DVDs are cheap.....why not load the raw files to a DVD for storage after converting to whatever you want to use...safe in the knowledge that the original files are archived and not cluttering up the computer!!
I will ave to start taking my own advice soon....my storage / filing is a total mess!!!
I guess that in the unlikely event Adobe and all the camera manufacturers disappeared; every single programmer in the world will suddenly forget how to write code.
Thankfully Dave Coffin has already written and released open-source code that can read any Raw file that has been developed so far: DCRaw
mhayes5254 wrote:
For my current needs, managing various versions is far more complexity than I am interested in. I process the RAW files with LR and output what I need to PS, print, etc. The risk here is that it assumes that the LR library will be available forever. The XMP files can be written to disk but this also assumes some Adobe program will be available forever to use the info. Obviously neither of these assumptions are true.
When I am done processing a set, I export finished JPG's to the source folder. Basically this is to cover the worst case scenario where the source RAW files are not readable in the future. Although I would not be able to reprocess, I will at least have a usable image that is not dependent on any processing software. Perhaps the direction of RAW vs DNG will become clearer in the future. I have family prints that are more than 120 year old. No software needed to view them. What current file format has the best probability of beating that? ...Show more →
DVDs are probably the worst media for long-term archiving.
anthonygh wrote:
DVDs are cheap.....why not load the raw files to a DVD for storage after converting to whatever you want to use...safe in the knowledge that the original files are archived and not cluttering up the computer!!
I will ave to start taking my own advice soon....my storage / filing is a total mess!!!
Anthony, Commercial music CD's are pressed. Computer burned CD's are dye based and less reliable. CD's are apparently better than DVD's but still not ideal. there is also the problem of capacity. James is correct about avoiding such media. There are no foolproof methods but the most common current practice is to keep 2 independent backups on conventional hard drives.
James, In 30 years of Scientific data collection, I have seen many industry standards that are now completely inaccessible. (both hardware standards and file formats). Ongoing migration is an unpleasant fact of life. Who knows what things will look like 10+ years from now. Granted, the widespread use of cameras by the public means that long term viability of formats is more likely than for specialty scientific data. In my day job, I have to assume the doomsday scenario you outlined is guaranteed. It is not a question of what is possible but what is readily available. It carries over into my Photo thinking
15Bit wrote:
Always keep your original data - a rule for both photography and work.
I agree. And most dng files are not original data unless they have imbedded the raw files, in which case they are already bigger than the raw files and lost much of the benefit most people expect from dng files.
I try to keep my original raw files as they came off the camera cards in external backups but not on-line. What I keep on line (and also backed up externally) are renamed raw files that are being managed more thoroughly within Lightroom. Any files I delete within Lr are deleted from the drive too and are lost to this system but the originals are out there somewhere. I can find them because both the originals and my renamed versions include the original camera file numbers.
Recently I started a thread about AF limitations and now I find I want to display some sample photos that were discarded from my managed photo collection as rubbish some time back. I now have to fall back to the originals or shoot again. My point is that you can never count on being forever right about which files should be deleted, even if it seemed like a good idea at the time. Therefore keep them all if you can.
CosmicCruiser wrote:
As one person said here that some software won't recognize Dng, isn't it also true that a number of programs don't recognize Raw?
You have to make a distinction between third-party raw converters like Lightroom, DxO Optics Pro, Capture One Pro, etc. and manufacturer-supplied software that comes with your camera.
All third-party converters will recognize raw files; they may need updating when new versions of raw files are released but they will eventually recognize them.
Software from the camera manufacturer will only recognize their own raw format; so Nikon Capture NX 2 will only recognize NEF files and Canon's Digital Photo Professional will only edit CR2 files.
Now image editors like Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, etc. will not recognize DNG/raw files since they aren't actually images (A DNG/raw file is sensor data and descriptive metadata). That why there's the need to use a raw converter to render/rasterize/bitmap the raw files into a pixel-based file format like TIFF, PSD, JPEG that can be read by an image editor.
Like many things, this is an individual decision. DNG does offer some benefits, but to me they ended up not being too attractive so I chose to keep my RAW files. I have very little fear that they will eventually be unreadable, especially given open-source efforts like DCRaw.
Like everything else, though, think about the doomsday scenarios and plan for them. I have three independent sets of all my files (photo and otherwise), and that includes my LR catalogs. I believe hard drives to be the best backup medium right now in every way: cost, capacity, speed, availability, and reliability.
What current file format has the best probability of beating that?