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.
…The page was indexed (but not cached) by major search engines.
…
I didn't see the date that the article was written. Might it have been April 1st?
Cya,
JJ
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.
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.
Canon for one supply free software with every camera, I don't know the current position with Nikon.
This is kind of a ying/yang issue.
I understand why the camera manufacturers are not moving to DNG.
As the core issue appears to be every new camera having a new proprietary raw format
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.
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.
it is a lie and you lie knowingly... changes in formats are very rare.
Please, Andrew......
I did not "slam" DNG.
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.
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
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 you have an open format w/ proprietary content inside... how good is that ?
So they can add new innovative function without having to spend months/years before a standards committee.
Then if there is such a small change
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.I never claimed Adobe were the bad guys, I was simply pointing out that some makers do supply free software.
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?
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).
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.
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?
From a user perspective, it is, essentially, a non-issue.
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.
Thanks for speaking for ALL users
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.
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.
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.
making DNG an ISO standard does not eliminate any issues as to why DNG is not being used...
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
If there is a deeper reason for not doing it, I'd love to hear it.
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.
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 :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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. :)
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.
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.
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.
Jeff...nice story...but...whether you a correct or not...it does not support the last paragraph.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
Then what the heck do you and Jeff mean by, "I refuse to give them (Nikon and Canon) a pass"
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?
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"
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?
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?Jeff, if you quote me, do not selectively quote me to meet your point of view.
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.
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.
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.
Nikon and Canon are not the "cowboys". They and others led the industry with RAW capability.
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?
Your links to Adobe, long term and financial, kind of stain you a different color.
.
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).
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.
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.
...but this whinging on DNG just goes too far and is too irrational to not respond to.
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.
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.
Dammit, I ran out of popcorn. :D
Glenn
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".
at the perfect time, it's over.... :-)
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...Actually SQLite. Still open source, though.
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.
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.
I agree with you on the subject matter but not with calling people a$$holes just because you don't like the coolaid.
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.Huh? They'd be usable, maybe just not optimal. That's a very big difference.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Your argument doesn't wash.
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.
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.
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.
Canon provide software for reading their Raw files, ditto all the other companies.
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.
It seems like I recall your recommendation at one time was to not archive files under DNG, although it was available in Lr.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What will "unlock" it so we can see the "finished" image?
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 ::)
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...
we are no longer talking about the RAW image. We are talking about the, as you say, "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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 ::)
Do these programs require/use the Adobe DNG codex? Which, while free, is proprietary, is it not?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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
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.
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.
"...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.
Also they have yet to be known to be able to fly.
: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.
. . . 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.
Thank you for yor valuable insight.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.
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....
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
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.
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!
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!
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.
I wonder if Apple could even do it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most, not "any". Arq, for example, should save only the delta. At least that's what the developer told me.
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.
Yes, Glenn...the issues are both format and media.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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?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).
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I was sure and had asked that in an earlier post. I assume it is a JPEG. What size and quality?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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'?
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"
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.
This has been covered and covered and covered. Your continued regurgitation of it is just more FUD...fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
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.
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?
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).
True, I don't know your intent, guess I should have seen it as a charm offensive.
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.
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
Which of them uses TIFF or PSD?
Such as? I've been backing them up since they were introduced, no problems.Your buddy, Jeff, brought up the issue, not me.
Easy, don't use it.
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?
Ya can't let it go....always need to show your bottom doncha :-)Now you're charming me?
Learning from history does not mean accepting your premise.
What would you expect me to do to change their mind....stop buying their stuff?
If you and Adobe cannot convince them
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!
Now you're charming me?
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.
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!
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've seen changes in this industry from outside many companies.
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!
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.
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.
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)
The CURRENT condition is acceptable....pragmatically, IT WORKS.Until it doesn't, like my Kodak DCS files and my PhotoCD files.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
As such, the issue of LR's proprietary code should be a concern.
People converting to DNG, still means that the CR2 and NEF RAWs are still acceptable and no change is need.
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:
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?
Understand...Using DNG for all my RAWs is not viable at this time.
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
Because:My view...
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.
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.,You don't think the data is ever accessed? You don't think they can become corrupted?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You don't think the data is ever accessed? You don't think they can become corrupted?
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.
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.
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.
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>.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
....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.