I want to public domain my RAW photo files

When I shoot pictures, like I did this week at the LIFT conference, my camera makes two copies: one in the RAW format and one in JPEG. Now, the ones that get uploaded to my Flickr account are the JPEGs. But lately I’ve been playing with my RAW files and seeing just how much better those are for doing post processing. It’s amazing how much tonal range you have access to there. Things that look too dark often can be “saved.” Or you can change the color. Or sharpen the images. In a way that’s far far higher quality and has far far more capabilities than if you try to mess with the JPEG images.

So, I’m wondering how to share with you my RAW files?

Why can’t I share them now? Well, for one, Flickr doesn’t allow uploading of RAW files. For two, these suckers are BIG. One RAW file is about 15 MB. For three, most software can’t display them (and RAW files aren’t always compatible between manufacturers either).

But I’m looking for a way to cheaply share my RAW files with you, because if I really want to say that I’ve put my work into the public domain I’ve got to give you access to my source files.

One idea is to use a P-2-P file sharing service like Wuala, which was one of the winners of the LIFT Venture Night competition. But I’m wondering if there’s another service out there that’d work better.

In case you missed my earlier post, all of my photos on Flickr are in the public domain. You may use them without crediting me or compensating me in any way for my work. That’s a gift to the Web from me and Fast Company magazine. Tomorrow I’ll be at CERN and I’ll make a bunch of high-quality images there that I’ll get up as part of my LIFT collection.

119 thoughts on “I want to public domain my RAW photo files

  1. That would be a fantastic service. If anyone can spare a few terabytes.

    it’s more of finding a place willing to host and let you download those files. Yes there are plenty of “unmetered” upload sites, but they don’t expect you to traffic a few gigs of raw’s online.

    Possibly Amazon S3 is an option?

    Like

  2. That would be a fantastic service. If anyone can spare a few terabytes.

    it’s more of finding a place willing to host and let you download those files. Yes there are plenty of “unmetered” upload sites, but they don’t expect you to traffic a few gigs of raw’s online.

    Possibly Amazon S3 is an option?

    Like

  3. (However that assumes you’d be an avid photographer, uploading a few dozen RAW photos a week. If you are only doing occasional RAW files, it might now be a huge deal.)

    But thinking about it, if you get a seperate hosting account and set up an anonymous FTP account it could work, it just might not be as pretty/convenient as possible.

    Like

  4. (However that assumes you’d be an avid photographer, uploading a few dozen RAW photos a week. If you are only doing occasional RAW files, it might now be a huge deal.)

    But thinking about it, if you get a seperate hosting account and set up an anonymous FTP account it could work, it just might not be as pretty/convenient as possible.

    Like

  5. You can always save the raw files to tiff or jpg after processing them…they will naturally lose some of the quality as they convert from 16 to 8 bit but a lot of the color quality that you have gained from starting with the raw file will be saved.
    Of course this will not solve the problem of making source files available.

    Like

  6. You can always save the raw files to tiff or jpg after processing them…they will naturally lose some of the quality as they convert from 16 to 8 bit but a lot of the color quality that you have gained from starting with the raw file will be saved.
    Of course this will not solve the problem of making source files available.

    Like

  7. Before you worry about size and storage you need to worry about sharing RAW. The file format is too specific for this purpose. Step 1should be to convert them to DNG. Lightroom makes this a breeze.

    Note, I don’t use DNG because I don’t share RAW files. But sharing is one of the use cases where DNG is absolutely critical.

    Like

  8. Before you worry about size and storage you need to worry about sharing RAW. The file format is too specific for this purpose. Step 1should be to convert them to DNG. Lightroom makes this a breeze.

    Note, I don’t use DNG because I don’t share RAW files. But sharing is one of the use cases where DNG is absolutely critical.

    Like

  9. Actually all the conference-based media that *you* produce on Qik and Flickr got me thinking about this very issue. The software I’m working on is a browser-based p2p “plugin” that basically adds p2p services to a web page. To publish something, you just click the publish button and point to the file on your computer — no uploading because we embed an HTTP server right on your machine.

    So, this is along the lines of the Wuala approach, only with much better usability. You can tag your file when you publish it, making it immediately available in search results. Then it’s basically like Google for files on people’s machines, plus tagging.

    It sounds like you might be interested in automated backup to S3, which is an idea I’m considering for precisely this type of thing. I’d probably just automatically make it a torrent, cutting down on everyone’s costs. It sounds like that’s what you want, actually — an automated public torrent of all your content, except with usability on top so you never have to know it’s BitTorrent — to you it’s just like any other file. That’s essentially what the S3 tweak would accomplish.

