DNG again and again and again...

Started by AlterEgo, July 16, 2015, 11:22:54 am

AlterEgo

So Michael, when you are going to vote with your $ and stop buying cameras w/o DNG ?

MatthewCromer

In practical effect, is there any issue other than that camera reviewers have to use crappy RAW processing software until the major RAW converters support the new camera?

I happen to believe that future RAW conversion software will continue to support old camera RAW formats.

rdonson

Michael, what incentives do the camera manufacturers have to adopt DNG?  As long as Adobe, Camera One, DXO, Google, Apple and Microsoft all hustle with every camera release to provide the means to process the new RAW there is NO MOTIVATION for camera makers to change. 

If however, Adobe, Camera One, DXO, Google, Apple and Microsoft were to form an industry consortium for DNG there might then be some incentive.  This group might take the stance that they would provide RAW processing for new proprietary RAW camera formats only 6 months after their public release then you have a real economic incentive.
Regards,
Ron

ErikKaffehr

Hi,

Problem may be that most of the companies you mention are not really pro DNG.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: rdonson on July 16, 2015, 01:40:35 pm
Michael, what incentives do the camera manufacturers have to adopt DNG?  As long as Adobe, Camera One, DXO, Google, Apple and Microsoft all hustle with every camera release to provide the means to process the new RAW there is NO MOTIVATION for camera makers to change. 

If however, Adobe, Camera One, DXO, Google, Apple and Microsoft were to form an industry consortium for DNG there might then be some incentive.  This group might take the stance that they would provide RAW processing for new proprietary RAW camera formats only 6 months after their public release then you have a real economic incentive.
Erik Kaffehr

rdonson

Quote from: ErikKaffehr on July 16, 2015, 01:52:25 pm
Hi,

Problem may be that most of the companies you mention are not really pro DNG.

Best regards
Erik



Exactly!!!!!  Adobe doesn't have a leg to stand on at this point.
Regards,
Ron

AlterEgo

Quote from: ErikKaffehr on July 16, 2015, 01:52:25 pm
Problem may be that most of the companies you mention are not really pro DNG.

even Adobe is not - I mean they just push DNG as an element of their workflow and happy w/ that... RIP.

AlterEgo

Quote from: rdonson on July 16, 2015, 01:56:10 pm
Exactly!!!!!  Adobe doesn't have a leg to stand on at this point.

Adobe is standing firmly on 2 legs - they do support both DNG and other all other formats that have good marketshare...

AlterEgo

Quote from: rdonson on July 16, 2015, 01:40:35 pm
This group might take the stance that they would provide RAW processing for new proprietary RAW camera formats only 6 months after their public release then you have a real economic incentive.

that will be a boon for ISL, Corel and the rest of the pack like small shops a-la Iridient !!! dream comes true

digitaldog

Warning, danger: Crush, Kill, Destroy (Adobe and those who subscribe to their intended workflows). Michael, don't bite, this is another thread sure to end up being locked down.
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"

digitaldog

Quote from: rdonson on July 16, 2015, 01:40:35 pm
Michael, what incentives do the camera manufacturers have to adopt DNG? 

The satisfaction of their customers?
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"

AlterEgo


AlterEgo

Quote from: digitaldog on July 16, 2015, 04:32:38 pm
The satisfaction of their customers?

absolute majority of their customers are totally satisfied ... those who claim that they are not still regularly (and among the first ones, paying full price) buy the products that they are allegedly not satisfied with...

rdonson

Quote from: digitaldog on July 16, 2015, 04:32:38 pm
The satisfaction of their customers?


Andrew, I've used used ACR since it was released. I've used LR since its first public beta.  I subscribe to CC. I'm NOT anti Adobe.

I just don't see the value of DNG to me or why camera manufacturers would adopt it. 

Scenario:  If I were to convert a file to DNG in Lr and switch to another RAW converter such as CaptureOne will the DNG be processed the same in C1 as if it were in the proprietary format?  If not, it doesn't seem so portable to me.
Regards,
Ron

michael

I'll make one comment and then let the article stand on its own.

In future years when a format that one of your cameras used to use no longer is supported, because the manufacturer has gone out of business or moved on to other things, don't come crying to me.

How likely is this? Well, there are currently 36 raw camera file formats that are not supported by their manufacturers and whose original software no longer runs on current operating systems. Extrapolate this forward a decade or two.

Thinking that your .ARW or .CR2 or whatever will be readable by a future computer or future operating system is a pipe dream. I predict that this will only end in tears.

Michael

jrsforums

 :
Quote from: digitaldog on July 16, 2015, 04:31:22 pm
Warning, danger: Crush, Kill, Destroy (Adobe and those who subscribe to their intended workflows). Michael, don't bite, this is another thread sure to end up being locked down.


:D :D :D
John

Telecaster

I personally don't care what RAW format(s) camera makers use. But I do object to the proprietary nature of most of 'em. Complete specs should be freely available. Canikon & Sony & etc. don't own my photo data. I do.

So far the RAW formats of every camera I've owned have been reverse engineered. But I'd like not having to rely on that continuing.

-Dave-

jrsforums

Quote from: michael on July 16, 2015, 05:44:14 pm
I'll make one comment and then let the article stand on its own.

In future years when a format that one of your cameras used to use no longer is supported, because the manufacturer has gone out of business or moved on to other things, don't come crying to me.

How likely is this? Well, there are currently 36 raw camera file formats that are not supported by their manufacturers and whose original software no longer runs on current operating systems. Extrapolate this forward a decade or two.

Thinking that your .ARW or .CR2 or whatever will be readable by a future computer or future operating system is a pipe dream. I predict that this will only end in tears.

Michael



With all due respect.....who is to say that DNG could not included in your doomsday scenario?
John

jrsforums

Quote from: AlterEgo on July 16, 2015, 04:37:42 pm
and what was the point of the public rant then ?


More traffic to the site  :)

In reality, I believe that Michael is sincere and really believes in DNG.  So, I respect his view, even if I do not agree with it.
John

digitaldog

Quote from: AlterEgo on July 16, 2015, 04:37:42 pm
and what was the point of the public rant then ?

Your rant and this post? Good question!
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"

digitaldog

Quote from: AlterEgo on July 16, 2015, 04:40:43 pm
absolute majority of their customers are totally satisfied ...

No one said otherwise! Try sticking to facts. Facts are, some customers are not totally satisfied and myself, Michael and other's would greatly desire a DNG option from their cameras. So I'll repeat, since you have difficulty in such areas: what incentives do the camera manufacturers have to adopt DNG? The satisfaction of their customers? Not every one of them, but a share of them, those of us that use DNG every day.

QuoteAndrew, I've used used ACR since it was released. I've used LR since its first public beta.  I subscribe to CC. I'm NOT anti Adobe.
I just don't see the value of DNG to me or why camera manufacturers would adopt it.  

And I've been using ACR and LR before even that. I do use a DNG workflow and do see a huge amount of value of DNG, you don't. So what? If the camera manufacturers would adopt it, it would be valuable to me and others.

It's not just Michael, Schewe and Rodney using DNG boys.
Andrew Rodney
Author "Color Management for Photographers"