Raw is proprietary to each maker and even each model of camera. Do you think there should be a universal "raw"? Please briefly share your thoughts on this matter.

Editor | Jul 14, 2010

I use the camera maker supplied software.

20% (18 votes)

I use a third party program.

70% (62 votes)

I stick with JPEG because I have not tried out Raw format yet.

10% (9 votes)

Total votes: 89

Editor

COMMENTS

Submitted by Bill Spanier (not verified) on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm

I use RAW as the back up negative, obviously for my digital DSLR. I have found it to be much easier.

Submitted by Operea (not verified) on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm

I use Aperture 3 for all RAW conversions and the majority of my photo editing. I really don't see the need for "Universal RAW" coding. The majority of the big name software companies (i.e Photoshop, Aperture) are able to convert just about any RAW format and the camera companies themselves offer software for their cameras to handle their RAW conversions as an option.

Submitted by John (not verified) on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm

Lightroom & PS are excellent and fit into one's workflow, although the camera manufacturer's software is usually excellent--just difficult to use.

Submitted by John Champion (not verified) on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm

A standardized format would be in everyone's best interest as it allows for transfer of the medium at a later date when digital photographer has gone the way of the dinosaur.

Submitted by Joseph Davis (not verified) on June 5, 2011 - 4:30pm

I've tried LightRoom 2 but am having a bit of difficulty with it so reverted back to the camera maker supplied software.

Search form