    Anyway, if you’re at SXSW hopefully we’ll meet up. I’m buddies with Tim Ferris, so maybe you’ll see me. We’re in closed beta right now, but we’ll be making another release shortly.

    -Adam Fisk
    http://www.littleshoot.org

    Like

  10. Actually all the conference-based media that *you* produce on Qik and Flickr got me thinking about this very issue. The software I’m working on is a browser-based p2p “plugin” that basically adds p2p services to a web page. To publish something, you just click the publish button and point to the file on your computer — no uploading because we embed an HTTP server right on your machine.

    So, this is along the lines of the Wuala approach, only with much better usability. You can tag your file when you publish it, making it immediately available in search results. Then it’s basically like Google for files on people’s machines, plus tagging.

    It sounds like you might be interested in automated backup to S3, which is an idea I’m considering for precisely this type of thing. I’d probably just automatically make it a torrent, cutting down on everyone’s costs. It sounds like that’s what you want, actually — an automated public torrent of all your content, except with usability on top so you never have to know it’s BitTorrent — to you it’s just like any other file. That’s essentially what the S3 tweak would accomplish.

    Anyway, if you’re at SXSW hopefully we’ll meet up. I’m buddies with Tim Ferris, so maybe you’ll see me. We’re in closed beta right now, but we’ll be making another release shortly.

    -Adam Fisk
    http://www.littleshoot.org

    Like

  11. The first thing you should do is convert them to the open Digital Negative format. It preserves the RAW data, but in a standard way.

    Like

  12. The first thing you should do is convert them to the open Digital Negative format. It preserves the RAW data, but in a standard way.

    Like

  13. Picassa won’t do it. Their uploader will open a Nikon NEF file but it gets converted to JPEG when uploaded. Flickr’s uploaders seem to do the same.

    Like

  14. Picassa won’t do it. Their uploader will open a Nikon NEF file but it gets converted to JPEG when uploaded. Flickr’s uploaders seem to do the same.

    Like

  15. hmm ya Mike Cohen is right. I did look at the adobe stuff i had on my notebook and I do have Adobe Version Cue which sort of acts as a file revisioning/sharing thing. It has a web server with apparently a mysql backend and i got it going after about a half hour and serving up a picture from my d300 (note this is my notebook so it will probably power down a lot :D) http://www.piedcow.com:3703/webdav/mal/Copy of DSC_0471.NEF

    username public and password public.

    Like

  16. hmm ya Mike Cohen is right. I did look at the adobe stuff i had on my notebook and I do have Adobe Version Cue which sort of acts as a file revisioning/sharing thing. It has a web server with apparently a mysql backend and i got it going after about a half hour and serving up a picture from my d300 (note this is my notebook so it will probably power down a lot :D) http://www.piedcow.com:3703/webdav/mal/Copy of DSC_0471.NEF

    username public and password public.

    Like

  17. Yeah – basically the answer is you cannot. I shoot in Nikon NEF, and love the tonal range that you mention, the depth, etc. But sharing with the public will be by JPEG. You can make a note under your Flickr images saying something like, “Happy to share the RAW file with you – shot me an email, or access my XDrive here.”

    Next shoot 3 to 5 bracketed RAW images and use Photoshop to merge into an HDR image. The range of that is outstanding, especially if you use a plug-in called Photomatix (HDRsoft.com). I have a few on my Flickr stream.

    Like

  18. Yeah – basically the answer is you cannot. I shoot in Nikon NEF, and love the tonal range that you mention, the depth, etc. But sharing with the public will be by JPEG. You can make a note under your Flickr images saying something like, “Happy to share the RAW file with you – shot me an email, or access my XDrive here.”

    Next shoot 3 to 5 bracketed RAW images and use Photoshop to merge into an HDR image. The range of that is outstanding, especially if you use a plug-in called Photomatix (HDRsoft.com). I have a few on my Flickr stream.

    Like

  19. Another thing, there are countries where you cannot give away your copyright (I think France is one). So ironically by going public domain you’re making it impossible for some people to use your images. I would recommend both public domain and another license (not sure if CC-0 works in those countries, so I’d just go with CC-BY).

    Like

  20. Another thing, there are countries where you cannot give away your copyright (I think France is one). So ironically by going public domain you’re making it impossible for some people to use your images. I would recommend both public domain and another license (not sure if CC-0 works in those countries, so I’d just go with CC-BY).

    Like

  21. Robert, this is magnanimous of you, but also impractical and total overkill. I would stick with making the JPEGs available and leave it at that. There’s a much higher cost associated with making RAW files widely available (in terms of storage, bandwidth, tech support, etc), and I’m not sure who’s willing to assume the cost for the purpose of supporting an ideal that little real world value.

