Card reader damaging raw files?

[shutternutter]

hi everyone!
i just read in a passing comment in another forum that low end card readers can mess up raw files when copying them. is that correct / likely? the comment wasn't picked up in the thread in question which was on another subject altogether...
i just got the cheapest card reader i could get and still can't open my (quite new) camera's raw files with my outdated software, so i'm a little worried i'm damaging my photos and hoarding data waste

[Manfred M]

Yes they can.

My daughter bought me a card reader and kept bugging me to use it. I did and it was a mistake, it corrupted the data on the card and I had to go to a recovery program to recover the damaged files. The card reader was thrown out immediately and I reverted back to my relatively pricey Lexar USB 3 card reader.

After formatting the card performed flawlessly again.

I my opinion an expensive card reader is one of the least expensive components in my photography gear and not a place where I will ever again use a cheap reader.

Raw files require up-to-date software, so if your current software is older than your camera, chances are it won't open them.

[george013]

hi everyone!
i just read in a passing comment in another forum that low end card readers can mess up raw files when copying them. is that correct / likely? the comment wasn't picked up in the thread in question which was on another subject altogether...
i just got the cheapest card reader i could get and still can't open my (quite new) camera's raw files with my outdated software, so i'm a little worried i'm damaging my photos and hoarding data waste

Or your outdated software just can't open your new raw files.

George

[skitterbug]

Manfred is spot on. I had a cheap card reader. It did okay reading the SD cards for a bit and then it refused to read them. During that time, I'd also purchased a new camera and with it a CF card. The cheap card reader wouldn't even mount the cards. So I sprang for a Lexar USB 3 (which I see is the same that Manfred has) and it reads my "stuff" perfectly and rapidly! Card readers do make a difference!

[xpatUSA]

i just read in a passing comment in another forum that low end card readers can mess up raw files when copying them. is that correct / likely? the comment wasn't picked up in the thread in question which was on another subject altogether...
i just got the cheapest card reader i could get and still can't open my (quite new) camera's raw files with my outdated software, so i'm a little worried i'm damaging my photos and hoarding data waste

Did your quite new camera come with a USB cable? If so, have you tried uploading your raws direct to the computer?

[shutternutter]

the camera (a canon eos 77d, btw) didn't come with a cable unfortunately. i already found out that i need a version of camera raw that isn't compatible with CS5, so basically i need to get a newer version of photoshop. but that's an different issue entirely

the card reader thing is almost shocking. i suppose i'll invest in a proper card reader first then, before the one i have gives up the ghost.
sounds like the lexar is a good choice? amazon seems to have a range of them

[xpatUSA]

the camera (a canon eos 77d, btw) didn't come with a cable unfortunately.<>

the card reader thing is almost shocking. i suppose i'll invest in a proper card reader first then, before the one i have gives up the ghost.
sounds like the lexar is a good choice? amazon seems to have a range of them

Lexar is a well-respected make; others here can advise.

I have had a 5-drive Kingston model FCR-HS219/1 (off eBay) this past 8+ years ... hasn't failed yet, touch wood.

[george013]

the camera (a canon eos 77d, btw) didn't come with a cable unfortunately. i already found out that i need a version of camera raw that isn't compatible with CS5, so basically i need to get a newer version of photoshop. but that's an different issue entirely

the card reader thing is almost shocking. i suppose i'll invest in a proper card reader first then, before the one i have gives up the ghost.
sounds like the lexar is a good choice? amazon seems to have a range of them

From your answer I understand your files were not damaged? I always used and still using cheap card readers. Under 10E to be more specific.

I don't use Photoshop. But I wonder how a new version of camera raw, a raw-converter, can't be compatible with PS. I can be wrong of course.

George

[shutternutter]

From your answer I understand your files were not damaged? I always used and still using cheap card readers. Under 10E to be more specific.

I don't use Photoshop. But I wonder how a new version of camera raw, a raw-converter, can't be compatible with PS. I can be wrong of course.

