Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)  (Read 40077 times)

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 990
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #200 on: April 18, 2013, 08:34:39 AM »

No part of my arguments warrant calling me an "Adobe fanboy".

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

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

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

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

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

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

-h

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

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 990
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #201 on: April 18, 2013, 08:48:17 AM »

No, you are forgetting that the DNG contains an adjusted preview. I can take a DNG onto a machine with no Adobe software whatsoever, and create a print from it that looks identical to one made in Lightroom.

Thanks, John. 

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

Personally, for "finished" images, I prefer an 8bit TIFF, which gives me greater latitude in print size ranges, though I could be accused of being paranoid here. 
Logged
John

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4168
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #202 on: April 18, 2013, 09:58:41 AM »

I was sure and had asked that in an earlier post.  I assume it is a JPEG.  What size and quality?
Personally, for "finished" images, I prefer an 8bit TIFF, which gives me greater latitude in print size ranges, though I could be accused of being paranoid here. 
It can be full size if you wish - that's my preference. I don't know if he still does it, but Peter Krogh used to take a couple of big prints to his talks, one made from this adjusted JPEG and one made "the real way". His audience tends to be pro and I recall very few could ever spot the difference.
Logged
www.beardsworth.co.uk   www.lightroomsolutions.com

New Fuji-to-Lightroom plugin X-LR

Ignoring : AlterEgo, digitaldog, scyth, deejaaa

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12370
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #203 on: April 18, 2013, 10:32:20 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12370
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #204 on: April 18, 2013, 10:44:40 AM »

Unless the processing or final look is standardised and can be baked into the DNG so it can be read by any program, the archival properties of DNG as a raw format rest pretty much only on Adobe continuing to exist.

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

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

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

An open raw format, DNG or otherwise, what's the harm?
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 990
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #205 on: April 18, 2013, 11:01:41 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From your other post:
Quote
An open raw format, DNG or otherwise, what's the harm?
None....as I have said many times, but you refuse to hear...when an open raw format is the standard and available from my camera manufacturer and supported by my raw converter of choice, I will openly accept it....even praise it.  Until then, "it is not there yet"
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 11:14:19 AM by jrsforums »
Logged
John

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12370
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #206 on: April 18, 2013, 12:16:58 PM »

With all due respect...you have no idea what my intent was.  You must look at yourself now in terms of trying to communicate as an adult.
True, I don't know your intent, guess I should have seen it as a charm offensive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
It causes problems with many backup programs.

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

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

Quote
From your other post:None....as I have said many times, but you refuse to hear...when an open raw format is the standard and available from my camera manufacturer and supported by my raw converter of choice, I will openly accept it....even praise it.  Until then, "it is not there yet"
DNG is an open raw format, and no one would prefer his camera to spit out a DNG directly than me. Which gets back to the "your part of the problem or solution" which is putting pressure on Nikon and Canon among others to give us this feature. IF Mr. Canon or Mr. Nikon were reading what you've posted over the last few days, do you suppose your opinion here would encourage them to allow the ability to save a DNG file or encourage them to continue doing what they're doing?
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6066
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #207 on: April 18, 2013, 12:17:18 PM »

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

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

I've explained why Nikon and Canon resist doing so (from personal experience) and the fact that there are photographers out there inclined to let them continue their risky business and actually argue on their behalf does nothing to put pressure on them to change their practices...
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 990
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #208 on: April 18, 2013, 12:47:38 PM »

True, I don't know your intent, guess I should have seen it as a charm offensive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW....how many time do I have to say I would accept an open standard RAW format?  That does not mean I am going to stop using the CR2 files I use, quite successfully and easily, today.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 12:51:03 PM by jrsforums »
Logged
John

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12370
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #209 on: April 18, 2013, 01:21:14 PM »

Ya can't let it go....always need to show your bottom doncha :-)
Now you're charming me?