    Now, if there was genuine interest in the RAW files from a significant group of people, then it seems like they should donate a small amount to support storage on a site like smugmug, or to pay someone to set up a site that could host the files and set up galleries, etc.

    Like

  22. Robert, this is magnanimous of you, but also impractical and total overkill. I would stick with making the JPEGs available and leave it at that. There’s a much higher cost associated with making RAW files widely available (in terms of storage, bandwidth, tech support, etc), and I’m not sure who’s willing to assume the cost for the purpose of supporting an ideal that little real world value.

    Now, if there was genuine interest in the RAW files from a significant group of people, then it seems like they should donate a small amount to support storage on a site like smugmug, or to pay someone to set up a site that could host the files and set up galleries, etc.

    Like

  23. Sounds like a new Web 2.0 project to me… Upload the RAW file for editing and upload the jpg so that you can preview the file before downloading.

    Like

  24. Sounds like a new Web 2.0 project to me… Upload the RAW file for editing and upload the jpg so that you can preview the file before downloading.

    Like

  25. Think of RAW files as undeveloped film – undeveloped film that you can process into negatives as many times as you want. The data in a RAW file is light levels for RGB (raw sensor data, not an image). Each pixel is assigned a color, so it’s not like each pixel has all of the color information – just one. The pixels are assigned colors so the arrangement is in some sort of matrix.

    When you take a picture and the LCD display shows the image, the camera has made some assumptions and has “processed” the bits to make a JPEG. Inside, the RAW file is still there.

    So by using RAW, you have much more control because you can “develop” the film in various ways and as many times as you want. Conversely, when you just use JPEG, you are limited to what is assigned (italics that!) to the pixels in the JPEG and, therefore, you only have the shot at a developed image.

    For most people, JPEG output is fine because the cameras do a great job of figuring out the appropriate settings (white balance, etc.)

    So you don’t have to keep RAW images and it doesn’t make sense to share them in Flickr, etc. because in order to view them, Flickr has to “develop” each image.

    Like

  26. Think of RAW files as undeveloped film – undeveloped film that you can process into negatives as many times as you want. The data in a RAW file is light levels for RGB (raw sensor data, not an image). Each pixel is assigned a color, so it’s not like each pixel has all of the color information – just one. The pixels are assigned colors so the arrangement is in some sort of matrix.

    When you take a picture and the LCD display shows the image, the camera has made some assumptions and has “processed” the bits to make a JPEG. Inside, the RAW file is still there.

    So by using RAW, you have much more control because you can “develop” the film in various ways and as many times as you want. Conversely, when you just use JPEG, you are limited to what is assigned (italics that!) to the pixels in the JPEG and, therefore, you only have the shot at a developed image.

    For most people, JPEG output is fine because the cameras do a great job of figuring out the appropriate settings (white balance, etc.)

    So you don’t have to keep RAW images and it doesn’t make sense to share them in Flickr, etc. because in order to view them, Flickr has to “develop” each image.

    Like

  27. What you should probably do is publish the .jpg exports, and then make the source files available via a linked download.

    But I would urge you to consider converting the files from whatever proprietary manufacturer-model-specific RAW format you happen to be using at the moment into Adobe Digital Negative format, also known as DNG. This will ensure that the photos can be read and processed decades from now, as DNG has been put into the public domain by Adobe.

    Like

  28. What you should probably do is publish the .jpg exports, and then make the source files available via a linked download.

    But I would urge you to consider converting the files from whatever proprietary manufacturer-model-specific RAW format you happen to be using at the moment into Adobe Digital Negative format, also known as DNG. This will ensure that the photos can be read and processed decades from now, as DNG has been put into the public domain by Adobe.

    Like

  29. I disagree strongly with Roland. DNG is not a format that will be around for the long haul. It’s best to avoid that format completely.

    Like

  30. I disagree strongly with Roland. DNG is not a format that will be around for the long haul. It’s best to avoid that format completely.

    Like

  31. Take this one step further. Is there any site/service (built on top of Amazon S3?) that offers sharing the raw “source” of anything (Pictures, Music, Video). Each item’s license (public domain, Creative Commons, etc) shared would be clearly marked.

    Like

  32. Take this one step further. Is there any site/service (built on top of Amazon S3?) that offers sharing the raw “source” of anything (Pictures, Music, Video). Each item’s license (public domain, Creative Commons, etc) shared would be clearly marked.

