# DNG vs. original RAW in the long term



## gargamel (Dec 22, 2014)

Hi everyone,

I have a question regarding options for long-term archiving of RAW files.

*What are the advantages and disadvantages?*

I am asking, because Canon might change its RAW format and optimise it for upcoming new cameras, and sooner or later RAW converters may drop support for old RAW files (considered outdated). I don't think, this will happen any time soon, though. DNG seems to be comparable to PDF/A, which is now the preferred format for electronic archiving of documents.

In another thread it was recommended to always keep the original RAW files, because RAW converters improve over time, and converting old RAW files with new converters would potentially give significantly better results than what was possible a few years ago. The question is, how long will old RAW files be supported in new converters.

But the same questions is valid for DNG, too. If I would convert all my RAW files to DNG, now, will this be a truly lossless conversion? Or could it be, that DNG conversion improves over time, too? And: How much does conversion from Canon RAW to DNG depend on the converter? Will Adobe products give different results, than, say, the DNG converter that comes with open source packages, such as Digikam/Showfoto?

I have no experience with all of this, but I am planning to archive my images, soon, and I just reading about backup and archiving strategies, formats and so on. Therefore I am very interested in your advice. Thanks in advance!

gargamel


_P.S.: Of course, I have written http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=3113.0, before posting._


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 22, 2014)

gargamel said:


> Canon might change its RAW format and optimise it for upcoming new cameras, and sooner or later RAW converters may drop support for old RAW files (considered outdated).



Has any camera company done this in the past? 

Are there RAW formats that have no readers today?


----------



## gargamel (Dec 22, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > Canon might change its RAW format and optimise it for upcoming new cameras, and sooner or later RAW converters may drop support for old RAW files (considered outdated).
> ...



Not that I know of, as I said. But then, to my knowledge, RAW files are similar to TIFF files, and programs that support TIFF may not support YOUR Tiff... DNG support is found in many software products, nowadays, and it seems to be an open standard, similar to PDF/A, but different from proprietary standards, such as GIF or BMP (Microsoft). However, I take your point, that there is no practical advantage related to this, at the moment.

gargamel


----------



## hgraf (Dec 22, 2014)

Software doesn't "disappear", it may no longer be updated, but you'll always be able to find it on the web.

How about this, if you're REALLY worried about it, archive your RAW files WITH a piece of software that does the conversion.

Personally, I'm not worried about it, there are SO MANY images out there using Canon's RAW format I don't see any software "dropping" it any time soon.

As for DNG, while the image data might be losslessly captured, there are other elements of the RAW file that may not, meta data being one thing. I'm not sure what else is in a RAW file that DNG doesn't store, but I'm sure there's something.


----------



## bholliman (Dec 22, 2014)

I save both the original RAW files and the DNG files Lightroom 5 creates. Not sure i need to keep both but i do (on different hard drives)


----------



## niteclicks (Dec 22, 2014)

I think the bigger issue would be operating systems supporting the older software . Windows 7 64bit made a lot of useful software obsolete ( this was actually because the installer would not run, not the program it's self). Raw files are just data files so as long as there is a need someone will probably make a reader or converter for them.


----------



## gargamel (Dec 22, 2014)

Thanks for all your good and useful replies, so far. Following the discussion, up to now it seems, that there is no real point in using DNG over RAW for long-term archiving purposes, while DNG may still be useful for transferring the image data to some software that doesn't support Canon's RAW format. Further opinions welcome, but at the moment I would conclude that archiving RAW on two separate disks would be the safest option.

gargamel


----------



## preppyak (Dec 22, 2014)

gargamel said:


> In another thread it was recommended to always keep the original RAW files, because RAW converters improve over time, and converting old RAW files with new converters would potentially give significantly better results than what was possible a few years ago


This is definitely true, I've notice an improvement in ACR over time, and so I go back and re-convert my favorite photos every year or so to see if they turn out better. Highlight recovery and denoising have gotten a LOT better in the last 3-4 years.



hgraf said:


> Personally, I'm not worried about it, there are SO MANY images out there using Canon's RAW format I don't see any software "dropping" it any time soon.


And even if the major programs did drop it, two things would happen

1: It would be very publicly announced, probably with about 5000 posts on this forum and every other forum. And someone will make the tool that turns all your RAW format photos into whatever the new format is en masse.

2: Someone would create a legacy converter that works on every platform. I mean, Magic Lantern alone creates converters for the proprietary formats that create for RAW video and HDR video and Dual ISO shots...they'd easily be able to create a CR2 converter for everyone if they made that format obsolete.