George

well, the jpegs weren't, the cr2s i don't know, cause i can't open them.
that's because the camera is so new, it produces a version of cr2 that needs a new version of camera raw to open it. and that version isn't compatible with my old copy of ps. i did try with a raw converter, but the pictures looked off. not sure if that's due to the converter or just cause i'm not used to working with raw files...

[xpatUSA]

well, the jpegs weren't [damaged], the cr2s i don't know, cause i can't open them.
that's because the camera is so new, it produces a version of cr2 that needs a new version of camera raw to open it. and that version isn't compatible with my old copy of ps. i did try with a raw converter, but the pictures looked off. not sure if that's due to the converter or just cause i'm not used to working with raw files...

You are not alone, as regards Adobe. Camera Raw stopped supporting Sigmas when the Merrill sensor came out (or was it when Sigma's TRUE II processor appeared in their cameras?); so, only early models' files can get converted from raw (X3F).

Of no interest to "most of us", of course ...

[Codebreaker]

Card readers just read files and I would doubt they actually know what the data really is, so I'm pretty sure it wouldn't discriminate between Jpegs, Raw or any other file.

FWIW: I bought the cheapest card reader for CF that I could find over 15 years ago and it still works. Never lost any data during transfers.

[george013]

well, the jpegs weren't, the cr2s i don't know, cause i can't open them.
that's because the camera is so new, it produces a version of cr2 that needs a new version of camera raw to open it. and that version isn't compatible with my old copy of ps. i did try with a raw converter, but the pictures looked off. not sure if that's due to the converter or just cause i'm not used to working with raw files...

The camera saves the sensor data in a color filter array. That's used for the conversion to a RGB raster image. That converter can be the in-camera or one on your pc. The in-camera will use the camera settings to produce a RGB raster image. The converter on your pc will use its own preferences.
To read the RAW file, the sensor data, every camera has to use a specific peace of software dedicated to that camera. No problem for the in-camera converter of course. But the converter on your pc might need to be upgraded.

The converter and editor on your pc may be integrated. In that case the converter passes the memory address to the editor. Otherwise the RGB raster image will be passed to the editor via a disk file. The converter saves the image mostly as a temporary TIFF file and the editor loads that again. You can always use a converter and save the result as a TIFF and open it in your preferred editor. Given that they read that file type.

George

[rpcrowe]

I have not had files corrupted by a card reader but, once on a short trip to my daughter in New Mexico, I did not bring a card reader because I didn't expect to be working with my RAW files during the two days of the trip. Well she really wanted copies of the images and they were fairly time critical. Anyway to make a long story short, I purchased the cheapest CF card reader I could find. This reader had a slot so large and sloppy that it was extremely easy to bend the pins - which I eventually did. The cards were not damaged and the reader went into the trash.

[Round Tuit]

the camera (a canon eos 77d, btw) didn't come with a cable unfortunately. i already found out that i need a version of camera raw that isn't compatible with CS5, so basically i need to get a newer version of photoshop....

Max, You can download a free DNG converter from Adobe which will let you convert your raw CR2 files to DNG(which is a raw format created by Adobe) and make them compatible with which ever version of Photoshop and Lightroom that you have. You can even set it up to embed the original CR2 in the DNG should you want to keep them for future extraction.

André

[shutternutter]

The camera saves the sensor data in a color filter array. That's used for the conversion to a RGB raster image. That converter can be the in-camera or one on your pc. The in-camera will use the camera settings to produce a RGB raster image. The converter on your pc will use its own preferences.
To read the RAW file, the sensor data, every camera has to use a specific peace of software dedicated to that camera. No problem for the in-camera converter of course. But the converter on your pc might need to be upgraded.

The converter and editor on your pc may be integrated. In that case the converter passes the memory address to the editor. Otherwise the RGB raster image will be passed to the editor via a disk file. The converter saves the image mostly as a temporary TIFF file and the editor loads that again. You can always use a converter and save the result as a TIFF and open it in your preferred editor. Given that they read that file type.