    Like

  33. Sorry, I’m not doing more conversions. I already have 9,000 images. I think that the best idea so far is to just tell people I’d be happy to send them a RAW file. I doubt I’d get many requests, so that seems to be the best way to go for the time being. When I die I’ll donate my hard drives to the Computer History Museum and they can figure out what to do with them.

    Like

  34. Sorry, I’m not doing more conversions. I already have 9,000 images. I think that the best idea so far is to just tell people I’d be happy to send them a RAW file. I doubt I’d get many requests, so that seems to be the best way to go for the time being. When I die I’ll donate my hard drives to the Computer History Museum and they can figure out what to do with them.

    Like

  35. I know that ACDsee Pro has a lot of RAW image features and processing. ( I don’t have a camera that does RAW, so I can’t check it out.

    You can also check with Tris Hussey as he has started to experiment with RAW images with ACDsee

    Thanks,
    Kevin Baggs

    Like

  36. I know that ACDsee Pro has a lot of RAW image features and processing. ( I don’t have a camera that does RAW, so I can’t check it out.

    You can also check with Tris Hussey as he has started to experiment with RAW images with ACDsee

    Thanks,
    Kevin Baggs

    Like

  37. hey robert,

    if i could license any of your photos in the marketplace i built could i donate the money to charity in both our names? i’d love to just love to offer them in our marketplace.

    best,

    john

    Like

  38. hey robert,

    if i could license any of your photos in the marketplace i built could i donate the money to charity in both our names? i’d love to just love to offer them in our marketplace.

    best,

    john

    Like

  39. If you did want to convert to DNG, it would be a one-time operation, if you’re using a workflow application like Adobe LightRoom. In future, you’d just import as DNG (LightRoom makes this quite easy).

    It would be helpful if John Gibson@20 would share his thinking regarding the longevity of the DNG format.

    Like

  40. If you did want to convert to DNG, it would be a one-time operation, if you’re using a workflow application like Adobe LightRoom. In future, you’d just import as DNG (LightRoom makes this quite easy).

    It would be helpful if John Gibson@20 would share his thinking regarding the longevity of the DNG format.

    Like

  41. awesome. i’ll go through them again bc i know you have a bunch of new stuff up there. let me know if any shouldnt be added πŸ˜‰

    Like

  42. awesome. i’ll go through them again bc i know you have a bunch of new stuff up there. let me know if any shouldnt be added πŸ˜‰

    Like

  43. Did you think of using a hosting package like Site5 or Dreamhost? It’s not very Web 2.0, but it’s cheap and you can store a LOT of RAWs…

    Like

  44. Did you think of using a hosting package like Site5 or Dreamhost? It’s not very Web 2.0, but it’s cheap and you can store a LOT of RAWs…

    Like

  45. This is the same issue faced by a pro-photographer or semi-pro that outgrows jpg…

    The best solution for Mac is either Apple Aperture or Adobe Lightroom (which is also available for PC).

    I chose Aperture and I can’t tell you what a neat program it is. It’s all about solving workflow issues such as yours. Frasier Spiers produces a Flickr exporter (free and a paid version) that convert to jpg, tags, uploads to Flickr without havng to put a lot of thought into it.

    Aperture has quite a learning curve but it makes dealing with these difficult issues a pleasure (it’s overdue due an uprade for the latest Nikons)

    Like

  46. This is the same issue faced by a pro-photographer or semi-pro that outgrows jpg…

    The best solution for Mac is either Apple Aperture or Adobe Lightroom (which is also available for PC).

    I chose Aperture and I can’t tell you what a neat program it is. It’s all about solving workflow issues such as yours. Frasier Spiers produces a Flickr exporter (free and a paid version) that convert to jpg, tags, uploads to Flickr without havng to put a lot of thought into it.

    Aperture has quite a learning curve but it makes dealing with these difficult issues a pleasure (it’s overdue due an uprade for the latest Nikons)

    Like

  47. For 9,000 images at 15 Mb, that’s about 135 Gb of data. $199 will get you 100 Gb of publicly-accessible (plain old HTTP – nothing proprietary) storage at Bingodisk – expensive compared to Flickr Pro, of course, but hopefully not an outrageous amount?

    No conversion, no special client software etc – just mount the drive through WebDAV (trivial in Mac OS; fairly easy in Windows) and copy them up there. If there’s enough demand, someone could easily extend a Flickr uploader to upload the RAW file at the same time, then attach the URL to the Flickr version…

    Like

  48. For 9,000 images at 15 Mb, that’s about 135 Gb of data. $199 will get you 100 Gb of publicly-accessible (plain old HTTP – nothing proprietary) storage at Bingodisk – expensive compared to Flickr Pro, of course, but hopefully not an outrageous amount?