So, my conclusion is to archive them in their native format. Because then you know they are lossless. And in the future, should that change, converting them will not be any more difficult than doing it now.


----------



## wtlloyd (Dec 22, 2014)

You can choose to embed the original raw file in your conversion to DNG. The new DNG file will be double in size.


----------



## dppaskewitz (Dec 22, 2014)

How do you plan to archive the photos, whichever format you select? Just curious. 

Interesting: the automatic ad (or whatever it is) that pops up on this thread between the posts, at least for me, is for a file converter. Is everyone else getting that? I presume that whatever software Canon Rumors uses to place those ads reads the content of the thread and selects an ad that is pertinent (I also get a lot of "Canon vs. Nikon" ads).


----------



## niteclicks (Dec 22, 2014)

dppaskewitz said:


> How do you plan to archive the photos, whichever format you select? Just curious.



That's a good question.I have seen more media broken by firmware, drm , drivers, etc that made It only readable on the device it was original made on, especially cd's and DVD's. That's why when I build a system I make sure the dvd recorder is compatible with the most file types but that is no guarantee of future compatibility.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 22, 2014)

gargamel said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I have a question regarding options for long-term archiving of RAW files.
> 
> ...


Save your files and save a current copy of DPP that supports them.... that way, even if support is dropped in a future release, you still have a version that will work.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 22, 2014)

They are always adding stuff to the DNG converters so converting them now could restrict what future developments would be possible later one. IE: Lens correction tech.

I'll be keeping my .cr2s.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 22, 2014)

If I were converting to DNG, I'd use the version that includes the original raw in the DNG wrapper, so you will always have the raw. The issue is that the file size becomes huge, so there is little advantage as far as file size.


----------



## CaiLeDao (Dec 22, 2014)

RLPhoto +1

I have been re processing some 3 year old 5DmarkII landscapes with DXO v10 and the improvements are quite marked. if they have been dinged then this wouldn't be possible. I also agree with the metadata being lost comments, made earlier, which may be where DXO are able to get the better results. I find it unexpected that while i really question the DXO Mark ratings of camera's, they do such a great job with Canon .CR2's

As someone who has experienced the improvements in raw convertors I totally agree with the advice.


----------



## frumrk (Dec 22, 2014)

My workflow keeps my RAW files for up to 6 months then I convert to DNG for Archiving purposes. I do so using Lossy compression. Doing this gives me a savings of anywhere between 50% and 80% depending on the photo. For example... for a full day wedding I typically shoot between 50GB - 75GB worth of Raw files... by time time I am done editing this could turn into over 100GB for a wedding. Converting to DNG can get my full wedding in around 25GB... 

The biggest drawback here is that once you convert... you cannot convert back. And if you wish to use DPP in your workflow... your out as DPP only supports CR2 (from my understanding). If you are using ACR... I don't see to much difference as you can do everything with a DNG that you can do with a CR2. And as long as you are not creating new DNG'S from DNG's over and over... I really don't see a loss of quality issue.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 22, 2014)

gargamel said:


> *What are the advantages and disadvantages?*



I've converted everything to dng lately as I don't intend to switch away from LR/ACR, it's just too good - and multiple other apps start supporting dng.

Advantages of dng:
* metadata information inside the file, no xmp sidecar
* faster rendering vs. cr2 (if you "embed fast load data")
* you can update the jpeg preview to the post-processing state
* saves 20% disk space right away (if you drop the full res thumbnail that's in the cr2)
* lossy & downsized options while retaining dr and lossless wb adjustment

Disadvantages:
* some post-processing software doesn't support it, namely dpp & dxo
* xmp sidecar of cr2 gets written faster than the whole dng when updating metadata

However, the option to convert cr2 to raw won't go away, if you're not sure you can do it anytime in the future, even with the free Adobe DNG converter.



RLPhoto said:


> They are always adding stuff to the DNG converters so converting them now could restrict what future developments would be possible later one. IE: Lens correction tech.



I don't understand that - you can just update an older dng version to the new one.

Unless you're using lossy dng, the "converter" just *wraps* the raw data from the cr2 into a new dng container and adds a new thumbnail and fast load data (if you request it). Absolutely no file information is lost on cr2->dng, you could even write an app to convert it back.