George

That makes the concept of raw images a bit clearer for me, thanks.
unfortunately, for my camera i need a version of adobe camera raw (9.10), i.e. the converter, that isn't released for my version of photoshop (i actually managed to get my hands on a copy of CS6 in the meantime, but even that is only compatible up to 9.1... i might have to spring for a tenner a month after all).
i also tried adobe's dng converter, but the resulting images were quite dark compared to the jpeg produced by the camera. i don't know if that's an actual issue, i.e. the converter messing something up, or if it's just that i'm not used to raw files...

[george013]

That makes the concept of raw images a bit clearer for me, thanks.
unfortunately, for my camera i need a version of adobe camera raw (9.10), i.e. the converter, that isn't released for my version of photoshop (i actually managed to get my hands on a copy of CS6 in the meantime, but even that is only compatible up to 9.1... i might have to spring for a tenner a month after all).
i also tried adobe's dng converter, but the resulting images were quite dark compared to the jpeg produced by the camera. i don't know if that's an actual issue, i.e. the converter messing something up, or if it's just that i'm not used to raw files...

The differences are due to the different converters and their settings. I still don't know what camera you use.
Mostly, with Nikon anyway, there's already a jpg in the raw file. If you use an image browser as IrfanView you can browse through the RAW files. It's showing you the jpg's embedded in that RAW file, real size but lower quality.

I'm in some situation like you. I always used CaptureNx2 from Nikon. But that's discontinued some years ago. Now I purchased a D750. CaptureNx2 can't read it but I can still browse through the files wit IrfanView. To keep using RAW files I bought DxO, it also contained the U-point technology I was used to in CatureNx2.
The funny thing is I can use CaptureNx2 still for renaming the files. The file itself isn't changed to do that.

George

[shutternutter]

i use a canon eos 77d. the jpegs aren't embedded in the raw file, but separate. that's how i can tell there is a difference, with the raw being quite dark and flat, seemingly having less detail. but i didn't open the dng files in photoshop, so i don't actually know whether the detail would become visible when i edit them...

[george013]

i use a canon eos 77d. the jpegs aren't embedded in the raw file, but separate. that's how i can tell there is a difference, with the raw being quite dark and flat, seemingly having less detail. but i didn't open the dng files in photoshop, so i don't actually know whether the detail would become visible when i edit them...

Look to that diagram. A different converter and/or settings is a different RGB raster image. The jpg is just a disk file containing a compressed version of that raster image. That raster image is the image where it's all about. It's a representation of an image in pixels where every pixel contains a R, G and B channel. And can be addressed with pixel(x,y).
Download IrfanView and it's pugins. You can view the embedded jpg in your raw files. https://www.irfanview.com/

George

[shutternutter]

i think i will try irfanview, it's obviously time to upgrade all my software
i actually just downloaded and installed the trial version of ps cc and the raw files look like the jpegs. so the dng converter definitely did something to them it wasn't supposed to.
guess it's time to feed the beast....

[xpatUSA]

i think i will try irfanview, it's obviously time to upgrade all my software
i actually just downloaded and installed the trial version of ps cc and the raw files look like the jpegs.

In post #5 you said "i already found out that i need a version of camera raw that isn't compatible with CS5" implying to me that your .cr2 may not yet be supported by Adobe. In any case, some apps extract a JPEG from the raw file (for speed) unless you select them to convert the raw data to RGB. You'll know it if a raw file opens in the blink of an eye; conversion always takes a few seconds or more. Even then, the app may not properly convert all varieties of raw. I have one app that, if it doesn't recognize a raw, just presents raw data as 3-channel RGB (raw composite - not pretty).

And, of course, an extracted JPEG will not be of the best quality and will indeed "look like a JPEG".

I used IrfanView for a while, it was pretty good, once I got used to the UI ...

so the dng converter definitely did something to them it wasn't supposed to.
guess it's time to feed the beast....

The Adobe DNG converter used to work well enough for me when I was into creating DCP camera profiles. If it produces a bad DNG, there is more likely a problem with the input file than there is with the converter ...

Good luck!

P.S. hope your shift-key gets fixed soon ...