Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: citro on April 15, 2013, 02:55:49 AM

Title: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: citro on April 15, 2013, 02:55:49 AM
This morning I got a glimpse of a TechCrunch article (now misssing) about LR5 beta.
The link: http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/14/adobe-introduces-lightroom-5-public-beta-with-new-features-for-enthusiasts-and-pros-alike/

The page was indexed (but not cached) by major search engines.

The article is still here: http://finance.boston.com/boston/news/read?GUID=23926548

Quote
Adobe’s Lightroom is probably the best software available when it comes to a photographer’s digital darkroom needs. The company has been putting lots of time and effort into building it into something that appeals to both pros and enthusiasts, and now it’s releasing Lightroom 5 beta, representing the fastest turnaround for a major point release in the app’s history.

One big change is the new flexibility of the spot removal tool. Now people can change the shape of the spot removal brush, so that it isn’t just a circle. You can make it person-shaped, for instance, to get rid of a someone with a single digital brushstroke. It’s now fully customizable, so you can change it to whatever shape best suits your needs for the actual composition you’re working on. Adobe Digital Imaging Product Manager Sharad Mangalick explained in an interview that this was among the top-requested features from users, and from the team itself.

The algorithm underlying the spot removal tool itself has also been completely redesigned, making it much better at matching than has been possible at the past for taking out large chunks of the scenery and replacing them with seamless background. The change is both fast and non-destructive. In a demo, it worked extremely well about taking out a person in the foreground without any noticeable detrimental effects.

Other great new features include the spot highlighting tool, which points out dust and specks in stark relief, making them much easier to zap with the spot removal tool so they won’t show up and ruin large-scale prints. There’s also a great new engine for selectively highlighting certain parts of an image, which makes it much easier to give focus to a composition that otherwise might not have any one place that draws the eye, with varying degrees of impact. And there’s a new tool called upright that automatically corrects distortion and horizon skewing, which can instantly transform an image from unusable to attractive in a single click.

Images can now be edited in a preview mode that doesn’t actually require the files to be physically present on the working drive. Any changes made by an editor are automatically backed up to the preview version, and then applied to the original when it’s present, which is great for photographers who store most of their library on external disks.

Adobe Lightroom 5 beta is available as a free public beta for anyone to try, regardless of whether you’ve ever used an Adobe product before, and it will remain free and fully functional until Adobe releases a full retail version of the program later this year. Requires Windows 7 or Windows 8 on PC, or Lion and Mountain Lion on Mac, and supports HiDPI (0r Retina display resolution) on both.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: kencameron on April 15, 2013, 03:27:19 AM
Looks plausible, so I guess we don't have too long to wait.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Rhossydd on April 15, 2013, 03:33:10 AM
"There’s also a great new engine for selectively highlighting certain parts of an image, which makes it much easier to give focus to a composition that otherwise might not have any one place that draws the eye, with varying degrees of impact."

?? That sounds like something that needs a better description.

"which can instantly transform an image from unusable to attractive in a single click."

<shudder>
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: citro on April 15, 2013, 03:52:57 AM
Instagram ?  ;D
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: eliedinur on April 15, 2013, 05:28:24 AM
Sounds like it might be something similar to Nik U-points.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: francois on April 15, 2013, 05:36:13 AM
…The page was indexed (but not cached) by major search engines.

It's here (the article): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/14/adobe-introduces-lightroom-5-public-beta-with-new-features-for-enthusiasts-and-pros-alike/
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 15, 2013, 09:09:08 AM
I like being able to change the shape on the spot tool.  I also hope the process has been sped up some.  That's one of the few areas I notice Lr getting a little slow in operation.    If indeed they have come up with something similar to Nik's Upoint, that will be another large plus.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: ihv on April 15, 2013, 10:01:55 AM
> One big change is the new flexibility of the spot removal tool.

This has been a major headache for me in otherwise powerful all-in-one app. Only that feature alone makes me want to buy it.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: ihv on April 15, 2013, 10:08:31 AM
P.S. as for the spot highlighting tool I suppose it would be easily possible to remove the bottom left reflected white spots in the sea in the following example (some nasty ones already removed one-by-one):

(http://ihvweb.net/tmp/laine.jpg)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 15, 2013, 10:16:05 AM
Well, I hope they improved the text annotation for printing....

...and whatever other goodies will entice people :-)

John
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Johnny_Johnson on April 15, 2013, 10:28:15 AM
I didn't see the date that the article was written. Might it have been April 1st?

Cya,
JJ
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 15, 2013, 10:42:34 AM
I didn't see the date that the article was written. Might it have been April 1st?

Cya,
JJ

Posted on April 15

Timing is shorter than prior cycles, but not unreasonable.  Plus new function drives user interest and keeps competition at bay....and is god for us.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 15, 2013, 11:22:14 AM
Doesn't really seem anything but fluff. Doesn't seem anything to really warrant a full upgrade except of course that now you will have to buy it to get compatibility for newer cameras.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 11:43:23 AM
Doesn't seem anything to really warrant a full upgrade except of course that now you will have to buy it to get compatibility for newer cameras.

Why would that be true (you have to buy it for new cameras)? An update of new cameras would imply an update to the DNG converter too, then there's no forcing an upgrade for newer cameras.

Sure would be nice if the camera makers would just release the same darn raw format instead of forcing us (and Adobe + others) to have to update their software. As an example, a new camera system's open JPEG format is never an issue.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 15, 2013, 01:54:45 PM
However the situation at present and no doubt for the future is that DNG has not taken the world by storm, has not been adapted by the camera manufacturers and if Adobe persist in updating LR every year giving users a choice of update or pain in the neck DNG conversion I've got a feeling they may start losing customers.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 02:02:22 PM
However the situation at present and no doubt for the future is that DNG has not taken the world by storm, has not been adapted by the camera manufacturers and if Adobe persist in updating LR every year giving users a choice of update or pain in the neck DNG conversion I've got a feeling they may start losing customers.

As the core issue appears to be every new camera having a new proprietary raw format, I'm not sure how this is Adobe's issue or fault. They do provide a 'fix' for this which is free but does cause YOU to have to convert the data. That's more than Canon and Nikon are doing for the customer so I always find it odd that Adobe is the bad child here.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: sniper on April 15, 2013, 02:12:29 PM
As the core issue appears to be every new camera having a new proprietary raw format, I'm not sure how this is Adobe's issue or fault. They do provide a 'fix' for this which is free but does cause YOU to have to convert the data. That's more than Canon and Nikon are doing for the customer so I always find it odd that Adobe is the bad child here.

Canon for one supply free software with every camera, I don't know the current position with Nikon.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 02:17:31 PM
Canon for one supply free software with every camera, I don't know the current position with Nikon.

I don't want to use that software. EVERY 3rd party product that can handle the raw data falls into the same trap as Adobe, yet Adobe has provided a free way to over come this. Yet they (and DNG) are the bad guys.

Every new camera that ships also spits out a JPEG which every copy of Photoshop I've ever owned (going back to 1.0.7) can open. As well as many other products. Yet I'm penalized by Canon (and Nikon) if I buy their new camera and want to shoot raw and use anyone else software. Why?  Why is Adobe the bad company in this scenario?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 15, 2013, 02:20:05 PM
This is kind of a ying/yang issue.

I understand why the camera manufacturers are not moving to DNG.  However, we must also understand why Adobe does not want to continue to support older releases of their software.  Pretty much, both points revolve around financial, rather than technical, issues.

I want Adobe to continue to enhance Lightroom.  To do that, they need a business case to justify the development (and associated) costs.  Part of that business case needs to include the upgrade pricing and market assessment of acceptance, which includes a price vs volume analysis.  I am sure that a similar analysis resulted in the LR4 release having significantly lower initial and upgrade pricing.

I would like this enhanced function sooner, rather than later....and am willing to pay the (reasonable) cost of an upgrade.  Others may decide to hold off if they have no need for the new function and do not have a new camera needing support.  For those with new cameras, Adobe is nice enough to provide an alternate means, DNG, for support.  Each person can make their individual choice of cost or effort to support their needs.

John
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 02:24:21 PM
This is kind of a ying/yang issue.
I understand why the camera manufacturers are not moving to DNG.

Why should they? Until there's enough customer pressure to provide an open raw file, technically easy to do for them, they have no motive.

As long as photographers and people who buy such products question DNG, or more appropriately, question the silliness of what the camera manufacturers are doing and make a stink, nothing will change. If people would put as much effort in slamming proprietary raws as they do DNG (for whatever reason), change may come about. I just can't understand the logic behind Adobe being at fault here. They didn't create the proprietary raws but they do have to hack em like everyone else to access the data that belongs to us.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Vladimirovich on April 15, 2013, 02:37:17 PM
As the core issue appears to be every new camera having a new proprietary raw format

it is a lie and you lie knowingly... changes in formats are very rare.

Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Vladimirovich on April 15, 2013, 02:39:41 PM
if Adobe persist in updating LR every year giving users a choice of update or pain in the neck DNG conversion I've got a feeling they may start losing customers.

only if there is a better alternative (raw converter + DAM + ecosystem of tutorials/training, etc + pricing) and there are not so many (if any at all)...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 15, 2013, 02:41:06 PM
Why should they? Until there's enough customer pressure to provide an open raw file, technically easy to do for them, they have no motive.

As long as photographers and people who buy such products question DNG, or more appropriately, question the silliness of what the camera manufacturers are doing and make a stink, nothing will change. If people would put as much effort in slamming proprietary raws as they do DNG (for whatever reason), change may come about. I just can't understand the logic behind Adobe being at fault here. They didn't create the proprietary raws but they do have to hack em like everyone else to access the data that belongs to us.

Please, Andrew......

I did not "slam" DNG.  I only said I understand the issues.  I also said that Adobe provided an "out" for those who needed new camera support and did not want to upgrade.

You can make good arguments presenting Adobe's case.  However, the continual "arm twisting" to support DNG, should be expected to garner voices from the other side, who, in the present environment, do not see a problem....at least it does no directly effect them.

If ll the camera manufacturers supported DNG, would Adobe significantly reduce their prices due to reduced DE?  What do the camera manufacturers get out of the expence to convert....and be confined by Adobe's standard....or, if it becomes a formal industry standard, those constraints to inititive and invention?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 02:42:48 PM
it is a lie and you lie knowingly... changes in formats are very rare.

Then if there is such a small change, how come it's either not documented and every raw converter has to update to this access new format? IOW, why doesn't this data behave exactly like a JPEG or the last camera's raw file release?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 02:44:01 PM
Please, Andrew......
I did not "slam" DNG.  

I was speaking towards a general group all over the web that does, not specifically you.

Quote
However, the continual "arm twisting" to support DNG, should be expected to garner voices from the other side, who, in the present environment, do not see a problem....at least it does no directly effect them.

The latest camera technology I have is a 5DMII so it's NO problem for me. But I recognize it's a problem for many others and it's a problem that doesn't have to exist one bit. 
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Vladimirovich on April 15, 2013, 02:44:36 PM
Canon for one supply free software with every camera, I don't know the current position with Nikon.
the real problem is not DNG - they do not need DNG really, nobody needs, they just can provide a description of what their writing in their raw files, that's it... and that way their hands will not be tied by the necessity ask for somebody's permission to change anything... and in a current situation they can use DNG and still write undocumented information there in a special field that Adobe provides for that specifically purpose - so you have an open format w/ proprietary content inside... how good is that ? a little better than "proprietary" (which really is not - source code of dcraw, Adobe DNG SDK, etc available for developers) format w/ the same proprietary content inside
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 15, 2013, 02:47:18 PM
Then if there is such a small change, how come it's either not documented and every raw converter has to update to this access new format? IOW, why doesn't this data behave exactly like a JPEG or the last camera's raw file release?

So they can add new innovative function without having to spend months/years before a standards committee.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 02:50:45 PM
so you have an open format w/ proprietary content inside... how good is that ?

IF I just purchased a new camera and wanted to render the data in my copy of Lightroom or Raw Developer etc, VERY good. Proprietary data is, well proprietary and only the people who write it need to use it and understand it. Those that don't understand it can't and will not. I don't need some proprietary Nikon or Canon data only their processor can use. But I'd like to have access to the raw data the day the camera ships for use in ACR or LR. If that means an open raw format (or DNG) with proprietary tags, I'm just fine with that.

In fact, IF these proprietary kinds of data are so darn useful, such a killer technology, then let us see what a DNG or open raw can look like in the manufacturers converter AND in a 3rd party which can't access this wonderful data. Then we can decide if that's useful or not.  
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 02:54:00 PM
So they can add new innovative function without having to spend months/years before a standards committee.

Such as?

If indeed this data is so proprietary, then just what can anyone expect the manufacturer do with it? Nothing. Hide it, show it, doesn't really matter.

+23 Vibrance in the ACR engine means nothing outside the ACR engine.

Nothing stops them from embedding this wonderful proprietary metadata in DNG today if they want. The same is true for ICC profiles. All kinds of places to store such data but an open format that is accessible from day one. How is this a negative impact on the photographer?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Vladimirovich on April 15, 2013, 02:54:20 PM
Then if there is such a small change

you mix format w/ content... and that Adobe's supply its own camera profiles and that Adobe still needs to do the testing... that is where the effort spent (besides that every new LR/ACR release brings bugs fixing, new functionality).

Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: sniper on April 15, 2013, 02:55:32 PM
I don't want to use that software. EVERY 3rd party product that can handle the raw data falls into the same trap as Adobe, yet Adobe has provided a free way to over come this. Yet they (and DNG) are the bad guys.

Every new camera that ships also spits out a JPEG which every copy of Photoshop I've ever owned (going back to 1.0.7) can open. As well as many other products. Yet I'm penalized by Canon (and Nikon) if I buy their new camera and want to shoot raw and use anyone else software. Why?  Why is Adobe the bad company in this scenario?
I never claimed Adobe  were the bad guys, I was simply pointing out that some makers do supply free software.  
And to follow your further point why should Mr canon/Nikon use DNG? whats in it for them, yes it'll save Adobe a ton of money no doubt but I suspect thats not high on Canon/Nikons agenda, like Adobe their in it to make money not friends.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 02:59:10 PM
you mix format w/ content... and that Adobe's supply its own camera profiles and that Adobe still needs to do the testing... that is where the effort spent (besides that every new LR/ACR release brings bugs fixing, new functionality).

Format or content, the results are the same: a new camera ships, the data you have access to is either fully accessible (JPEG) or it's not. All I want is for the 5DMIV file to be accessible like the 5DMIII data is as well as the JPEG. Is this somehow technically impossible? Don't lie!

Adobe's other technologies, lens, color etc are not a factor here. And yes, of course every new build requires testing for bugs and new functionality. Again, has zero to do with the wait many photographers have to go through to use the software of their choice with their data files. Please explain how this is good for the end user and why it must be so. Why can't Nikon or Canon provide a raw file that acts just like the JPEG in terms of being understood by a piece of software? And why is Adobe the problem and not Capture 1 or Raw Developer or any of the 3rd party raw converter manufacturers? Because Adobe provides a free way to access data that should be accessible in the first place?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 03:01:33 PM
And to follow your further point why should Mr canon/Nikon use DNG? whats in it for them, yes it'll save Adobe a ton of money no doubt but I suspect thats not high on Canon/Nikons agenda, like Adobe their in it to make money not friends.

Because they should be thinking less about Adobe and more about their customers! They should be happy that I purchased Canon bodies and lens. They shouldn't care what software I decide to process my raws. They don't seem to care how I handle the JPEGs. Why as a raw shooter is my data being handled this way? Is this a technological problem or a political one? Seems pretty clear which.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 15, 2013, 03:28:43 PM
Back OT...

You all might want to check out the Lightroom Journal (http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/) in a short while...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 15, 2013, 03:33:03 PM
And why is Adobe the problem and not Capture 1 or Raw Developer or any of the 3rd party raw converter manufacturers? Because Adobe provides a free way to access data that should be accessible in the first place?

Adobe is not the problem.  You (and others like you) acting as Adobe's "agents" continually shove this in our face.  I do not see any other raw converter manufacturers making the significant amount of noise about this.

This forum is not the place to make this case.  It has failed, so far, over the years and will probably continue to fail until a cogent, financial case can be made to convince the manufacturers that it is in their best interests to change.

From a user perspective, it is, essentially, a non-issue.  When a new camera comes out, we are going to have to wait for testing to be done, whether it is RAW or DNG.  No software provider I ever dealt with is going to make a statement of support without such testing.  BTW...all DNG and support for all cameras will change Adobe's business case on releases and probably the cost of the upgrades.

Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: RikkFlohr on April 15, 2013, 03:36:15 PM
The Beta is Live http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom5/
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 03:36:53 PM
From a user perspective, it is, essentially, a non-issue.  

Thanks for speaking for ALL users (even those that clog the web forums asking "why can't I access my new raw camera files").

It's a non issue for YOU. It's really a non issue for me today. But I do plan to buy a new camera someday, then get hosed waiting for my data to be accessible in the software I prefer to use. And the reason's this is good for me and other is? Oh, as yet, no one has told us why expect it somehow is a benefit in creating proprietary data that today could be inserted into a format like DNG.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: madmanchan on April 15, 2013, 03:56:47 PM
While image format changes are rare, locations of essential metadata do often change.  For example, the location of the white balance parameters set by the camera (so if you're shooting auto WB in the camera this camera-chosen WB setting is correctly preserved when initially loading the image in the raw converter) changes on some cameras from model to model.  There are other essential metadata like focus distance (for doing lens corrections) which can also change from model to model, within a given vendor's product line. 

While these issues are relatively minor individually, they add up when you consider the large number of raw-capable cameras on the market (we add about 100 a year).  Frankly that's a lot of time chasing silly issues which have no benefit on photographic workflow or image quality, instead of spending that time developing new features and implementing requested changes & improvements.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 15, 2013, 04:00:41 PM
Frankly that's a lot of time chasing silly issues which have no benefit on photographic workflow or image quality, instead of spending that time developing new features and implementing requested changes & improvements.

Amen, the bottom line! It's a waste of time that benefits no one (other than maybe the camera manufacturers). The cost comes out of the consumer's pocket in either case and for no reason. How or why consumers defend such practices and worse, blame a big company for trying to fix the issue is something I can't understand but I try. I really do.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 15, 2013, 04:06:22 PM
LAB color readout is available.  Good stuff.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 15, 2013, 11:25:47 PM
Thanks for speaking for ALL users

I thought that speaking for ALL was your function :-)

Seriously, you are correct, I should have made it clearer that it being a non-issue was my opinion.  I would have thought that was understood...but I guess not by ALL.

John
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 15, 2013, 11:40:43 PM
While image format changes are rare, locations of essential metadata do often change.  For example, the location of the white balance parameters set by the camera (so if you're shooting auto WB in the camera this camera-chosen WB setting is correctly preserved when initially loading the image in the raw converter) changes on some cameras from model to model.  There are other essential metadata like focus distance (for doing lens corrections) which can also change from model to model, within a given vendor's product line. 

While these issues are relatively minor individually, they add up when you consider the large number of raw-capable cameras on the market (we add about 100 a year).  Frankly that's a lot of time chasing silly issues which have no benefit on photographic workflow or image quality, instead of spending that time developing new features and implementing requested changes & improvements.

Eric, I hope you understand how much I respect you and what you have brought to ACR/LR.  I feel for the problems and effort the camera to camera changes cause you.

Do you think that the camera manufacturers make these changes deliberately...to cause effort on the part of 3rd party RAW converters?  Do you think it is just sloppy coding?

I would expect that these changes also cause them to have to make changes to their "proprietary" RAW conversion software.  This must cost them time and effort to do....even if they know that there are differences in the RAW data.

I only have a suspicion, which maybe you know the answer.  Sloppy, changed code is rarely efficient and cost effective.  So what are the reasons that they allow changes camera to camera?  Do they get efficiencies in code creation?  Do they get better in-camera processing?  Tighter code?  One must suspect a reason....all the manufacturers cannot be just totally out of control, can they?

John
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 12:09:35 AM
One must suspect a reason....all the manufacturers cannot be just totally out of control, can they?

That wouldn't surprise me in the least...when a camera maker creates a new camera, they must make changes for the raw file format to accommodate the new file format. The easiest way for them seems to take the existing file format and modify the tags and fields they need to to have their software support the file.

Sometimes things break or change...one example was when Nikon altered the way in which white balance was stored in their then new D2X camera. Nikon needed to change how and where they stored this new revised white balance data. In the course of making what the camera wrote and what their software could read, Nikon ended up encrypting the metadata. Yes, this is old news (here's the story (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/17/nikon-d2x-white-balance-encryption/) I did), but it's not old behavior...it's not at all unusual for camera companies to do stuff in a hurry and make mistakes. Nikon had to release a special mini-SDK for decrypting so Adobe and other 3rd parties could read the white balance metadata.

Could this conundrum be mitigated? You bet...DNG or some other standard would all camera makers to release new cameras and have raw support built in software that supported the standard. Would this be a bit of work? Yes, a bit but not much at all, really. Fact is, most of the current Nikon and Canon cameras could do a camera firmware and be able to write DNG files.

Why don't they? They are lazy...they are arrogant...they don't want to adhere to any standards created by a US company.

Adobe has offered DNG to the ISO for the next TIFF-EP ISO standard...the standards committees move slow but I think there would be more movement towards DNG if the ISO adopts it. We'll have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 16, 2013, 01:35:08 AM
My point was that if LR is to be updated this regularly then we can expect support per version in the shape of being able to use new cameras to be what? a year or so? That is short compared to the rest of the industry. Yes there is an annoying work around but as no pro I know would regard it as a solution for a workflow I'm going to ignore it. If you use LR then whether or not you need a few relatively minor tools that seem to justify an full version upgrade, if you want to keep current with modern cameras you will need to pay the upgrade far more often from now on.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: DaveCurtis on April 16, 2013, 04:30:26 AM
 Hopefully they can slip in HDR or pano stitching in the production version.  :)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: stamper on April 16, 2013, 07:39:01 AM
Hopefully not. Shudder to think about the bloat and possible speed issues. :-\
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Vladimirovich on April 16, 2013, 11:56:48 AM
That wouldn't surprise me in the least...when a camera maker creates a new camera, they must make changes for the raw file format to accommodate the new file format.

not true... new camera does not mean new format... means new content/new data in the same old format most of the time... that is very clear from dcraw or Adobe DNG SDK source code.

Sometimes things break or change...one example was when Nikon altered the way in which white balance was stored in their then new D2X camera. Nikon needed to change how and where they stored this new revised white balance data. In the course of making what the camera wrote and what their software could read, Nikon ended up encrypting the metadata. Yes, this is old news (here's the story (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/17/nikon-d2x-white-balance-encryption/) I did), but it's not old behavior...it's not at all unusual for camera companies to do stuff in a hurry and make mistakes. Nikon had to release a special mini-SDK for decrypting so Adobe and other 3rd parties could read the white balance metadata.

well, well... that is the only story from 2005 that you can come up with ? how many undisclosed (unless you peek into a code) changes (or bug fixes) in what Adobe saves to converted DNG were made by Adobe since that time... speaking about archival format  ::)

Could this conundrum be mitigated? You bet...

if manufacturer will agree to describe what they are writing and DNG itself is not a panacea, because it allows undocumented data to be written there... and you if argue that DNG has enough documented fields for a raw converter to operate then public knowledge (dcraw, Adobe DNG SDK, etc) is enough for a raw converter to operate on a proprietary raw format... that simple.

DNG or some other standard would all camera makers to release new cameras and have raw support built in software that supported the standard. Would this be a bit of work? Yes, a bit but not much at all, really. Fact is, most of the current Nikon and Canon cameras could do a camera firmware and be able to write DNG files.

true, and then if they want to make some changes they 'd need to seek a permission from Adobe (that takes time and that might mean disclose something to competition too - because Adobe must update about DNG spec changes other companies, right ?)...

Why don't they? They are lazy...they are arrogant...they don't want to adhere to any standards created by a US company.

no, they just do not want to have their hands tied + they do not want to spend resources on that... there is no market demand for that really... not only there is no market demand, but even those who argue strongly for DNG can't make a public stand and refuse to buy/use/market non DNG cameras... are you going to boycott Phase One, Jeff ? no... that is a part of the problem, you see.
 
Adobe has offered DNG to the ISO for the next TIFF-EP ISO standard...the standards committees move slow but I think there would be more movement towards DNG if the ISO adopts it. We'll have to wait and see.

making DNG an ISO standard does not eliminate any issues as to why DNG is not being used...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 12:21:19 PM
making DNG an ISO standard does not eliminate any issues as to why DNG is not being used...

Hum...so, having the DNG spec in the hands of the ISO won't mitigate the argument that Nikon and Canon don't adopt DNG because they don't want to be under the thumb of Adobe? So, are you saying having the ISO adopt DNG for TIFF-EP would be useless?

I hope you ain't on the committee that decides these things...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 16, 2013, 12:37:14 PM
no, they just do not want to have their hands tied + they do not want to spend resources on that... there is no market demand for that really... not only there is no market demand, but even those who argue strongly for DNG can't make a public stand and refuse to buy/use/market non DNG cameras... are you going to boycott Phase One, Jeff ? no... that is a part of the problem, you see.

Right, they don't care about some of their customer(s) who routinely fill the web with posts about not being able to use the software they wish on this new set of data (file, format, whatever you want to nit pick on, they can't access their data where they wish). And yet, as I've pointed out repeatedly, never once an issue with the JPEG data one could select in the same system. Can you explain why raw shooters have to suffer but JPEG shooter's don't?

There is no market demand for that really based on what data points we could examine? Or is this an opinion alone? What do you suppose the market reaction would be from JPEG shooter's if they had the same problems as raw shooters with respect to having to wait on software updates or roll over and use the software the manufacturer at this point forces on them?

The idea that the only options for customers is to suffer or boycott seems an excessive extreme. How about the people who recognize and show empathy for new camera users who are forced to wait for updates to their preferred software spend as much energy complaining about this issue as some do slamming DNG? You suppose that might help just a little?

Kind of reminds me of this debate on gun control in the US. Those who ask for background checks are told by the opposition it's not effective and that such and such killings would have occurred had such a law exist. They fail to recognize that even if the efforts succeed in a single case (which wouldn't get much press), that's an improvement over doing nothing.

As Jeff and I have said repeatedly here and on other forums: you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Not affected by a new camera 'format' or file structure? Doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist and that pointing it out and making noise about it may affect change. Doing nothing, or worse, claiming that Adobe/DNG is the problem does nothing useful in terms of getting a fix. Complaining that DNG isn't (yet) an ISO compliant spec doesn't provide anything useful but noise as well. I really doubt that if DNG gets this badge, all of a sudden Nikon and Canon (and DNG/Adobe haters) will change a lick. The lack of this ISO badge is just another excuse to do nothing.

There's a problem here, what do YOU propose to fix it (assuming you give a crap about those people who are and continue to complain about this issue)?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 02:34:21 PM
That wouldn't surprise me in the least...when a camera maker creates a new camera, they must make changes for the raw file format to accommodate the new file format. The easiest way for them seems to take the existing file format and modify the tags and fields they need to to have their software support the file.

Sometimes things break or change...one example was when Nikon altered the way in which white balance was stored in their then new D2X camera. Nikon needed to change how and where they stored this new revised white balance data. In the course of making what the camera wrote and what their software could read, Nikon ended up encrypting the metadata. Yes, this is old news (here's the story (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/17/nikon-d2x-white-balance-encryption/) I did), but it's not old behavior...it's not at all unusual for camera companies to do stuff in a hurry and make mistakes. Nikon had to release a special mini-SDK for decrypting so Adobe and other 3rd parties could read the white balance metadata.