----------



## bluemoon (Dec 22, 2014)

what happens 20 years from now? the software that processes these files will not run on anything available then. 
I am about to start scanning boxes of my negatives from the 80's and 90's. If I wait much longer, the scanners will become obsolete and chances of converting them later (much, much later, like 2035) are very slim. Unless the CR2 is still used many of our files will end up in "digital" boxes rather than shoe boxes.

The conundrum gets even worse if you think 100 years from now. Will there be any devices that can read our USB drives that far into the future? We have family images created 150 years ago and while not necessarily in greatest of conditions, we can at least view them. How do we archive for our grand kid's grand kids?

Anybody thinking that storing it on a hard drive or on the web is the answer probably did not get a chance to think about it more. Drives lose the information as they sit around, the interface might not be available, the Internet hosting company might not be in business any more and so on. . .

Any continuity of the data will be relying strictly on the data's owner to keep it current. Converting to the latest format even at a cost of losing some IQ is better than waking up 20 years from now and realizing your digital shoebox is unusable.

pierre


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 22, 2014)

bluemoon said:


> The conundrum gets even worse if you think 100 years from now.



Fortunately, that won't pose a problem, at least not to me personally 

As for data formats: The ISO makes a lot of fuss standardizing formats like pdf so the aliens can read our history in some millenia when the earth is taken over by the apes. And this pdf-a standard contains jpeg, and in every cr2 or dng (if you chose so) a jpeg is embedded.

As for converting debayering raw files: Adobe won't remove support for older cameras, and even if you can just use an older dng converter version - long after Canon is driven into bankruptcy by the Nikon trolls on CR :->


----------



## gargamel (Dec 22, 2014)

hgraf said:


> Software doesn't "disappear", it may no longer be updated, but you'll always be able to find it on the web.
> 
> How about this, if you're REALLY worried about it, archive your RAW files WITH a piece of software that does the conversion.



Yes, but that alone won't help. As has been said before, you need an OS and hardware to run such software on. I have a low motivation to put a 32-bits Windows XP machine, that takes ages to boot, in a safe, with a copy of DPP, just to make sure...



hgraf said:


> Personally, I'm not worried about it, there are SO MANY images out there using Canon's RAW format I don't see any software "dropping" it any time soon.
> 
> As for DNG, while the image data might be losslessly captured, there are other elements of the RAW file that may not, meta data being one thing. I'm not sure what else is in a RAW file that DNG doesn't store, but I'm sure there's something.



Yeah, thanks, this is really on the minus side of DNG.

gargamel


----------



## gargamel (Dec 22, 2014)

dppaskewitz said:


> How do you plan to archive the photos, whichever format you select? Just curious.



Well, I am just in the researching stage... Which file format, what sort of media, cloud storage vs. local hard disk, using a database (for metadata and thumbs) or just the file system etc. I am not a pro, and not even a real enthusiast, still I have acquired several thousand images over the years. They are currently distributed over too many places (read: disks), and I never find this one image that I am just looking for at this very moment.  Therefore I am preparing for a more or less big task of consolidation and data cleansing...

Most of the points I mentioned are undecided, yet. What I know already is this:

IF I go the dabase way, I'll use Digikam for that.
In any case, for the actual RAW files stored in the file system I'll use exiftool to sort and rename all files by data and time, plus a sequence number. This is a simple scheme, but I think that's an advantage, and after trying it out for a couple of hundreds of files it really seems to do what I expect it to do.
And now: File format. I'll continue to listen to the very useful advice I get here (thanks again to all!), but so far it's a clear cut: CR2, not DNG; not alone, at least.



dppaskewitz said:


> Interesting: the automatic ad (or whatever it is) that pops up on this thread between the posts, at least for me, is for a file converter. Is everyone else getting that? I presume that whatever software Canon Rumors uses to place those ads reads the content of the thread and selects an ad that is pertinent (I also get a lot of "Canon vs. Nikon" ads).



Big Red is watching us? Reading DR related threads one would hope that they would also listen to us...


----------



## Spiros Zaharakis (Dec 22, 2014)

frumrk said:


> My workflow keeps my RAW files for up to 6 months then I convert to DNG for Archiving purposes. I do so using Lossy compression. Doing this gives me a savings of anywhere between 50% and 80% depending on the photo. For example... for a full day wedding I typically shoot between 50GB - 75GB worth of Raw files... by time time I am done editing this could turn into over 100GB for a wedding. Converting to DNG can get my full wedding in around 25GB...
> 
> The biggest drawback here is that once you convert... you cannot convert back. And if you wish to use DPP in your workflow... your out as DPP only supports CR2 (from my understanding). If you are using ACR... I don't see to much difference as you can do everything with a DNG that you can do with a CR2. And as long as you are not creating new DNG'S from DNG's over and over... I really don't see a loss of quality issue.


