Poll

Do you save your originals as DNG or RAW?

DNG
- 22 (26.8%)
RAW
- 60 (73.2%)

Total Members Voted: 81


Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: DNG or RAW  (Read 60652 times)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #160 on: January 04, 2014, 11:57:06 am »

Haven't you read the thread? Why don't you share your vision of how it doesn't? Why don't you explain how proprietary raw data achieves that goal?
John, see post #2 (Opening up a big can of worms here). This is typical of the 'arugments' we see here ever few months on this subject.

It boils down to two sides of course, often talking over the other and not listening as you point out.

One side asks for an option, points out a problem that actually exists for some, and as was posted in that #2 entry, expresses some of the workflow benefits of an open format container.
The other side, for whatever reason wishes to deny the first group the option. It suggests no problem exists with solutions like "just use the manufacturer's product" and attempts to find any flaw that exists with the said format. Eventually this side has to come up with the Adobe fan boy reference as what they believe to be their ultimate insult and imply that the problem and solution discussed is just an excuse to better Adobe's bottom line, not ours. And yet it appears they continue to use Adobe solutions and Adobe file formats like TIFF.

IF we waved a magic wand and all cameras would produce an open raw file (DNG or otherwise), the nay-sayer’s life would not be affected a lick. Even if the option now helped 5% of users, that benefit to them should not exist and isn't worthwhile for what reason? Never answered. (jrsforums and others) The poll is a perfect example. Unless 100% want a DNG solution or 100% say never build one, we're supposed to believe that both sides cannot live harmoniously. Bullcrap.

Again, if the anti-DNG posters spent a fraction of the time looking at other's workflow requests and ignored them, as it doesn't affect them, we'd all be better off. Instead we have to go into minutia about what is or isn't proprietary and for how long, how DNG does or doesn't provide any benefits etc. One side requests a choice. The other side says it's better if we don't have it. It is typical of the system we see here in the US and why nothing can get done. If progress to aid one group is suggested, it's shot down even if it has no effect on the other party. It's like that silly suggestion about LR6 having modules removed because the installer is too big. Screw anyone who wants to use said modules, I don't so what you do doesn't affect me and go to hell. What a great attitude from what is presumably an industry of image makers and supporters of image makes.

IF you don't like DNG or see the need for an open raw format, by all means go that route, doesn't affect me and I'm happy you are happy with the current system. Some of us are not happy with it, we've been burned in the past, expect to see others burned in the future (for a limited amount of time but that's no justification for the pain). How and why denying those people an option  is never expressed, clearly or otherwise. They don't want you to have an option, that has to be good enough now shut up and stop saying anything about Adobe that might be taken as a useful step to aid their customers.

As for anti-Japanese, totally biased statements, I missed them. They don’t belong in the discussion any more than the anti-Adobe totally biased statements.

Agree to disagree. You don't like or use DNG, those of us that do are fine with that. Let those of us that do see a  benefit in workflow, the ability to archive our data to do so. IF DNG then falls flat on it's face, no downside for you folks and you can now point out how stupid we were to ask for it. That hasn't happened and can't happen without the option which is all we are asking for.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #161 on: January 04, 2014, 12:03:27 pm »

...and no one has shown a future advantage over the CR2 file.
It was in the 2nd post here but it's understandable how and why you'd miss it. It was shown in subsequent posts but it's understandable how you missed it. You don't use DNG so again, it is understandable how you missed it and consistent.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Damon Lynch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 330
    • http://www.damonlynch.net
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #162 on: January 04, 2014, 12:17:35 pm »

John which part of your workflow benefits apart from the embedded previews could not have been realized if we had only the XMP spec? Please don't misread me. I'm not against the DNG format at all. I hope it succeeds. But it seems to me 90% of what you mentioned as having been helpful to you concerns XMP, which works with many different file types.
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #163 on: January 04, 2014, 12:24:26 pm »

It was in the 2nd post here but it's understandable how and why you'd miss it. It was shown in subsequent posts but it's understandable how you missed it. You don't use DNG so again, it is understandable how you missed it and consistent.