Could this conundrum be mitigated? You bet...DNG or some other standard would all camera makers to release new cameras and have raw support built in software that supported the standard. Would this be a bit of work? Yes, a bit but not much at all, really. Fact is, most of the current Nikon and Canon cameras could do a camera firmware and be able to write DNG files.

Why don't they? They are lazy...they are arrogant...they don't want to adhere to any standards created by a US company.

Adobe has offered DNG to the ISO for the next TIFF-EP ISO standard...the standards committees move slow but I think there would be more movement towards DNG if the ISO adopts it. We'll have to wait and see.

Jeff....

Putting aside your arm waving and apparent racial/cultural bigotry....you have no idea why all/most/many/?? of the camera manufacturers create their RAW with slight differences from camera to camera.  .

I am sure they are not lazy....lazy developers which cause downstream cost increases to the manufaturers get fired real fast.  Arrogant...maybe...but again, not if iteffects the bottom line. 

Avoiding standards (USA based or not)...possibly with good reason, as many have said, standards can be good, but in many cases constrain innovation....as you just said, "standards committees move slow(ly)"

Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 16, 2013, 02:42:45 PM
Putting aside your arm waving and apparent racial/cultural bigotry....you have no idea why all/most/many/?? of the camera manufacturers create their RAW with slight differences from camera to camera. 

The reasons, at least to consumers is immaterial. The facts are the facts, what we see every time a new camera with a proprietary file is thrust upon us. Whom here who purchase a digital camera system prefers this behavior and why? No matter how many times I ask that question, no reply.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 16, 2013, 02:45:12 PM
I'm not sure I understand what the manufacturers give up by enabling writing to DNG or some other widely accepted RAW format.  I suppose there could be some proprietary information there somewhere but I'm sure there is a relatively simple way to work around that.  I'm a Canon shooter so I can't speak about other brands, but they give their DPP software away...so it's not like they will lose sales on their own raw converter.  On the plus side, if they make their files easier to read in the USER's choice of software that can only mean a more satisfied customer group.  One of the sayings we use around here (my company) is make the customer want to do business with you.  One of the ways to do that is make it EASY to do business with you.  You won't find any automated telephone menus here, and anyone can take an order...

Keep it simple (for the customer).
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 02:46:53 PM
Right, they don't care about some of their customer(s) who routinely fill the web with posts about not being able to use the software they wish on this new set of data (file, format, whatever you want to nit pick on, they can't access their data where they wish). And yet, as I've pointed out repeatedly, never once an issue with the JPEG data one could select in the same system. Can you explain why raw shooters have to suffer but JPEG shooter's don't?

There is no market demand for that really based on what data points we could examine? Or is this an opinion alone? What do you suppose the market reaction would be from JPEG shooter's if they had the same problems as raw shooters with respect to having to wait on software updates or roll over and use the software the manufacturer at this point forces on them?

The idea that the only options for customers is to suffer or boycott seems an excessive extreme. How about the people who recognize and show empathy for new camera users who are forced to wait for updates to their preferred software spend as much energy complaining about this issue as some do slamming DNG? You suppose that might help just a little?

Kind of reminds me of this debate on gun control in the US. Those who ask for background checks are told by the opposition it's not effective and that such and such killings would have occurred had such a law exist. They fail to recognize that even if the efforts succeed in a single case (which wouldn't get much press), that's an improvement over doing nothing.

As Jeff and I have said repeatedly here and on other forums: you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Not affected by a new camera 'format' or file structure? Doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist and that pointing it out and making noise about it may affect change. Doing nothing, or worse, claiming that Adobe/DNG is the problem does nothing useful in terms of getting a fix. Complaining that DNG isn't (yet) an ISO compliant spec doesn't provide anything useful but noise as well. I really doubt that if DNG gets this badge, all of a sudden Nikon and Canon (and DNG/Adobe haters) will change a lick. The lack of this ISO badge is just another excuse to do nothing.

There's a problem here, what do YOU propose to fix it (assuming you give a crap about those people who are and continue to complain about this issue)?

Andrew...

You present no data points to support your OPINION, yet ask (demand) data points to demean opinions you do not believe in.

If you read through the posts here, and other threads on similar DNG discussions, you will see that those who do not support your view do not hate DNG or Adobe....they just do not agree with you.

You believe there is a problem in need of a solution.  Not all see it that way.

For every person who whinges that they have t wait for RAW support for their camera or, good forbid, upgrade to get support, there are (in MY OPINION) just as many or more that understand the delay/cost and can live with it.

BTW...you gun debate argument is a poor analogy.  Are you know going to say the Nikon/Canon are the NRA....actively buying of Senators to kill any chance Adobe has of making DNG a success....come on now :-)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 02:56:58 PM
I'm not sure I understand what the manufacturers give up by enabling writing to DNG or some other widely accepted RAW format.  I suppose there could be some proprietary information there somewhere but I'm sure there is a relatively simple way to work around that.  I'm a Canon shooter so I can't speak about other brands, but they give their DPP software away...so it's not like they will lose sales on their own raw converter.  On the plus side, if they make their files easier to read in the USER's choice of software that can only mean a more satisfied customer group.  One of the sayings we use around here (my company) is make the customer want to do business with you.  One of the ways to do that is make it EASY to do business with you.  You won't find any automated telephone menus here, and anyone can take an order...

Keep it simple (for the customer).

John, that is basically the question I asked.  What is the reason?  If it costs them nothing, I am sure that Adobe could easily convince them to do it.  So there has to be some cost...either in $$s, development efficiencies, fear of standard lock in, or proprietary data exposure.

I doubt the proprietary as RAW code can be easily explored and dissected.  Internal to the camera stuff is a different story.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 16, 2013, 03:03:13 PM
John, that is basically the question I asked.  What is the reason?  If it costs them nothing, I am sure that Adobe could easily convince them to do it.  So there has to be some cost...either in $$s, development efficiencies, fear of standard lock in, or proprietary data exposure.

I doubt the proprietary as RAW code can be easily explored and dissected.  Internal to the camera stuff is a different story.

That's sort of my point, if they do BOTH..allowing the user to shoot in the proprietary RAW, OR shoot in straight DNG(perhaps) they solve the issue for everyone.  That prevents them from being locked in on the standard.  If there is a deeper reason for not doing it, I'd love to hear it.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 03:04:04 PM
The reasons, at least to consumers is immaterial. The facts are the facts, what we see every time a new camera with a proprietary file is thrust upon us. Whom here who purchase a digital camera system prefers this behavior and why? No matter how many times I ask that question, no reply.

I have no idea what you mean in this rant.

"Facts are the facts"  If anyone else used that, you would be all over them.  Where are your facts??

I, and others, WHO PURCHASE NEW CAMERAS, have stated that the current state is not an issue.  Yet you do not recognize that as it does not agree with your OPINION.  Not your facts, which have not been documented.

EDIT....wait a minute...did you say "The reasons, at least to consumers is immaterial."  I thought your argument was for the user..?  I guess you are admitting the facts point to benefit for Adobe DE.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 03:11:32 PM
That's sort of my point, if they do BOTH..allowing the user to shoot in the proprietary RAW, OR shoot in straight DNG(perhaps) they solve the issue for everyone.  That prevents them from being locked in on the standard.  If there is a deeper reason for not doing it, I'd love to hear it.

Doing both adds costs to development.  Adobe's development costs are reduced and the camera manufacturer's costs go up.  Little improvement to the user. 

In fact, the add'l development for the DNG might delay the announcement date.  Or the DNG output might be later.  Or, the firmware code would need to increase to be able to handle both RAW and DNG, effecting the timing within the camera.  Etc, etc, etc.

They would still be constrained by the standards as they would still need to fit whatever they did into the DNG standard.  Imaging the whinging if a new function was only made available in RAW, not DNG...because it did not fit into the DNG standard.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 16, 2013, 03:26:53 PM
Doing both adds costs to development.  Adobe's development costs are reduced and the camera manufacturer's costs go up.  Little improvement to the user. 

In fact, the add'l development for the DNG might delay the announcement date.  Or the DNG output might be later.  Or, the firmware code would need to increase to be able to handle both RAW and DNG, effecting the timing within the camera.  Etc, etc, etc.

They would still be constrained by the standards as they would still need to fit whatever they did into the DNG standard.  Imaging the whinging if a new function was only made available in RAW, not DNG...because it did not fit into the DNG standard.

It could add to the cost, or it could not.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they don't have it laying on a shelf somewhere right now (figuratively).  The point on the firmware is valid, although it might be a one-time thing unless the DNG standard doesn't stay consistent.

One thing that did come to mind after my last post was some of the internal lens corrections manufactures are starting to do.  I'm not sure how they facilitate that into a "standard" DNG as their methods may be different from one manufacture to another.  That in itself could provide a road block.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: john beardsworth on April 16, 2013, 03:32:49 PM
DNG can include XMP, and the X stands for "extensible". They could add whatever they want, even encrypt that proprietary data.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 03:42:35 PM
If there is a deeper reason for not doing it, I'd love to hear it.

Well, what I'm about to tell you, I experienced personally in several scenarios with both Nikon and Canon.

At one point, I was told by somebody at Canon that an upcoming (then) camera was going to offer DNG as an optional file format. But something happened between Adobe and Canon that made Canon angry (which I can't disclose) so Canon decided to screw DNG (that was pretty much a quote). Since that time, some relations have improved but Canon is of the mind that they will simply not kowtow to Adobe and DNG. If it becomes and ISO standard, they would reconsider and likely adopt it as part of a new TIFF-EP. Note the "likely", no guarantees...

In terms of Nikon, there have been several cases where Adobe has really pissed off Nikon (and certain people at Nikon) and not on purpose...one of the situations was the white balance encryption situation with the D2X where Thomas rejected reverse engineering the white balance because it was encrypted and by contract, he was not allowed to decrypt stuff (which has DMCA implications), just decode it with does not have any DMCA implications. That left Nikon in the situation where they had to blink and offer a mini-SDK for decoding the encrypted white balance info. Nikon lost some serious face in that one.

The original situation happened because Adobe (read Thomas) actually had the audacity of decoding not only Nikon's NEF files in the first place but also Canon's raw files. What this meant is that a user could use Camera Raw to open both Nikon and Canon raw files and did not need to worry about using the camera software. This leveling of the paying field actually had an impact on an initiative that Nikon almost pulled off. I won't mention the players, but the initiative would have been a major coupe for Nikon and the fact that there was one software that could open both Nikon AND Canon cameras ruined it.

But, as far as I know, the bottom line in both Nikon and Canon rejecting DNG comes down to the simple fact that they just don't WANT to adopt any standards. Standards in Japan are an entirely different concept than here in the US where standards are thought of more as a good thing. Standards in Japan are very, very difficult to produce with any hope the standards will be followed. So, Nikon and Canon will continue to drag their feet for as long as possible (which I think is one reason the new TIFF-EP with DNG is taking so long–although I don't have facts to back that up).

There are some Nikon and Canon competitors who have adopted DNG, and that actually further deepens the resistance to DNG. Within the two main companies, there are departments that act as fiefdoms; at the top of the food chain are the departments that are producing the cameras and the firmware...from what I gather the resistance to DNG does NOT come from from them and they may actually perfer that new cameras were supported of the bat. Then, there are departments that control the processing software...and it is from these folks that the greatest resistance comes. Even though a good 75-80% of all raw processing is done in ACR/LR, the camera software still likes to claim that only in their software can you get the best results. It would not surprise me at all that refusing to adopt DNG is largely because the camera software guys don't want to make it any easier on Adobe (Thomas) incorporating new cameras because that give the camera software a period of exclusive processing till Adobe adds the cameras. It forces people who buy unsupported cameras to at least try the camera software for a period.

Ah...the stories I could tell...maybe some day I'll name names :~)

All told, DNG has been a really good thing for the industry because if nothing else, it helped teach camera makers how to create raw file formats. Camera companies really didn't have much experience or knowledge in developing file formats before releasing their first cameras. Prior to the current CR2, Canon used .TIF and .CRW. The .TIF actually caused a whole lot of problems for Canon and it's users. When Canon first shipped the 1Ds, they wrote raw tiffs...the only problem was any software that could read tiffs could open the raw file, extract the preview file which was tiny and the raw file could be written over if the user saved the tiny file as a tiff. I remember the look in one Canon guys eyes when this was demoed to him. It was a look of abject TERROR! Hence the development of CR2 for the next camera :~)

Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 03:45:32 PM
It could add to the cost, or it could not.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they don't have it laying on a shelf somewhere right now (figuratively).  The point on the firmware is valid, although it might be a one-time thing unless the DNG standard doesn't stay consistent.

One thing that did come to mind after my last post was some of the internal lens corrections manufactures are starting to do.  I'm not sure how they facilitate that into a "standard" DNG as their methods may be different from one manufacture to another.  That in itself could provide a road block.

If you have ever been involved in a hardware/software development operation, you would know that on a new product, nothing is on the shelf.  The design might be, but the actual final code...and more importantly...the regression testing is not.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 16, 2013, 03:46:50 PM
You present no data points to support your OPINION, yet ask (demand) data points to demean opinions you do not believe in.

Perhaps you don't read other photo forums or even the Adobe UtoU forums? Cause there are comments and complaints on nearly a weekly basis from users aking why they can't use version X of ACR or LR or even another 3rd party converter on their NEW camera. I suspect this is a more common complaint than "my prints are too dark". If you wish, I will spend some time linking to various forums where the above complaints are being voiced. I'm kind of surprised that you're not hearing this complaint...

Quote
If you read through the posts here, and other threads on similar DNG discussions, you will see that those who do not support your view do not hate DNG or Adobe....they just do not agree with you.

That they don't agree is clear. WHY isn't. Why anyone should have to suffer incompatibilities with new camera generated raws but not JPEG has not be expressed by 'your side' of the argument. Or how a proprietary format is in our best interest. I'm still waiting....


Quote
You believe there is a problem in need of a solution.  Not all see it that way.

Here we agree! I don't find it a problem as I expressed because it's been a few years since I purchased a new camera. Are you suggesting that there is no issue considering the following facts (please dismiss these facts if incorrect):

1. Every new proprietary camera file system requires all 3rd party converters to get said data files and update their software? Yes or no?
2. Until such time, anyone else with said camera system can't use that software and in fact can only use the manufacturer's converter. Yes or no?
3. While those of us without such cameras are not affected, some of us feel their pain, have undergone this problem at one time and don't see a single reason why the camera makers can't fix this by either spitting out a 3rd option (DNG or open raw format) or just creating new raw files that behave just like the old ones in terms of software accessibility.

Quote
For every person who whinges that they have t wait for RAW support for their camera or, good forbid, upgrade to get support, there are (in MY OPINION) just as many or more that understand the delay/cost and can live with it.

Why oh why should they? I've still waiting on an answer. It's like going to a restaurant with 7 people and 3 are served their food while the others have to wait. You think that's a sign of good service or a company that cares about their customers?

Quote
BTW...you gun debate argument is a poor analogy.  Are you know going to say the Nikon/Canon are the NRA....actively buying of Senators to kill any chance Adobe has of making DNG a success....come on now :-)

Maybe it is. But what I see in both cases is this argument that:

1. Unless a fix helps 100%, it's not worth doing.
2. If it doesn't affect me personally, I don't care.
3. Politics can't be affected in a direction people want when those people are vocal and don't accept the status quo.

Explain to me and others why we as consumers should allow this behavior to continue? Or how it's in our best interest? When Canon or Nikon give away camera bodies or sell them at a reasonable price, maybe I'll accept having to wait to use the software I prefer on my data.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 16, 2013, 03:51:26 PM
Thanks for the explanation Jeff, so as I kind of expected.. it boils down to well..  politics.  Imagine that, the moment the p word comes into play progress gets hard to come by.  I would like to address this part of your explanation/information:

Quote
Then, there are departments that control the processing software...and it is from these folks that the greatest resistance comes. Even though a good 75-80% of all raw processing is done in ACR/LR, the camera software still likes to claim that only in their software can you get the best results. It would not surprise me at all that refusing to adopt DNG is largely because the camera software guys don't want to make it any easier on Adobe (Thomas) incorporating new cameras because that give the camera software a period of exclusive processing till Adobe adds the cameras. It forces people who buy unsupported cameras to at least try the camera software for a period.

I don't know about Nikon, but Canon's software is a give away.  Other than that departments job security, I don't see how more people NOT using DPP is such a big issue.  Perhaps it's just that however, the people working in those sections don't want to have nothing to do....and become irrelavent. :)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 16, 2013, 03:52:40 PM
If you have ever been involved in a hardware/software development operation, you would know that on a new product, nothing is on the shelf.  The design might be, but the actual final code...and more importantly...the regression testing is not.

It might surprise you to know that I have, on more than one occasion.  I was the guy writing the code...  I have stuff I never actually used lying on the shelf right now.  Programmers come up with stuff they don't use at the time for many reasons, just like everyone else.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 03:54:11 PM
Perhaps you don't read other photo forums or even the Adobe UtoU forums? Cause there are comments and complaints on nearly a weekly basis from users aking why they can't use version X of ACR or LR or even another 3rd party converter on their NEW camera. I suspect this is a more common complaint than "my prints are too dark". If you wish, I will spend some time linking to various forums where the above complaints are being voiced. I'm kind of surprised that you're not hearing this complaint...

That they don't agree is clear. WHY isn't. Why anyone should have to suffer incompatibilities with new camera generated raws but not JPEG has not be expressed by 'your side' of the argument. How how a proprietary format is in our best interest. I'm still waiting....


Here we agree! I don't find it a problem as I expressed because it's been a few years since I purchased a new camera. Are you suggesting that there is no issue considering the following facts (please dismiss these facts if incorrect):

1. Every new proprietary camera file system requires all 3rd party converters to get said data files and update their software? Yes or no?
2. Until such time, anyone else with said camera system can't use that software and in fact can only use the manufacturer's converter. Yes or no?
3. While those of us without such cameras are not affected, some of us feel their pain, have undergone this problem at one time and don't see a single reason why the camera makers can't fix this by either spitting out a 3rd option (DNG or open raw format) or just creating new raw files that behave just like the old ones in terms of software accessibility.

Why oh why should they? I've still waiting on an answer. It's like going to a restaurant with 7 people and 3 are served their food while the others have to wait. You think that's a sign of good service or a company that cares about their customers?

Maybe it is. But what I see in both cases is this argument that:

1. Unless a fix helps 100%, it's not worth doing.
2. If it doesn't affect me personally, I don't care.
3. Politics can't be affected in a direction people want when those people are vocal and don't accept the status quo.

Explain to me and others why we as consumers should allow this behavior to continue? Or how it's in our best interest? When Canon or Nikon give away camera bodies or sell them at a reasonable price, maybe I'll accept having to wait to use the software I prefer on my data.

I, and others have given you our reasons.  You don't like it, so you are not hearing.  Stop asking.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 16, 2013, 03:57:30 PM
I, and others have given you our reasons.  You don't like it, so you are not hearing.  Stop asking.

So you say, where? I read one post that implied that proprietary data is necessary for better processing etc. I've said to this that proprietary data CAN be stored in a DNG and that anything proprietary can't be understood outside whoever wrote it. So IF I want to use a 3rd party processor, how useful is that proprietary data? Am I incorrect it's absolutely worthless outside the manufacturer’s converter?

You have another (presumably) advantage to this system of proprietary data for each camera release has for consumers? The one above doesn't wash in my book, what else you got?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 03:59:44 PM
It might surprise you to know that I have, on more than one occasion.  I was the guy writing the code...  I have stuff I never actually used lying on the shelf right now.  Programmers come up with stuff they don't use at the time for many reasons, just like everyone else.

Programming is easy, relatively.  Including the cost of your work must be included in the business plan....as well as integrating it with everything else that is going on in the rest of the development activity on the product...then the estng of the product, then the regression testing with all existing and peripheral parts that might be effected by the code, then the changes/improvements that need to be done down the road, etc. etc.

All this things need to be worked and evaluated in the business plan....not just your piece of code.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 16, 2013, 04:07:47 PM
Programming is easy, relatively.  Including the cost of your work must be included in the business plan....as well as integrating it with everything else that is going on in the rest of the development activity on the product...then the estng of the product, then the regression testing with all existing and peripheral parts that might be effected by the code, then the changes/improvements that need to be done down the road, etc. etc.

All this things need to be worked and evaluated in the business plan....not just your piece of code.

Why is it you think you are the only one around here that understands the potential difficulty in implementing something new?  I never said programming was the hard part, I never said it was hard at all.  What I'm saying is YOU don't know enough to just dismiss the concept out of hand.  You have no idea what these guys have already developed and not used, nor do I... what I said was I wouldn't be surprised.

***As you should have read in Jeff's statement above... at one point Canon was going to do JUST what I said (offer DNG as an alternative), but got "mad" for some reason and didn't.  You going to tell me they don't have the technology sitting around and basically ready?  Niether of us KNOW, but I believe it to be likely..at least in Canon's case.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 04:12:24 PM
So you say, where? I read one post that implied that proprietary data is necessary for better processing etc. I've said to this that proprietary data CAN be stored in a DNG and that anything proprietary can't be understood outside whoever wrote it. So IF I want to use a 3rd party processor, how useful is that proprietary data? Am I incorrect it's absolutely worthless outside the manufacturer’s converter?

You have another (presumably) advantage to this system of proprietary data for each camera release has for consumers? The one above doesn't wash in my book, what else you got?

I said, "I, and others, WHO PURCHASE NEW CAMERAS, have stated that the current state is not an issue.  Yet you do not recognize that as it does not agree with your OPINION.  Not your facts, which have not been documented."

I don't care about proprietary data, as long as it doesn't effect me...if it does, I care...you say it won't either way, so OK.

From Jeff's post, as expected, Adobe has been working with Canon and Nikon....great, as expected.  If something works out, great...I'll be happy.  If something doesn't...well, it is not so bad where we are right now.

If the Adobe standard does not get in the way of innovation...great.  However, anyone with any sense of history is aware of instances where standards, either industry or within companies, cause major problems to change when change was needed.

If Adobe gets DNG as a standard, it will not be from user pressure...so stop badgering us.  I am not going to stop buying new cameras because they do not support DNG....or buy more because they do.

Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 04:15:43 PM
I don't know about Nikon, but Canon's software is a give away.  Other than that departments job security, I don't see how more people NOT using DPP is such a big issue.  Perhaps it's just that however, the people working in those sections don't want to have nothing to do....and become irrelavent. :)

The typical employer/employee relationship in Japan is considerably different than in the US. While recent economic realities have hurt the Japanese economy to the extent this is changing, in effect, an employee in Japan used to expect employment for life. Once the employee joined a company, they expected to keep their jobs and move up the ranks in seniority. What that means is that department cutting and reorgs don't happen much in Japan (although it's happening more). Compare that to the US where employees hop about on a more regular basis.

So, yes, even though Canon doesn't sell DPP, that departments takes job security very, very seriously.

I actually met one of the head programers for Canon in Japan at about the time that Canon was developing DPP. He came walking in the meeting with a Mac laptop–which he was really proud of. Seems that Canon refused to provide anything other than Windows computers to their programers. He was really proud of the fact that he had learned how to code on Mac–which they don't teach in school there (or didn't then). So, he had to take night classes partially organized by Apple Japan to learn how to code and compile for Mac.

He was very envious of Thomas Knoll and really lookup to him for doing Camera Raw (this was said in private) publicly, he said that it was obvious that Adobe software couldn't process Canon raw files as well as Canon software could. That was the party/company line. When DPP first came out, it was a huge jump over the previous software–particularly on the Mac.

Nikon has had their fair share of problems developing software as well. Nikon had to join a cooperative relationship with NIK software to make major upgrades to Nikon Capture. There are some stories to tell about that, particularly since NIK is now owned by Google. Talk about strange bedfellows!

If you want some additional info about DNG and some of the new things in the DNG spec (and the basis of LR5 Smart Previews) check out DNG File Format & DNG Converter (http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/dng-file-format-and-dng-converter.html) in this DPP article. In particular the link to digital object sustainability factors (http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/sustain/sustain.shtml).

The bottom line is that undocumented, proprietary raw file formats is bad for photography and bad for society when it comes to the long term conservation and preservation of digital images. Canon and Nikon's attitudes are reckless and selfish.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 04:18:13 PM
Why is it you think you are the only one around here that understands the potential difficulty in implementing something new?  I never said programming was the hard part, I never said it was hard at all.  What I'm saying is YOU don't know enough to just dismiss the concept out of hand.  You have no idea what these guys have already developed and not used, nor do I... what I said was I wouldn't be surprised.

***As you should have read in Jeff's statement above... at one point Canon was going to do JUST what I said (offer DNG as an alternative), but got "mad" for some reason and didn't.  You going to tell me they don't have the technology sitting around and basically ready?  Niether of us KNOW, but I believe it to be likely..at least in Canon's case.

Sorry, I was responding to your statement, "It could add to the cost, or it could not.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they don't have it laying on a shelf somewhere right now (figuratively)"

I was pointing out that lying on the shelf nd actually implementing are two different things, which was not implied in your statement.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 04:26:24 PM
The typical employer/employee relationship in Japan is considerably different than in the US. While recent economic realities have hurt the Japanese economy to the extent this is changing, in effect, an employee in Japan used to expect employment for life. Once the employee joined a company, they expected to keep their jobs and move up the ranks in seniority. What that means is that department cutting and reorgs don't happen much in Japan (although it's happening more). Compare that to the US where employees hop about on a more regular basis.

So, yes, even though Canon doesn't sell DPP, that departments takes job security very, very seriously.

I actually met one of the head programers for Canon in Japan at about the time that Canon was developing DPP. He came walking in the meeting with a Mac laptop–which he was really proud of. Seems that Canon refused to provide anything other than Windows computers to their programers. He was really proud of the fact that he had learned how to code on Mac–which they don't teach in school there (or didn't then). So, he had to take night classes partially organized by Apple Japan to learn how to code and compile for Mac.

He was very envious of Thomas Knoll and really lookup to him for doing Camera Raw (this was said in private) publicly, he said that it was obvious that Adobe software couldn't process Canon raw files as well as Canon software could. That was the party/company line. When DPP first came out, it was a huge jump over the previous software–particularly on the Mac.

Nikon has had their fair share of problems developing software as well. Nikon had to join a cooperative relationship with NIK software to make major upgrades to Nikon Capture. There are some stories to tell about that, particularly since NIK is now owned by Google. Talk about strange bedfellows!

If you want some additional info about DNG and some of the new things in the DNG spec (and the basis of LR5 Smart Previews) check out DNG File Format & DNG Converter (http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/dng-file-format-and-dng-converter.html) in this DPP article. In particular the link to digital object sustainability factors (http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/sustain/sustain.shtml).

The bottom line is that undocumented, proprietary raw file formats is bad for photography and bad for society when it comes to the long term conservation and preservation of digital images. Canon and Nikon's attitudes are reckless and selfish.

Jeff...nice story...but...whether you a correct or not...it does not support the last paragraph.

Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 16, 2013, 04:30:00 PM
Sorry, I was responding to your statement, "It could add to the cost, or it could not.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they don't have it laying on a shelf somewhere right now (figuratively)"

I was pointing out that lying on the shelf nd actually implementing are two different things, which was not implied in your statement.