Right to the point.
I use DPP as I really like the skin tone rendering but when I am done I am happy to convert RAWs to Lossy DNG for archives.


----------



## nc0b (Dec 22, 2014)

On the other side of the coin, go back to your high school. Look at class photos on the wall from the 20s or 30s through the 60s. Likely in B&W and still fine. Then in the 70s everything likely is in color, or what is left of the color images. Faded green ghost images at my high school. 

Are there negatives around to reprint these archive pictures in B&W? Not likely that anyone can find. A tin type print is still viewable today, as is most anything in silver rendered monochrome. I dry mounted B&W photos I printed in the early 70s, but was the paper acid free? I should dig those portfolios out and see what shape they are in. 

As far as archival data, CD and DVD "rot" is a problem. 10 to 30 years from now the data is likely gone. Data on tape backups may be there but likely no transport to read them, let alone software that can read the tape. Besides that, tapes are supposed to be retentioned every few years. Good luck on that happening.

Hard drives that have sat around for a long time may have a head striction problem and never spin up again. Try to access data on an MFM, RLL or ESDI drive today. You likely cannot find a controller, let alone the driver you will need. 

I doubt anyone really knows how long data lasts on a flash drive. Try to find someone who can still open a Wordstar file today, or Ventura Publisher. The same problem will be faced by our grandchildren, if not our children when they want to look at our digital images we cherish today.


----------



## nc0b (Dec 22, 2014)

I meant hard drive stiction problem. (Darn auto correct). Anyway, I have seen hard drives that haven't spun up in two years have the heads stuck to the media. Even if we can plug a USB 2 drive into a USB X slot on your computer, that is no guarantee the data (images) will be readable. I keep my images on a file server, and maybe I can keep it running for 10 years, but that isn't very long compard to looking at prints from the civil war, let alone WWI.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 23, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > *What are the advantages and disadvantages?*
> ...



I checked my older 7D files that I sampled in .DNG two years ago(experimenting at the time) and they were lossy compressed. Your right, and I tested a new file w/o lossy compression and I cannot see a difference between the .cr2 and the .DNG. 

But I can't help but cringe knowing that the file is smaller somehow and that the converter has to move data around from the original sensor data in the .Cr2. Then again, if we're talking long term, .DNG wasn't really accepted fully by the top camera manufacturers and has no better chance of lasting 20+ years than a .NEF or .CR2. Its still not a ISO standard yet and if I had to choose between the two Multi-national billion dollar companies like Adobe or Canon, I'd chose Canon way before Adobe. The way Adobe has been using their software as leverage to me means that the yet adopted ISO standard .DNG is not free and clear from their control. If anything, its giving more control to adobe because to get the best performance, adobe software will be the best, thus sell more product, and if you have all your catalog in .dng, have fun trying to move to another software workflow. In a way, it could turn into an AdobeRaw format per say.

Another note that some photo competitions require the original raw and a converted .dng could be brought into question. Even though not very likely to occur but another reason to stray away from .dng
http://photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00WQjJ

Long term means trust, and Nikon/Canon has been around alot longer than Adobe.(which still makes the best .dng converter around)


----------



## Aglet (Dec 23, 2014)

hard drives are cheap; 6TB for <$200
I store everything in native raw formats + some editing intermediaries for things I want to re-process.
If I like the finished results, then a low-compression jpg at full rez will do just fine for archiving the finished image. I save the sidecar with the raw and toss the intermediaries.
DNG probably loses too much OEM-specific meta data and I don't like that it's develop data is embedded; it's convenient, but risks corruption.
I don't trust optical media for long term, I keep migrating everything to newer HD tech as it comes along, fortunately, that's not very often. last big move was from SCSI and IDE drives to SATA.

for long term, I also archive some software AND the machines required to run it. Been doing that since the Mac Plus, and still have one that runs.


----------



## hgraf (Dec 23, 2014)

bluemoon said:


> what happens 20 years from now? the software that processes these files will not run on anything available then.



False. Completely false.

Let's look at history here. Consider a computer that's >30 years old: the Commodore C64. You can STILL run pretty much any software that ran on that platform using emulators. And the C64 was WAY WAY less common and popular then windows and x86.