I read you simplistic (but informative to many) article, which was mainly an intro to DNG.  I thnk I commented on this article in one of your other post, but am not gonna bother to search.

Your later points...ability to embed DNG profiles in container, Lossy DNG, Fast Load Previews...were not worth commenting about at the time, but will just to prove to you that I am listening...if not believing.

Embed in DNG container....nice in concept, but XMP works just fine for me, and many.  Even Jeff says he mainly uses this only if sending RAW data to someone...which we all could use.

Lossy DNG...I don't use, but, if I am correct, I can use it without converting my RAWs to DNG.

Fast Load Previews...I am not sure if you are talking to the Lossy DNG or the embedded data, but eventually, to really work on the info you need the entire RAW (DNG or otherwise) data and the ACR commands.  Reading the actual RAW plus cached RAW data from SSD drive will be just as fast as just reading the DNG file....maybe somewhat faster if the DNG file is bloated with the original RAW.

I am consistent....I have no seen nor heard a convincing benefit to me to use DNG....not that I would not use it if it were what the camera gave me.  Convince or benefit the camera manufacturers to convert...stop yelling at, based on the poll, the satisfied users.

PS....from your other post....providing a choice  Providing a choice, by which I assume you mean the camera mfg. provide a choice of RAW or DNG will effect me and any other buyer of the camera.  It will increase DE as code will be needed to provide the choice and testing will be needed for both outputs.  This is not trivial.  In addition, add'l firmware will be needed and space needed to store it.  This will add to component cost.  It could also possibly impact timing and throughput.  All these factors you seem to trivialize or ignore.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 12:32:57 pm by jrsforums »
Logged
John

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #164 on: January 04, 2014, 12:31:24 pm »

I am consistent....I have no seen nor heard a convincing benefit to me to use DNG
Please don't! Is it OK if I and other's do and if we believe it would aid us in having this data output directly from the camera?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #165 on: January 04, 2014, 12:38:11 pm »


As for anti-Japanese, totally biased statements, I missed them. They don’t belong in the discussion any more than the anti-Adobe totally biased statements.



Have you not read into the wording and meaning of some of our guru's posts...???  Quite maybe they were not meant...but, to many, the feelings oozed out.

Commenting that Adobe gets a economic and workflow benefit by adoption of DNG is not anti-Adobe.
Logged
John

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #166 on: January 04, 2014, 12:41:44 pm »

Have you not read into the wording and meaning of some of our guru's posts...???  Quite maybe they were not meant...but, to many, the feelings oozed out.
You appear to read into comments what you desire so what you make of his language or the language I use (even when it is a direct quote of yours) never surprises me!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #167 on: January 04, 2014, 01:24:00 pm »

John which part of your workflow benefits apart from the embedded previews could not have been realized if we had only the XMP spec? Please don't misread me. I'm not against the DNG format at all. I hope it succeeds. But it seems to me 90% of what you mentioned as having been helpful to you concerns XMP, which works with many different file types.
I'm not sure I understand your questions, Damon, but it's nothing to do with xmp which exists for both DNGs and proprietary raw files. I was describing how I've benefited in the past from DNGs having adjusted embedded previews (nothing to do with xmp) and from DNG having embedded metadata rather than sidecar-based metadata. The former is still an advantage (I can see LR adjustments in Aperture or PhotoMechanic), the latter less so nowadays since more apps read sidecars.
Logged

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 539
    • My Flickr page
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #168 on: January 04, 2014, 01:24:29 pm »

So, how about listing your reasons why you think that camera makers should not offer dng file format as an option in the same manner as they offer jpeg? Why is it a bad idea?  
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #169 on: January 04, 2014, 01:46:21 pm »

You appear to read into comments what you desire so what you make of his language or the language I use (even when it is a direct quote of yours) never surprises me!

I was not the first to make that observation.
Logged
John

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #170 on: January 04, 2014, 01:51:08 pm »

So, how about listing your reasons why you think that camera makers should not offer dng file format as an option in the same manner as they offer jpeg? Why is it a bad idea?  

I believe you will find them throughout this thread. 

In particular, concentrate on Bart's posts as I think he has quite clearly stated reasons.   