Agreed, they are two different things.. but certainly not impossible.  I would think, maybe not, they had an implementation plan developed at the time.  It's still going to create some short-term cost, but that could very well be offset with the stuff you no longer have to do (in the future) and be more cost-effective long term.  

In any event, I have no dog in this race really.  I'm still using the proprietary RAW format. :)  I do think the day has to come where everyone is speaking the same language however, and I find the discussion interesting. :)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 04:33:31 PM
Jeff...nice story...but...whether you a correct or not...it does not support the last paragraph.

Read the article and the 7 sustainability factors (http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/sustain/sustain.shtml) for digital objects ; Disclosure, Adoption, Transparency, Self-documentation and External dependencies are 6 factors where undocumented, propriety raw file formats put digital images at greater risk in conservation and preservation. Of the 7, only Impact of patents hasn't impacted raw file formats–yet.

Read that and come back and tell me with a straight face that the current undocumented and proprietary raw file formats is good for photography and society...and that Nikon and Canon's attitudes are NOT reckless and selfish
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 16, 2013, 04:35:10 PM
I said, "I, and others, WHO PURCHASE NEW CAMERAS, have stated that the current state is not an issue.  Yet you do not recognize that as it does not agree with your OPINION.  Not your facts, which have not been documented."

So besides speaking for others, you seem to disagree with me that other's all over the web are expressing this as a problem. I guess I really DO need to supply you links to forums? Considering you can't or will not provide equally accessible info, I wonder if this is worth my effort...

You are sure that few if any users outside your radar who purchase a new camera but can't process their raws in their preferred software, isn't a problem for them?
And they are not voicing this opinion? I must be misunderstanding all these posts?

Quote
I don't care about proprietary data, as long as it doesn't effect me...if it does, I care...you say it won't either way, so OK.

It appears you don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect you (yet you are very good at speaking for others).

Quote
From Jeff's post, as expected, Adobe has been working with Canon and Nikon....great, as expected.  If something works out, great...I'll be happy.  If something doesn't...well, it is not so bad where we are right now.

Frankly, that Adobe and Nikon or Canon don't get along doesn't concern me a lick. They all should be concerned with their customers and forget this stilly infighting. Kind of like if you spent as much time arguing why the current conditions are good for everyone, maybe I'd understand why I'm tilting at windmills!

If I spend energy asking for a raw format, I might get it. If you spend the same energy dismissing this need, it gets you (and others) what? If this isn't a problem that affects you, walk away. Canon and Nikon don't need additional mouth pieces to express an opinion about a condition that doesn't affect them in order to do nothing to fix a problem that does affect others. Is there some moral incentive not to have an open raw format in your mind? Kind of like gay marriage in my mind: if you don't like or believe in it, don't marry someone who's gay. Otherwise, step out of the way and let the rest of us get some work done in aiding this industry.

Maybe you can tell us why the current system is preferable to an open raw format that is designed to remove this problem of incompatible 3rd party software support.  
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 05:18:02 PM
So besides speaking for others, you seem to disagree with me that other's all over the web are expressing this as a problem. I guess I really DO need to supply you links to forums? Considering you can't or will not provide equally accessible info, I wonder if this is worth my effort...

You are sure that few if any users outside your radar who purchase a new camera but can't process their raws in their preferred software, isn't a problem for them?
And they are not voicing this opinion? I must be misunderstanding all these posts?

It appears you don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect you (yet you are very good at speaking for others).

Frankly, that Adobe and Nikon or Canon don't get along doesn't concern me a lick. They all should be concerned with their customers and forget this stilly infighting. Kind of like if you spent as much time arguing why the current conditions are good for everyone, maybe I'd understand why I'm tilting at windmills!

If I spend energy asking for a raw format, I might get it. If you spend the same energy dismissing this need, it gets you (and others) what? If this isn't a problem that affects you, walk away. Canon and Nikon don't need additional mouth pieces to express an opinion about a condition that doesn't affect them in order to do nothing to fix a problem that does affect others. Is there some moral incentive not to have an open raw format in your mind? Kind of like gay marriage in my mind: if you don't like or believe in it, don't marry someone who's gay. Otherwise, step out of the way and let the rest of us get some work done in aiding this industry.

Maybe you can tell us why the current system is preferable to an open raw format that is designed to remove this problem of incompatible 3rd party software support.  

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

How many times in one thread do I need to state it is my OPINION.  Yours is only opinion also.

We all know that people who are upset for any reason post the problems.  Those who do not have a problem usually don't....except for the ones here who are trying to refute your opinion and you do not want to hear from. 

You have an interesting methodology...count those who prove your point...don't count those who don't agree with you.

I did not say one way was better than the other...nor voice any "moral incentive".  I just said I could be happy either way....and that I was not disturbed with the current status.

As I said in my earlier post....stop beating us (those who do not agree with you) up.  We are not going to facilitate any change.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 05:29:00 PM
Read the article and the 7 sustainability factors (http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/sustain/sustain.shtml) for digital objects ; Disclosure, Adoption, Transparency, Self-documentation and External dependencies are 6 factors where undocumented, propriety raw file formats put digital images at greater risk in conservation and preservation. Of the 7, only Impact of patents hasn't impacted raw file formats–yet.

Read that and come back and tell me with a straight face that the current undocumented and proprietary raw file formats is good for photography and society...and that Nikon and Canon's attitudes are NOT reckless and selfish


Jeff....let's just be pragmatic.  If, in the future, Adobe, DCRAW, Capture One, and others...ALL, no longer support the current RAW implementation...AND, the camera manufacturer no longer support it, we could have a problem.

Likely...I don't know.  Probably as likely as DNG not being supported in the future.  None of us really know.

That does not mean that the industry should not be concerned about it. From your statements, the next shoe to drop has to be the ISO standard.  That (in my opinion, this is for Andrew) is what I expect will be needed before you have any chance to get all your ducks in line.

However, you are not going to solve this by arm waving and beating up forum posters.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 16, 2013, 05:53:47 PM
You have an interesting methodology...count those who prove your point...don't count those who don't agree with you.

You haven’t provided anything here to prove or disprove. You're not very good at even answering questions in an attempt to understand your points.

Quote
I did not say one way was better than the other...nor voice any "moral incentive".  I just said I could be happy either way....and that I was not disturbed with the current status.

Well that's progress for you (or lack thereof).

Quote
As I said in my earlier post....stop beating us (those who do not agree with you) up.  We are not going to facilitate any change.

Not and apparently unable to. As I've already said, I'm trying to understand your POV and those who don't give a crap about an open format, I really am. That you're doing such a piss poor job is of course my fault.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Pete_G on April 16, 2013, 05:57:45 PM
While image format changes are rare, locations of essential metadata do often change.  For example, the location of the white balance parameters set by the camera (so if you're shooting auto WB in the camera this camera-chosen WB setting is correctly preserved when initially loading the image in the raw converter) changes on some cameras from model to model.  There are other essential metadata like focus distance (for doing lens corrections) which can also change from model to model, within a given vendor's product line.  

While these issues are relatively minor individually, they add up when you consider the large number of raw-capable cameras on the market (we add about 100 a year).  Frankly that's a lot of time chasing silly issues which have no benefit on photographic workflow or image quality, instead of spending that time developing new features and implementing requested changes & improvements.

Eric,

OK, fair points, but please go out and buy a Sigma DPx Merrill. Nice little camera. Then at least we'd know we'll get Merrill support in LR 5.1
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 06:14:57 PM
Jeff....let's just be pragmatic.  If, in the future, Adobe, DCRAW, Capture One, and others...ALL, no longer support the current RAW implementation...AND, the camera manufacturer no longer support it, we could have a problem.

We already have this problem with Photo CD files...try to use the current version of Photoshop to open digital images scanned to Photo CDs. You can't...why? Kodak quite updating the Photo CD API. So, photographers who scanned digital images to Photo CD can no longer open them. Yes, they have the original film (if they kept it).

Want another example? The Kodak DCS cameras...Kodak suspended updating the software to open the original raw files. So, you say this isn't a problem because Camera Raw still supports them (I'm not sure DCRAW and I'm pretty sure C1 doesn't). And this is from cameras sold within the last 15 years. Look forward 50, 100 years from now. Will all raw captures made since the beginning of digital photography be accessible in the future? That's what is at risk...that's what the Library of Congress (as well as the National Archives in London) are concerned about. Original photo negs from the 1800's, if they've been properly stored using established conservation and preservation practices can still be accessed and printed. There are no established conservation and preservation practices for undocumented, proprietary raw file formats.

Quote
That does not mean that the industry should not be concerned about it. From your statements, the next shoe to drop has to be the ISO standard.  That (in my opinion, this is for Andrew) is what I expect will be needed before you have any chance to get all your ducks in line.

However, you are not going to solve this by arm waving and beating up forum posters.

Agreed...it's all about education...educating photographers that the way things are now sucks. Educating the camera makers that the way things are now sucks. The biggest problem (and the one that purely pisses me off) are photographers who advocate for the camera makers to keep their undocumented, proprietary raw file formats. That position is one of ignorance of the issues. I can understand debating technical issues, but how can photographers honestly think the way Nikon and Canon are behaving is "a good thing" for the industry?

The biggest problem that I see are photographers willing to let Nikon and Canon off the hook for the mess they've help create. Personally, I refuse to give them a pass...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 07:46:15 PM
The biggest problem that I see are photographers willing to let Nikon and Canon off the hook for the mess they've help create. Personally, I refuse to give them a pass...

So....you are boycotting Nikon and Canon products?

BTW....50-100 years from now, the least of our problems will be decoding the RAW format.  I submit that none of the storage products we currently used will work.  The images that survive in their current form will have needed special handling and preservation.  In my opinion, that negates your argument.

I must repeat, I am not against DNG.  I hope Adobe works out everything with the camera manufacturers.  If they don't...or if it takes time, I am not unhappy with where we are at the moment....but I tired of the continual harassment on the part of you and Andrew.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 08:20:19 PM
I must repeat, I am not against DNG.  I hope Adobe works out everything with the camera manufacturers.  If they don't...or if it takes time, I am not unhappy with where we are at the moment....but I tired of the continual harassment on the part of you and Andrew.

And Andrew and I are tired of photographers giving Nikon and Canon a pass...so there ya go.

[/quote]The images that survive in their current form will have needed special handling and preservation.  In my opinion, that negates your argument.[/quote]

Again, reread the sustainability factors–the current wide variety of undocumented, proprietary raw files formats do indeed need special conservation and preservation because there are so many different formats and varieties and that adds to the risk that those files won't be accessable in 50-100 years. That is the problem noted in the problem of adoption:

Adoption refers to the degree to which the format is already used by the primary creators, disseminators, or users of information resources. This includes use as a master format, for delivery to end users, and as a means of interchange between systems. If a format is widely adopted, it is less likely to become obsolete rapidly, and tools for migration and emulation are more likely to emerge from industry without specific investment by archival institutions.

Clearly if there were a standard raw file format standard, the likelihood that those digital object would be easier to conserve & preserve.

Look, do you agree that the current behavior of Nikon and Canon are not in the best interest of the photographic community (and here I'm talking photographers, not camera companies)? How can you possibly think the current state of raw file formats is a good thing?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 16, 2013, 08:35:54 PM
So....you are boycotting Nikon and Canon products?

That would be stupid and non productive. Did you read what has already been written about the unnecessary extremes of boycotting (not buying) and simply recognizing the problems and being a vocal consumer? What part about "you are either the cause of the problem or the solution" doesn't make sense to you?

Why do you continue to ask but not reply to questions on this topic? Such as why would any photographer (assuming you are one, your info here is anonymous) wouldn’t want an open raw format or continuing support for DNG?  
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 09:21:08 PM
That would be stupid and non productive. Did you read what has already been written about the unnecessary extremes of boycotting (not buying) and simply recognizing the problems and being a vocal consumer? What part about "you are either the cause of the problem or the solution" doesn't make sense to you?

Then what the heck do you and Jeff mean by, "I refuse to give them (Nikon and Canon) a pass"

Quote
Why do you continue to ask but not reply to questions on this topic? Such as why would any photographer (assuming you are one, your info here is anonymous) wouldn’t want an open raw format or continuing support for DNG?  

DON'T YOU READ....??

"I must repeat, I am not against DNG.  I hope Adobe works out everything with the camera manufacturers.  If they don't...or if it takes time, I am not unhappy with where we are at the moment....but I tired of the continual harassment on the part of you and Andrew"
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 16, 2013, 09:30:37 PM
Then what the heck do you and Jeff mean by, "I refuse to give them (Nikon and Canon) a pass"

I'll spell it out, we intend to be vocal, call them out for the silliness of the political BS they are putting us through. It's the exact opposite of some (no names) who insist there isn't a problem (there is), that DNG or another open raw format isn't really useful and necessary (it is). It's called push back. If you spent as much time and energy assisting this industry needs as you do arguing that since you don't have a problem, other's don't, or just understanding (admitting) that proprietary data does no one any good, maybe collectively, our voices will be heard. But it appears you're not really that interested in the future of imaging.

Jeff and I have been in this industry pretty much since day one. And in many cases, being vocal has produced many benefits for us in doing so. What's the saying about the squeaky wheel?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 09:37:24 PM
And Andrew and I are tired of photographers giving Nikon and Canon a pass...so there ya go.

The images that survive in their current form will have needed special handling and preservation.  In my opinion, that negates your argument.

Again, reread the sustainability factors–the current wide variety of undocumented, proprietary raw files formats do indeed need special conservation and preservation because there are so many different formats and varieties and that adds to the risk that those files won't be accessable in 50-100 years. That is the problem noted in the problem of adoption:

Adoption refers to the degree to which the format is already used by the primary creators, disseminators, or users of information resources. This includes use as a master format, for delivery to end users, and as a means of interchange between systems. If a format is widely adopted, it is less likely to become obsolete rapidly, and tools for migration and emulation are more likely to emerge from industry without specific investment by archival institutions.

Clearly if there were a standard raw file format standard, the likelihood that those digital object would be easier to conserve & preserve.

Look, do you agree that the current behavior of Nikon and Canon are not in the best interest of the photographic community (and here I'm talking photographers, not camera companies)? How can you possibly think the current state of raw file formats is a good thing?

Jeff....I really do not want my RAW files preserved for 50-100 years from now.  In fact, I usually do not want my RAW files seen.  ETTR does not make the best negatives, any more than Ansel Adams negatives represented what he expected to get out of them

The only thing I might want to preserve for "posterity" would be after I had optimized the image in post.  This would not be the RAW, but a 16 bit TIFF.  I think TIFF meets your sustainability factors.

I expect that my RAWs will be processable for the time I expect to need them...as should you, even though you are a bit younger.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 09:44:00 PM
Then what the heck do you and Jeff mean by, "I refuse to give them (Nikon and Canon) a pass"

DON'T YOU READ....??

"I must repeat, I am not against DNG.  I hope Adobe works out everything with the camera manufacturers.  If they don't...or if it takes time, I am not unhappy with where we are at the moment....but I tired of the continual harassment on the part of you and Andrew"

Not being against DNG isn't enough by far. Yes, I advocate for DNG because I know what the long term benefits would be to the industry, but is it ain't DNG, I'm ok with that too. Do you have anything better to suggest?

What I am against is the current situation of undocumented, proprietary raw file formats being spawned every quarter. I'm against photographers giving the likes of Nikon and Canon a pass for being responsible for this situation. And yes, I've been in the ears of Phase One as well. I'm still pissed that C1 7.x still hasn't updated the DNG support to the current version.

What I simply can't understand is the position of any photographer saying the current situation is "ok". If you understand what is at stake, there's now way that it's "ok" for Nikon and Canon to reject any raw file format standards...

So, are you a photographer? Do you care about the long term conservation and preservation of your images? Do you want your inheritors of your estate to be able to access your work in the future? Or does that not matter to you?

I ask because I'm really perplexed how any photographer not in the employ of Nikon or Canon could possibly think the way things are now is in any way, ok...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 09:47:25 PM
I'll spell it out, we intend to be vocal, call them out for the silliness of the political BS they are putting us through. It's the exact opposite of some (no names) who insist there isn't a problem (there is), that DNG or another open raw format isn't really useful and necessary (it is). It's called push back. If you spent as much time and energy assisting this industry needs as you do arguing that since you don't have a problem, other's don't, or just understanding (admitting) that proprietary data does no one any good, maybe collectively, our voices will be heard. But it appears you're not really that interested in the future of imaging.

Jeff and I have been in this industry pretty much since day one. And in many cases, being vocal has produced many benefits for us in doing so. What's the saying about the squeaky wheel?

I think you need to find a new windmill Don Quixote....you are getting annoying.

Being in the industry since day one encompases a lot of people...some of them are decent respectful people.  That say nothng about whether or notyou and Jeff are experience or knowledgable. You have benefited with fair, but not exceptional products...primarily because you have beaten down other peoples views/opinons as you are trying to do here....but that is what business is all about, so I have no grudge about that and respect your abilities...just don't push me around....you don't like it, I don't like it...keep it peaceful and we can all have productive discussions
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 09:49:52 PM
Jeff....I really do not want my RAW files preserved for 50-100 years from now.  In fact, I usually do not want my RAW files seen.  ETTR does not make the best negatives, any more than Ansel Adams negatives represented what he expected to get out of them

Wow, that's a short sighted point of view...but then you aren't a journalist recording history for posterity. Ok fine, you don't have to care about the long term conservation and preservation of today's raw digital captures...but can you at least quit arguing for the enemy against those who do care?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 09:56:32 PM
Wow, that's a short sighted point of view...but then you aren't a journalist recording history for posterity. Ok fine, you don't have to care about the long term conservation and preservation of today's raw digital captures...but can you at least quit arguing for the enemy against those who do care?
Jeff, if you quote me, do not selectively quote me to meet your point of view.

What I said was:
"Jeff....I really do not want my RAW files preserved for 50-100 years from now.  In fact, I usually do not want my RAW files seen.  ETTR does not make the best negatives, any more than Ansel Adams negatives represented what he expected to get out of them

The only thing I might want to preserve for "posterity" would be after I had optimized the image in post.  This would not be the RAW, but a 16 bit TIFF.  I think TIFF meets your sustainability factors.

I expect that my RAWs will be processable for the time I expect to need them...as should you, even though you are a bit younger."

And no, I am not a photojournalist....but TIFF, or even jpeg, would suffice for them also.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 10:13:52 PM
And no, I am not a photojournalist....but TIFF, or even jpeg, would suffice for them also.

Yep, you aren't a photojournalist...if you were you would realize that the majority of newspapers and magazines now require photojournalists to supply raw files not rendered tiffs for anything non-editorial. It's a question of image provenance...and to keep photojournalists from over processing news content.

There are whole swatches of photographic disciplines that require the conservation and preservation of of the original raw image captures; industrial, scientific, biomedical, documentary, legal...it ain't just news bud. But to you, you don't care because, hey, you don't want people to see what your original looks like, you just want people to see what it looks like after you manipulated it, right?

Again, that is an incredibly narrow and self-serving view of photography...which is the root problem of your view that it's ok for Nikon and Canon to be cowboys and refuse to adopt standards. You just don't get it...this is about the best interests of photographers–all photographers, not just you.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 10:25:42 PM
Yep, you aren't a photojournalist...if you were you would realize that the majority of newspapers and magazines now require photojournalists to supply raw files not rendered tiffs for anything non-editorial. It's a question of image provenance...and to keep photojournalists from over processing news content.

There are whole swatches of photographic disciplines that require the conservation and preservation of of the original raw image captures; industrial, scientific, biomedical, documentary, legal...it ain't just news bud. But to you, you don't care because, hey, you don't want people to see what your original looks like, you just want people to see what it looks like after you manipulated it, right?

Again, that is an incredibly narrow and self-serving view of photography...which is the root problem of your view that it's ok for Nikon and Canon to be cowboys and refuse to adopt standards. You just don't get it...this is about the best interests of photographers–all photographers, not just you.

Attack, Attack, Attack....never give any ground, you sound like the NRA.

We were talking, I think, about preservation of art for the future....50-100 years in the future.  Not forensic evidence for a near term trial.

Common, Jeff.  Stop muddying the waters.  Your bully approach may work on some....though I admit, I am getting weary as you have no new news to report...just the same old...the apocalypse is coming...ignore Nikon and Canon...oh, but don't stop buying their stuff.  
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 10:33:23 PM
it's ok for Nikon and Canon to be cowboys and refuse to adopt standards. You just don't get it...this is about the best interests of photographers–all photographers, not just you.

Nikon and Canon are not the "cowboys".  They and others led the industry with RAW capability.

Adobe is the change-maker.  Adobe may be right, but the world changes slowly....just as the ISO body takes it's sweet time.

When DNG becomes an ISO standard, let's revisit this.  You know that nothing is gonna happen before then.

Stop being an AH.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 10:38:18 PM
We were talk, I think, about preservation of art for the future....50-100 years in the future.  Not forensic evidence for a near term trial.

We were talking about long term conservation and preservation of digital photography....ALL photography, not just yours. This is in the best interest of society and humanity...I couldn't give a rat's ass about Nikon and Canon's stupid and arrogant point of view about their raw file formats.

Attack? Yes, I'm attacking an ill-informed, narrow minded, self-serving point of view that is not in the best interest of photographers. And no, I don't give ground on issues I strongly believe in...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 10:43:53 PM
Nikon and Canon are not the "cowboys".  They and others led the industry with RAW capability.

Actually, it was Kodak...which which due to short-sighted and really stupid execs, essentially lost everything (and hence Kodak technology has been orphaned like Photo CD and the DCS cameras).

Nikon and Canon didn't "lead" the industry...they took what others had developed and ran with it...good for them.

However, that does come with a degree of civic duty...something Nikon and Canon have not shown. They should do the right thing and work towards adopting some much needed standards. And photographers that continue to give them a pass exacerbate the problem. (in case you were wondering that was directed at you dooode).
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 10:46:54 PM
Stop being an AH.

Really, that's the best ya got bud?

Do you really think I'm gonna stop?

Hey, here's a deal, I'll stop just as soon as you admit that the current situation regarding undocumented, proprietary raw files formats is bad for the photo industry. Deal?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 11:07:07 PM
Really, that's the best ya got bud?

Do you really think I'm gonna stop?

Hey, here's a deal, I'll stop just as soon as you admit that the current situation regarding undocumented, proprietary raw files formats is bad for the photo industry. Deal?

Nope...but yer still an A....ahhh...overdoing it :-)

There are many ways to preserve the finished product, which is what I and many artists care about. (no, I am not claiming I am one, so bugger off)

I would like to think you re just an altruistic person who cares for all the artists in the world.  Your links to Adobe, long term and financial, kind of stain you a different color.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 16, 2013, 11:10:39 PM
Your links to Adobe, long term and financial, kind of stain you a different color.

Yeah, I'm a whore...I'm a shill for Adobe...I couldn't care less about fellow photographers (and everything I've done in my career proves that).

Look in the mirror bud...proud of yourself in this debate? You still think Nikon and Canon are the good guys? Really?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 11:18:40 PM
.

However, that does come with a degree of civic duty...something Nikon and Canon have not shown. They should do the right thing and work towards adopting some much needed standards. And photographers that continue to give them a pass exacerbate the problem. (in case you were wondering that was directed at you dooode).

Hey, Jeff....corporations are not altruistic.  I doubt Adobe developed DNG for altruism...even though it maybe.

BTW...I have no idea what you mean by give 'em a pass.  If you don't mean stop buying. what?  Do you want me to fly up to canon USA HQ on LI and picket them?  Because I don't agree with you I am giving them a pass?  Come on, Jeff...give it a break...NOTHING is going any further until the ISO committees  act...until then yer just being a PITA, which I know you live to do...and I don't mind tweeking you on...I do respect you none the less...no matter whether you have any respect for others view and opinons.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: wattsies on April 16, 2013, 11:21:17 PM
Now, now children...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 16, 2013, 11:21:40 PM
Yeah, I'm a whore...I'm a shill for Adobe...I couldn't care less about fellow photographers (and everything I've done in my career proves that).

Look in the mirror bud...proud of yourself in this debate? You still think Nikon and Canon are the good guys? Really?

YES I AM PROUD...even though at this point I am feeling as foolish continuing this dialog as you look doing the same.

...and you sure look the part of a shill, whether you are or not.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 12:32:46 AM
YES I AM PROUD...even though at this point I am feeling as foolish continuing this dialog as you look doing the same.

Really? Go back and reread your contributions to the thread...you take the side of the camera makers even though you have no valid reasons (that I can see).

You mention that you don't want Nikon and Canon to suffer restrictions to their progress (even though there is zero evidence that adopting a standard would stifle their technical advances–which it wouldn't).

You say you are not against DNG and that you really don't want your raw images to survive you–just the manipulated images you've produced.

You admit that you are not a photojournalist but clearly you've not considered the plight that professionals in different genres of photography face. And apparently you couldn't care less (which is telling)

In spite of the concerns that have been put out there by the Library of Congress about the future access to digital objects in the future, you think what Nikon and Canon are doing isn't risky and putting the long term conservation and preservation of today's digital images at risk for posterity.

And you think I've been attacking you (while what I'm attacking is your arguments). I guess you never really engaged in healthy debate in school? I'm not attacking you...I don't know you from Adam. I am attacking your narrow minded, and ill-informed points of view.

Rather than actually debating the issues, you seem to want to paint me as a shill for Adobe–which is an ad hominem attack. You attack me while I attack your ideas–do you know the difference?

You ain't gonna win this one bud...you've already painted yourself into a corner with the weaknesses of your own arguments.

You don't like me (nor Andrew), I get that...I don't care. The whole reason I'm still responding to you is to drive home the arguments for other people who may be reading this thread. I just want to expose your arguments as being part of the problem and not part of any solution.

Oh, and it's fun...yes, I'll admit it's fun picking holes in your arguments (partially because you make it so easy :~)

(sorry, couldn't resist)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 17, 2013, 01:10:05 AM
Really? Go back and reread your contributions to the thread...you take the side of the camera makers even though you have no valid reasons (that I can see).

You mention that you don't want Nikon and Canon to suffer restrictions to their progress (even though there is zero evidence that adopting a standard would stifle their technical advances–which it wouldn't).

You say you are not against DNG and that you really don't want your raw images to survive you–just the manipulated images you've produced.

You admit that you are not a photojournalist but clearly you've not considered the plight that professionals in different genres of photography face. And apparently you couldn't care less (which is telling)

In spite of the concerns that have been put out there by the Library of Congress about the future access to digital objects in the future, you think what Nikon and Canon are doing isn't risky and putting the long term conservation and preservation of today's digital images at risk for posterity.

And you think I've been attacking you (while what I'm attacking is your arguments). I guess you never really engaged in healthy debate in school? I'm not attacking you...I don't know you from Adam. I am attacking your narrow minded, and ill-informed points of view.

Rather than actually debating the issues, you seem to want to paint me as a shill for Adobe–which is an ad hominem attack. You attack me while I attack your ideas–do you know the difference?

You ain't gonna win this one bud...you've already painted yourself into a corner with the weaknesses of your own arguments.

You don't like me (nor Andrew), I get that...I don't care. The whole reason I'm still responding to you is to drive home the arguments for other people who may be reading this thread. I just want to expose your arguments as being part of the problem and not part of any solution.

Oh, and it's fun...yes, I'll admit it's fun picking holes in your arguments (partially because you make it so easy :~)

(sorry, couldn't resist)

You are delusional.  You think you have an argument and save the world solution...but it falls on deaf ears.

