-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2008/02/08/i-want-to-public-domain-my-raw-photo-files/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Or get a webhosting account somewhere. They are dirt cheap thsese days.
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?
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.
Of course this will not solve the problem of making source files available.
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.
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
username public and password public.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can also check with Tris Hussey as he has started to experiment with RAW images with ACDsee
Thanks,
Kevin Baggs
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
It would be helpful if John Gibson@20 would share his thinking regarding the longevity of the DNG format.
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)
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...
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
What happens if Adobe decides one day to stop playing nice with RAW conversion? We're fscked, aren't we?
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 ;-)
Lazy stv
P.S.: Telcos will start loving you for all this additional traffic.
That doesn't help much with storage/bandwidth though, but at least you could host them that way. :)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
1 terabyte drives are seeming smaller every month!
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.
The market for that, counted on one hand.
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.. :) (Note: I'm not working for Ipernity, just a big fan!)