Also, my response to Andrew on "providing a choice".
Logged
John

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #171 on: January 04, 2014, 02:11:38 pm »

The former is still an advantage (I can see LR adjustments in Aperture or PhotoMechanic), the latter less so nowadays since more apps read sidecars.
Another possible (for some) advantage is one can contain a pretty good JPEG of the current rendering. If so set one can output an impressive 11x17, at least the samples I saw from Peter Krogh, that DAM guy. Yes that takes up more space, but talk about belt and suspenders backup of image data. For those of us working with custom DNG camera profiles, having that data embedded in the container is akin to having rendered images with embedded ICC profiles. Imagine arguing that ICC profiles shouldn't be embedded in TIFFs. Imagine how that would affect your workflow. There are some workflows where lossy DNG is super useful. If you are a wedding photographer and you wish to archive the raws, one large group can be lossy rather than camera JPEGs, the hero's sold can remain DNG OR proprietary raw.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #172 on: January 04, 2014, 03:34:46 pm »

Hi,

The fact that DNG is documented container is a great advantage.

Just a theoretical example, let's assume that a vendor called Sonican adds a new model 9x with 54 MP resolution. So they add a new tag to the raw saying '123' meaning the internal project name at Sonican. Sonican software knows it means 54 MP of data at 0X0eff ofset and biased by 0x100 in fake fifteen bits mode encoded into 12 bits space. They just go into the specifications. DNG has a well defined tag for those parameters, as long as well defined tags are properly used any vendor can write raw processing software  that handle the file.

Now, Sonican releases a new firmware, and call the camera 123a. The other vendors perhaps even did not realize that 123 was hex? Now they have to figure out what 123a means. With standard and well defined tags a file can be interpreted reasonably well, as long as you can find the necessary tags.

DNG doesn't make the file better, just defines how to interpret it in a consistent way.

Best regards
Erik


DNG currently is nothing else than a container that mostly offers users of Adobe software some benefits. It does not decode anything, because that is the task of the image processing done by the software. I also know that e.g. Capture One V7 is able to extract higher quality conversions out of my legacy Raw files than it could before, so I'm glad that nothing was pre-cooked yet, and the original data was available. Converting my Canon Raws to DNG would not have made any difference, it might have even made it more risky had I done that with one of the earlier DNG versions.


Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #173 on: January 04, 2014, 03:39:48 pm »

Another possible (for some) advantage is one can contain a pretty good JPEG of the current rendering. If so set one can output an impressive 11x17, at least the samples I saw from Peter Krogh, that DAM guy. Yes that takes up more space, but talk about belt and suspenders backup of image data.

That's what I mean when I refer to adjusted embedded previews, and Peter tells me very few people distinguish the print from the embedded preview from one made directly from the original file. It's partly why I periodically backup "working" DNGs which have been updated (despite my backed-up "virgins" and not-backed-up "working" copies distinction!)

John
Logged

Damon Lynch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 330
    • http://www.damonlynch.net
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #174 on: January 04, 2014, 04:22:52 pm »

I'm not sure I understand your questions, Damon, but it's nothing to do with xmp which exists for both DNGs and proprietary raw files. I was describing how I've benefited in the past from DNGs having adjusted embedded previews (nothing to do with xmp) and from DNG having embedded metadata rather than sidecar-based metadata. The former is still an advantage (I can see LR adjustments in Aperture or PhotoMechanic), the latter less so nowadays since more apps read sidecars.

I'm pretty sure I understood your original example sufficiently well. We both already understand what XMP and embedded previews are about. In my case I've written code that manipulates XMP data and I guess you may have done so too.  I've read the DNG spec and so I'm aware that you can write the XMP data into the file. I also use Photo Mechanic and Lightroom.

As I've also said, it is not at all clear to me if the main point of DNG really is to encode RAW data from a variety of camera sensors in a uniform, predictable way, like Unicode does for the world's scripts, or it's just a standard container for storing RAW data and metadata. I hope someone can clear that up once and for all. Heck I've read the spec and I can't tally what it says with the simple fact that Canon can add data to their CR2 in post, in ways that appreciably improve image quality, and which are then totally ignored in the conversion of that CR2 to DNG. Why is that? I have no doubt the Adobe and Canon engineers could say so in a second if they were not constrained by their institutional responsibilities.