My arguement is simple...I don't have aproblem so leave me alone....which you won't.

I do not dislike you or Andrew...I do respect you...mostly...but this whinging on DNG just goes too far and is too irrational to not respond to.

I have given you and Andrew lucid, resonable, balanced responses and reasons for my stance.  Rather than understanding my side, you totally turn deaf ears to any discussion but that which you believe in.  You are not engaging in a discussion.  Every response from you or Andrew ignores any response that you do not agree with and slams it as unworthy...or just ignores it and tries to blow by it with bluster and BS.

I have offered alternatives to long term artistic output retention, but you ignore it.  I cannot imagine even you have the chutzpa to claim that what you capture in RAW is the legacy you want to leave the world. As captured maybe documentary, but it is not, necessarily art...that is the finish product that people want to be remembered by.

You try to diminish me by stating that all I want to leave are "just the manipulated images you've produced."  Manipulated....So what are you showing in your book, The Digital Negative?  Unaltered RAW files.  

Jeff, you need to step out from behind the bluster and lies and get real.  You cannot preach enhancing RAW images in your book and then try to win this discussion with that type of rhetoric.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 01:25:59 AM
You are delusional.  You think you have an argument and save the world solution...but it falls on deaf ears.

Well, the various arguments I put forth which you've failed to respond to does indicate that your "hearing" is none too good...

So, now I'm "delusional"? As well as a shill and an AH? More name calling isn't helping your point of view...

Quote
...but this whinging on DNG just goes too far and is too irrational to not respond to.

I guess you still aren't getting it...I care less if the industry adopts DNG than the fact that the major camera makers are refusing ANY sort of standard and keep spawning off new raw file formats...over 300 or so cameras in the last 10-12 years. And that's ok with you, right? The camera makers should be free to pollute the industry with undocumented, proprietary raw file formats. And make no mistake about it, I do indeed consider it pollution...

Quote
Jeff, you need to step out from behind the bluster and lies and get real.  You cannot preach enhancing RAW images in your book and then try to win this discussion with that type of rhetoric.

Oooh...now you are claiming I'm lying? Care to point out even a single lie I've stated in this thread? Come on...there's gotta be something I've said that you think is a lie, right? Either that or I just caught you out...

As far as taking a raw image and enhancing the raw image in ACR/LR (which has zero to do about the long term preservation and conservation of raw images), I'll admit I'm pretty good at getting the most out of a raw image. And, exactly how does that position help you argument? So, I manipulate raw images aggressively–I'm good at it. So I'm good at manipulating images in Photoshop. That's a skill set I've developed over 2 decades of working.

None of that has diddly-squat to do with the point of debate–that the proliferation of undocumented and proprietary raw file formats is bad for the photographic industry. You seem to keep loosing sight of what we are debating bud. Stay on track...pay attention...undocumented, proprietary raw file formats suck.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 17, 2013, 01:44:11 AM
Well, the various arguments I put forth which you've failed to respond to does indicate that your "hearing" is none too good...

So, now I'm "delusional"? As well as a shill and an AH? More name calling isn't helping your point of view...

I guess you still aren't getting it...I care less if the industry adopts DNG than the fact that the major camera makers are refusing ANY sort of standard and keep spawning off new raw file formats...over 300 or so cameras in the last 10-12 years. And that's ok with you, right? The camera makers should be free to pollute the industry with undocumented, proprietary raw file formats. And make no mistake about it, I do indeed consider it pollution...

Oooh...now you are claiming I'm lying? Care to point out even a single lie I've stated in this thread? Come on...there's gotta be something I've said that you think is a lie, right? Either that or I just caught you out...

As far as taking a raw image and enhancing the raw image in ACR/LR (which has zero to do about the long term preservation and conservation of raw images), I'll admit I'm pretty good at getting the most out of a raw image. And, exactly how does that position help you argument? So, I manipulate raw images aggressively–I'm good at it. So I'm good at manipulating images in Photoshop. That's a skill set I've developed over 2 decades of working.

None of that has diddly-squat to do with the point of debate–that the proliferation of undocumented and proprietary raw file formats is bad for the photographic industry. You seem to keep loosing sight of what we are debating bud. Stay on track...pay attention...undocumented, proprietary raw file formats suck.


I have responded to your points...you just do not want to accept them

Unfortunately, Jeff, you are not debating.  if we were debating, we would be having a reasonable conversation with  balanced give and take.

You are very much like the NRA Spokesman Wayne LaPierre’s Insane Paranoia....never give on any point....no matter what.

Well, maybe you believe in it, but that does not mean thateveryone else does or should.  The world will go on with or without DNG acceptance...and somehow images will survive, with or without "manipulation".

I hope your images are all preserved without any amnipulation, in their basic raw form.  Why should anyone know of your skills in post processing....and what you could have shown the future if only your "manipulated" images been preserved.  Since only RAW preservation is important to you, this seems to be your desire.

This has gone on long enough and I am sure that other forum viewers think us both AH's.  Don't feel you have won because I want to spare them any more of this. 

30
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Glenn NK on April 17, 2013, 01:44:39 AM
Dammit, I ran out of popcorn. :D

Glenn
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 17, 2013, 01:47:13 AM
Dammit, I ran out of popcorn. :D

Glenn

at the perfect time, it's over.... :-)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 02:05:31 AM
Well, maybe you believe in it, but that does not mean thateveryone else does or should.  The world will go on with or without DNG acceptance...and somehow images will survive, with or without "manipulation".

Again it ain't about DNG...it's about holding the camera makers toes to the fire to force them to adopt some sort of standardized raw file format that will help (help mind you, not guarantee) the long term conservation and preservation of digital images. You still think this is about DNG...it isn't. It's far more important that DNG. DNG just happens to be a really well formed and mature container to hold raw image data...is it perfect? Nope...that's why there's been 4 revs (currently at 1.4) based on the feedback of a lot of different sources (including Nikon and Canon BTW). Thomas is happy to get feedback and technical critique from legitimate parties. He's shown he's prepared to make changes and incorporate solutions to technical issues...

But my argument is far less about DNG as a leading potential standard and much more about trying to modify the thinking and behavior of the camera makers and unfortunately, photographers who fail to grasp the importance of the issues...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 02:08:44 AM
at the perfect time, it's over.... :-)

Naw, it ain't over...I'm in this for the long haul and until the camera makers budge and work towards adopting some sort of standardized raw file format, the effort (and my efforts) go on.

It actually makes me sad that photographers still support the behavior of the major camera makers...it only goes to help perpetuate the problems and let the camera makers off the hook.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: hjulenissen on April 17, 2013, 02:34:12 AM
I am a firm believer in open-ness. Canon & friends should compete on technically good solutions (and they may patent and hide away their proprietary focus algorithms etc all that they want).

File-formats, APIs and similar should be kept open. This tends to make your customers happy (and inspire them to make another purchase), and it tends to expand the total market because 3rd parties come up with useful additions that one organization cannot do itself. The end-result is that you get a thriving ecosystem where you (publisher of fileformat/API and manufacturer of essential components) have a significant head-start.

I believe that these ideas have a hard time penetrating certain cultures (after owning a Sony flash music player with proprietary Memorystick storage and proprietary Magic Gate technology ensuring that only crappy Sony PC/Mac apps could upload music to the device I have strong feelings on the subject and on Sony culture...).

I find it really interesting that after 15 years or so of endless proprietary cell phone charger formats, it was not the "free market" that finally put some sense into it. It was (formerly communist) China and (bureacratic) EU that forced the cell phone makers to charge via USB. And we are all happier for it....


I have put a large amount of time into my LR catalog. What happens if Adobe goes out of business? Or if they decide that the new business model will be based on a $100 per month subscription for access to all of their products, and not other option? How open is the LR catalog? I don't expect Adobe to share their demosaic engine, but the metadata found in JPEG-files exported from Lightroom suggests that they are willing to share the high-level edit actions?

-h
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 02:49:43 AM
How open is the LR catalog? I don't expect Adobe to share their demosaic engine, but the metadata found in JPEG-files exported from Lightroom suggests that they are willing to share the high-level edit actions?

The settings stored in the LR catalog can be saved out as .xmp files to raw and TIFF/JPEG/PSD images. The LR catalog is stored as a MySQL database which is an open source database. So the database is pretty darn open but the algorithms for processing out ACR/LR settings is still proprietary...but trying to compare and contrast processing algorithms with undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are lie trying to compare apples and oranges.

I'm not advocating the camera makers disclose proprietary algorithms...just that the raw image data not be locked into an undocumented, proprietary raw file format. The real magic is how the camera makers convert the analog to digital signal, not the way in which the signal is recorded to media.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Jyda on April 17, 2013, 03:53:17 AM
I don't want to put fuel on this heated debate, but I remember thinking about the drawbacks of proprietary RAW formats when I read that "At his death, [Garry] Winogrand left behind 2500 undeveloped rolls of 36-exposure 35mm film."* I couldn't help thinking if that had been 90000 "undeveloped" RAW images in an old, and now unreadable, proprietary format.

*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030131.htm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030131.htm)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: wattsies on April 17, 2013, 03:53:41 AM
Guys. Go take some photos... :)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: mac_paolo on April 17, 2013, 04:05:47 AM
The settings stored in the LR catalog can be saved out as .xmp files to raw and TIFF/JPEG/PSD images. The LR catalog is stored as a MySQL database which is an open source database. So the database is pretty darn open but the algorithms for processing out ACR/LR settings is still proprietary...
Actually SQLite. Still open source, though.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Simon Garrett on April 17, 2013, 04:25:54 AM
Just to add to Jeff's and Andrew's points, the issue of standard formats is becoming a critical issue not just for journalism but for achiving of all sorts.  I'm involved with museums where we constantly have to deal with information in obsolete formats.  We can access information hundreds of years old, but once it gets to around 40 years old, we have to deal first with cranky obsolete formats of microfiche (for which readers are no longer available) and now cranky digital formats.  Sure, someone somewhere will offer a service to convert old formats, but most museums have little money, so information in obsolete formats is effectively lost.  For digital images we've got TIFF and JPEG, which can probably be regarded as long-lived, but present-day raw (except DNG) will be hopeless in future years. 

This is the point: while obsolete formats can theoretically be read in most cases, in practice they can't because it's too expensive. 

Standard formats for digital storage are very important for the future, and it's little short of tragic that illusory commercial advantage, pig-headedness and arrogance should get in the way. 
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 17, 2013, 04:30:14 AM
Andrews data for the complaints about a lack of DNG are all based on users complaining that they cannot use their software with their cameras. That is due to Adobe's policy of forcing an update so as to keep raw software current. Adobe's DNG is needed to solve the problem caused by Adobe. If the problem was a new camera which was as yet unsupported then the fact it has a DNG file would do nothing to help the fact that the camera is as yet unsupported, you get weird colours, noise, banding, etc. I agree that there needs to be a standard set, we're shooting repro for a museum in a studio where our backup is the Leaf Raw files because we cannot afford to back up in 16bit TIFF which is the industry standard. However I do not trust Adobe's standard. It's too self serving and to be honest I doubt that it is any more archival in the long run. I doubt cameras 50 years in the future will know what RAW is ditto their software. RAW files will have become as archaic as the hardware they were stored on. DNG will be as dead as CR2 even if it does somehow manage to become a standard.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Tony Jay on April 17, 2013, 04:39:03 AM
Ben, I got to say that you are not making a lot of sense.
Perhaps you need to explain your points better.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: mprager on April 17, 2013, 04:57:11 AM
The settings stored in the LR catalog can be saved out as .xmp files to raw and TIFF/JPEG/PSD images. The LR catalog is stored as a MySQL database which is an open source database. So the database is pretty darn open but the algorithms for processing out ACR/LR settings is still proprietary...but trying to compare and contrast processing algorithms with undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are lie trying to compare apples and oranges.

I'm not advocating the camera makers disclose proprietary algorithms...just that the raw image data not be locked into an undocumented, proprietary raw file format. The real magic is how the camera makers convert the analog to digital signal, not the way in which the signal is recorded to media.

Well, new to me that LR catalog is stored as a MySQL database - this is good news - as this is not a propriatry format. And I agree with Schewe on Nikon and Canon completely. Just when did I skip this information  :-\

But I would like to add the issue I have with DNG: It is not truly in the open domain, it belongs to Adobe, is not an ISO standard and therefore the further development an use completely depends on Adobe. A situation that could turn into a problem. And for me this is the only reason not to use it today
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Tony Jay on April 17, 2013, 05:14:59 AM
Again, actually an SQLite database.

You need to read the history of the development of the DNG format - it was precisely to make it an open format - but don't take my word for it, do your research.
Having read this thread there has been a lot of BS typed about various aspects of digital formats and archival fidelity so lets not add to the confusion shall we.

BTW welcome to LuLa.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: hjulenissen on April 17, 2013, 06:13:21 AM
Andrews data for the complaints about a lack of DNG are all based on users complaining that they cannot use their software with their cameras. That is due to Adobe's policy of forcing an update so as to keep raw software current. Adobe's DNG is needed to solve the problem caused by Adobe. If the problem was a new camera which was as yet unsupported then the fact it has a DNG file would do nothing to help the fact that the camera is as yet unsupported, you get weird colours, noise, banding, etc. I agree that there needs to be a standard set, we're shooting repro for a museum in a studio where our backup is the Leaf Raw files because we cannot afford to back up in 16bit TIFF which is the industry standard. However I do not trust Adobe's standard. It's too self serving and to be honest I doubt that it is any more archival in the long run. I doubt cameras 50 years in the future will know what RAW is ditto their software. RAW files will have become as archaic as the hardware they were stored on. DNG will be as dead as CR2 even if it does somehow manage to become a standard.
If cameras used an open raw format (like dng), one would hope that old Lightroom version would be able to _read_ raw files from future cameras.

It might not make sense to expect Adobe to make new profiles for those cameras which they would provide for free.

In other words:
You would be able to read raw files from new cameras from day 1. "Optimal" image quality might be expected when:
1) Adobe, a 3rd party or you yourself made the necessary profiles for the new camera
2) Camera manufacturers chose to provide Adobe, their users or the raw files with the necessary profiles for interpreting the raw data in some "optimal" form.

-h
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jferrari on April 17, 2013, 08:00:48 AM
If it was ANYONE else this thread would have locked long ago. Don't ya just love double standards?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 17, 2013, 08:20:10 AM
Oh I don't know if it's double standards.  It's a hot topic, and obviously dear to some people's heart (rightly so I suspect).  If there were never any noise made, it probably wouldn't get dealt with.  I don't know whether the answer is DNG or not, but there needs to be SOME answer.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jferrari on April 17, 2013, 08:33:39 AM
I agree with you on the subject matter but not with calling people a$$holes just because you don't like the coolaid.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 17, 2013, 08:35:55 AM
I agree with you on the subject matter but not with calling people a$$holes just because you don't like the coolaid.

Agreed, but it wasn't the "one" you mentioned that was doing the name calling, it was the other party.  Unless I missed something, but I don't think I did.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 17, 2013, 09:03:21 AM
If cameras used an open raw format (like dng), one would hope that old Lightroom version would be able to _read_ raw files from future cameras.

It might not make sense to expect Adobe to make new profiles for those cameras which they would provide for free.

In other words:
You would be able to read raw files from new cameras from day 1. "Optimal" image quality might be expected when:
1) Adobe, a 3rd party or you yourself made the necessary profiles for the new camera
2) Camera manufacturers chose to provide Adobe, their users or the raw files with the necessary profiles for interpreting the raw data in some "optimal" form.

-h

Or in other words you have to update anyway to get usable profiles (point 2 would still not filter down to older software, even 1 year old software if the speed of this new release is anything to go by) so the argument that DNG would circumvent that issue are also false.

As for the idea that DNG would be more archival. I just can't see it. If the DNG standard is adopted then it would provide Adobe with less work and would provide a more archival standard, perhaps, for cameras made with this new DNG standard for the next couple of decades, maybe. If Adobe is still around and I wouldn't place any bets on it for the 20 year from now mark. If it is not adopted then Adobe has the choice to either continue to support all the different formats or for LR/ACR to die because they don't. I just can't see what DNG would do for archiveability. 30 years from now it will be as difficult to read a DNG as it will be to read a CR2 or MOS or whatever. Whether it is adopted as a standard or not. You will need the hardware, software, profiles, etc. I can see why the museums do not consider raw files to be archival period.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: john beardsworth on April 17, 2013, 09:24:07 AM
Or in other words you have to update anyway to get usable profiles (point 2 would still not filter down to older software, even 1 year old software if the speed of this new release is anything to go by) so the argument that DNG would circumvent that issue are also false.
Huh? They'd be usable, maybe just not optimal. That's a very big difference.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 17, 2013, 10:03:19 AM
You are delusional.  You think you have an argument and save the world solution...but it falls on deaf ears.

Certainly your ears fall into that camp.

Quote
My arguement is simple...I don't have aproblem so leave me alone....which you won't.

Why not go away?

Quote
I have given you and Andrew lucid, resonable, balanced responses and reasons for my stance.
 

I disagree strongly. Had you done so, I'd be in a position to consider your POV yet no matter how often I (or others in this 'debate') ask for clarity, proof of concept, we get sent down another rabbit hole.

Quote
Rather than understanding my side, you totally turn deaf ears to any discussion but that which you believe in.
 

Pot calling the kettle black. Look, let's agree to disagree (not that I know what to disagree with, your points are not well spelled out). Move on, or do this: Make a single post whereby you answer a question asked of you numerous times, namely, why would any photographer or perhaps you yourself find the current proprietary raw situation anything but a problem? Maybe not for you personally but for other's in our industry. Do I seriously have to dig up posts from people who ask why their shiny new raw files can't be accessed? You honestly haven't heard this complaint? IF the answer is yes, you do understand that hundreds of proprietary and 'unique' raw files cause some headache’s please, PLEASE explain how you can side with the companies who produce this issue? Are you able to answer that single question? If not, someone please lock this thread.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 17, 2013, 10:21:06 AM
Andrews data for the complaints about a lack of DNG are all based on users complaining that they cannot use their software with their cameras. That is due to Adobe's policy of forcing an update so as to keep raw software current.

Let me see if I understand how your mind works to better understand your POV.

A company makes a raw file (from my image) that is different year after year. At the same time and in the same product, they also make a format that's been around since Photoshop 1 and there are no issues with that data. So due to this difference in a file format that always needs updating, it's Adobe's fault?

Let's pretend for just a minute that this camera company makes a raw file that acts just like the JPEG. Adobe is now not at fault?

Just trying to understand how when one company who controls how a file is written and changes it all the time isn't responsible for that, while everyone else who has to understand that file is responsible. Oh wait, not all companies even though it affects them too. Only Adobe.

Please help me connect the dots in your above logic.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 17, 2013, 10:23:52 AM
But I would like to add the issue I have with DNG: It is not truly in the open domain, it belongs to Adobe, is not an ISO standard and therefore the further development an use completely depends on Adobe.

You realize that's true of TIFF (and of course PSD) under Adobe's control. So do you archive all your images in JPEG?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 17, 2013, 11:17:22 AM
Let me see if I understand how your mind works to better understand your POV.

A company makes a raw file (from my image) that is different year after year. At the same time and in the same product, they also make a format that's been around since Photoshop 1 and there are no issues with that data. So due to this difference in a file format that always needs updating, it's Adobe's fault?

Let's pretend for just a minute that this camera company makes a raw file that acts just like the JPEG. Adobe is now not at fault?

Just trying to understand how when one company who controls how a file is written and changes it all the time isn't responsible for that, while everyone else who has to understand that file is responsible. Oh wait, not all companies even though it affects them too. Only Adobe.

Please help me connect the dots in your above logic.

Canon provide software for reading their Raw files, ditto all the other companies. Why should they care about adobe? They have and do provide a solution. Your argument doesn't wash. Adobe would like everyone to use their format. Given that Adobe is already and dangerously a monopoly I can see why the manufacturers would tell them to get lost.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 17, 2013, 11:34:06 AM
Canon provide software for reading their Raw files, ditto all the other companies.

Agreed they do (all other companies meaning camera companies). But I don't like their software. Do you think they are justified in forcing me to use their raw converter but no such restrictions on the JPEG?

Quote
Your argument doesn't wash.

Which part?
The part that says Adobe isn't at fault here because a camera company builds a new file that can only be viewed within it's software (for a time being)?
The part that says I should be able to handle my raw data as I can my JPEG data?
The part that says a proprietary format provides zero advantages to me, the end user compared to an open format (like JPEG)?

I'm willing to discuss and understand your POV, and I'd appreciate if you'd explain it based on my questions to you in my last post. In the scenario I provide, according to you, Adobe is at fault for this issue because one of the two files a camera creates in proprietary. Can you explain how it's their fault for the raw but the JPEG, being an open format anyone can decipher isn't a problem?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: john beardsworth on April 17, 2013, 11:36:11 AM
Canon provide software for reading their Raw files, ditto all the other companies. Why should they care about adobe? They have and do provide a solution. Your argument doesn't wash. Adobe would like everyone to use their format. Given that Adobe is already and dangerously a monopoly I can see why the manufacturers would tell them to get lost.

While in some ways you are being realistic about their motives, that doesn't mean their behaviour is good for photographers or something to be accepted in dumb silence - and certainly not when there is a good way forward.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 11:56:53 AM
If the problem was a new camera which was as yet unsupported then the fact it has a DNG file would do nothing to help the fact that the camera is as yet unsupported, you get weird colours, noise, banding, etc.

Well, past experience indicates you are wrong...the last several Pentax and Leica cameras came out using DNG and they were well supported from the word go without requiring any effort on Adobe or the camera owner's part. I guess you don't understand how this works...the camera maker takes the required metadata and places in the correct location in the file. Presto-chango, the new camera is supported as if by magic! Pretty cool huh? That's what a friggin' standard is supposed to be all about.

Quote
However I do not trust Adobe's standard. It's too self serving and to be honest I doubt that it is any more archival in the long run.

Do your homework...go back and read the article about the long term sustainability of digital objects. If you did, you would then understand that DNG is very sustainable...do the reading before you express an ill-informed opinion.

As for not trusting Adobe? Well, let's see, Adobe has granted TIFF-6 to the /ISO, for free...it's used as the basis of TIFF-EP (that's TIFF for Electronic Photography) which ironically is the basis of all the raw file formats out there except for Sigma (there may one or two other oddball raw formats as well). Adobe released DNG because, well, that's what Thomas Knoll wanted to do. He thought having a model raw file format was important for the industry...and who better to do that than a guy that has reverse engineered about 300 different raw file formats? Thomas knows a thing or two about file formats and digital imaging. He's the guy who kinda jump started this whole digital imaging thingie...

You seem to be jumping into this fray without the prerequisite understanding of the technical and political issues. I'm more than happy to engage...but I don't like repeating myself. Read  DNG File Format & DNG Converter (http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/software-technique/dng-file-format-and-dng-converter.html) and sustainability factors (http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/sustain/sustain.shtml). If you have questions, ask. Just don't bother to spout out ill-informed opinion as fact.

The whole thing isn't about whether DNG becomes a standard, it's about the fact the industry and the camera companies have to settle the dust and develop and adhere to some sort of standards or an entire generation of photography is at greater risk of being unavailable in the future. That's what it at stake.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 12:00:13 PM
Canon provide software for reading their Raw files, ditto all the other companies.

Lucky you didn't shoot Kodak DCS cameras of have stuff scanned to Photo CD. Ya see, Kodak is kinda out of the photo biz these days. I think it's really short sighted to think it's ok for camera companies to produce undocumented, proprietary raw file formats with the expectation those companies will always be around to support them. History tells us otherwise...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 17, 2013, 12:03:57 PM
The whole thing isn't about whether DNG becomes a standard, it's about the fact the industry and the camera companies have to settle the dust and develop and adhere to some sort of standards or an entire generation of photography is at greater risk of being unavailable in the future. That's what it at stake.

Well said, the bottom line. There IS a lot at stake here, hence some of the passion. Some of us have been burned in the past. Not fun. Not necessary. All political.

I don't care if as a Canon shooter, Nikon comes out with an open raw format and DNG dies on the vine. Might be the reason to move to Nikon. I just want my camera raws to behave like the camera JEPGs. You select what data you want and it can be read by the software I desire to use. I don't care if the solution is Adobe's or someone else’s. I want a solution. That said, DNG becomes more and more useful as the format progress. Case in point (and back to the topic), DNG verification inside of LR5 is yet another feather in the DNG cap.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 17, 2013, 12:23:45 PM
Jeff,

I have a question.  It seems like I recall your recommendation at one time was to not archive files under DNG, although it was available in Lr.  I could be remembering wrong so feel free to let me know.  If so, do you now recommend doing so?  Have things been changed around enough with DNG that we should do the conversion as we are importing files into our catalogs?  As of yet, I haven't done anythign with DNG outside of creating a camera profile.  

Thanks,

John

Edit:  I just answered my own question by reading your article.  It's ironic that I JUST read your book The Digital Negative but I must have been dosing off as I went through that part :)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 01:06:58 PM
It seems like I recall your recommendation at one time was to not archive files under DNG, although it was available in Lr.

Yeah, for the purposes of using raw files in Lightroom, I don't personally convert all raws to DNGs because of the issue of backing up. If you write out the xmp metadata to a raw file, the DNG file modification date gets updated and then any backup software will catch the modification date change and backup the entire DNG. If you use the original raw file, LR/ACR creates a tiny .xmp sidecar file. When you save out the metadata for the original raw file, the raw file doesn't get modified, just the tiny .xmp file. So, the differences in the size of the backup requirement can be huge...particularly if you are shooting large MP raw captures!

What I do tend to do is convert to DNG once an image has been "finished". DNG makes for an optimal file format for exchanging raw files because it contains all the raw settings, the Exif and ITPC metadata as well as any snapshots in one single file unit.

And for those who may say "ah ha, you don't even use DNG", that isn't the point of the discussion about undocumented, proprietary raw files...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: hjulenissen on April 17, 2013, 01:59:14 PM
Or in other words you have to update anyway to get usable profiles (point 2 would still not filter down to older software, even 1 year old software if the speed of this new release is anything to go by) so the argument that DNG would circumvent that issue are also false.
Yes it would. If the raw file includes proper profiles of the camera, then proper raw developers ought to be able to read those profiles (even older raw developers reading future camera files) and output reasonable developements.
Quote
As for the idea that DNG would be more archival. I just can't see it. If the DNG standard is adopted then it would provide Adobe with less work and would provide a more archival standard, perhaps, for cameras made with this new DNG standard for the next couple of decades, maybe. If Adobe is still around and I wouldn't place any bets on it for the 20 year from now mark. If it is not adopted then Adobe has the choice to either continue to support all the different formats or for LR/ACR to die because they don't. I just can't see what DNG would do for archiveability. 30 years from now it will be as difficult to read a DNG as it will be to read a CR2 or MOS or whatever. Whether it is adopted as a standard or not. You will need the hardware, software, profiles, etc. I can see why the museums do not consider raw files to be archival period.
I think you fail to see the amount of work done by Dave Coffin only to get access to the raw sensel data in raw files. They may be compressed using an unknown compression algorithm.
http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

It is cumbersome but not impossible to write something like a JPEG encoder/decoder from the documentation. Doing it without the documentation is borderline insane. Anything that is a widely published standard today is likely to live on the internet (or something like it) for a very long time.