    No conversion, no special client software etc – just mount the drive through WebDAV (trivial in Mac OS; fairly easy in Windows) and copy them up there. If there’s enough demand, someone could easily extend a Flickr uploader to upload the RAW file at the same time, then attach the URL to the Flickr version…

    Like

  49. When I graduated as a photographer in 1990 there was the same competition. 4 x 5 inch camera’s instead of 6 x 6 mid format camera’s.
    Unless you have a specific reasons to think big is better the pixel discussion is so overrated. It’s like talking about nothing to avoid talking about the what it is all about: PHOTO’S!
    Also, everybody seems to not understand this:
    1st place > the graphic structure of a photo
    2nd place > the pixels

    Like

  50. When I graduated as a photographer in 1990 there was the same competition. 4 x 5 inch camera’s instead of 6 x 6 mid format camera’s.
    Unless you have a specific reasons to think big is better the pixel discussion is so overrated. It’s like talking about nothing to avoid talking about the what it is all about: PHOTO’S!
    Also, everybody seems to not understand this:
    1st place > the graphic structure of a photo
    2nd place > the pixels

    Like

  51. I wouldn’t *exactly* call Adobe’s DNG a public domain format. The main problem being in that statement: “Adobe’s”.

    What happens if Adobe decides one day to stop playing nice with RAW conversion? We’re fscked, aren’t we?

    Like

  52. I wouldn’t *exactly* call Adobe’s DNG a public domain format. The main problem being in that statement: “Adobe’s”.

    What happens if Adobe decides one day to stop playing nice with RAW conversion? We’re fscked, aren’t we?

    Like

  53. Nougthy, nougthy Robert,
    I’like the source sharing concept behind your idea, but I also think you are pushing back to us the complexity of working with RAW files. I’d prefer you fixing your Nikon files and me just enjoing them πŸ˜‰
    Lazy stv

    P.S.: Telcos will start loving you for all this additional traffic.

    Like

  54. Nougthy, nougthy Robert,
    I’like the source sharing concept behind your idea, but I also think you are pushing back to us the complexity of working with RAW files. I’d prefer you fixing your Nikon files and me just enjoing them πŸ˜‰
    Lazy stv

    P.S.: Telcos will start loving you for all this additional traffic.

    Like

  55. patchouli – if the dng format is documented (and i believe it is), a 180 by adobe wouldn’t matter at all. there are still dozends of programs you could access and convert them to any other format available. and as such, dng is a much more safe bet than the unstandardized, undocumented proprietary cameramaker formats

    Like

  56. patchouli – if the dng format is documented (and i believe it is), a 180 by adobe wouldn’t matter at all. there are still dozends of programs you could access and convert them to any other format available. and as such, dng is a much more safe bet than the unstandardized, undocumented proprietary cameramaker formats

    Like

  57. In the spirit of collaboration and an in kind payment for all of the great information you provide our community, I will sponsor an account for you on MoveDigital for your RAW files. Please let me know how much storage you need and I will make sure the delivery account stays funded. Do you want me to FEDEX you a firewire drive so we can get all 9000 images without a lengthy upload? The service runs on an ultra high speed storage cluster married to Internap’s high speed bandwidth.

    Like

  58. In the spirit of collaboration and an in kind payment for all of the great information you provide our community, I will sponsor an account for you on MoveDigital for your RAW files. Please let me know how much storage you need and I will make sure the delivery account stays funded. Do you want me to FEDEX you a firewire drive so we can get all 9000 images without a lengthy upload? The service runs on an ultra high speed storage cluster married to Internap’s high speed bandwidth.

    Like

  59. Gallery 2 supports raw files through a DCRAW module. It even creates .jpg thumbnails of uploaded (and supported) RAW files for previews.

    That doesn’t help much with storage/bandwidth though, but at least you could host them that way. πŸ™‚

    Like

  60. Pointless gesture. As no demand, no one cares, too much effort and cost on all sides of the equation…just burn a DVD/DVD DL for those few (freaks) that actually do care.

    Like

  61. Pointless gesture. As no demand, no one cares, too much effort and cost on all sides of the equation…just burn a DVD/DVD DL for those few (freaks) that actually do care.

    Like

  62. Robert, it’s great that you’d like to share your images. The simple answer is any webhost that will offer the storage space but who knows how long RAW will be around. We’re all facing decisions about archiving digital files in today’s world. Heck, I’ve got 9,000+ images of my granddaughter and she’s only 15 months old!