Even if a computer platform 20 years from now won't be able to run windows and x86 software, it will have an emulator that will. Even android has DOS emulators today.



bluemoon said:


> The conundrum gets even worse if you think 100 years from now. Will there be any devices that can read our USB drives that far into the future? We have family images created 150 years ago and while not necessarily in greatest of conditions, we can at least view them. How do we archive for our grand kid's grand kids?



Easy, do what I do: live backups. 

While I have offline backups using HDs at the moment, everything I have is also in live backup form, meaning a platform that is current for the day. At the moment it's 2.5" hard drives, which is a migration from DVDs. IN the future? I'll simply migrate it to whatever format comes next.

Is it work? Yup. But what in life that's worth doing not worth a little effort?


----------



## hgraf (Dec 23, 2014)

gargamel said:


> hgraf said:
> 
> 
> > Software doesn't "disappear", it may no longer be updated, but you'll always be able to find it on the web.
> ...



Yes, it will. Just because your current machine might not natively be able to run the software, doesn't mean it can't run at all. Emulators for pretty much every platform in existance can run on current machines, often with more performance then the original hardware! Getting a win32 XP emulator 50 years from now is pretty much as guaranteed as you can get.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 23, 2014)

I am lucky. I don't imagine any photograph I take being interesting even 20 years from now, no less 100.

If by chance I do take "the" photograph, I would have it professionally printed on archival material.


----------



## gargamel (Dec 23, 2014)

hgraf said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > hgraf said:
> ...



Well... I am not so sure.

(1) I am not aware of any Win95 emulators (not that I was in need of one, and not that I have enough interested in this to search the web for one... But to my knowledge, the software that came with my USB 2.0 DVB-T receiver would not run on any system of today. Luckily, this doesn't worry me, as this software was crap, anyway, and I've never used the stick with Windows. I mention it just as an example. When cameras of today are replaced by something completely new, such as the technology that Lytro uses, formats and software of today will become obsolete. How quickly that will happen, and when it starts... only time will tell. 
(With Linux the DVB-T stick runs as fine as ever, BTW).

(2) Even if there are emulators that are able to run the system and the software, you use now: Can you be sure you can connect all your storage devices? What this means is, that every once in a while, when connector standards evolve, new drives need to be purchased and huge amounts of data have to migrated to them. Noone expects to see USB 2 compatible devices in 20 years, I guess...

gargamel


----------



## gargamel (Dec 23, 2014)

CaiLeDao said:


> RLPhoto +1
> 
> I have been re processing some 3 year old 5DmarkII landscapes with DXO v10 and the improvements are quite marked. if they have been dinged then this wouldn't be possible. I also agree with the metadata being lost comments, made earlier, which may be where DXO are able to get the better results. I find it unexpected that while i really question the DXO Mark ratings of camera's, they do such a great job with Canon .CR2's
> 
> As someone who has experienced the improvements in raw convertors I totally agree with the advice.



This is really interesting. Could it be, that in fact, sensors are still the same, and just the software, and, in particular, the RAW converterst have been improved, in recent years, and that this is the reason, why new cameras get higher scores? Could software improvements influence test lab results, this way, and are older cameras better than we are used to think? And does this mean that you cannot really compare test results from, say, three years back with test results of now, even if the test lab claims the results to be "normalised"?
Finally: Would this explain, why images taken by a skilled photographer with a 40D look so much greater than images taken with a 6D taken by me? 

gargamel


----------



## hgraf (Dec 23, 2014)

gargamel said:


> Well... I am not so sure.
> 
> (1) I am not aware of any Win95 emulators (not that I was in need of one, and not that I have enough interested in this to search the web for one... But to my knowledge, the software that came with my USB 2.0 DVB-T receiver would not run on any system of today. Luckily, this doesn't worry me, as this software was crap, anyway, and I've never used the stick with Windows. I mention it just as an example. When cameras of today are replaced by something completely new, such as the technology that Lytro uses, formats and software of today will become obsolete. How quickly that will happen, and when it starts... only time will tell.
> (With Linux the DVB-T stick runs as fine as ever, BTW).



The reason you don't see a win95 emulator is two fold: 
1) most applications that run on win95 will run on the latest version of windows
2) for those that don't, install win95 on a spare machine or in a VM

As for your example, yes, there are certainly pieces of hardware and associated software that may be more difficult to get working.

That said, let's not loose sight of what we're discussing here. We're NOT talking about a day-to-day machine here. We're talking about the theoretical situation where ALL current software has lost the ability to read a CR2 file, and the only solution is to run some ancient software. In that case, all we are interested in is "resurrecting" this lost format and converting it to something "current". In that case, creating a VM or running an emulator is a small amount of work to get what we want.