-h
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: jrsforums on April 17, 2013, 02:42:19 PM


What I do tend to do is convert to DNG once an image has been "finished". DNG makes for an optimal file format for exchanging raw files because it contains all the raw settings, the Exif and ITPC metadata as well as any snapshots in one single file unit.


Help me understand....

We now have a "finished" DNG.  Let's assume it is ISO industry standard and non-proprietary. 

What software can decode it so that one can see, view, print, project the finished image that the photographer has saved for postarity. 

Is this software open sourced, non-propietary?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 02:46:18 PM
I think you fail to see the amount of work done by Dave Coffin only to get access to the raw sensel data in raw files.

Dave Coffin is quite the hero in my eyes...it was Dave's initial work decoding raw file formats that really led to the process of reverse engineering the raw image data and discovering the various metadata tags such as white balance that really bootstrapped the whole 3rd party raw image processing. Even Thomas Knoll built upon Dave's work for Camera Raw (and arranged for Dave to get a little prize for his work).

The really funny thing about undocumented, proprietary raw files is there's really nothing secret (nor valuable) contained in proprietary raw files. There's also nothing that's really proprietary either...all the really secret stuff is done onboard the camera's analog to digital conversion of the sensor data to the raw file data written to media. This is one of the most frustrating aspects of the camera companies' behavior...there's nothing really secret nor proprietary in raw files. The camera companies failure to document the files is silly. It comes back to the fact that they simply don't want to kinda like a baby refusing to eat their carrots...and just about as juvenile too.

Which is also why I find it particularly irritating when photographers defend the behavior of the camera companies.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 02:57:19 PM
What software can decode it so that one can see, view, print, project the finished image that the photographer has saved for postarity.

Here's a list of products that offer some sort of DNG compatibility (http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products_y6.htm)...as of Sept, 2010 (the most recent list).

And Dave Coffin's dcraw (http://www.cybercom.net/%7Edcoffin/dcraw/) supports DNG (although the processing is a bit different than ACR/LR's because Dave uses different processing algorithms).

This is what Dave says his mission is: So here is my mission: Write and maintain an ANSI C program that decodes any raw image from any digital camera on any computer running any operating system.

That program is called dcraw (pronounced "dee-see-raw"), and it's become a standard tool within and without the Open Source world. It's small (about 9000 lines), portable (standard C libraries only), free (both "gratis" and "libre"), and when used skillfully, produces better quality output than the tools provided by the camera vendor.

And, since Dave supports DNG, dcraw is an open source, non-proprietary raw and DNG converter...

And yes, Dave has to struggle to decode new cameras just like the rest of the 3rd party processors. Caused, of course, by the lack of documented and non-proprietary raw files from the camera companies.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: jrsforums on April 17, 2013, 03:02:55 PM
Here's a list of products that offer some sort of DNG compatibility (http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products_y6.htm)...as of Sept, 2010 (the most recent list).

And Dave Coffin's dcraw (http://www.cybercom.net/%7Edcoffin/dcraw/) supports DNG (although the processing is a bit different than ACR/LR's because Dave uses different processing algorithms).

This is what Dave says his mission is: So here is my mission: Write and maintain an ANSI C program that decodes any raw image from any digital camera on any computer running any operating system.

That program is called dcraw (pronounced "dee-see-raw"), and it's become a standard tool within and without the Open Source world. It's small (about 9000 lines), portable (standard C libraries only), free (both "gratis" and "libre"), and when used skillfully, produces better quality output than the tools provided by the camera vendor.

And, since Dave supports DNG, dcraw is an open source, non-proprietary raw and DNG converter...

And yes, Dave has to struggle to decode new cameras just like the rest of the 3rd party processors. Caused, of course, by the lack of documented and non-proprietary raw files from the camera companies.


I guess I was not clear....

we are no longer talking about the RAW image.  We are talking about the, as you say, "finished" image.

As I understand it, except maybe for a relatively small jpeg (no even sure that is not of the original RAW), the "finished" image only exists as part of a series of instructions, which needs code to make it usable.  Without the proper code it is "locked".  What will "unlock" it so we can see the "finished" image?  Or is it I who do not understand?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 03:26:56 PM
What will "unlock" it so we can see the "finished" image?

Any application that supports viewing embedded DNG Previews can see the the results (although not change them) such as:
ACDSee - Photo Manager
Photo Mechanic
Canto Cumulus
FastPictureViewer
FastStone - Image Viewer & Maxview
iView MediaPro (not sure about the status of the Phase One media tool)
Photodex - ProShow Producer
Photools - IMatch
Proshooters DigitalPro

Did you look at the list of products that offer some sort of DNG compatibility (http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products_y6.htm)?

And that's even an old list...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 17, 2013, 03:44:38 PM
Jeff, out of curiosity.. I suppose someone that has your DNG file can also open it and edit the file (as well as see your edits).  That condition exists now of course, but there isn't a method of "locking" it is there?...or in the proprietary RAWS either.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Vladimirovich on April 17, 2013, 04:03:02 PM
Which is also why I find it particularly irritating when photographers defend the behavior of the camera companies.
indeed, I am particularly irritated that somebody who stands so pro DNG actively support those manufacturers by purchasing their cameras and participating in their workshops  ::)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Vladimirovich on April 17, 2013, 04:07:41 PM
That said, DNG becomes more and more useful as the format progress.
as an intermediate format in your workflow yes, by all means... it is not different from tiff or whatever... as an original in camera raw format - dream on... market share of DNG using companies is going down... Samsung dropped DNG, Ricoh purchased Pentax and both are dropping off radar behind with a surge or mirrorless cameras from the likes of olympus, panasonic, sony, fuji...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: digitaldog on April 17, 2013, 04:08:46 PM
we are no longer talking about the RAW image.  We are talking about the, as you say, "finished" image.

Of course it's a raw image. The parametric instructions (which ARE proprietary) is finished. An image still needs to be rendered from this raw.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: jrsforums on April 17, 2013, 04:44:09 PM
Any application that supports viewing embedded DNG Previews can see the the results (although not change them) such as:
ACDSee - Photo Manager
Photo Mechanic
Canto Cumulus
FastPictureViewer
FastStone - Image Viewer & Maxview
iView MediaPro (not sure about the status of the Phase One media tool)
Photodex - ProShow Producer
Photools - IMatch
Proshooters DigitalPro

Did you look at the list of products that offer some sort of DNG compatibility (http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products_y6.htm)?

And that's even an old list...

What format and quality is the DNG preview?

Do these programs require/use the Adobe DNG codex?  Which, while free, is proprietary, is it not?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: jrsforums on April 17, 2013, 04:49:52 PM
Of course it's a raw image. The parametric instructions (which ARE proprietary) is finished. An image still needs to be rendered from this raw.

So, I don't understand...?

We go from one proprietary format, to another....that is, we need the proprietary program to see the "finished" art that was created.   

How does this fulfill the museum needs of "sustainability"?  Do the museums want just the RAWs, or the artist's finished work?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Tony Jay on April 17, 2013, 04:53:56 PM
as an intermediate format in your workflow yes, by all means... it is not different from tiff or whatever... as an original in camera raw format - dream on... market share of DNG using companies is going down... Samsung dropped DNG, Ricoh purchased Pentax and both are dropping off radar behind with a surge or mirrorless cameras from the likes of olympus, panasonic, sony, fuji...
That has precisely nothing to do with their adoption of DNG as their RAW format.
I am sorry but there is so much BS already out there.

As for your apparent criticism of Jeff - what camera exactly would you like him to use?

DNG would make a perfectly acceptable archival format.
It would make a perfectly acceptable RAW format.
However the industry could adopt another format as standard.
However most of the big camera manufacturers just refuse to acknowledge the chaos that the continual spawning of proprietary RAW formats has already caused and will continue to cause.

IMO the real argument is not about supporting or denigrating any particular company but rather about a sustainable open format RAW format verified by the ISO.
This will allow now orphaned RAW formats to be be converted to something usable before the ability to access them is lost. (Technically they are accessible but in practise for most people they are orphaned because the software required needs obselete hardware and OS's.)
It will also allow RAW images to be accessible right out of the camera by any software - third-party or otherwise - that is currently not the case.

Nuff said.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: digitaldog on April 17, 2013, 05:03:15 PM
So, I don't understand...?

Correct.

Quote
We go from one proprietary format, to another....that is, we need the proprietary program to see the "finished" art that was created.   

The file format no. DNG isn't proprietary. The processing of the raw data, yes.

DNG or CR2, both raw data (well a DNG can also contain rendered data but that's moot here). One's proprietary one isn't. What you do what that data is a different story.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 17, 2013, 05:06:01 PM

IMO the real argument is not about supporting or denigrating any particular company but rather about a sustainable open format RAW format verified by the ISO.
This will allow now orphaned RAW formats to be be converted to something usable before the ability to access them is lost. (Technically they are accessible but in practise for most people they are orphaned because the software required needs obselete hardware and OS's.)
It will also allow RAW images to be accessible right out of the camera by any software - third-party or otherwise - that is currently not the case.

Nuff said.

Tony Jay

That's pretty succinct and to the point.  Hard to argue with that regardless of what your personal opinions may be regarding "companies".
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: jrsforums on April 17, 2013, 05:27:08 PM
Correct.

The file format no. DNG isn't proprietary. The processing of the raw data, yes.

DNG or CR2, both raw data (well a DNG can also contain rendered data but that's moot here). One's proprietary one isn't. What you do what that data is a different story.

So...DNG can be an open RAW standard, if accepted as an ISO standard and the Library of Congress Digital Format....neither of which has happened yet.

DNG, will not fulfill the museum digital format need of providing the middle and final stages of the artists work....at least not in an open, non-proprietary form.

Using Jeff's example that he uses DNG for his "finished" works, does not provide long term "sustainability", at least in terms of the preservation factors need, that being "migration to new formats, emulation of current software on future computers, or a hybrid approach."

BTW....as I am sure you are aware, "So, I don't understand...?" is a tongue-in-cheek figure of speech.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 05:41:34 PM
indeed, I am particularly irritated that somebody who stands so pro DNG actively support those manufacturers by purchasing their cameras and participating in their workshops  ::)

Yep...and I've had long talks over copious drinks about Phase One's resistance to DNG...but I find it's useful to work from within. I did help facilitate getting Phase One to supply lens data to get lens profiles in ACR/LR and encouragement to adapt the most recent DNG spec...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 05:43:25 PM
Do these programs require/use the Adobe DNG codex?  Which, while free, is proprietary, is it not?

Ya know...if you are so curious, do your own homework to find out...I'm getting tired of spoon feeding knowledge to you.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 05:51:57 PM
Using Jeff's example that he uses DNG for his "finished" works, does not provide long term "sustainability", at least in terms of the preservation factors need, that being "migration to new formats, emulation of current software on future computers, or a hybrid approach."

The only thing that may suffer long term "sustainability" are the settings...not the raw image data–which was the whole point of this friggin' debate. What you are still failing to grasp is the long term conservation and preservation of the RAW IMAGE DATA is at risk. As you've already said, you don't even want people to see your raw images...but plenty of areas of photography do need access to the original raw data which DNG facilitates...and here's the irony, over time, the original raw image data has improved with new raw image processors–which is something totally new for photography...film didn't get better with age, but raw image data can as algorithms are improved.

You keep circling the drain bud, but you ain't winning many converts (and I don't count Vlad as a convert, he's just a pain, although he knows far more about the subject that you do, prolly more than I do too).
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: digitaldog on April 17, 2013, 05:59:59 PM
So...DNG can be an open RAW standard, if accepted as an ISO standard and the Library of Congress Digital Format....neither of which has happened yet.

It could be an open raw format without either. Be nice if (and when) it does become an accepted ISO standard.

Quote
DNG, will not fulfill the museum digital format need of providing the middle and final stages of the artists work....at least not in an open, non-proprietary form.

It could if you put a rendered version in there. DNG is just a very robust container. It holds lots of useful data.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 17, 2013, 06:10:04 PM
I guess that answers it....I just wanted confirmation, which you do not want to give.

The proprietary nature of Adobe's code, while understandable, kinda blows your argument of openness.  It also will probably mar its acceptability to the museums, as it does not provide the middle and final parts of the work of art.  Other digital formats will be need to provide those.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 17, 2013, 06:22:37 PM
I guess that answers it....I just wanted confirmation, which you do not want to give.

The proprietary nature of Adobe's code, while understandable, kinda blows your argument of openness.  It also will probably mar its acceptability to the museums, as it does not provide the middle and final parts of the work of art.  Other digital formats will be need to provide those.

What proprietary code? DNG isn't proprietary. How anyone edits that data is always proprietary. Vibrance +24 is only understood in Lightroom or ACR. IF Capture 1 or Raw Developer had a slider or setting called Vibrance, it's processing is proprietary and different.

You are confusing proprietary processing to proprietary data formats. Processing is always proprietary.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 06:24:41 PM
I guess that answers it....I just wanted confirmation, which you do not want to give.

The proprietary nature of Adobe's code, while understandable, kinda blows your argument of openness.  It also will probably mar its acceptability to the museums, as it does not provide the middle and final parts of the work of art.  Other digital formats will be need to provide those.

You are confusing access to the original raw data to access to the image settings. The lack of access to ACR/LR processing does not invalidate, in any way, the usefulness of the long term preservation and conservation of the original raw data–which regardless of your point of view, is what is the most critical aspect of this issue. If you have access to the original raw image data you can always go back and re-render an image from the raw image and likely do so with better image quality because of improvements in raw processing. That is just work...it's the original raw data that is critical to maintain. Get it yet? It's all about the raw data...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 06:28:24 PM
I suppose someone that has your DNG file can also open it and edit the file (as well as see your edits).  That condition exists now of course, but there isn't a method of "locking" it is there?...or in the proprietary RAWS either.

Not that I'm aware of...so, you just have to be careful who you give your raw files to!
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: jrsforums on April 17, 2013, 06:45:30 PM
The only thing that may suffer long term "sustainability" are the settings...not the raw image data–which was the whole point of this friggin' debate. What you are still failing to grasp is the long term conservation and preservation of the RAW IMAGE DATA is at risk. As you've already said, you don't even want people to see your raw images...but plenty of areas of photography do need access to the original raw data which DNG facilitates...and here's the irony, over time, the original raw image data has improved with new raw image processors–which is something totally new for photography...film didn't get better with age, but raw image data can as algorithms are improved.

You keep circling the drain bud, but you ain't winning many converts (and I don't count Vlad as a convert, he's just a pain, although he knows far more about the subject that you do, prolly more than I do too).

Look...you pointed to the museums. They want (need?) the raw original data, as well as intermediate works and the final output.

DNG or any other open RAW standard would be nice....and hopefully we will get that some day....but as your comments on Phase One, Canon, and Nikon, etc. are best worked "from within", not in a forum.

You only put your "finished" works in DNG format.  You have faith that Adobe will continue to support ACR/LR so that you can go back and work these in the future.  I submit, that there is a greater chance of the Adobe support disappearing sometime in the future than we have of the ability to "decode" the proprietary RAW formats we have today.  Only Adobe supports ACR; many are decoding RAW.  Could all this knowledge be lost...maybe, but not likely.

You keep bringing up Kodak.  How many concerns were able or bothered to decode those RAW formats.  How many are working with today's formats (no, Jeff...I am not fishing for and answer...rhetorical, you know).  

I submit, if it were worth their while, Dave Coffman or Eric Chan could work the Kodak code.  Photodisk...I don't know if that is a media problem, which I suspect, or a codex, or both.

As far as showing people my RAW images, I do it all the time when reviewing with friends and camera clubs when discussing processing methods (and I have no fear that a museum curator will "need" access to them either).  However, I only "show"...i.e. print, post, email...finished works.  We all have a visualization of our finished work.  Adams did not display his negatives...his final image needed work to pull out what he saw when he shot the image.  David DuChemin, Guy Tal...and, I am sure, you work the same way.  You are rather small to turn an obvious statement that I made in an attempt to demean me.

I am overjoyed with the work of Adobe, specifically Eric Chan, to improve RAW conversion...and I go back to my old RAW originals to see if I can improve selected ones, or do something with the ones I was just not able to get the way I wanted them.

I am not trying to convert you.  I am just providing an alternative view.  Your chicken little act may have some validity.  The validity however is that it would be easier with an open standard (which I agree to), but the sky is not falling.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 17, 2013, 06:53:21 PM
You are confusing access to the original raw data to access to the image settings. The lack of access to ACR/LR processing does not invalidate, in any way, the usefulness of the long term preservation and conservation of the original raw data–which regardless of your point of view, is what is the most critical aspect of this issue. If you have access to the original raw image data you can always go back and re-render an image from the raw image and likely do so with better image quality because of improvements in raw processing. That is just work...it's the original raw data that is critical to maintain. Get it yet? It's all about the raw data...

Common, Jeff.  If you have an Adams negative, can you get HIS print out of it?  Curators do not want a recreation of the final work...they want the actual work.  The historians also want the steps along the way.

Your reference to the "7 Steps" clearly points it out.

You know what is frustrating dealing with you.  You keep changing what is important, to win you individual narrow arguments.  Without ever providing a balanced discussion.  You can't point to the museum digital format document and not include all they desire.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
Post by: Schewe on April 17, 2013, 10:21:33 PM
Look...you pointed to the museums. They want (need?) the raw original data, as well as intermediate works and the final output.

No I didn't...I pointed to the Library of Congress as being concerned about the long term conservation and preservation of all digital objects...not just raw image files, but written text, audio and video and any object where the original source file was digital...digital photography is only the tip of a very large iceberg. Yes, I mentioned that the Library of Congress is working on this...but as far as I can remember, I never said anything about museums. I know the National Archives (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/projects-and-work/digital-preservation-faqs.htm) in England is also working on these issues...but I'm not aware of any particular museum involvement although I would be shocked if they weren't...(I would be shocked if they weren't)

Quote
DNG or any other open RAW standard would be nice....and hopefully we will get that some day....but as your comments on Phase One, Canon, and Nikon, etc. are best worked "from within", not in a forum.

Actually, ya gotta work both the companies AND the photographic community and the LuLa forum is a perfect place to educate photographers on the issues. Again, I simply can't believe if photographers are educated about the issues that could possibly be willing to give the camera makers a pass on their behavior.

Quote
You only put your "finished" works in DNG format.

No, you have that wrong too...I said I only put my finished raw files in DNG...I do have some raw files who don't need Photoshop but most do...my "finished" works end up as TIFF–which, wait for it, is an open documented, non-proprietary file format. This is why I don't use PSDs, because while documented, you have to sign a special Photoshop PSD format NDA for the PSD documentation. Note, Adobe also owns the TIFF file format (they got it when they bought Aldus) and have maintained the format and have ceded TIFF to the ISO (as they are willing to do with DNG). Another example of Adobe trying to do the right thing for the industry.

Quote
I submit, if it were worth their while, Dave Coffman or Eric Chan could work the Kodak code.  Photodisk...I don't know if that is a media problem, which I suspect, or a codex, or both.

Actually Thomas DID reverse engineer the DCS raw file format and you can convert them to DNG...as far as Photo CD (it wasn't photodisk), that was a Kodak solution to scanning film to digital, popular in the early 1990's that a lot of photographers used. Kodak ceased supporting the SDK and plug-in which is why people with Photo CD disks need to keep an old version of Photoshop around to read them because Kodak orphaned the technology...

Quote
You know what is frustrating dealing with you.  You keep changing what is important, to win you individual narrow arguments.  Without ever providing a balanced discussion.

Huh? what you wrote doesn't make sense...my arguments have been very clear and consistent since the first time I've engaged with you on this issue. Yes, I'm really good a poking holes in your arguments. I don't care about balanced discussion, I care about an informed and accurate discussion. I haven't called you names...I've not attacked you personally (only your ideas) and my only concern is that photographers learn about the risks this industry faces because the cowboy camera makers.

Quote
You can't point to the museum digital format document and not include all they desire.

I have zero idea what you meant...what "all they desire" are you referring to?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Tony Jay on April 17, 2013, 11:17:59 PM
Open letter to jrsforums:

I think you have made it abundantly clear that you have little idea of the broader scope and issues surrounding digital asset management much less those more specific to photography per se.
Your knowledge of file formats, both their technical aspects as well as their history, is appalling.

I really think you need to independently research some of the issues before mouthing off about things you are clearly completely ignorant of.
Neither Jeff Schewe nor Andrew Rodney need me to defend them.
However, I will say this: they do know what they are talking about and none of what they are saying is in the slightest bit surprising or controversial to anyone who understands digital asset management and the substantial challenges that are currently with us.

So, get on the net and start doing some research.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 12:03:47 AM
Open letter to jrsforums:

I think you have made it abundantly clear that you have little idea of the broader scope and issues surrounding digital asset management much less those more specific to photography per se.
Your knowledge of file formats, both their technical aspects as well as their history, is appalling.

Yes, I do.  As far as I am concerned, I do not have a problem and much of the "problem" I blown out of proportion.  The user problems that are quoted are those users who, as early adoptors of new cameras complain they need to wait a few months or have to pay Adobe for an upgrade.  No one supplied a count of the user complains, but out of the millions of users....these forums would be buried if even  small percentage of them complained.

The archival issue were new to me in detail, but not in concept.  From reading Jeff's references (and following some references from it), it is fairly apparent that this work has a long way to go before it is "cooked".  DNG may or may not be a standard.  Actually, preservation of an asset, per UDFR, does not require an underlying understanding of the asset format.  Higher level preservation requires and understanding of the format....not necessarily a standard (my words).

Jeff waves his arms about the "lost" Kodak RAW...then it later comes out that...gee...it was able to be reverse engineered.  That, plus the number of concens actively reverse engineering today's RAW formats, make it clear that these formats are understood. (Again, I am not saying a RAW standard would not make life easier, but not having it is not going to cause archival to be impossible).

Quote
I really think you need to independently research some of the issues before mouthing off about things you are clearly completely ignorant of.
All along, I have been consistant that my opinions were based on my experience (and what I see and hear from others) as a user...not an archivist.  Though I have read what Jeff pointed to, which I have addressed above.

Quote
Neither Jeff Schewe nor Andrew Rodney need me to defend them.

They don't so why are you sticking your nose in it.  However, If you have something valuable, feel free to express it
Quote
However, I will say this: they do know what they are talking about and none of what they are saying is in the slightest bit surprising or controversial to anyone who understands digital asset management and the substantial challenges that are currently with us.

However, they "cherry pick" there arguements.  For example, making the issue about Kodak RAW without mentioning that it has been solved. 

When I mentioned TIFF was fine for sustainablity, I was poked at by Jeff that photojournalists need to hand in RAW.  But later he mentions thathis finished goods are in TIFF.

Promoting DGN as the solution, but then saying that they don't use it for all their images because of the problems it causes with backup.....and then ignoring the pont that DNG does not solve one of the sustainablity desires as it will not provide that due to the propietary nature of the work product.

Quote
So, get on the net and start doing some research.

Tony Jay

Tony, thanks for your suggestion.  Consider it ignored.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 12:09:53 AM
BTW...PHOTO CD

per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_CD

"...Despite Kodak not releasing the specifications for the Photo CD format, it has been reverse engineered, so allowing images to be converted to more modern formats. The original reverse engineering work was performed by Hadmut Danisch of the University of Karlsruhe..."

One more time Jeff uses an argument to scare us, but does not tell all of the story.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 18, 2013, 12:24:46 AM
When I mentioned TIFF was fine for sustainablity, I was poked at by Jeff that photojournalists need to hand in RAW.  But later he mentions thathis finished goods are in TIFF.

Yeah, you still don't get it...there are lots of other areas of photography where the original raw file is the most important (and potentially most valuable) version of an image. And yes, photojournalists must submit raw files and those raw files need long term conservation and preservation. Something you apparently never considered. I'm not a photojournalist so the fact that I save rendered, manipulated TIFFs has nothing to do with the debate that raw files are at risk...

And yes, Thomas has reverse engineered Kodak DCS files...very nice of him to do so (he didn't have to but Bruce Fraser had a lot of shots with Kodak cameras so Thomas did it anyway–even though he never used any Kodak cameras) and the fact that those DCS files can be converted to DNG is actually an important factor of my argument, that relying on the camera makers to provide long term access to your digital originals is a foolish expectation and that a standardized raw file format is important. Because Thomas developed DNG, one can now take DCS raw files and convert them to a file format that will allow long term conservation and preservation...

When your original creation-regardless of the media-is a digital object, maintaining that object becomes a technical challenge. When the format of the original is undocumented and proprietary it adds to the risk and makes long term conservation and preservation more difficult. Not impossible, but more difficult. The more difficult the process is, the less likely that the digital object will survive in an accessible state.

The fact that the camera makers refuse to either document their formats or adopt any standards puts original raw captures at greater risk. And, there is no way you can argue otherwise. At least not with a straight face...
Title: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
Post by: rasterdogs on April 18, 2013, 12:31:15 AM
 :o
All,
Please be aware that what appears to be the Luminous Landscape Forum has been hijacked by some adolescent nimrod from DP  Review. This fellow is here to try everyone's patience with insults and argumentative postulations that have no basis in reality. Please remember that trying to teach pigs to sing is not a productive endeavor. Also they have yet to be known to be able to fly. Other than that, enjoy the entertainment.   :P  Hopefully the irritant will get bored and return to other venues where insult and irrational argument are more highly valued.

Yes, I do.  As far as I am concerned, I do not have a problem and much of the "problem" I blown out of proportion.  The user problems that are quoted are those users who, as early adoptors of new cameras complain they need to wait a few months or have to pay Adobe for an upgrade.  No one supplied a count of the user complains, but out of the millions of users....these forums would be buried if even  small percentage of them complained.

The archival issue were new to me in detail, but not in concept.  From reading Jeff's references (and following some references from it), it is fairly apparent that this work has a long way to go before it is "cooked".  DNG may or may not be a standard.  Actually, preservation of an asset, per UDFR, does not require an underlying understanding of the asset format.  Higher level preservation requires and understanding of the format....not necessarily a standard (my words).

Jeff waves his arms about the "lost" Kodak RAW...then it later comes out that...gee...it was able to be reverse engineered.  That, plus the number of concens actively reverse engineering today's RAW formats, make it clear that these formats are understood. (Again, I am not saying a RAW standard would not make life easier, but not having it is not going to cause archival to be impossible).
All along, I have been consistant that my opinions were based on my experience (and what I see and hear from others) as a user...not an archivist.  Though I have read what Jeff pointed to, which I have addressed above.

They don't so why are you sticking your nose in it.  However, If you have something valuable, feel free to express it
However, they "cherry pick" there arguements.  For example, making the issue about Kodak RAW without mentioning that it has been solved. 

When I mentioned TIFF was fine for sustainablity, I was poked at by Jeff that photojournalists need to hand in RAW.  But later he mentions thathis finished goods are in TIFF.

Promoting DGN as the solution, but then saying that they don't use it for all their images because of the problems it causes with backup.....and then ignoring the pont that DNG does not solve one of the sustainablity desires as it will not provide that due to the propietary nature of the work product.

Tony, thanks for your suggestion.  Consider it ignored.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 18, 2013, 12:40:16 AM
"...Despite Kodak not releasing the specifications for the Photo CD format, it has been reverse engineered, so allowing images to be converted to more modern formats. The original reverse engineering work was performed by Hadmut Danisch of the University of Karlsruhe..."

One more time Jeff uses an argument to scare us, but does not tell all of the story.