Finally, if Dave Coffin were to sit in on this conversation I do wonder what he'd have to say!
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #175 on: January 04, 2014, 04:35:40 pm »

Hi,

I think you need to separate data from processing. If canon does something with the CR2 file that Adobe cannot handle it is probably just a tag. The tag tells DPP (?) what to do with the bits in the mage to achieve a an effect. Such manipulation is made on rendition, it is not really a part of the dng file.

For instance, when I process an image in LR I would probably:

1) Crop
2) Adjust exposure
3) Add a gradient filter to handle sky
4) Adjust shadow clipping
5) Enhance shadow detail
6) Adjust exposure
7) Adjust higlight
8) Adjust contrast

Highlight and shadow adjustment are locally adaptive proprietary algorithms. The instructions say which parameters to use, but nothing about the algorithm. Each software developer is free to emulate the Adobe action, or just do something similar.

Best regards
Erik



I'm pretty sure I understood your original example sufficiently well. We both already understand what XMP and embedded previews are about. In my case I've written code that manipulates XMP data and I guess you may have done so too.  I've read the DNG spec and so I'm aware that you can write the XMP data into the file. I also use Photo Mechanic and Lightroom.

As I've also said, it is not at all clear to me if the main point of DNG really is to encode RAW data from a variety of camera sensors in a uniform, predictable way, like Unicode does for the world's scripts, or it's just a standard container for storing RAW data and metadata. I hope someone can clear that up once and for all. Heck I've read the spec and I can't tally what it says with the simple fact that Canon can add data to their CR2 in post, in ways that appreciably improve image quality, and which are then totally ignored in the conversion of that CR2 to DNG. Why is that? I have no doubt the Adobe and Canon engineers could say so in a second if they were not constrained by their institutional responsibilities.

Finally, if Dave Coffin were to sit in on this conversation I do wonder what he'd have to say!
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #176 on: January 04, 2014, 04:42:30 pm »

Hi,

The fact that DNG is documented container is a great advantage.

Hi Erik,

It's similar to how the current non-DNG Raws are encoded (see here for extensive documentation of virtually all Raws of some significance), with tags according to the TIFF specifications (both Raw and DNG are variations of TIFF, they both systematically use Tags).

In your example, there will probably be no Tag for '123' be cause that would mean all camera makers would have to agree to make a tag for such a functionality, whatever it does. It's more likely to be a parameter that's hidden in the Maker note block of data. The start and end position of the Maker note data block is described in tags (both in DNG and Raw), but not what its contents means. The content of the data block is only meaningful for the Camera maker, or those who have reverse engineered its meaning.

So any new Camera model will be able to come with new parameters that are not common between all cameras. Utilizing that new functionality will be only possible for the original camera maker, or those who pay royalties to unlock that functionality should they wish to.

Quote
DNG doesn't make the file better, just defines how to interpret it in a consistent way.

Again, it's really no different in that respect from all Raws that follow the TIFF specifications. Common info is known and shared, e.g. where the top left sensel within the image data block is located, and what pattern the Bayer CFA has and thus what color that top left pixel represents. However, it does not say exactly what spectral transmission that filter color had. So it may be a very pure Red or one with a trace of Green transmission as well to increase its transparency and make the camera more sensitive to light.

That info, required for very good color conversions may be tied to a patent for a very special Red dye that that camera maker can produce for a fraction of the cost of its competitors, but it bleaches faster than the Red from competitors. They do not want to tip of their competitors, because they might want to also change to a cheaper Red dye or switch source, which would reduce the competitive advantage. Only the original manufacturer will know that they will have to modify the Raw conversion for Red a bit faster as time goes by, to compensate for the rate of bleaching, by e.g. using the number of exposures that's being recorded in the maker notes, combined with the average exposure level that's encoded in common tags in the EXIF section.