    Like

  63. Robert, it’s great that you’d like to share your images. The simple answer is any webhost that will offer the storage space but who knows how long RAW will be around. We’re all facing decisions about archiving digital files in today’s world. Heck, I’ve got 9,000+ images of my granddaughter and she’s only 15 months old!

    Like

  64. I’m trying to figure out why I would want your undeveloped pictures? You are the photographer so you know (or at least should) how you wanted it exposed and developed.Seems sort of like a painter giving me a paint by numbers set.

    Like

  65. I’m trying to figure out why I would want your undeveloped pictures? You are the photographer so you know (or at least should) how you wanted it exposed and developed.Seems sort of like a painter giving me a paint by numbers set.

    Like

  66. Ken: I guess you’d argue that you don’t want access to source code, either. Many photographers had other people print their work. Having access to the “negatives” is very important for doing that.

    Also, I want you to be able to use my photography in any way you want. That means giving you access to my source files.

    Like

  67. Ken: I guess you’d argue that you don’t want access to source code, either. Many photographers had other people print their work. Having access to the “negatives” is very important for doing that.

    Also, I want you to be able to use my photography in any way you want. That means giving you access to my source files.

    Like

  68. @44. Where did I say I didn’t want access to source code? I’m confused how that it even remotely related. Your RAW files are not your “work”. It’s nothing more than undeveloped film.

    Maybe you don’t view photography as art. (and judging from your pictures, it appears you don’t). I do. So, I’m not sure what value I get out of getting your snapshots via RAW format. I can’t change your poor framing, focus, or viewpoints.

    Like

  69. @44. Where did I say I didn’t want access to source code? I’m confused how that it even remotely related. Your RAW files are not your “work”. It’s nothing more than undeveloped film.

    Maybe you don’t view photography as art. (and judging from your pictures, it appears you don’t). I do. So, I’m not sure what value I get out of getting your snapshots via RAW format. I can’t change your poor framing, focus, or viewpoints.

    Like

  70. Ken: you can change SOME of my poor framing by recropping them the way you want.

    RAW files aren’t my “work?” As a photographer you don’t view what you do in the camera as work? Did you know that many famous photographers, including many artists, hand over their negatives and let other people print them?

    The source code analogy is apt. RAW files are the source code of photography. Just like source code is the RAW files of computer programming. Some people are very proprietary with their source code (like those who work at Microsoft). Others are very open with their source code, like the folks who develop WordPress. I’d rather be in the “open/sharing” crowd than in the “keep it all secret” crowd.

    As far as your criticism, I note that you don’t include any of your work here. Is that because your work can’t stand up to the criticism that you dish out here? I take my photography very seriously, by the way. That’s why I’m sharing it with you, something I note that you don’t do.

    Finally, I’m starting to wonder if you even are a photographer if you think RAW files are similar to undeveloped film. No, they are more akin to developed film that needs to be printed.

    Like

  71. Ken: you can change SOME of my poor framing by recropping them the way you want.

    RAW files aren’t my “work?” As a photographer you don’t view what you do in the camera as work? Did you know that many famous photographers, including many artists, hand over their negatives and let other people print them?

    The source code analogy is apt. RAW files are the source code of photography. Just like source code is the RAW files of computer programming. Some people are very proprietary with their source code (like those who work at Microsoft). Others are very open with their source code, like the folks who develop WordPress. I’d rather be in the “open/sharing” crowd than in the “keep it all secret” crowd.

    As far as your criticism, I note that you don’t include any of your work here. Is that because your work can’t stand up to the criticism that you dish out here? I take my photography very seriously, by the way. That’s why I’m sharing it with you, something I note that you don’t do.

    Finally, I’m starting to wonder if you even are a photographer if you think RAW files are similar to undeveloped film. No, they are more akin to developed film that needs to be printed.

    Like

  72. Amen, brother Scoble!

    I am totally in favor of you releasing your raw files! This is way cool, way, way, useful! Awlright!

    Umm, howabout bittorrent? Surely there’s someone here who’s got a fast connection that would be willing to seed it?

    Like

  73. Amen, brother Scoble!

    I am totally in favor of you releasing your raw files! This is way cool, way, way, useful! Awlright!

    Umm, howabout bittorrent? Surely there’s someone here who’s got a fast connection that would be willing to seed it?

    Like

  74. I’m starting to wonder if you even are a photographer

    My my, testy aren’t we? It’s that type of ‘going personal’ that gets you all the Valleywagish bile, esp. when you are wrong.