Yeah, some good hearted engineer has spent the time to reverse engineer Photo CD...thanks Hadmut...but did you actually follow the links to see what apps can actually use Hadmut's work? Well, let me warn you that trying to use what Hadmut wrote pretty much requires command line control of Max, Windows or Linux. One of them is ImageMagick (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php)...so, say you have a Photo CD...go to the web site and see if YOU can figure out how to open your images...good luck with that bud.

But, again, you've missed the point entirely...Photo CD files were undocumented and proprietary file formats that required the dedication of a geeky guy (that prolly had a bunch of friends with Photo CDs they couldn't open) to bootstrap the reverse engineering efforts to make the conversion open source.

Do you really want to rely upon the kindness of others to access your original raw files? You good with that?

I'm not.
Title: Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
Post by: Schewe on April 18, 2013, 12:43:12 AM
Also they have yet to be known to be able to fly.

Not true, I saw a TV commercial with a pig in first class (could have been business class depending on the airlines) and he was using his smart phone to check his insurance...so clearly pigs can fly if they have the money for airfare!
Title: Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 12:44:06 AM
:o
All,
Please be aware that what appears to be the Luminous Landscape Forum has been hijacked by some adolescent nimrod from DP  Review. This fellow is here to try everyone's patience with insults and argumentative postulations that have no basis in reality. Please remember that trying to teach pigs to sing is not a productive endeavor. Also they have yet to be known to be able to fly. Other than that, enjoy the entertainment.   :P  Hopefully the irritant will get bored and return to other venues where insult and irrational argument are more highly valued.


Thank you for yor valuable insight.

Jeff and I are having little arm twisting contest.  A little vocal, from both of us at times, but it is our "fun"  We may talk past each other at times, but I may learn something...though I really don't expect Jeff would ever admit it if he did :-)

Please feel free to not read this thread and/or disengage from notifications.

Regards and salutations....
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Glenn NK on April 18, 2013, 12:48:25 AM
. . . the issue of standard formats is becoming a critical issue not just for journalism but for archiving of all sorts.  I'm involved with museums where we constantly have to deal with information in obsolete formats.  We can access information hundreds of years old, but once it gets to around 40 years old, we have to deal first with cranky obsolete formats of microfiche (for which readers are no longer available) and now cranky digital formats.  Sure, someone, somewhere will offer a service to convert old formats, but most museums have little money, so information in obsolete formats is effectively lost.  For digital images we've got TIFF and JPEG, which can probably be regarded as long-lived, but present-day raw (except DNG) will be hopeless in future years.  

This is the point: while obsolete formats can theoretically be read in most cases, in practice they can't because it's too expensive.  

Standard formats for digital storage are very important for the future, and it's little short of tragic that illusory commercial advantage, pig-headedness and arrogance should get in the way.  

I read an article several years ago (might have been in Discover Magazine - don't recall and not important), but the gist of the argument was that ALL digital files (music, photography, computations in engineering) are susceptible to becoming obsolete and hence quite useless.

His focus was photography, and the author suggested the best archival medium was a high quality print on a good long life medium.  At first thought I was writing him off as crazy, but a few moments reflection and I realized I had the problem with text and spreadsheet files.

Michelangelo's artwork is still impressive after more than a few years, it's not obsolete, and the human eye can still see it.

In closing, I have some 5 1/4" floppy disks of engineering reports, letters, and spreadsheets written by an Apple II Plus computer - is there anyone here that can transcribe them for me?  ;)  I wonder if Apple could even do it?

Glenn
Title: Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
Post by: rasterdogs on April 18, 2013, 12:54:08 AM
Thank you for yor valuable insight.

Jeff and I are having little arm twisting contest.  A little vocal, from both of us at times, but it is our "fun"  We may talk past each other at times, but I may learn something...though I really don't expect Jeff would ever admit it if he did :-)

Please feel free to not read this thread and/or disengage from notifications.

Regards and salutations....
You missed something. Oh, you tend to do that. Jeff's got chops, you don't. You need to get some rest so you don't miss your ride to junior high school.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 12:58:15 AM
I read an article several years ago (might have been in Discover Magazine - don't recall and not important), but the gist of the argument was that ALL digital files (music, photography, computations in engineering) are susceptible to becoming obsolete and hence quite useless.

His focus was photography, and the author suggested the best archival medium was a high quality print on a good long life medium.  At first thought I was writing him off as crazy, but a few moments reflection and I realized I had the problem with text and spreadsheet files.

Michelangelo's artwork is still impressive after more than a few years, it's not obsolete, and the human eye can still see it.

In closing, I have some 5 1/4" floppy disks of engineering reports, letters, and spreadsheets written by an Apple II Plus computer - is there anyone here that can transcribe them for me?  ;)  I wonder if Apple could even do it?

Glenn

Yes, Glenn...the issues are both format and media.  

The Library of Congress group is only focused on format.  As has been discussed above, format can be resolved, though it is not always pretty.

Media, is much more difficult.  If you cannot read in the bits, you cannot reverse engineer any format. It is not only floppies.  Many optical drives were touted with long life...however, if the drive died and a replacement could not be found, well..  Many people found that certain early CD and DVD drives had characteristics that caused them to have difficulty being read by newer, supposedly compatible drives.  Then, there is the story of the long life CD/DVDs would have...oh well.

So the story is much bigger then the narrow minded rant of the Adobe fanboys pushing DNG as the savior of the world.
Title: Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 12:59:23 AM
You missed something. Oh, you tend to do that. Jeff's got chops, you don't. You need to get some rest so you don't miss your ride to junior high school.

Grow up and go back in your hole with the rest of the dogs
Title: Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 01:00:51 AM
Not true, I saw a TV commercial with a pig in first class (could have been business class depending on the airlines) and he was using his smart phone to check his insurance...so clearly pigs can fly if they have the money for airfare!

Jeff...we don't agree on some issues, but don't fall into the mire of a slinging contest.
Title: Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
Post by: Rand47 on April 18, 2013, 01:02:11 AM
Not true, I saw a TV commercial with a pig in first class (could have been business class depending on the airlines) and he was using his smart phone to check his insurance...so clearly pigs can fly if they have the money for airfare!

Jeff,

I think we've mixed our metaphors.  What you've been doing is casting pearls before swine.   ;D

Rand
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 18, 2013, 01:04:52 AM
I read an article several years ago (might have been in Discover Magazine - don't recall and not important), but the gist of the argument was that ALL digital files (music, photography, computations in engineering) are susceptible to becoming obsolete and hence quite useless.

Yep...that is what all the fuss is about! Loosing huge quantities of original digital objects would be a tragic loss for humanity. And yes, I've heard the argument for making prints because there is a longer tradition of conservation and preservation of prints than digital objects. Better than nothing but nowhere nearly as good at preserving the original raw files.

Quote
I wonder if Apple could even do it?

I'll bet Apple could...if not perhaps the Computer History Museum (http://www.computerhistory.org/) could...they recently got the original Photoshop 1 source code (http://www.pcworld.com/article/2028315/computer-history-museum-shares-original-photoshop-code.html) that they've made available as a download. I actually have an old G4 running 10.5.8 which can launch Photoshop 1...I keep it around just for the purpose of being able to do Photoshop 1.0 screenshots (not that I have to do that often, but I can).
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Glenn NK on April 18, 2013, 01:06:11 AM
Yes, the problem is huge.

I have a photo of my grandfather and great uncle shortly after they arrived in Canada circa 1911-1912.  It's fuzzy, but I recognize them both.

How many of my 25,000 images will my great-grandchildren be able to view?  And why NOT?

The solution isn't just a standard digital file format - it's much larger than that.

Suppose they inherit my HDDs - how and on what will they view the images?

Is someone going to re-transcribe the images every five to ten years?

However - if I print them and put them in an album. . . . .  Naw - that's too low tech. ::)

I think the argument over which digital format should be used (or finding a standard format), is like fighting over the table scraps.

There's a lot more to the dinner than the scraps.

Glenn
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 18, 2013, 01:12:29 AM
Media, is much more difficult.  If you cannot read in the bits, you cannot reverse engineer any format. It is not only floppies.  Many optical drives were touted with long life...however, if the drive died and a replacement could not be found, well..  Many people found that certain early CD and DVD drives had characteristics that caused them to have difficulty being read by newer, supposedly compatible drives.  Then, there is the story of the long life CD/DVDs would have...oh well.

So the story is much bigger then the narrow minded rant of the Adobe fanboys pushing DNG as the savior of the world.

Actually, there are already standards for media migration...that's less of an issue than formats. You need to move files forward and avoid bit rot. It's the formats that are a bigger problem. Sure you can copy a file to new media, but unless you can open the file, it's useless.

And, yet again, you still don't get it...DNG is not "the savior of the world", I never said it was...I said it was a useful format that could work well as a raw file format standard and Adobe has given the format to the ISO to use (if they decide to). The main thrust of MY arguments is that the current situation of  a proliferation of undocumented, proprietary raw file formats sucks...and its the direct responsibility of the camera makers to fix it.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: mac_paolo on April 18, 2013, 01:19:21 AM
any backup software will catch the modification date change and backup the entire DNG.
Most, not "any". Arq, for example, should save only the delta. At least that's what the developer told me.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 01:31:56 AM
Yeah, some good hearted engineer has spent the time to reverse engineer Photo CD...thanks Hadmut...but did you actually follow the links to see what apps can actually use Hadmut's work? Well, let me warn you that trying to use what Hadmut wrote pretty much requires command line control of Max, Windows or Linux. One of them is ImageMagick (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php)...so, say you have a Photo CD...go to the web site and see if YOU can figure out how to open your images...good luck with that bud.

But, again, you've missed the point entirely...Photo CD files were undocumented and proprietary file formats that required the dedication of a geeky guy (that prolly had a bunch of friends with Photo CDs they couldn't open) to bootstrap the reverse engineering efforts to make the conversion open source.

Do you really want to rely upon the kindness of others to access your original raw files? You good with that?

I'm not.

No, not anymore than I want to rely on Adobe supporting the ACR/LR raw conversions and/or DNG.

I am betting that the "kindness" of others will support some conversion of the millions of users of CR2.

When I print something, I have a TIFF of the finish image....just in case I cannot reproduce it.  Images I load to my photo site are in relatively large JPEG.  They can be download if needed, but they are also on backup HDs.

My image files (RAW, TIFF, JPEG, XMP) are all copies at least 3 times, one of these being RAID 5, with at least one off site (2 for RAWs).  

I never trusted CD/DVDs, particularly the 200 year life.  

My old "keeper" prints and negatives have been scanned, but not locked into a gimmick product like the Photo CD was.  I never used it...luckily I had other means of storage available to me at the time, which has since been converted to HDs.

If media changes, I will upgrade to the new media, before the old dies.

While I love Adobe products, I am not locked into them...and am paranoid of apparent monopolies...so try best to be prepared for the event if they forget what there market is as Kodak did.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Glenn NK on April 18, 2013, 01:34:01 AM
You need to move files forward and avoid bit rot. It's the formats that are a bigger problem. Sure you can copy a file to new media, but unless you can open the file, it's useless.

It would seem that it's easier to restore a 600 year old painting, than a corrupted data file on a media storage device that can't be read.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not going back to film - 44 years was enough.  But even my colour slides taken in 1962 can be looked at and will be viewable in another fifty years.  In twenty years from now, my school age grand daughters won't likely be able to see the images I made of them five years ago.

In truth there is far more (practical) permanence in prints than in digital images - magnetism is very transitory.  So are laser written files.

Glenn
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 01:43:13 AM
Actually, there are already standards for media migration...that's less of an issue than formats. You need to move files forward and avoid bit rot. It's the formats that are a bigger problem. Sure you can copy a file to new media, but unless you can open the file, it's useless.

And, yet again, you still don't get it...DNG is not "the savior of the world", I never said it was...I said it was a useful format that could work well as a raw file format standard and Adobe has given the format to the ISO to use (if they decide to). The main thrust of MY arguments is that the current situation of  a proliferation of undocumented, proprietary raw file formats sucks...and its the direct responsibility of the camera makers to fix it.

...but, with DNG, all you are currently selling is a concept, not a product.  It is continuing to evolve and change and has not been accepted by any standard organization.  

Currently, as I understand it, without saving the original RAW, either separate or embedded, you cannot be sure of your future and are at the mercy of Adobe and their continued existence.

I know you are trying to burn the candle at both ends to get where you want to get....but I am not willing to go down that rathole until it is fleshed out better.  Undocumented CR2 work just fine for now...and, in my opinion, will work fine just as long as DNG will.  If DNG becomes a standard, and is accepted by the Lib of Congress, etc. it may be require for their archival purposes....so they are free to convert and store in that format, I don't have to.  If the world changes and the camera manufacturers provide DNG and the mass of RAW converters support it, I will be glad to go there...then.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 01:47:14 AM
Most, not "any". Arq, for example, should save only the delta. At least that's what the developer told me.

Interesting....how is it going to do that.  Write only the changes to the DNG file?  Save just the changes and reassemble if you need the backup version.  Be curious to find out.  Can we trust them to get it right?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 18, 2013, 02:01:54 AM
Currently, as I understand it, without saving the original RAW, either separate or embedded, you cannot be sure of your future and are at the mercy of Adobe and their continued existence.

Uh, no...DNG is fully documented. The only thing one might be dependent on Adobe for is continuing adding new DNG versions. But at DNG 1.4, everything you need to know about a DNG is full documented (and freely usable with no fees) in the DNG SDK. Any camera maker could adopt DNG for free and enjoy immediate support for new cameras in DNG compliant software.

And I guess you don;t understand the implication of the Adoption factor...the greater the adoption the greater the likely hood a file format will continue to be accessible. At this point we are at over 300 raw file formats and counting...without any standards, where will be be in 5 years, 10 years? 500 different file formats, more? How long do you think we can depend on the kindness of others? Because, without some changes in the industry, I'm not willing to rely on the kindness of the likes of Canon and Nikon. At one point Canon released a version of DPP that dropped early cameras...they had a lot of users complain and low and behold, Canon blinked and re-added the early Canon formats back in on the next rev of the software. You really want to trust Canon over Adobe? I don't...I've met people at both companies...I trust Adobe far more than Canon.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: hjulenissen on April 18, 2013, 03:32:51 AM
Yes, Glenn...the issues are both format and media.  

The Library of Congress group is only focused on format.  As has been discussed above, format can be resolved, though it is not always pretty.

Media, is much more difficult.  If you cannot read in the bits, you cannot reverse engineer any format. It is not only floppies.  Many optical drives were touted with long life...however, if the drive died and a replacement could not be found, well..  Many people found that certain early CD and DVD drives had characteristics that caused them to have difficulty being read by newer, supposedly compatible drives.  Then, there is the story of the long life CD/DVDs would have...oh well.
Where I live there have been news stories about historians wanting to recreate budgets etc from municipalities. They were clever enough to keep the magnetic tapes, tape readers and compatible computers. The problem was finding and installing the (proprietary) software, getting it to actually run, and transferring the data to some physical/logical format that is accessible by todays computers.

Turns out it was a lot faster and cheaper to hire some people to manually scan the paper documents from the 60s than transferring the digital data from the 70s.
Quote
So the story is much bigger then the narrow minded rant of the Adobe fanboys pushing DNG as the savior of the world.
No part of my arguments warrant calling me an "Adobe fanboy". If anything, I am sceptical about the amount of labour I am putting into a proprietary Adobe application (Lightroom), and the outcome if I was hit by a car today, and my children chose to look into my hard-drives 15 years from now. If either the NAS or the external backup are readable, they would find 1TB of *.cr2-files (neatly organized into folders) and a 500MB lightroom catalog file. What would they make of it? I wish for a Lightroom single-click function that will render all images as JPEG/TIFF/BMP in a catalog into the same folder as each source image. Then any interested relative/researcher will have both the "digital negative" and my "developed image" in a (hopefully) understandable folder structure.

Given the choice between an openly documented format, and fully closed formats, I tend to prefer the former. I ripped my CDs in flac. I drag and drop music into my phone without the iTunes/DRM nonsense.

-h
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Tony Jay on April 18, 2013, 05:11:28 AM
jrsforums: still howling at the moon - wait a minute - there is no moon.

Frankly you are still parading your ignorance.

Go read the FACTS about DNG for Pete's sake and stop prattling nonsense!

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Jim Pascoe on April 18, 2013, 05:25:36 AM
From where I stand as your average non-technical photographer, prints are the way to go for an image to have permanence (in the short to medium term).  Following that, a TIFF or JPEG file, well backed-up to enable further distribution or to re-create a print.

For RAW files I think it is a crazy situation with such a multitude of formats.  Whether it's DNG or some other yet to be designed format, all companies should agree to adopt a common standard.  The RAW file could be likened to a negative, in which case as has been pointed out there are many instance where having the original would be a necessity - such as legal, medical, journalism etc.  And though we do not know yet who the future famous photographers will be, how interesting to be able to look at their RAW images as a matter of historical record.  To argue for a common format is sane.  It's not a question of whether it will be possible to reverse engineer proprietary RAW files in the future, but why on earth should the relevant companies be storing up the problems to make it necessary.

As far as I can see, though Schewe may be an Adobe Fanboy :) his point is about all companies adopting a common standard, and I'm sure he wouldn't give a monkeys who developed the format, as long as it worked and was universally adopted.  But I'm sure he will soon let me know if that's not the case.

Personally the fact is that although I hope some of my prints will outlast me - I doubt if many of my digital files will, in whatever format.  But it's not about my RAW files, or yours maybe, but those that may have historical significance.

Jim
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: hjulenissen on April 18, 2013, 06:07:32 AM
How can we _know_ that current e.g. Epson prints will last for 100 years even though some 100 year old prints did? They cannot possible be chemically and structurally that similar? I am sure that expert have nice physical models and accelerate aging by heat, moisture etc, but how certain can they be?

For each 100 year old photography that have been found, how many have disappeared? I.e. what is the expected probability of surviving for 100 years, based on history?

How likely is it that your or my photography is going to have value for anyone younger than our grand-children? How many kittens and children playing and red sunsets does humanity need? If all photography is preserved for all eternity, this would in itself make any single image of less value. Part of the value of 100 year old images is that they are so few, so even mediocre images can give a unique glimpse into scenes that cannot be seen today.

If all raw shooters converted all of their raw files to DNG today and deleted the originals, would the problem be solved?

-h
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 18, 2013, 06:13:58 AM
From a repro point of view and this is the view of museums/libraries,  16 bit TIFF's with a Datacolor chart shot included and a .txt file with the RGB readouts of that chart (though most don't bother with that last one) = far more archival than even a standardised raw which will require Adobe to still exist to be read correctly and with all the information intact. Just gets bleeding expensive on the storage end of stuff. Unless the processing or final look is standardised and can be baked into the DNG so it can be read by any program, the archival properties of DNG as a raw format rest pretty much only on Adobe continuing to exist. I just can't see that as an archival proposition myself. 30 years from now there may be a program that can open a DNG but to have the similar quality files of today with the quality coming from software tuned and profiled for specific cameras. it just isn't going to exist. You can't divorce the format from the software when talking about archiveability. It's funny actually, having the ability to read old raws gives us far more latitude in processing with older cameras than used to exist in the past. However in the future I think that once the cameras and even companies are long forgotten, raw, for all it's extra latitude, etc will be a problem not the solution it is today.

Honestly, I run a repro studio and have to worry about archivability every day. We are shooting collections of thousands of ancient manuscripts and documents, most of which will have deteriorated beyond the ability to digitalise in the coming decades. I'm using dual off site LTO for long term storage even though I realise it will need to be transferred over in a few decades to a new technology, it is still the most reliable, best and cheapest option for mid term storage. I have not been given a budget to store 16bit TIFF's of our MFDB files though I wish I could. If DNG was the solution then I would convert over all our data without a second thought. I just don't think that unless something drastic changes, that it is the answer or that any advantage gained can be divorced from a reliance on Adobe still existing. Yes I realise that our compressed Leaf .MOS files require Phase One to still exist however at this point and as I wait for a better solution, it does not seem any worse a problem. I could uncompress the files and then Adobe could see them but just as if they were DNG's, Adobe's software is not sufficient to process the files anyway, not as well as P1 for repro work. Until the format includes open processing data the format itself is just part of the problem. Feel free to change my mind though. I do need a solution other than quadrupling our storage budget which I cannot do.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: BartvanderWolf on April 18, 2013, 06:26:40 AM
Well, let me warn you that trying to use what Hadmut wrote pretty much requires command line control of Max, Windows or Linux. One of them is ImageMagick (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php)...so, say you have a Photo CD...go to the web site and see if YOU can figure out how to open your images...good luck with that bud.

Hi Jeff, and those who really want to know,

convert -depth 16 -colorspace RGB image.pcd[5] -gamma 2.2 image.tif

should do it if one e.g. wants a 16-b/ch version (-depth 16) and TIFF output. It gives the 3072×2048 pixels resolution version ([5] is the 6th level of resolution, indexed from 0 to 5) of the image.pcd, and the output gamma used can be changed depending on the image (even left as a linear gamma). ImageMagick can also use different colorspaces than basically (s)RGB, and profile assignments/conversions from source to destination profile are also possible. As always, it can all be done if really needed.

But all that is a bit of a diversion tactics, and it only shows that there is still time to recode the image data if needed. Afterall, PCD is also a digitized version of a filmscan. The film is the Raw image. When Adobe goes belly-up, all DNG encoded files may become more difficult to re-use over time as well. So what's really needed is a universally adopted truly open standard. An ISO recommendation would be useful, but there are lots of (inefficient but transparent) ways to recode the Raw data if that's the concern.

Quote
But, again, you've missed the point entirely...Photo CD files were undocumented and proprietary file formats that required the dedication of a geeky guy (that prolly had a bunch of friends with Photo CDs they couldn't open) to bootstrap the reverse engineering efforts to make the conversion open source.

Of course PCD is documented, but not openly published. It's too bad that you feel the need to use such arguments, because you basically do have a point about preserving the digital legacy. Yet, we also see old audio recordings on studio tape being revived to arguably better remastered versions and mixes. It does tell us that we need to recode as technology progresses, and preferably before the irreversible signal losses set in.

Quote
Do you really want to rely upon the kindness of others to access your original raw files? You good with that?

I'm not.

When it's useful to do, it will be done. The question then becomes, is it worth the effort?

I do agree that managing the growing number of proprietary (Raw) formats can become a concern, but DNG is not the only possible solution, as it still requires an interpretation of the stored Raw data to get something meaningful to look at (just like the Rosetta stone inscriptions, interpretation is always required).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: hjulenissen on April 18, 2013, 06:37:09 AM
From a repro point of view and this is the view of museums/libraries,  16 bit TIFF's with a Datacolor chart shot included and a .txt file with the RGB readouts of that chart (though most don't bother with that last one) = far more archival than even a standardised raw which will require Adobe to still exist to be read correctly and with all the information intact.
Why do you need Adobe to read dng files?
Quote
Just gets bleeding expensive on the storage end of stuff. Unless the processing or final look is standardised and can be baked into the DNG so it can be read by any program, the archival properties of DNG as a raw format rest pretty much only on Adobe continuing to exist.
I assume that the dng format contains sufficient flexibility to describe the capture process (i.e. color profiles). Once you can refer the raw data to some physical scene, there should be enough information to present this information "neutrally". If you want to preserve non-neutral edits (i.e. giving the sky a non-natural shade of blue), cannot this be stored as a processed (developed) file beside the raw file?
Quote
It's funny actually, having the ability to read old raws gives us far more latitude in processing with older cameras than used to exist in the past. However in the future I think that once the cameras and even companies are long forgotten, raw, for all it's extra latitude, etc will be a problem not the solution it is today.
We don't know. On the medium term, there might be tools that allows better demosaic and denoise etc than we can imagine today.
Quote
Honestly, I run a repro studio and have to worry about archivability every day. We are shooting collections of thousands of ancient manuscripts and documents, most of which will have deteriorated beyond the ability to digitalise in the coming decades.
Is this not a question for your customers (and their willingness to pay)? If some document is unique and valuable, surely storage space is not that much of an issue?

Someone like a very large conserving institution/museum/CSI might have the resources to make their own, openly documented file format and processing pipeline. While computer formats change, math is unlikely to change that much in 100 years. As a big fan of MATLAB, I think that a floating-point, matrix-oriented language should be flexible enough, and close enough to mathematics to be implemented as a simple series of math in some future decoder. MATLAB in itself is proprietary, but there are open-source equivalents (Octave), or one might design a new language focused on compact, human-friendly math instead of efficient execution.

-h
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: PhotoEcosse on April 18, 2013, 06:42:10 AM
At last. The thread seems to have regained an element of rational discussion rather than the rancour and insults that were flying about.

Maybe I am now brave enough to offer my tuppenceworth.

I think that there is a certain arrogance about assuming that many of our photographs will hold any interest or value after we have passed on. Those that do will presumably have been incorporated into some other collection or archive, rather than just languishing in our personal shoebox of photos (real or digital). A book, a learned journal, an exhibition catalogue, a library or museum, a local history society.....or whatever.

Basically, I want to keep my images for varying lengths of time, depending upon what future personal use I might envisage for them. Anything I might think will be potentially useful for some future publication, competition, exhibition or salon, I am currently quite happy to retain as .NEF files on backed-up storage media, catalogued and accessible through Lightroom (or its successors). Most of the images I have already processed for any particular use will also be stored as either Tiffs or Jpegs exported from Lightroom and again stored on backed-up discs.

The best of them, of course, get printed and are kept as prints (although I confess to not indexing my prints very well).

Any photographs (whether prints or digital) that I think may interest other individuals (family, friends, society members, publishers, etc.) are sent to them at the appropriate time and they can (or not) store them as they think appropriate.

But, after I shuffle off this mortal coil, I certainly don't expect any of my surviving relatives to have any interest in trawling through half a million digital files to see if anything is of abiding interest. Inheriting a few hundred prints will be quite enough for them. And, if a few survive in more durable published or archived form in places outside my own control, then let the curators and publishers worry about the storage format and medium.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 18, 2013, 07:11:40 AM
Why do you need Adobe to read dng files?I assume that the dng format contains sufficient flexibility to describe the capture process (i.e. color profiles). Once you can refer the raw data to some physical scene, there should be enough information to present this information "neutrally". If you want to preserve non-neutral edits (i.e. giving the sky a non-natural shade of blue), cannot this be stored as a processed (developed) file beside the raw file? We don't know. On the medium term, there might be tools that allows better demosaic and denoise etc than we can imagine today.Is this not a question for your customers (and their willingness to pay)? If some document is unique and valuable, surely storage space is not that much of an issue?

Someone like a very large conserving institution/museum/CSI might have the resources to make their own, openly documented file format and processing pipeline. While computer formats change, math is unlikely to change that much in 100 years. As a big fan of MATLAB, I think that a floating-point, matrix-oriented language should be flexible enough, and close enough to mathematics to be implemented as a simple series of math in some future decoder. MATLAB in itself is proprietary, but there are open-source equivalents (Octave), or one might design a new language focused on compact, human-friendly math instead of efficient execution.

-h

You will need Adobe to read your DNG's as processed in Adobe. Or whatever software. It isn't just the blue sky, even if you have an imbedded color profile, it's the sharpening, the noise reduction, the tonality, all the stuff that is the rendition of the file. If you don't have a camera profile, an open camera profile, together with an open way to show changes applied using that profile, the DNG is going to be most useless in 30 years is it not? Unless the companies that wrote the changes into the DNG still exist and are supporting it which I'm worried to rely on. Witness for example even the first versions of camera profiling for problem cameras such as the 7D, the Fuji's, etc and that is where there is a profile, not without one. That is why the file format is only half the story and why I am wary of it being pushed as an archival solution when it evidentially is not. Or is it? Is all that stuff all in the DNG specifications?