Now when Madmanchan does a very good job, he may be able to quickly find an assumption for the Red characteristics to use during conversion for new cameras that's pretty close to what is optimal for the Adobe conversion engine, and within a month or two the Camera will be supported, with the DNG converter than can be used during the first ingestation/conversion into Lightroom. But he won't know of the fading characteristics of that dye because Adobe wouldn't pay royalties for that invention. So that same file will convert the same over time, but later Raw Captures will deviate in color.

Now this is just a silly example, but it might also be something like unique image verification data that's tagged to the file for use in law enforcement situations, or a piece of code that uniquely identifies the retina of the person who looked at the EVF to make that kiddy porn, or a feature that unlocks 3D image data that was encoded by splitting sensels into a left image and right image, which also allows to adjust depth of field after taking the image based on depth clues.

Intellectual Property is big business, and companies will protect that. They will even make life a bit less convenient for people that insist on using a certain brand of converter because those people feel that it suits their workflow better. Those people may perhaps not be able to change DOF after the fact, but just get the left or right image, just like they took it.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Damon Lynch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 330
    • http://www.damonlynch.net
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #177 on: January 04, 2014, 04:53:48 pm »

I think you need to separate data from processing. If canon does something with the CR2 file that Adobe cannot handle it is probably just a tag.

You might well be right, but if it is a tag (or a series of many of them), it's an extremely big one, because the CR2 can almost double in size as I recall. And although it's definitely done in post, I suppose someone could make the argument that it's legitimate to conceptualize it as "RAW" data because the extra data the CR2 contains is the result of algorithms directly derived from the highly complex optical properties of the lens used to make the image. In other words maybe if the optical engineers had their way, all new cameras could conceivably apply these transformations when creating the RAW image in camera, so it's still "RAW" data. Does that make sense? My point is not to argue either way, just merely that I don't see the value of being a purist about it. (Not that I'm saying you are, mind you!!). I hope I'm making sense. It's the end of a long day for me ;-)
Logged

mouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #178 on: January 04, 2014, 11:28:56 pm »


Sadly, as long as photographers let the camera companies off the hook, change won't happen quickly. Look at the results of the posted poll...29.6% save originals as DNG, 70.4% saves as original raw (I actually fall into the raw camp until I finish raw editing when I do convert to DNG–while also keeping a raw copy).


Allow me to interrupt the heated debate.  I feel like I am walking into no man's land with shells going off left and right.

Nevertheless, among the many posts expressing strong opinions. both pro and con, one can occasionally find bits of information that may be truly useful.  The above remark caused me to wonder about this workflow, and what advantages it provides.  Jeff, I assume you refer to parametric editing the RAW file in LR/ACR, which places the edits in a sidecar file.  To me, one of the major advantages of DNG was having the edits embedded in the DNG file and not having to worry about the location of the xmp.  I understand your method eventually accomplishes the same thing when you save as DNG after completing the raw editing.  Is there a reason for this approach, in particular for keeping the raw copy as well as the DNG?
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: DNG or RAW
« Reply #179 on: January 04, 2014, 11:43:45 pm »

Hi Jeff,

You make it sound as if they are doing this pro-bono, in their spare time. Fortunately that's not the case, they get paid by Adobe, because it helps the company's bottom line ... (they would not likely get paid to waste company resources). And since Adobe is not in this game for charity, they must believe it will benefit their investors to do the effort.

In point of fact, both Camera Raw and DNG started as unpaid sandbox projects that Thomas wanted to do. Back when Thomas started what Camera Raw would end up becoming, Thomas started working on decoding Canon raw files working by himself while on vacation. He did this because he was exasperated by how poor Canon's software was at the time–pre DPP).

At the time Thomas was an independent contractor with Adobe, not an actual employee. So, he created Camera Raw on his own before Adobe assigned it to him. It turns out that when Thomas returned from vacation, the big hot button for Photoshop was how to deal with raw digital captures and get them open in Photoshop. It turns out that the timing of Thomas' project fit in perfectly. When Adobe asked Thomas about decoding and processing raw captures, Thomas basically said "don't worry, I got that :~)" (seriously, Thomas developing ACR was a fluke (lucky for us).