    RAW files are more ‘pure’, as lots of additional work-flow steps, more clay to be molded. A latent image exposed, yet not developed, with the white balance, sharpening, contrast and saturation settings not yet final. Quibble over your personal meaning of “developed” but it’s “unprocessed” for sure. I would more question the photographic judgment of someone saying RAW files are “ready for printing”. Your image settings are but ignored, just saved in a header, without any in-camera processing, that being the whole advantage of RAW, the ability to correct all in post, demosaicing on a PC with more horsepower than the limited digital camera itself. Hence, “underdeveloped” by any sense of the word. I guess the argument could be made, that since there be so many proprietary RAW file formats, some do indeed ‘process’ or ‘develop’ things, but that’s less than ideal, and DNG, at least, is trying to standardize.

    But saying RAW is ready to print? You are out of your mind.

    Like

  75. I’m starting to wonder if you even are a photographer

    My my, testy aren’t we? It’s that type of ‘going personal’ that gets you all the Valleywagish bile, esp. when you are wrong.

    RAW files are more ‘pure’, as lots of additional work-flow steps, more clay to be molded. A latent image exposed, yet not developed, with the white balance, sharpening, contrast and saturation settings not yet final. Quibble over your personal meaning of “developed” but it’s “unprocessed” for sure. I would more question the photographic judgment of someone saying RAW files are “ready for printing”. Your image settings are but ignored, just saved in a header, without any in-camera processing, that being the whole advantage of RAW, the ability to correct all in post, demosaicing on a PC with more horsepower than the limited digital camera itself. Hence, “underdeveloped” by any sense of the word. I guess the argument could be made, that since there be so many proprietary RAW file formats, some do indeed ‘process’ or ‘develop’ things, but that’s less than ideal, and DNG, at least, is trying to standardize.

    But saying RAW is ready to print? You are out of your mind.

    Like

  76. I agreed with Christ Coulter. RAW means un-processing photos which need developments in such way that can not been achieved by other formats. The only reason to share actually about size. Yes indeed, the size lots bigger that JPEG. But the quality is flawless. Share RAW means lift the weight of you hard disk and probably made it simply for storage/back-up. But for printing or even viewing needs specific software (such free one on picassa or more sophisticated like Lightroom and Aperture)

    Like

  77. I agreed with Christ Coulter. RAW means un-processing photos which need developments in such way that can not been achieved by other formats. The only reason to share actually about size. Yes indeed, the size lots bigger that JPEG. But the quality is flawless. Share RAW means lift the weight of you hard disk and probably made it simply for storage/back-up. But for printing or even viewing needs specific software (such free one on picassa or more sophisticated like Lightroom and Aperture)

    Like

  78. High Definition video, high fidelity music, raw photos…proof points that the content explosion we’ve seen over the past 3 years is not a Bubble, big a Big Bang.

    1 terabyte drives are seeming smaller every month!

    Like

  79. High Definition video, high fidelity music, raw photos…proof points that the content explosion we’ve seen over the past 3 years is not a Bubble, big a Big Bang.

    1 terabyte drives are seeming smaller every month!

    Like

  80. I too take my photography very seriously but I would never share my RAW files.
    I take the photos because i have something about them in my mind. The end result that i want to achieve is usually hidden in the raw data but only I know where it is and what i want to do with the photo.

    Yes giving out raw data gives more power for editing but what is is that you’re really giving there? It’s not the moment when you press your camera shutter that makes you a photographer. It’s the end result that matters, the polished diamond and not the raw gravel. Giving out your photos is a good idea but they should be the ones that you’re proud of and not the ones that you would still work on until you’d print them yourself.

    Like

  81. I too take my photography very seriously but I would never share my RAW files.
    I take the photos because i have something about them in my mind. The end result that i want to achieve is usually hidden in the raw data but only I know where it is and what i want to do with the photo.

    Yes giving out raw data gives more power for editing but what is is that you’re really giving there? It’s not the moment when you press your camera shutter that makes you a photographer. It’s the end result that matters, the polished diamond and not the raw gravel. Giving out your photos is a good idea but they should be the ones that you’re proud of and not the ones that you would still work on until you’d print them yourself.

    Like

  82. Greg: great, I see you only want to share your printed photography, or the ones you’ve selected on Flickr. Me too. But I’m coming at it with a difference. I want to open my work up to those who need source material to make something else. I also want to give you access to my “digital negatives” so you can improve on my choices. It’s not for everyone, I understand.

    Like

  83. Greg: great, I see you only want to share your printed photography, or the ones you’ve selected on Flickr. Me too. But I’m coming at it with a difference. I want to open my work up to those who need source material to make something else. I also want to give you access to my “digital negatives” so you can improve on my choices. It’s not for everyone, I understand.

    Like

  84. I want to open my work up to those who need source material to make something else…

    The market for that, counted on one hand.