Theory does rather hit facts when it comes to funding from museums I'm afraid. They don't make money and as such money is always tight. It's ok when you have government funding but when it's privately funded and especially in this day and age...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: hjulenissen on April 18, 2013, 07:34:34 AM
You will need Adobe to read your DNG's as processed in Adobe. Or whatever software. It isn't just the blue sky, even if you have an imbedded color profile, it's the sharpening, the noise reduction, the tonality, all the stuff that is the rendition of the file. If you don't have a camera profile, an open camera profile, together with an open way to show changes applied using that profile, the DNG is going to be most useless in 30 years is it not? Unless the companies that wrote the changes into the DNG still exist and are supporting it which I'm worried to rely on. Witness for example even the first versions of camera profiling for problem cameras such as the 7D, the Fuji's, etc and that is where there is a profile, not without one. That is why the file format is only half the story and why I am wary of it being pushed as an archival solution when it evidentially is not. Or is it? Is all that stuff all in the DNG specifications?

Theory does rather hit facts when it comes to funding from museums I'm afraid. They don't make money and as such money is always tight. It's ok when you have government funding but when it's privately funded and especially in this day and age...
Why does it have to be rendered like it would have been in Adobe products? Lense profiles could (I guess) be embedded in dng profiles. Camera sensor noise/saturation performance as well. This would make for a fair model of how the sensor data were related to the original scene. Is that not the core of archiving e.g. old script scrolls or paintings? "Preserve as much information about the thing before it deteriorates"? This could include much more information that that needed for a single rendering (e.g. multispectral/hyperspectral data).

If you want to archive the artistic intent of the guy pushing sliders in Photoshop (or the algorithm designer deciding how the Lightroom NR should work), why not just save a JPEG, TIFF, BMP or whatever is deemed robust and efficient?

Not trying to be difficult here, but I really see recording scene information and recording rendering choices as two different things. If you save a robust representation of the sensor data (along with sufficient data to interpret it) _and_ a robust rendering of that data, you would seem to have preserved most of what is needed for posterity? My own Lightroom activities are slightly different as I want to have the opportunity to build on top of previous edits (or remove them one by one). Thus precise knowledge of the parametric editing is relevant to me. Might be even more important for CSI-type applications ("what?? did that knife in his hand only appear after applying a copy and paste operation??").

-h
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 07:59:29 AM
Uh, no...DNG is fully documented. The only thing one might be dependent on Adobe for is continuing adding new DNG versions. But at DNG 1.4, everything you need to know about a DNG is full documented (and freely usable with no fees) in the DNG SDK. Any camera maker could adopt DNG for free and enjoy immediate support for new cameras in DNG compliant software.

And I guess you don;t understand the implication of the Adoption factor...the greater the adoption the greater the likely hood a file format will continue to be accessible. At this point we are at over 300 raw file formats and counting...without any standards, where will be be in 5 years, 10 years? 500 different file formats, more? How long do you think we can depend on the kindness of others? Because, without some changes in the industry, I'm not willing to rely on the kindness of the likes of Canon and Nikon. At one point Canon released a version of DPP that dropped early cameras...they had a lot of users complain and low and behold, Canon blinked and re-added the early Canon formats back in on the next rev of the software. You really want to trust Canon over Adobe? I don't...I've met people at both companies...I trust Adobe far more than Canon.

I do understand the Adoption factor.  CR2 is in significantly greater use than DNG.  

In the 300, are these distinct file formats, or, as Eric said, just displacements of the same information in an existing "format".  That is, how many instances of CR2 are in that 300?

So you trust Adobe...that's good, you should you have worked closely with them for years.  Frankly, none of us can afford to trust either.  Good intentions of a corporation are easily overridden by events beyond their control....and in the many corporations that have had intimate relationships with, the ultimate control is in the hands of the "green eye shades"...the financial people.  All decisions ultimately fall to $$s.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: stamper on April 18, 2013, 08:14:02 AM
At last. The thread seems to have regained an element of rational discussion rather than the rancour and insults that were flying about.

Maybe I am now brave enough to offer my tuppenceworth.

I think that there is a certain arrogance about assuming that many of our photographs will hold any interest or value after we have passed on. Those that do will presumably have been incorporated into some other collection or archive, rather than just languishing in our personal shoebox of photos (real or digital). A book, a learned journal, an exhibition catalogue, a library or museum, a local history society.....or whatever.

Basically, I want to keep my images for varying lengths of time, depending upon what future personal use I might envisage for them. Anything I might think will be potentially useful for some future publication, competition, exhibition or salon, I am currently quite happy to retain as .NEF files on backed-up storage media, catalogued and accessible through Lightroom (or its successors). Most of the images I have already processed for any particular use will also be stored as either Tiffs or Jpegs exported from Lightroom and again stored on backed-up discs.

The best of them, of course, get printed and are kept as prints (although I confess to not indexing my prints very well).

Any photographs (whether prints or digital) that I think may interest other individuals (family, friends, society members, publishers, etc.) are sent to them at the appropriate time and they can (or not) store them as they think appropriate.

But, after I shuffle off this mortal coil, I certainly don't expect any of my surviving relatives to have any interest in trawling through half a million digital files to see if anything is of abiding interest. Inheriting a few hundred prints will be quite enough for them. And, if a few survive in more durable published or archived form in places outside my own control, then let the curators and publishers worry about the storage format and medium.

The most sensible post that I have read in this thread. :) Too much BS and personality clashes. ::)
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: john beardsworth on April 18, 2013, 08:30:00 AM
You will need Adobe to read your DNG's as processed in Adobe.
No, you are forgetting that the DNG contains an adjusted preview. I can take a DNG onto a machine with no Adobe software whatsoever, and create a print from it that looks identical to one made in Lightroom.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 08:34:39 AM
No part of my arguments warrant calling me an "Adobe fanboy".

I thought it obvious who that statement was pointed at, but I see how what was meant to be a rifle shot could be interpreted as a shotgun.  I apologize if you feel I insulted you

Quote
If anything, I am sceptical about the amount of labour I am putting into a proprietary Adobe application (Lightroom), and the outcome if I was hit by a car today, and my children chose to look into my hard-drives 15 years from now. If either the NAS or the external backup are readable, they would find 1TB of *.cr2-files (neatly organized into folders) and a 500MB lightroom catalog file. What would they make of it?

In this respect, I guess I could also be call an "Adobe fanboy".  I have stated numerous times here that I love Adobe products, specifically Lightroom....and I hold the same concern.

Quote
I wish for a Lightroom single-click function that will render all images as JPEG/TIFF/BMP in a catalog into the same folder as each source image. Then any interested relative/researcher will have both the "digital negative" and my "developed image" in a (hopefully) understandable folder structure.

Actually, if this is a concern, I am sure you are aware it is fairly easy to set up.  I mentioned in another post that I store all finished products as either TIFF (print) or JPEG (web).  For the export to the web, I create copies of the JPEG at the same time, in a subfolder (JPEG) so not mixed in with the "digital negative" or intermediate product.  When I print, I have a export preset, which allows me to select the printed images, and create a TIFF subfolder (PRINT).  I you are really concerned with what you stated, it would be easy to select your images and have LR crank away to create them...and in easily to distinguish subfolders.  

Quote
Given the choice between an openly documented format, and fully closed formats, I tend to prefer the former. I ripped my CDs in flac. I drag and drop music into my phone without the iTunes/DRM nonsense.

-h

I agree, I would prefer openly documented....and have so stated.  That does not mean I am prepared to use DNG for everything.  Particularly, when the DNG proponent, Jeff, admits he only uses it for specific purposes.  DNG is just not there yet.  
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 08:48:17 AM
No, you are forgetting that the DNG contains an adjusted preview. I can take a DNG onto a machine with no Adobe software whatsoever, and create a print from it that looks identical to one made in Lightroom.

Thanks, John. 

I was sure and had asked that in an earlier post.  I assume it is a JPEG.  What size and quality?

Personally, for "finished" images, I prefer an 8bit TIFF, which gives me greater latitude in print size ranges, though I could be accused of being paranoid here. 
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: john beardsworth on April 18, 2013, 09:58:41 AM
I was sure and had asked that in an earlier post.  I assume it is a JPEG.  What size and quality?
Personally, for "finished" images, I prefer an 8bit TIFF, which gives me greater latitude in print size ranges, though I could be accused of being paranoid here. 
It can be full size if you wish - that's my preference. I don't know if he still does it, but Peter Krogh used to take a couple of big prints to his talks, one made from this adjusted JPEG and one made "the real way". His audience tends to be pro and I recall very few could ever spot the difference.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 10:32:20 AM
I thought it obvious who that statement was pointed at, but I see how what was meant to be a rifle shot could be interpreted as a shotgun.  I apologize if you feel I insulted you.

I doubt you insulted him, but clearly your intent was to do so, which says a lot about trying to communicate with you as an adult. Just like the rhetoric you wrote about "DNG saving the world". No one suggested such nonsense, you just spit out more rhetoric. We simply keep asking you why proprietary raw formats are in any way better for photographers than an open format and at this time, DNG is that single option.

Quote
Actually, if this is a concern, I am sure you are aware it is fairly easy to set up.  I mentioned in another post that I store all finished products as either TIFF (print) or JPEG (web).  For the export to the web, I create copies of the JPEG at the same time, in a subfolder (JPEG) so not mixed in with the "digital negative" or intermediate product.  When I print, I have a export preset, which allows me to select the printed images, and create a TIFF subfolder (PRINT).  I you are really concerned with what you stated, it would be easy to select your images and have LR crank away to create them...and in easily to distinguish subfolders.  

You've missed the point again. You have the ability to do all the above today, that's awesome. Now if you can, imagine you wish to revisit a raw you captured 10 years ago and you find the software and OS's you have access to can't read that raw data, your neg any more. How does that work within the workflow you outlined above? Impossible you say? Like Bruce, I have piles of Kodak DCS files and Photo CD images. IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCESS? Not impossible, very difficult, potentially very expensive. There is no reason this has to be! Yet as I've tried to point out numerous times, not an issue with the JPEG. The difference? One's an open and understood file format. The other's are on drink coasters.

Quote
I agree, I would prefer openly documented....and have so stated.  That does not mean I am prepared to use DNG for everything.  Particularly, when the DNG proponent, Jeff, admits he only uses it for specific purposes.  DNG is just not there yet.  

No one proposes or has proposed anyone use DNG for everything, OK? What gave you this idea? That Jeff has spent considerable time to explain where he uses DNG and why, doesn't diminish DNG's role one bit. I use DNG, TIFF and JPEG. All for different purposes. IF 98% of my data was TIFF, that in no way dismisses JPEG for use on the web! This argument that there are for more CR2 files than DNG is hogwash. I suspect there are far more JPEG's on this planet than raw's so does this mean I should set my camera to capture JPEG? Raw's are not ready for prime time? Silly. DNG is not there yet? In what way? This is the kind of statement that makes it so hard to take you seriously. What number of the human population has to have a DNG saved on a drive before it's 'there'?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 10:44:40 AM
Unless the processing or final look is standardised and can be baked into the DNG so it can be read by any program, the archival properties of DNG as a raw format rest pretty much only on Adobe continuing to exist.

Not sure I understand. In terms of actual raw data, it's well raw. I don't understand how a final look could be standardized, the data hasn't been rendered. And that's the rub. You find a raw file you do want to render and can't.

Isn't raw=neg? You are required to process it to get an image. A film neg isn't any different. Suppose I have a 4x5 neg but it's the year 2189 and there are no more film enlargers, silver halide paper or Dektol. Now what?

If the analogy between a film neg and raw work, what I see here is an issue of accessing the data in the raw. Here is where I hope DNG or some format comes about that at least overcomes the issues of 'no enlarger, can't view image'. It might be possible a circa 2013 CR2 is as accessible as a circa 2013 DNG but the short history of imaging suggests otherwise. And while I agree with the comment about my personal images having no need for long term accessibly in 2189, I'd like to know other images could if so desired, be accessed.

An open raw format, DNG or otherwise, what's the harm?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 11:01:41 AM
I doubt you insulted him, but clearly your intent was to do so, which says a lot about trying to communicate with you as an adult. Just like the rhetoric you wrote about "DNG saving the world". No one suggested such nonsense, you just spit out more rhetoric. We simply keep asking you why proprietary raw formats are in any way better for photographers than an open format and at this time, DNG is that single option.

With all due respect...you have no idea what my intent was.  You must look at yourself now in terms of trying to communicate as an adult.

"DNG saving the world" is rhetoric...isn't that obvious.  Just as "If you're not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem"  You guys, if someone doesn't agree with you, you batter them as the "enemy".

Quote
You've missed the point again. You have the ability to do all the above today, that's awesome. Now if you can, imagine you wish to revisit a raw you captured 10 years ago and you find the software and OS's you have access to can't read that raw data, your neg any more. How does that work within the workflow you outlined above? Impossible you say? Like Bruce, I have piles of Kodak DCS files and Photo CD images. IS IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCESS? Not impossible, very difficult, potentially very expensive. There is no reason this has to be! Yet as I've tried to point out numerous times, not an issue with the JPEG. The difference? One's an open and understood file format. The other's are on drink coasters.

This has been covered and covered and covered.  Your continued regurgitation of it is just more FUD...fear, uncertainty, and doubt.  

Quote
No one proposes or has proposed anyone use DNG for everything, OK? What gave you this idea? That Jeff has spent considerable time to explain where he uses DNG and why, doesn't diminish DNG's role one bit. I use DNG, TIFF and JPEG. All for different purposes. IF 98% of my data was TIFF, that in no way dismisses JPEG for use on the web! This argument that there are for more CR2 files than DNG is hogwash. I suspect there are far more JPEG's on this planet than raw's so does this mean I should set my camera to capture JPEG? Raw's are not ready for prime time? Silly. DNG is not there yet? In what way? This is the kind of statement that makes it so hard to take you seriously. What number of the human population has to have a DNG saved on a drive before it's 'there'?

That there are more jpegs is not weigh in the discussion which was about "Adoption factor" of raw formats...and not in this post, but the one responding to Jeff..  Again, an attempt by you to muddy the water and spread FUD.

DNG is not there yet.  Well, it is not accepted by any standards committee.  It is not being used by and major camera manufacturer.  It has had (4?) updates/modifications in the last years...will there be more, I don't know.  It causes problems with many backup programs.  The problem is, that for me...and IN MY OPINION, many other users...there is not yet a compelling features/benefit to using DNG vs. the RAW format I am currently using.  

I have not compared DNG with TIFFs or JPEGs.  If fact, I have made it clear I use each of these for different usage.  There is a place for them and RAW negatives.

From your other post:
Quote
An open raw format, DNG or otherwise, what's the harm?
None....as I have said many times, but you refuse to hear...when an open raw format is the standard and available from my camera manufacturer and supported by my raw converter of choice, I will openly accept it....even praise it.  Until then, "it is not there yet"
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 12:16:58 PM
With all due respect...you have no idea what my intent was.  You must look at yourself now in terms of trying to communicate as an adult.
True, I don't know your intent, guess I should have seen it as a charm offensive.

Quote
This has been covered and covered and covered.  Your continued regurgitation of it is just more FUD...fear, uncertainty, and doubt.  

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There's been a history in just the digital imaging years of this industry in terms of formats that cannot be accessed. I have gig's of such data. Fear yes, I've been burned. Uncertainty? Not at all, it's happened. Doubt? I have little that history will not repeat itself.

Quote
DNG is not there yet.  Well, it is not accepted by any standards committee.
 
So what? That doesn't cease to alter the advantages to the DNG format for use today.

Quote
It is not being used by and major camera manufacturer.
 
Which of them uses TIFF or PSD?

Quote
It has had (4?) updates/modifications in the last years...will there be more, I don't know.

Yes! It's evolving, improving and can be backwards compatible. You have any idea how many updates and modifications to TIFF have occurred?

Quote
It causes problems with many backup programs.

Such as? I've been backing them up since they were introduced, no problems.

Quote
 The problem is, that for me...and IN MY OPINION, many other users...there is not yet a compelling features/benefit to using DNG vs. the RAW format I am currently using.
 
Easy, don't use it.

Quote
From your other post:None....as I have said many times, but you refuse to hear...when an open raw format is the standard and available from my camera manufacturer and supported by my raw converter of choice, I will openly accept it....even praise it.  Until then, "it is not there yet"
DNG is an open raw format, and no one would prefer his camera to spit out a DNG directly than me. Which gets back to the "your part of the problem or solution" which is putting pressure on Nikon and Canon among others to give us this feature. IF Mr. Canon or Mr. Nikon were reading what you've posted over the last few days, do you suppose your opinion here would encourage them to allow the ability to save a DNG file or encourage them to continue doing what they're doing?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 18, 2013, 12:17:18 PM
I do agree that managing the growing number of proprietary (Raw) formats can become a concern, but DNG is not the only possible solution, as it still requires an interpretation of the stored Raw data to get something meaningful to look at (just like the Rosetta stone inscriptions, interpretation is always required).

Interpretation implies that you can actually access the raw data. It's the access to the raw data I'm primarily concerned about and when it comes to long term conservation and preservation, the more undocumented, proprietary raw file formats that are spawned, the more difficult it will become. Each year, new cameras are released which continues to build up the problem. The only thing that will slow down the problem is the adoption of some set of standards for the storage of raw image data in a documented format.

I've explained why Nikon and Canon resist doing so (from personal experience) and the fact that there are photographers out there inclined to let them continue their risky business and actually argue on their behalf does nothing to put pressure on them to change their practices...
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
True, I don't know your intent, guess I should have seen it as a charm offensive.

Ya can't let it go....always need to show your bottom doncha :-)

Quote
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. There's been a history in just the digital imaging years of this industry in terms of formats that cannot be accessed. I have gig's of such data. Fear yes, I've been burned. Uncertainty? Not at all, it's happened. Doubt? I have little that history will not repeat itself.

Learning from history does not mean accepting your premise.  The point I CONTINUE TO MAKE is that I agree with your cocept, but not the timing of it's acceptance.  I am willing to agree to disagree on this point, but you do not seem to let it go.

You understand by your use of FUD....you try to get out from under it that way.
 
Quote
So what? That doesn't cease to alter the advantages to the DNG format for use today.
The reference was my statement that DNG was not there yet.  What advantages it may have in your mind, do not offer me, or, apparently, many other users, a compelling benefit to move to it
  
Quote
Which of them uses TIFF or PSD?

What the heck does this statement have to do about the discussion of RAW formats.  Trying to muddy the water again, Andrew?  
 
Quote
Such as? I've been backing them up since they were introduced, no problems.
Your buddy, Jeff, brought up the issue, not me.
 
Quote
Easy, don't use it.

I don't....I keep telling you that....as well as why I don't.  Can't you accept and respect another view point?

Quote
DNG is an open raw format, and no one would prefer his camera to spit out a DNG directly than me. Which gets back to the "your part of the problem or solution" which is putting pressure on Nikon and Canon among others to give us this feature. IF Mr. Canon or Mr. Nikon were reading what you've posted over the last few days, do you suppose your opinion here would encourage them to allow the ability to save a DNG file or encourage them to continue doing what they're doing?

What would you expect me to do to change their mind....stop buying their stuff?  We covered that earlier.  If you and Adobe cannot convince them (in the back rooms and the board rooms) that it is good business for them, do you expect some whinging on a forum is gonna do it.  Andrew, you are a lot smarter than that.

BTW....how many time do I have to say I would accept an open standard RAW format?  That does not mean I am going to stop using the CR2 files I use, quite successfully and easily, today.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 01:21:14 PM
Ya can't let it go....always need to show your bottom doncha :-)
Now you're charming me?

Quote
Learning from history does not mean accepting your premise.
 
I still have plies of proprietary raw data (and PCD's) I can't access. This problem has happened! It is a part of this industries history. Maybe it hasn't happened to you so the premise is difficult to swallow (I don't know why, is it unimaginable to you that some of us have old raw files we can't access?)

There are no problems backing up DNG's! You have to back them up which in itself is (to some) a problem time wise. Because as you update the data, the backup app see it's changed and of course it wants to back up an entire document when a tiny bit of metadata changes. So what Jeff does is work on his camera originals and only the tiny sidecar files get backed up (quickly). If he did what I do, he'd have to back up the entire DNG. That may be a problem for some, it isn't for me because this all happens in the middle of the night automatically. I'm also not dealing with the number of images Jeff is. So is there a problem? Not really. You can do what I do or you can do what Jeff does. You realize the same is true if you open an image in Photoshop and change a single pixel. The entire document is tagged for backup.

Quote
What would you expect me to do to change their mind....stop buying their stuff?
 
Not at all (yes we covered it). I expect a prefect world where all photographers recognize that hundreds of proprietary raw formats can be problematic for others, that a solution is easy and that the more of us that put pressure on the companies we do buy from, the more likely a change we wish will result. That's the bottom line!

Quote
If you and Adobe cannot convince them

Here lies our basic disagreement! Your attitude appears to be, nothing can be done. Further early in this discussion, you didn't seem to care much that it does affect others.

I feel that we collectively can convince them. That as consumers and vocal advocates, there's a possibility a standard raw format can be adopted. Since one exists, that's fine with me, I'll use it. I'm willing to fight for it, you seem to be just OK with the status quo. I've seen changes in this industry from outside many companies. History again leads me to hope we can affect change. So again, do you want to help us or dismiss this as not being a problem, too few people use DNG, big companies will never listen etc?

Quote
BTW....how many time do I have to say I would accept an open standard RAW format?  That does not mean I am going to stop using the CR2 files I use, quite successfully and easily, today.
I can't stop using CR2's either although I will convert them. The differences between us is that with all the text we've typed over the last few days, one of us is very vocal about change the other would rather argue what we have is acceptable. The current condition IMHO isn't acceptable!
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 02:06:08 PM
Now you're charming me?

No....but I am not taking you bait, either.:-)
 
Quote
I still have plies of proprietary raw data (and PCD's) I can't access. This problem has happened! It is a part of this industries history. Maybe it hasn't happened to you so the premise is difficult to swallow (I don't know why, is it unimaginable to you that some of us have old raw files we can't access?)

That is unfortunate for you.  I do not know if you could have taken actions in the past to convert or avoid the current state.  Only you can honestly know, whether you would ever admit to any fault in your current status is another question.  However, others have posted that it IS possible to convert, so you CAN access...you just have to decide if it is important enough to expend the effort.

Quote
There are no problems backing up DNG's! You have to back them up which in itself is (to some) a problem time wise. Because as you update the data, the backup app see it's changed and of course it wants to back up an entire document when a tiny bit of metadata changes. So what Jeff does is work on his camera originals and only the tiny sidecar files get backed up (quickly). If he did what I do, he'd have to back up the entire DNG. That may be a problem for some, it isn't for me because this all happens in the middle of the night automatically. I'm also not dealing with the number of images Jeff is. So is there a problem? Not really. You can do what I do or you can do what Jeff does. You realize the same is true if you open an image in Photoshop and change a single pixel. The entire document is tagged for backup.

As I said, I did not bring this up as an issue...stop beating ME up for it.
 
Quote
Not at all (yes we covered it). I expect a prefect world where all photographers recognize that hundreds of proprietary raw formats can be problematic for others, that a solution is easy and that the more of us that put pressure on the companies we do buy from, the more likely a change we wish will result. That's the bottom line!

This is not a perfect world.  It is a practical world.  Mostly driven by economic factors.  I asked you, "What would you expect me to do to change their mind....stop buying their stuff?"  Your answer is not actionable.  I will not stop buying Canon, and as long they only offer CR2, I will continue to use it.  DNG, until an industry standard available from the camera buys me nothing.
 
Quote
Here lies our basic disagreement! Your attitude appears to be, nothing can be done. Further early in this discussion, you didn't seem to care much that it does affect others.

Not true...something can be done, but as I said, it needs to be B2B, "in the back rooms and the board rooms".

As I recall, the only instances you stated as effecting "others" where those compaining that they had to wait a short time for Adobe support of there new camera and those who complained that they were forced to buy the Adobe upgrade to get the support (though with some minor effort, they could use DNG converter....which still would not give them new features and, in my opinion would be shortsighted)

Quote
.I've seen changes in this industry from outside many companies.

Most changes to companies from the outside are mostly due to economic, i.e. market forces.  Changing buying patterns, better "widgets, etc....not consumer voices....unless the consumer buys something else which is better (not boycotting...having better or different choices)

Quote
The differences between us is that with all the text we've typed over the last few days, one of us is very vocal about change the other would rather argue what we have is acceptable. The current condition IMHO isn't acceptable!

The CURRENT condition is acceptable....pragmatically, IT WORKS. 

I thought you were concerned about the future condition....archiving, etc....which as others have said, is much bigger than just a RAW format...but again, we discussed that.

Go work the board rooms and back rooms....when/if an open standard comes ouy, I will use it.  Then, I will only have to worry that the wonderful Lightroom code will continue to be available.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Pete_G on April 18, 2013, 02:31:59 PM
Can I just break into this "discussion" to say that I think the LR 5 beta is pretty good. I was a little underwhelmed initially by the new features but I do really like them, but most of all I think it's faster than LR 4. I've gone through and added effects. Radial masks, Grad filters, Spot removals, Adjustment Brushes, then I've made adjustments to every slider including Sharpness, NR, lens corrections...everything..and with all this running it's still pretty responsive. The Develop module slider adjustments slow down a little when it's this heavily loaded..but I imagine there's still room for optimisation before the full release. I think this is all promising and I'll certainly be taking the upgrade....especially for the promised Sigma Merrill support.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 02:34:27 PM
That is unfortunate for you.  I do not know if you could have taken actions in the past to convert or avoid the current state. 
I could have rendered all the images. That's somewhat akin to making prints from your negs, they shredding them. Better than nothing but far from ideal.
 
Quote
This is not a perfect world.  It is a practical world.  Mostly driven by economic factors. 
I agree. Most companies are driven by economics driven by their customers needs and desires. If you don't make the desires known and in a very strong way, you can't expect change.

Quote
As I recall, the only instances you stated as effecting "others" where those compaining that they had to wait a short time for Adobe support of there new camera and those who complained that they were forced to buy the Adobe upgrade to get the support (though with some minor effort, they could use DNG converter....which still would not give them new features and, in my opinion would be shortsighted)

That's the most common complaint which would instantly cease if the camera raw data acted like the camera JEPG data: open to use outside the manufacturers converter the day a new camera ships.

Quote
The CURRENT condition is acceptable....pragmatically, IT WORKS. 
Until it doesn't, like my Kodak DCS files and my PhotoCD files.

Quote
I thought you were concerned about the future condition....archiving, etc....which as others have said, is much bigger than just a RAW format...but again, we discussed that.
I am concerned about that. The problem is, until the issue bites you in the butt, you go along without a worry. It doesn't occur to you today what issues you'll face tomorrow with a proprietary raw file. And there's no reason we have to worry. A solution exists.

Quote
Go work the board rooms and back rooms....when/if an open standard comes ouy, I will use it.  Then, I will only have to worry that the wonderful Lightroom code will continue to be available.
But Lightroom isn't an issue here. There is no reason to associate the specific raw processor into this mix. IF LR dies in 2 years, I'll find another raw processor. But that raw processor has to be able to decode my raw data. That's the root of the problem.

