenient formats. Unfortunately, their
marketing depts try to leverage the format in sales -- saying, "look at
the neat stuff we can do with our RAW files". Usually the benefits are
very minor.
It's rather important (to pros) if it's the only uncompressed
alternative to JPEG.