    Like

  85. I want to open my work up to those who need source material to make something else…

    The market for that, counted on one hand.

    Like

  86. Scoble: I don’t know if this is good enough for you, but there is a great photo sharing site called Ipernity (yes, they’re in direct competition with Flickr) that is, as I said, primarily for photos, but that actually lets you upload any kind of files. If it’s a file that is recognized by Ipernity (photos, audio, video) it will show it (or let you play it in the case of video and audio), but if it’s not it just shows a file icon and lets anyone (or the ones you choose in the privacy settings) download the file very easily.

    After reading this post I tried to upload one of my RAW photos, and it worked, except it wasn’t recognized as a photo, so you only see a file icon, not the image itself. That’s why I said that I don’t know if it’s good enough. You can still add a title and description, though, and you can set your default license to any Creative Commons license, or even, as you would, to “Free use (copyright surrendered, no license)”. One solution to the problem that Ipernity doesn’t show a preview of the RAW photos could be to set your camera to save both a RAW and a jpeg version of all your photos, and then upload both so that the next file always is the RAW-version of the photo you’re currently watching.

    Ipernity offers unlimited bandwidth to it’s pro users (at least in theory, I havn’t actually tested this), with a cap on 90 MB for each file, which should be more than enough for any RAW photo (in contrast to Flickrs cap on 10 MB, I’ve heard). One person who recently went from Flickr to Ipernity has written a great comparison of the two on Ipernitys own blog service (which is part of a normal account).

    My photo stream at Ipernity is littered with screen shots and snapshots, but if you, or anyone, is interested in seeing some of my more “professional” photos, I’ve collected them in this album.

    Well, I don’t know if it’s what you’re looking for, but I just wanted to let you know about the possibility. Also, if a internet celebrity like you started using Ipernity that would be fantastic for this really small European startup (the team just recently increased to four people), competing on the same area as the Goliath Flickr.. πŸ™‚ (Note: I’m not working for Ipernity, just a big fan!)

    Like

  87. Scoble: I don’t know if this is good enough for you, but there is a great photo sharing site called Ipernity (yes, they’re in direct competition with Flickr) that is, as I said, primarily for photos, but that actually lets you upload any kind of files. If it’s a file that is recognized by Ipernity (photos, audio, video) it will show it (or let you play it in the case of video and audio), but if it’s not it just shows a file icon and lets anyone (or the ones you choose in the privacy settings) download the file very easily.

    After reading this post I tried to upload one of my RAW photos, and it worked, except it wasn’t recognized as a photo, so you only see a file icon, not the image itself. That’s why I said that I don’t know if it’s good enough. You can still add a title and description, though, and you can set your default license to any Creative Commons license, or even, as you would, to “Free use (copyright surrendered, no license)”. One solution to the problem that Ipernity doesn’t show a preview of the RAW photos could be to set your camera to save both a RAW and a jpeg version of all your photos, and then upload both so that the next file always is the RAW-version of the photo you’re currently watching.

    Ipernity offers unlimited bandwidth to it’s pro users (at least in theory, I havn’t actually tested this), with a cap on 90 MB for each file, which should be more than enough for any RAW photo (in contrast to Flickrs cap on 10 MB, I’ve heard). One person who recently went from Flickr to Ipernity has written a great comparison of the two on Ipernitys own blog service (which is part of a normal account).

    My photo stream at Ipernity is littered with screen shots and snapshots, but if you, or anyone, is interested in seeing some of my more “professional” photos, I’ve collected them in this album.

    Well, I don’t know if it’s what you’re looking for, but I just wanted to let you know about the possibility. Also, if a internet celebrity like you started using Ipernity that would be fantastic for this really small European startup (the team just recently increased to four people), competing on the same area as the Goliath Flickr.. πŸ™‚ (Note: I’m not working for Ipernity, just a big fan!)

    Like

  88. Torrent would be great for files of that size, and it would be nice to see a prominent techie putting it to legitimate use. Then we can all point to Linux ISOs and Scoble’s RAW files when we write to our congressional representatives about file sharing…

    Like

  89. Torrent would be great for files of that size, and it would be nice to see a prominent techie putting it to legitimate use. Then we can all point to Linux ISOs and Scoble’s RAW files when we write to our congressional representatives about file sharing…

    Like

  90. i am new in this field but i think u can open your own website(sorry if u have one)and u can keep the jpeg files for show in there and upload torrents of raw files of your weekly or montly shots.

    Like

  91. i am new in this field but i think u can open your own website(sorry if u have one)and u can keep the jpeg files for show in there and upload torrents of raw files of your weekly or montly shots.

    Like

Comments are closed.