TooMuchGreen

You may have picked up on the fact I like to take a few photos, previously to this blog a section of my job was to support the I.T infrastructure for Heritage digitisation at the Science Museums two Northern sites – the National Railway Museum in York and the National Media Museum in Bradford ( formerly the National Museum of Photography, Film & Television ), as such you could say I’m quite ‘au-fait’ with digital imaging method & archiving standards ( in fact if you need any advice get in touch, seriously, I’d be glad to help ).
Here’s a ‘very’ simplified and quick heads up about the three main file formats just to put this post in context -
( *NOTE* – PDF, although a superbly interesting option is not mentioned due to it still being on the undiscovered periphery of image archiving and process, there will be a more in depth entry on vector vs raster graphics at a later date also covering IPTC embedded ‘metadata‘ )

• JPEG – The lowest form of image file encryption and the most widely used. Data is compressed using encryption algorithms which leads to smaller file sizes but a loss in quality with varying levels of visble pixelation at full size, mainly suitable for web use, family photos etc, not ideal for larger prints. Viewable on any computer.
• TIFF – Loss-less file format and the de-facto standard for picture libraries @ 50mb per file with 8 bit Adobe RGB colour space, gives larger file sizes but stable for archiving. Viewable on any computer.
• RAW – This is the interesting ( and troublesome ) one, RAW is the closest thing you can get to a true digital negative, the image data is pure and untouched exactly as it hit the cameras CCD when the shutter was pressed, it offers the photographer an enormous range of post processing flexibility and a true base archive file BUT requires bespoke plugins or software to open and process ( unless you’re a Mac iPhoto user, OSX 10.4.10, good old Apple ). RAW gives a much smaller file size than TIFF ‘on disk’.

RAW then, unfortunately it’s not as simple as obtaining the plugin for say Nikon or Canon, that would be ideal, but of course it couldn’t be that simple. RAW interpretation differs between camera models ( and even model revisions – i.e Nikon’s D40 RAW plugin won’t decode D40x RAW images ), rather irritating to say the least and even more so when image processing giants such as Adobe ( the giant of giants ) not only lag behind in releasing upgrades to match new products but can and do annoyingly ( and expensively ) push version upgrades. For example the Photoshop RAW plugin required for Nikons D40x is only available for the latest CS3 suite, leaving users up to CS2 with the potential to end up with a camera full of images they can do nothing with unless they upgrade to CS3, and it isn’t cheap. Luckily ( ? ) Adobe offer a downloadable convertor free of charge, a stand alone application which will convert D40x RAW files ( NEF’s ) into Adobe’s own RAW format, the DNG file, which opens up fine in CS2′s RAW window.
So who’s to blame for this mess? Adobe are pioneering the cross platform, cross brand DNG and I suppose it’s refreshing that ‘someone’ is actually trying to standardise this area, to their credit certain camera manufacturers are also adopting this format – namely Hassleblad and Ricoh, two major players but still not as major as Nikon or Canon who seem to have no interest whatsoever in pursuing this.
Software and/or related device compatibility is a continuing problem in the digital world and the end user is more often than not manipulated into being out of pocket, remember the VHS vs BETAMAX ‘war’ in the 80′s? ( now back to haunt us once more as BLUERAY vs HD ‘DVD’ ), an unavoidable side effect of technological progress or a noticeable reflection of companies trying to corner the market? Whatever the reasons, both or either, it is as ever the end consumer who suffers, ironic considering there would be no demand for any of it without us.