In terms of DNG, Thomas was getting pretty pissed off having to decode each and every camera's raw files. In developing Camera Raw, he came up with a process of reading the camera metadata and converting the metadata in order to apply normalized default settings. It was the process of taking the raw image data and metadata and normalizing the adjustments that led to developing DNG. Thomas reasoned that the basic raw image data and the image metadata should not be hidden from easy access.

DNG was another personal project Thomas did for himself prior to pitching it to Adobe to release as a free SDK. In point of fact, any raw file is now automatically converted to DNG on the fly so that Camera Raw and Lightroom are getting normalized raw data when opened. So, DNG was a natural offshoot and Thomas convinced Adobe to release DNG as a free SDK and offer it to the industry. And believe me when I tell you that DNG has been VERY informative to both Nikon and Canon (I know this from personal experience while sitting in meetings).

Also note that it was Thomas that talked Adobe into doing the free DNG Converter. Thomas thought it would be a useful tool to allow older applications the ability to read new camera files. I happen to know that Adobe was, uh, a bit reluctant to release a free application that would make new raw files work in old versions of Camera Raw. If you think about it, why would Adobe want to provide a free tool for backwards compatibility to new cameras. Adobe could have simply said no to Thomas and require new cameras to have the user update to the most recent version of Photoshop.

So, yes, ACR and DNG came from Thomas working in his free time. Yes, Adobe did listen to Thomas (Adobe wisely listens really carefully to Thomas).

Recently Thomas was added as an Adobe employee (after all these years being a contractor). And yes, Eric is an employee (thanks goodness–which we could clone him a dozen times).

Look, I was around in the very early days and helped Thomas work with raw files. I rode my motorcycle over to Ann Arbor so he could shoot test files from my Canon D30 to decode. Myself and a few others worked as alpha testers for Camera Raw well before the release of ACR 1 in Feb 2003. I also had multiple meetings with Canon during that time–I was a Canon Explorer of Light back then and met both Canon USA and Canon Japan executives and engineers. During a trip to Japan for Canon, I met the then lead engineer of Digital Photo Pro and got permission to demo Camera Raw to him.

I've been to several conferences where representatives from Adobe, Apple, MSFT, Kodak, Leaf, Nikon and Canon met and talked about digital photography–some of those meetings were, uh, pretty nasty...Nikon has traditionally (back then) been very, very anti-Adobe. Canon a bit less so.

There are some interesting stories I could tell you about but I can't do so in public...once story was a major magazine was just about ready to ink a deal to become the exclusive raw processing application and would require all their photographers to shoot a singe camera brand. The photographers that didn't shoot with that brand (as you might expect) was terrified at the prospect of being forced to change cameras systems. But, in comes Adobe with a camera agnostic raw processing engine (Camera Raw) that made the magazine re-evaltuate this exclusive deal. As you might expect, that camera company was really pissed off that Adobe came up with a camera agnostic method of raw processing–but the photographers were really, really happy that they could keep shooting with their chosen cameras and not be forced to change.

I also know that another camera makers was just about convinced to offer DNG as an additional option (they were convinced it could be done with a firmware update) but something happened (and I personally have no idea what occurred) and all of a sudden, that DNG option was taken off the table.

I do know that Hasselblad DID ad DNG to their digital cameras as an option–I introduced Thomas to Christian Poulson from Hasselblad and got them talking...however, Christian decided he wanted to lock the Hasselblad system, killed DNG in a firmware update and went on to sue Phase One and basically attempt to vender lock users into an all Hasselblad solution. How did that work for Hasselblad–and yes, if you sense a certain anti-Hasselblad bent from me, that's why–I was a Hasselblad shooter way before I was a Phase One shooter.

When you look at DNG, it would be wrong to presume it is some attempt by Adobe to leverage their position in the industry. In point of fact, it's really a situation where Adobe said "yes" to Thomas Knoll (yet again). And Bart, if you don't believe that, you don't know Thomas and Adobe–I do...what I'm telling you is the truth.

Give Adobe shit for all the mistakes they have made, but don't give them shit for the things they have done on our behalf.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15   Go Up