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

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

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

Quote
If you and Adobe cannot convince them

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

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

Quote
BTW....how many time do I have to say I would accept an open standard RAW format?  That does not mean I am going to stop using the CR2 files I use, quite successfully and easily, today.
I can't stop using CR2's either although I will convert them. The differences between us is that with all the text we've typed over the last few days, one of us is very vocal about change the other would rather argue what we have is acceptable. The current condition IMHO isn't acceptable!
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 990
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #210 on: April 18, 2013, 02:06:08 PM »

Now you're charming me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go work the board rooms and back rooms....when/if an open standard comes ouy, I will use it.  Then, I will only have to worry that the wonderful Lightroom code will continue to be available.
Logged
John

Pete_G

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 249
    • http://www.petergoddard.org
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #211 on: April 18, 2013, 02:31:59 PM »

Can I just break into this "discussion" to say that I think the LR 5 beta is pretty good. I was a little underwhelmed initially by the new features but I do really like them, but most of all I think it's faster than LR 4. I've gone through and added effects. Radial masks, Grad filters, Spot removals, Adjustment Brushes, then I've made adjustments to every slider including Sharpness, NR, lens corrections...everything..and with all this running it's still pretty responsive. The Develop module slider adjustments slow down a little when it's this heavily loaded..but I imagine there's still room for optimisation before the full release. I think this is all promising and I'll certainly be taking the upgrade....especially for the promised Sigma Merrill support.
Logged
___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12370
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #212 on: April 18, 2013, 02:34:27 PM »

That is unfortunate for you.  I do not know if you could have taken actions in the past to convert or avoid the current state. 
I could have rendered all the images. That's somewhat akin to making prints from your negs, they shredding them. Better than nothing but far from ideal.
 
Quote
This is not a perfect world.  It is a practical world.  Mostly driven by economic factors. 
I agree. Most companies are driven by economics driven by their customers needs and desires. If you don't make the desires known and in a very strong way, you can't expect change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6066
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #213 on: April 18, 2013, 03:10:36 PM »

This is not a perfect world.  It is a practical world.  Mostly driven by economic factors.  I asked you, "What would you expect me to do to change their mind....stop buying their stuff?"  Your answer is not actionable.  I will not stop buying Canon, and as long they only offer CR2, I will continue to use it. 

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

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

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

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

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12370
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #214 on: April 18, 2013, 03:15:53 PM »

In addition to Jeff's very well written plea to photographers here in his last post, I want to remind readers what a powerful forum we have here on LuLa. I'm reminded of some stat's from Michael in 2010 (hope it's OK to post this Michael):

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

IF the major camera makers don't have at least one employee lurking here, they are stupid! I don't think they are stupid but they can be stubborn. Which means that what we discuss here could very well influence the market. You have a voice, use it wisely.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 990
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #215 on: April 18, 2013, 03:41:51 PM »

Andrew, I really think we are getting closer...or maybe understanding each other better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CR2 has the "stamp" of user approval...it is being used.  It doesn't matter that it is the only game in town....it is working.  And, yes, I can convert.  One thing I do not want is a switch on the camera to go either CR2 or DNG or whatever.  DE for two RAW formats will add cost bloat; including the code will mean more memory (cost) for storing both routines and probably increase the code paths in a very timing dependent "computer" (camera).  If the DNG implementation is conversion from native RAW, more timing and cost problems.  Then, if firmware changes are necessary, the addl RAW increase the testing required.  SO, while I support "Open RAW', I do not support a kludge.
Logged
John

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 990
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #216 on: April 18, 2013, 03:51:28 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

You will never be successful until there is a value proposition meaningful to the manufacturers..and other raw converters...something that does not lock them into Adobe, even if the code is free...if your business is based on it and it goes away, you are dead.
Logged
John

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6066
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #217 on: April 18, 2013, 04:06:31 PM »

You will never be successful until there is a value proposition meaningful to the manufacturers..and other raw converters...something that does not lock them into Adobe, even if the code is free...if your business is based on it and it goes away, you are dead.

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

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

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

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12370
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #218 on: April 18, 2013, 04:08:24 PM »

Quote
As such, the issue of LR's proprietary code should be a concern.

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

IF you open a TIFF in Photoshop and make an adjustment layer with curves, that's proprietary. The TIFF isn't, you could open it in Graphic Converter or even Apple's Preview.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12370
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #219 on: April 18, 2013, 04:21:02 PM »

Quote
People converting to DNG, still means that the CR2 and NEF RAWs are still acceptable and no change is need.

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is, you don't know about this problem until potentially years later. So today, I've got drink coasters filled images I can't access. And yes, it's partially my fault. I wasn't as smart about the issues of proprietary raw files back in the mid 1990's. I couldn’t fathom at that time Kodak would be out of the camera business. And yet, if the DCS could shoot raw plus JPEG (I don't recall but don't know that it did), that JPEG shot back in mid 1990 would be accessible. So again, I'm screwed due to the proprietary raw, I'm OK with the openly supported accessible JPEG. As I asked before, as a raw shooter, why am I penalized? Isn't this my data?
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13   Go Up