I want to public domain my RAW photo files

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.

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

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…

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)

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…

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

You could use bittorrent, it’s free and easy to use.

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?

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
Lazy stv

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

Yes, Podcast Mike, you are right! I had the same Idea! Maybe we have a web 2.0 “deviated” mind!

Amazon S3 might be a good place to host something like that. Could make for a cool web 2.0 app.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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?

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.

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)

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!