I also don't see how a current open raw file format we have today, magically becomes better and more acceptable once there is stamp of a standards committee. That be nice, but I don't see how it does anything but 'force' those on the fence or on the other side of the fence to take notice.

Does a CR2 or NEF have this stamp of approval from a standards body? If no, what makes that stamp useful to you in this case? Oh I forgot, doesn't matter, you are currently forced to use either JPEG or CR2. After that, you can convert to this open raw format or not. ALL I'm asking for is a switch on the camera so I can get a DNG onto my camera card.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 18, 2013, 03:10:36 PM
This is not a perfect world.  It is a practical world.  Mostly driven by economic factors.  I asked you, "What would you expect me to do to change their mind....stop buying their stuff?"  Your answer is not actionable.  I will not stop buying Canon, and as long they only offer CR2, I will continue to use it. 

What would be useful is for you and other photographers to stop defending the behavior of the camera companies...what would be useful is to join those photographers who ARE concerned about the long term conservation and preservation of the original raw image data and encourage the camera makers to wean themselves of the habit of spawning new undocumented, proprietary raw file formats each time they release new cameras.

What would be useful is for you and other photographers to acknowledge that the current situation will only continue to get worse until such time that the camera makers proactively make changes. What would be useful is for you and other photographers acknowledge that the current situation sucks (even if it doesn't have a direct impact on you personally). What would be useful is to have a sense of community with other photographers and work towards the common good.

Quote
DNG, until an industry standard available from the camera buys me nothing.

Then, it would be useful if your actions did nothing to block or prevent an industry standard solution from being enacted. The more that photographers understand the issue, the greater likelihood something positive will happen. It really is as simple as being part of a solution or part of the problem. Either you accept that there are problems that should be addressed by the camera companies, or you ignore the problems, which let's the camera companies off the hook and delays any solutions from occurring. Quit defending the behavior of the camera companies.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 03:15:53 PM
In addition to Jeff's very well written plea to photographers here in his last post, I want to remind readers what a powerful forum we have here on LuLa. I'm reminded of some stat's from Michael in 2010 (hope it's OK to post this Michael):

Quote
Lula currently has more than 1.1 million unique readers each month; 3.5 million page views from some 50,000 people a day. This is a larger circulation that any print photographic magazine in the world and exceeded on the web only by some of the dedicated camera review sites.

IF the major camera makers don't have at least one employee lurking here, they are stupid! I don't think they are stupid but they can be stubborn. Which means that what we discuss here could very well influence the market. You have a voice, use it wisely.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 03:41:51 PM
Andrew, I really think we are getting closer...or maybe understanding each other better.

.
 I agree. Most companies are driven by economics driven by their customers needs and desires. If you don't make the desires known and in a very strong way, you can't expect change.

Unfortunately, customer needs and desires are only effective if translated into economic sense...i.e. will we sell more systems if we do this...or, conversely, will we lose sales...or, will we reduce (increase) DE if we do it, etc.  You may or may not have been closely involve in product management in a major corporation, but those are always the questions that need answering.

I have not seen a value proposition (nor should I...back/board room is the place) that closes the arguement of why change should happen....even if I believe in it as much as you do.

 
Quote
I am concerned about that. The problem is, until the issue bites you in the butt, you go along without a worry. It doesn't occur to you today what issues you'll face tomorrow with a proprietary raw file. And there's no reason we have to worry. A solution exists.

...but is not yet accepted or implemented where it needs to be.  My converting my CR2s into DNGs does NOTHING to get where you want to be....and only adds effort to my workflow.  Plus, I would still need to keep my real RAWs...just in case.
 
Quote
But Lightroom isn't an issue here. There is no reason to associate the specific raw processor into this mix. IF LR dies in 2 years, I'll find another raw processor. But that raw processor has to be able to decode my raw data. That's the root of the problem.

No, you are correct LR is directly related to the RAW discussion and I did not add it to muddy things up.  We have covered a lot of ground in this thread, much of it about the "sustainabilty of original, final, and intermediate work product.  As such, the issue of LR's proprietary code should be a concern.  When you mention "decode the RAW file", can all software decode DNG WITHOUT using the Adobe SDK...or are they lock into it (I really do not know the answer).

Quote
I also don't see how a current open raw file format we have today, magically becomes better and more acceptable once there is stamp of a standards committee. That be nice, but I don't see how it does anything but 'force' those on the fence or on the other side of the fence to take notice

Users, me for one, will not use it until it is implemented by the majors as discussed above and in other threads.  People converting to DNG, still means that the CR2 and NEF RAWs are still acceptable and no change is need.

Quote
Does a CR2 or NEF have this stamp of approval from a standards body? If no, what makes that stamp useful to you in this case? Oh I forgot, doesn't matter, you are currently forced to use either JPEG or CR2. After that, you can convert to this open raw format or not. ALL I'm asking for is a switch on the camera so I can get a DNG onto my camera card.

CR2 has the "stamp" of user approval...it is being used.  It doesn't matter that it is the only game in town....it is working.  And, yes, I can convert.  One thing I do not want is a switch on the camera to go either CR2 or DNG or whatever.  DE for two RAW formats will add cost bloat; including the code will mean more memory (cost) for storing both routines and probably increase the code paths in a very timing dependent "computer" (camera).  If the DNG implementation is conversion from native RAW, more timing and cost problems.  Then, if firmware changes are necessary, the addl RAW increase the testing required.  SO, while I support "Open RAW', I do not support a kludge.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 03:51:28 PM
What would be useful is for you and other photographers to stop defending the behavior of the camera companies...what would be useful is to join those photographers who ARE concerned about the long term conservation and preservation of the original raw image data and encourage the camera makers to wean themselves of the habit of spawning new undocumented, proprietary raw file formats each time they release new cameras.

What would be useful is for you and other photographers to acknowledge that the current situation will only continue to get worse until such time that the camera makers proactively make changes. What would be useful is for you and other photographers acknowledge that the current situation sucks (even if it doesn't have a direct impact on you personally). What would be useful is to have a sense of community with other photographers and work towards the common good.

Then, it would be useful if your actions did nothing to block or prevent an industry standard solution from being enacted. The more that photographers understand the issue, the greater likelihood something positive will happen. It really is as simple as being part of a solution or part of the problem. Either you accept that there are problems that should be addressed by the camera companies, or you ignore the problems, which let's the camera companies off the hook and delays any solutions from occurring. Quit defending the behavior of the camera companies.

Your preaching on these forums does more to drive out comments than anything else.  Comments like not being part of the solution makes one part of the problem.

You got something good...sell it's positive attributes...not the hell and damnation if you don't use it.  People are not going to use something that causes them work and adds nothing value to them.

You will never be successful until there is a value proposition meaningful to the manufacturers..and other raw converters...something that does not lock them into Adobe, even if the code is free...if your business is based on it and it goes away, you are dead.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 18, 2013, 04:06:31 PM
You will never be successful until there is a value proposition meaningful to the manufacturers..and other raw converters...something that does not lock them into Adobe, even if the code is free...if your business is based on it and it goes away, you are dead.

Again, this is less about DNG and more about eradicating undocumented, proprietary raw files. DNG is only one potential solution to the problem and I've never advocated that people only use DNG...the only use cases where DNG is a useful solution is where a new camera buyer's camera isn't supported in their current version of ACR/LR and cases where you want to use DNG as an interchange raw file without relying on a .xmp sidecar file.

In terms of changing the behavior of the camera companies, public opinion can have an impact. As Andrew point out, LuLa is an influential platform...and Michael has used it judiciously to try to bring about change with the camera companies–and not just related to undocumented, proprietary but many other aspects of the ways camera companies do or don't respect their customers. I think Mike has had a positive impact, don't you?

So, the bottom line is, are you gonna keep giving the camera companies a pass when it comes to the proliferation of undocumented, proprietary raw files?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 04:08:24 PM
Quote
As such, the issue of LR's proprietary code should be a concern.

Still don't see how that has any bearing. If you take your raw into LR, C1, Raw Developer or any other raw converter, they can either access that data or they can't. If they can, all their processing is proprietary code. I don't care. As long as I have options to feed a number of good products my 'neg' to process, I'm OK. I'm happy.

IF you open a TIFF in Photoshop and make an adjustment layer with curves, that's proprietary. The TIFF isn't, you could open it in Graphic Converter or even Apple's Preview.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 04:21:02 PM
Quote
People converting to DNG, still means that the CR2 and NEF RAWs are still acceptable and no change is need.

Today, that's true. I'm not worried about today unless I just purchased a new camera and can't access the data in my preferred converter. We've been over this frustration that eventually disappears because all the converter manufactures need time to hack the new format, then they support it. So that's one issue and one solution (wait). It's not ideal nor necessary but not a death blow.

Let's now step into my time machine and we'll travel back to the mid 1990's where you and I are shooting with some older Kodak DCS (say a DCS420). We're so happy we can shoot into that format and actually process our raw data. But in this alternative past, I've also got a DNG converter.

I archive my DCS files but I don't convert to DNG. Years pass, I've been using newer cameras and I decide today, in 2013 I want to re-render a raw shot back in mid 1990. The software I used back then is long dead. Now if I had a very old Mac running OS8 or OS9, and the Kodak software, I could access that data. But I wan't thinking I'd have a problem, those machines are long gone. I can't access my raw data.

IF I had converted the DCS raw's into DNG, I could access them today, just as I can access a JPEG I built in Photoshop 1.0.7 back when I purchased my first copy of Photoshop in 1990!

Hindsight is 20-20! I had no idea in mid 1990 I'd have to render all my raws, or keep a really old computer system around. Or that Kodak would essential go belly up and stop supporting software. Heck, I can't run a version of Quicken from mid 1990 today, but I CAN update their older file format and see that data in the current version of Quicken. Or MS Word.

The problem is, you don't know about this problem until potentially years later. So today, I've got drink coasters filled images I can't access. And yes, it's partially my fault. I wasn't as smart about the issues of proprietary raw files back in the mid 1990's. I couldn’t fathom at that time Kodak would be out of the camera business. And yet, if the DCS could shoot raw plus JPEG (I don't recall but don't know that it did), that JPEG shot back in mid 1990 would be accessible. So again, I'm screwed due to the proprietary raw, I'm OK with the openly supported accessible JPEG. As I asked before, as a raw shooter, why am I penalized? Isn't this my data?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: hjulenissen on April 18, 2013, 04:24:51 PM
Actually, if this is a concern, I am sure you are aware it is fairly easy to set up.  I mentioned in another post that I store all finished products as either TIFF (print) or JPEG (web).  For the export to the web, I create copies of the JPEG at the same time, in a subfolder (JPEG) so not mixed in with the "digital negative" or intermediate product.  When I print, I have a export preset, which allows me to select the printed images, and create a TIFF subfolder (PRINT).  I you are really concerned with what you stated, it would be easy to select your images and have LR crank away to create them...and in easily to distinguish subfolders.  
This is very interesting. My folder structure is of the form:
2007\01.01 - event A
2007\07.01 - event B
...

I would like to keep the folder structure (or, equivalently, a duplicate of it) and make a JPEG file of each imported image in my catalog (including virtual copies). Can I do this?

-h
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 04:26:49 PM
Again, this is less about DNG and more about eradicating undocumented, proprietary raw files. DNG is only one potential solution to the problem and I've never advocated that people only use DNG...the only use cases where DNG is a useful solution is where a new camera buyer's camera isn't supported in their current version of ACR/LR and cases where you want to use DNG as an interchange raw file without relying on a .xmp sidecar file.

In terms of changing the behavior of the camera companies, public opinion can have an impact. As Andrew point out, LuLa is an influential platform...and Michael has used it judiciously to try to bring about change with the camera companies–and not just related to undocumented, proprietary but many other aspects of the ways camera companies do or don't respect their customers. I think Mike has had a positive impact, don't you?

So, the bottom line is, are you gonna keep giving the camera companies a pass when it comes to the proliferation of undocumented, proprietary raw files?

Jeff, did I mention DNG in the referenced post?

The value prop has to be open RAW, as you say.

You cannot get public opinion based on preaching.  There has to be something...directly...for them...not some future problem that they do not see.

I am gonna give 'em a pss and buy their stuff.

I asked Andrew, "What wouldyou expect me to do to change there minds?"  I'll ask the same to you.  What "action" should I take?

Understand...Using DNG for all my RAWs is not viable at this time.  You don't even do this.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 04:39:10 PM
Understand...Using DNG for all my RAWs is not viable at this time.  

Because:

It's a burden on your workflow to convert?
It's a burden on your backup strategy?
It's because (you should fill in the blanks).

The first IS a burden to some degree. It takes more time to do this upon import into Lightroom. But I don't sit there and watch this anyway, I move onto other tasks. I wish the DNG would just come out of the camera.

The 2nd back up issue I discussed. It might be cool if there were a way to backup just the metadata as we can do with sidecar files. But this isn't enough an issue to make me stop converting.

The benefits FOR ME well out weight the disadvantage and there are some. Less file space, no sidecar files to possibly lose, the ability to embed DNG profile (this one is big IF you build your own and use multiple systems as this important profile is now embedded inside the DNG. It travels with the image). Fast Load previews in LR, verification of the data file, embedded rendered JPEG (the belt and suspenders approach, at least I can extract that and have more than I got with those DCS files). And going back full circle, a non proprietary raw.

Yes, having a DNG come directly out of the camera would aid my workflow. But the other goodies make it such that converting upon import isn't that much more painful time wise had I not selected this option. And upon import, LR will gladly archive the original raw data to another drive before conversion IF you want both file formats.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 04:40:39 PM
This is very interesting. My folder structure is of the form:
2007\01.01 - event A
2007\07.01 - event B
...

I would like to keep the folder structure (or, equivalently, a duplicate of it) and make a JPEG file of each imported image in my catalog (including virtual copies). Can I do this?

-h

Attached is an example of the export dialog I use for creating Print TIFFs.  Next, a snap of how the subfolders look, which is right under the original folder, so no change to your structure.

I have a preset, so I can select the images, right click, export, and select "TIFF pRGB' (my name for the preset).  Going through the export dialog, you can see that there are lots of options.  JPEGs, for example, can be resized, different quality, etc....and of course, put in a JPEG folder, separate from the PRINT folder.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me.

John
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 04:54:31 PM
Because:

It's a burden on your workflow to convert?
It's a burden on your backup strategy?
It's because (you should fill in the blanks).

The first IS a burden to some degree. It takes more time to do this upon import into Lightroom. But I don't sit there and watch this anyway, I move onto other tasks. I wish the DNG would just come out of the camera.

The 2nd back up issue I discussed. It might be cool if there were a way to backup just the metadata as we can do with sidecar files. But this isn't enough an issue to make me stop converting.

The benefits FOR ME well out weight the disadvantage and there are some. Less file space, no sidecar files to possibly lose, the ability to embed DNG profile (this one is big IF you build your own and use multiple systems as this important profile is now embedded inside the DNG. It travels with the image). Fast Load previews in LR, verification of the data file, embedded rendered JPEG (the belt and suspenders approach, at least I can extract that and have more than I got with those DCS files). And going back full circle, a non proprietary raw.

Yes, having a DNG come directly out of the camera would aid my workflow. But the other goodies make it such that converting upon import isn't that much more painful time wise had I not selected this option. And upon import, LR will gladly archive the original raw data to another drive before conversion IF you want both file formats.
My view...

Less file space- relatively insignificant, particularly with today's HD fiiles.  If I need to save the native RAW...well, real bad

no sidecar files to possibly lose-never lost 'em...I passed kindergarten and learn to follow instuctions...all changes made in LR...pluss LR could recreate if lost in files.

 the ability to embed DNG profile (this one is big IF you build your own and use multiple systems as this important profile is now embedded inside the DNG. It travels with the image).  I have evaluated DNG profiles and I do not have a requirement for them.  If I were in the business of needing exact color rendition, I might look again.  Also, if I export my LR catalog, don't I have them?

Fast Load previews in LR, same as the RAW cache, which I have on an SSD

verification of the data file
 my RAWs do not get written to...what need to be verified.  DNG messes with the file, so need this.,

embedded rendered JPEG One possible Item of interest...if Adobe folds an LR not available.  Can I read the preview without the Adobe SDK?  Which could also be gone if Adobe folded.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 05:41:48 PM
Fast Load previews in LR, same as the RAW cache, which I have on an SSD

I don't think so. Fast load is faster, it's not a rolling cache (so you never lose it). It's part of the DNG so again, unless you never travel with multiple drives, you're leaving leaving that data behind.

Quote
verification of the data file  my RAWs do not get written to...what need to be verified.  DNG messes with the file, so need this.,
You don't think the data is ever accessed? You don't think they can become corrupted?

Quote
Can I read the preview without the Adobe SDK? 
I believe so yes, but I'll have to ping someone like Peter Krogh to find out what 3rd party software will extract them.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: john beardsworth on April 18, 2013, 05:49:49 PM
Quote from: nowonderyouhidebehindapseudonym
Can I read the preview without the Adobe SDK?

I believe so yes, but I'll have to ping someone like Peter Krogh to find out what 3rd party software will extract them.

At the risk of being repetitive, of course you bloody well can. Many programs can do so, and have done so for years. Shortly after DNG was first introduced, almost 10 years ago, I was using Extensis to do so. Nowadays obvious examples might be Aperture in its preview mode, or PhotoMechanic. But as I said before, you have no need of Adobe software to read this preview, output it, or read and write metadata to the file.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: Schewe on April 18, 2013, 05:54:32 PM
I asked Andrew, "What wouldyou expect me to do to change there minds?"  I'll ask the same to you.  What "action" should I take?

I guess you didn't read (or understand) my previous post...here it is again:

What would be useful is for you and other photographers to stop defending the behavior of the camera companies...what would be useful is to join those photographers who ARE concerned about the long term conservation and preservation of the original raw image data and encourage the camera makers to wean themselves of the habit of spawning new undocumented, proprietary raw file formats each time they release new cameras.

What would be useful is for you and other photographers to acknowledge that the current situation will only continue to get worse until such time that the camera makers proactively make changes. What would be useful is for you and other photographers acknowledge that the current situation sucks (even if it doesn't have a direct impact on you personally). What would be useful is to have a sense of community with other photographers and work towards the common good.

I have never advocated boycotting the camera companies for failing to provide documented, non-proprietary raw files. I do advocate not giving them a pass either privately or publicly for failing to do so. You get the difference?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 05:55:09 PM
At the risk of being repetitive, of course you bloody well can. Many programs can do so, and have done so for years. Shortly after DNG was first introduced, almost 10 years ago, I was using Extensis to do so. Nowadays obvious examples might be Aperture in its preview mode, or PhotoMechanic. But as I said before, you have no need of Adobe software to read this preview, output it, or read and write metadata to the file.

The question I believe is, what software do you use to extract that JPEG? I know and am happy they are in there but have yet never tried to extract them out.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 06:00:48 PM
I don't think so. Fast load is faster, it's not a rolling cache (so you never lose it). It's part of the DNG so again, unless you never travel with multiple drives, you're leaving leaving that data behind.

I think if you check withAdobe development, your assumption on speed is wrong.  ON my main system, cache size is never a problem.  I don't think I have ever exceeded it.  If I were to go to a new file, the initial build will take a really short time.  Will be interesting how this will change with LR5.  Those who travel may find it worthwhile, but gain, the cache build is short...again, LR5  

Quote
You don't think the data is ever accessed? You don't think they can become corrupted?

Accessed, yes...that is read.  Yes there are lots of ways data can be corrupted, which is why we backup.  However, DNG being continually written to requires a much greater level of verification.

Quote
I believe so yes, but I'll have to ping someone like Peter Krogh to find out what 3rd party software will extract them.

Thanks...I really do not know...and hope none of us has to find out.  If they don't use Adobe code, it would be interesting to know who reverse engineered it and maintains it.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 06:12:43 PM
At the risk of being repetitive, of course you bloody well can. Many programs can do so, and have done so for years. Shortly after DNG was first introduced, almost 10 years ago, I was using Extensis to do so. Nowadays obvious examples might be Aperture in its preview mode, or PhotoMechanic. But as I said before, you have no need of Adobe software to read this preview, output it, or read and write metadata to the file.

Thanks, John....I was aware that other could read it. 

Actually, my reason to possible need it would be if Adobe and LR disappeared.  I assume the 3rd parties use SDK or other code licensed from Adobe (free or not).  If Adobe went belly up, would those licenses be null and void...therefore not to be used any more?

This is an unlikely event, but if you are worrying about putting all your eggs in one basket....
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: john beardsworth on April 18, 2013, 06:18:08 PM
The question I believe is, what software do you use to extract that JPEG? I know and am happy they are in there but have yet never tried to extract them out.
Take your pick, Andrew. Just open a DNG in PhotoMechanic and select File > Export. It's that trivial.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: john beardsworth on April 18, 2013, 06:24:16 PM
Actually, my reason to possible need it would be if Adobe and LR disappeared.  I assume the 3rd parties use SDK or other code licensed from Adobe (free or not).  If Adobe went belly up, would those licenses be null and void...therefore not to be used any more?
Your assumption is quite wrong, and I think you've already been told so by Jeff, probably 3 or 4 times, somewhere earlier in the thread. There is no licensing, and no tie to the SDK. At most, someone might want to read publicly-available documentation.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 06:51:21 PM
Take your pick, Andrew. Just open a DNG in PhotoMechanic and select File > Export. It's that trivial.

Sorry I missed the list and now see Aperture. I have that but not PhotoMechanic so I'm assuming Aperture will do the job. IF so, we need to talk to Adobe about putting in something in LR to do this. Can't let Apple get away with this <g>.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: john beardsworth on April 18, 2013, 06:54:39 PM
Sorry I missed the list and now see Aperture. I have that but not PhotoMechanic so I'm assuming Aperture will do the job. IF so, we need to talk to Adobe about putting in something in LR to do this. Can't let Apple get away with this <g>.
Yes, Aperture can do this because it reads the embedded previews. That's a feature I'd love LR to offer, partly for the PM browsing speed but also so users could compare the camera-baked JPEGs with LR output. Yes, there are dangers in doing so, but upsides too.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 06:57:19 PM
That's a feature I'd love LR to offer, partly for the PM browsing speed but also so users could compare the camera-baked JPEGs with LR output. Yes, there are dangers in doing so, but upsides too.

OK, maybe Jeff and you (and I) can see if that feedback can affect a positive change.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: John Cothron on April 18, 2013, 08:08:00 PM
Can I just break into this "discussion" to say that I think the LR 5 beta is pretty good. I was a little underwhelmed initially by the new features but I do really like them, but most of all I think it's faster than LR 4. I've gone through and added effects. Radial masks, Grad filters, Spot removals, Adjustment Brushes, then I've made adjustments to every slider including Sharpness, NR, lens corrections...everything..and with all this running it's still pretty responsive. The Develop module slider adjustments slow down a little when it's this heavily loaded..but I imagine there's still room for optimisation before the full release. I think this is all promising and I'll certainly be taking the upgrade....especially for the promised Sigma Merrill support.

Agreed, I'm pretty impressed with it so far, although I haven't used it for major work.. just playing around.  None of my plugins (export, etc.) work with Lr5 so I won't be using it for "real" work till it actually comes out, but it definitely seems to be an improvement in all areas, and I haven't even used the smart previews yet.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 08:52:41 PM
Your assumption is quite wrong, and I think you've already been told so by Jeff, probably 3 or 4 times, somewhere earlier in the thread. There is no licensing, and no tie to the SDK. At most, someone might want to read publicly-available documentation.

Sorry, John.  I did read the links Jeff posted.

First one on DNG support: http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products_y6.htm

Following some of the links in the article, which discussed licensing
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/commentary1.htm

Specificlly:

"Adobe have published a royalty-free license for anyone to develop and supply products using the DNG specification. Adobe have released a freely-available (optional) SDK, and a royalty-free license for anyone to use it."

This linked me to: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html

Where in one section it said:

'Digital Negative (DNG) Specification Patent License
Adobe is the publisher of the Digital Negative (DNG) Specification describing an image file format for storing camera raw information used in a wide range of hardware and software. Adobe provides the DNG Specification to the public for the purpose of encouraging implementation of this file format in a compliant manner. This document is a patent license granted by Adobe to individuals and organizations that desire to develop, market, and/or distribute hardware and software that reads and/or writes image files compliant with the DNG Specification.'

Plus:
"Revocation
Adobe may revoke the rights granted above to any individual or organizational licensee in the event that such licensee or its affiliates brings any patent action against Adobe or its affiliates related to the reading or writing of files that comply with the DNG Specification." 

OK...well it is a broad based license, but it is a license, unless I read it wrong, which is not impossible ;-)

In the last article it also mentioned:
"DNG SDK
The DNG SDK provides support for reading and writing DNG files as well as for converting DNG data to a format that is easily displayed or processed by imaging applications. This SDK can serve as a starting point for the addition of DNG support to existing applications that use and manipulate images or as an aid to the inclusion of DNG support within cameras."

And:
"DNG Codec for Windows
The DNG Codec provides a method for Windows 7 customers to view DNG files in the Windows Explorer and Photo Gallery."

So it seemed to me that read/writing to the files was via the SDK.  I was not aware that any of the viewers or other applications had implemented the own code to read the DNG files.  However, I believe that they are still contained within the license.

Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 09:00:14 PM
Yes, Aperture can do this because it reads the embedded previews. That's a feature I'd love LR to offer, partly for the PM browsing speed but also so users could compare the camera-baked JPEGs with LR output. Yes, there are dangers in doing so, but upsides too.

I am sorry, but I am confused.

Native RAWs contain a "camera-baked" JPEG.  I thought, from prior comments in this thread, that DNG previews were based on LR changes.  Further, isn't this preview automatically created on import and overrides the "camera-baked" version.  Does DNG contain both the camera-baked" version and the LR preview?
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: digitaldog on April 18, 2013, 09:18:13 PM
I am sorry, but I am confused.

Native RAWs contain a "camera-baked" JPEG.  I thought, from prior comments in this thread, that DNG previews were based on LR changes.  Further, isn't this preview automatically created on import and overrides the "camera-baked" version.  Does DNG contain both the camera-baked" version and the LR preview?

The embedded JPEG in the camera raw is tiny and it's a rendering the camera would have produced IF you set it to JPEG.

The embedded JPEG in the DNG can be very large and more importantly, represents the current rendering you've produced within Lightroom (assuming you invoke the Update DNG). Big difference. I'm referring to extracting that JPEG.

The embedded JPEG in the raw is pretty much worthless.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: jrsforums on April 18, 2013, 10:04:50 PM
The embedded JPEG in the camera raw is tiny and it's a rendering the camera would have produced IF you set it to JPEG.

The embedded JPEG in the DNG can be very large and more importantly, represents the current rendering you've produced within Lightroom (assuming you invoke the Update DNG). Big difference. I'm referring to extracting that JPEG.

The embedded JPEG in the raw is pretty much worthless.

I think the 5D2/5D3 jpegs are full size jpegs, heavily compressed....but, as you say, pretty useless.

My question to John was whether DNG stored the embedded and the LR update to the DNG?

I asked that because of JohnBeardy's comment about comparing the embedded to the LR output.  Though quite possibly he was talking about the jpeg embedded in the native RAW while you were talking about DNG.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: kencameron on April 23, 2013, 12:39:58 AM
....especially for the promised Sigma Merrill support.
Could you point me to a source for this promise? I haven't been able to find it.
Title: Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
Post by: john beardsworth on April 23, 2013, 01:29:57 AM
This forum, 10 or so threads down