Our concern is never getting the images back, not editing on an ancient platform.



gargamel said:


> (2) Even if there are emulators that are able to run the system and the software, you use now: Can you be sure you can connect all your storage devices? What this means is, that every once in a while, when connector standards evolve, new drives need to be purchased and huge amounts of data have to migrated to them. Noone expects to see USB 2 compatible devices in 20 years, I guess...
> 
> gargamel



Prior history says yes. 20 years ago is 1994. The predominant storage formats were 3.5" floppies and CDROMs. Both are easily read by modern machines with either a preinstalled DVD-ROM drive, or a USB-floppy drive (have one in my desk).

Go back 30 years and things may get a little more dicey. 5.25" floppy drives are much harder to find.

All that said, yes, if you leave a bunch of backups in a box for 50 years you MIGHT be in trouble. That's why I recommend people do what I do: live backups. Keep your data up on modern media. As the media progresses bring your data with you. If it is REALLY that important to you then it's a small price to pay.

My backups started on ZIP disks and CD-ROMs, moved to DVD-ROMs, and now live on hard drives, drives that all get updated in various degrees. My live backups are current as of an hour (cron job running every hour). My offsite (away from my home) backups are at most a month out of date. My last tier is at most 6 months out of date, and is secure in a vault.

Am I crazy to put this much effort into it? Perhaps, but my photos and other data are that important to me.

TTYL


----------



## gargamel (Dec 24, 2014)

hgraf said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > Well... I am not so sure.
> ...



1) is only safe to say for software that is still maintained. Just like Win95 programs would not run on Windows NT, they won't run on Win7/8/10, because these systems are much closer relatives to NT than to 9x. There are major differences regarding security and user privileges, that a running program gets. On Win95 all programs were allowed to do and access virtually everything. Because programs don't get adminstrator privileges by default in the much more secure incarnations of Windows of today, and because some DLLs are no longer available, old programs don't run that well, on them... Of course, is mostly, but not only, a problem for drivers.

2) Yes, that seems to be a reasonable strategy for disaster recovery.
Apart from that, I think, there are now Win9x emulators, just because it would be illegal to publish one, without Microsoft's permission, and I guess they would be reluctant to approve such a request... 



hgraf said:


> That said, let's not loose sight of what we're discussing here. We're NOT talking about a day-to-day machine here. We're talking about the theoretical situation where ALL current software has lost the ability to read a CR2 file, and the only solution is to run some ancient software. In that case, all we are interested in is "resurrecting" this lost format and converting it to something "current". In that case, creating a VM or running an emulator is a small amount of work to get what we want.
> 
> Our concern is never getting the images back, not editing on an ancient platform.



Yep, that's the point. I agree.



hgraf said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > (2) Even if there are emulators that are able to run the system and the software, you use now: Can you be sure you can connect all your storage devices? What this means is, that every once in a while, when connector standards evolve, new drives need to be purchased and huge amounts of data have to migrated to them. Noone expects to see USB 2 compatible devices in 20 years, I guess...
> ...



I also fully agree with you, here.



hgraf said:


> All that said, yes, if you leave a bunch of backups in a box for 50 years you MIGHT be in trouble. That's why I recommend people do what I do: live backups. Keep your data up on modern media. As the media progresses bring your data with you. If it is REALLY that important to you then it's a small price to pay.
> 
> My backups started on ZIP disks and CD-ROMs, moved to DVD-ROMs, and now live on hard drives, drives that all get updated in various degrees. My live backups are current as of an hour (cron job running every hour). My offsite (away from my home) backups are at most a month out of date. My last tier is at most 6 months out of date, and is secure in a vault.
> 
> ...



Makes completely sense to me, and will become a relevant part in my own backup and archiving strategy!
Thanks for your patience. This is all very useful for me, and I really appreciate it!


----------



## gargamel (Dec 24, 2014)

Again, I want to thank you all for sharing your knowledge and experience with me. I've learned quite a bit from this thread, much more than I could have hoped for, when I started it. Much appreciated!

In fact, my original question has been answered in depth and I have come to a conclusion: I'll use native RAW, and I'll make sure, that I have, at least, two copies of the original RAW files on separate disks stored at different locations. I'll also make sure, that every once in while (after ~3 or 4 years?) I'll transfer the files to newer media.

Still some more aspects I have to do a little research for, but for now:

Enjoy the holidays!


----------

