...that punctuates the need for a standard, and hints at what Adobe is working on to move things forward in this arena. Read it here.
Mostly the debate is the JPEG shooters feeling like the RAW shooters are snobbish about using RAW. Naturally, you have to use the right tool for the right job. A surgeon making fun of a jeweler for not using a scalpel when splitting a diamond is silly. So is a jeweler saying a scalpel and a diamond splitter are essentially "the same". Sheesh...
Some of the juicier tidbits include (text bolded by me):
On the need for a standard:
Bogdan Urma comments: "I also thought about long term archivalness of RAW files, but realized that is a crap shoot. RAW files are not like negatives, in the sense that negs were/are a standard format. Will my CRW be around for me to re-touch in 5 years? Or will CRW.10 be the one? RAW is not a standard, so I cannot count on it for archival reasons. One reason against it for me. It's good until it's not supported anymore. And who will continue to support it in 5 years? Canon - maybe. ACR? C1? Who knows? I like to stick to standards when talking about archivalness. The negative analogy is correct, but only until the format changes. A standard RAW format would be nice - but hardly possible. "
Andrew Rodney counters:
"You might want to tell Thomas Knoll and Adobe that because they are under the impression that such a format can be created, with lots of hooks for manufacturers to place secret sauce while still allowing 3rd parties to easily extract the data into a color image without having to resort to reverse engineering. "
More from Rodney:
"No one around here is insisting. There is no conspiracy theory about job security necessary. If you don't need the flexibility and possible control RAW provides don't use it. That doesn't change what RAW can do for those that have the tools and need the control and flexibility it provides."
"Ah, now you're bringing up something that DOES need to be discussed and fixed which is we need a RAW standard format. The advantages of RAW are clear to those who want to be able to render the data anytime using better and better software tools but ONLY if we can get the software manufacturers to open up this can of worms. There are over 100 RAW formats. If someone like Thomas Knoll wants to implement that in Adobe Camera RAW, he usually has to hack the source as there are usually no published SDKs. This is totally unacceptable. What if Nikon or Canon decides not to support our ability to deal with files created today in 10 years? We're screwed. Check out rawformat.com"