Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: DNG puzzle  (Read 9813 times)

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2018, 02:03:14 pm »

Yes, it is. I should have done this:  :) :D ;D 8)
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

DP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 727
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #41 on: October 11, 2018, 08:21:18 pm »

Iliah found some errors due to Adobe code and some errors because of the faulty method of encoding...and where found, Adobe fixed the errors.

yes, the point is if you converted and deleted the original raws then it is irreversible - who cares that Adobe fixed their errors, next time they will make a more serious error, and the next, etc... the best proof that DNG conversion is not reliable (for backup instead of the originals) is that Adobe never produced an utility that can reverse their allegedly "lossless" conversion back to the original source  ;) ... hence the point - DNG are a beautiful option for number of workflows (I myself use it for Fuji raws through Iridient XTransformer because of the very subpar demosaick implemented in ACR/LR for that X-Trans CFA arrangement), but the words of Eric Chan will stand forever - save/backup exactly what is written by your camera's firmware
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #42 on: October 11, 2018, 10:26:22 pm »

yes, the point is if you converted and deleted the original raws then it is irreversible - ...
I wonder if that older buggy DNG could be converted again and if so??? Seems one can update older to newer version of DNG.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2018, 06:11:00 pm »

yes, the point is if you converted and deleted the original raws then it is irreversible

So, show me were Adobe, Thomas Knoll or any of the Adobe evangelizers have advocated converting to DNG and deleting the original proprietary raw files? That's a straw man argument...if you understand long term preservation and conservation of digital objects you would want to store not only the original raw files but also the original software that can be used to open the original raw files. For long term sustainability the Library of Congress has outlined the main Sustainability Factors of Digital Formats. Sustainability of Digital Formats: Planning for Library of Congress Collections. All of those factors really advocate the adoption of a raw file format such as DNG which can be sustained over time. There are already file formats that have been orphaned by the original manufacturer (like Kodak). Fortunately, Thomas Knoll reversed engineered those formats and allow access to those formats in ACR and DNG Converter.

Quote
the best proof that DNG conversion is not reliable (for backup instead of the originals) is that Adobe never produced an utility that can reverse their allegedly "lossless" conversion back to the original source

Horseshyte bud...Adobe released DNG Converter for the benefit of Adobe customers whose cameras were not supported by certain versions of software. There's no charge, it's free...as such it's an freeware software for the purpose of doing conversions...so, you want a utility to convert back? Why? In case you change you mind about converting? If you are so concerned about undocumented, proprietary file format metadata, why would you convert and delete your originals in the first place? I know for a fact a reconversion utility is possible...but there's little need to build and release one.

As it stands, DNG has been a valuable contribution to the digital photo industry–even if you don't think so. It was never intended to force any file formats on the manufacturers but intended to teach how a raw file format could store metadata in a fully documented manner. The fact that camera makers refuse to do the right thing by their customers and the industry is because too many people spread FUD for a variety of reasons...

DNG has been a gift to the industry...by the same guy that gave us Photoshop in the first place. Maybe a bit of gratitude might be in order? DNG is not perfect–nothing is. But if you find a problem with anything, Thomas is pretty responsive responding to legitimate criticisms–I've seen that in person so I know it is true.

BTW, The Library of Congress has made the following Recommended Formats Statement. The Library of Congress Recommended Formats Statement (RFS) includes DNG as a preferred format for photographs in digital form and other graphic images in digital form. So, maybe people who do conservation and preservation for a living might have something useful to say on the subject?

So, that brings us to you...who are you? What is your name, what are your credentials and who are you to offer anything other than questionable opinions that may serve a dubious agenda? Care to enlighten us who you are and why we should care in the least what you think?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 07:16:14 pm by Schewe »
Logged

Dave Rosser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 228
    • My Website
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #44 on: October 13, 2018, 08:25:13 am »

So, show me were Adobe, Thomas Knoll or any of the Adobe evangelizers have advocated converting to DNG and deleting the original proprietary raw files?
You could read chapter 2 of The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic CC Book 2018 edition by your friend Martin Evening. It persuaded me.  >:(

Dave
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #45 on: October 13, 2018, 11:59:15 am »

You could read chapter 2 of The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic CC Book 2018 edition by your friend Martin Evening. It persuaded me.  >:(

He advocates converting to DNG anddeletingoriginals? Or is that merely one particular workflow?
Logged

Dave Rosser

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 228
    • My Website
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #46 on: October 13, 2018, 12:16:19 pm »

He advocates converting to DNG anddeletingoriginals? Or is that merely one particular workflow?
He makes a strong case for DNG workflow and is vague about keeping originals. To quote from the book (my italics)
"Personally, I have no trouble converting everything I shoot to DNG and never bother to embed the original raw data. I do, however, sometimes keep backup copies of the original raw files as an extra insurance policy, but in practice I’ve never had cause to use these—or at least not yet!"

Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #47 on: October 13, 2018, 12:24:49 pm »

He makes a strong case for DNG workflow and is vague about keeping originals. To quote from the book (my italics)
"Personally, I have no trouble converting everything I shoot to DNG and never bother to embed the original raw data. I do, however, sometimes keep backup copies of the original raw files as an extra insurance policy, but in practice I’ve never had cause to use these—or at least not yet!"
Failure to provide text he recommends deleting the original. Like Martin, I see lots of reasons not to embed the proprietary raws into the DNG. And like Martin, I’ve never seen the need to use those proprietary raws. Nothing vague. If you feel the need to archive them, do so.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #48 on: October 13, 2018, 01:30:37 pm »

I don't have the most current version of Martin Evening's LR book but the LR3 book definitely discusses deleting the RAW files after converting to DNGs.  On page 59 there is a side note box that asks the question "...should you keep the original RAW files?"  His response, "...it depends on whether you feel comfortable discarding the originals and keeping just the DNGs."  He does note that for Canon files, you would not be able to use Canon proprietary software if you discarded the originals unless you chose to embed the original RAW file data.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #49 on: October 13, 2018, 04:14:16 pm »

"Personally, I have no trouble converting everything I shoot to DNG and never bother to embed the original raw data. I do, however, sometimes keep backup copies of the original raw files as an extra insurance policy, but in practice I’ve never had cause to use these—or at least not yet!"

Pardon me but that sure doesn't come across as a strong advocacy for converting to DNG and deleting originals...it sounds more like an encouragement to the reader to make an informed decision.

I would never embed the original raw file inside the DNG...that seems like an overly complicated workflow. Pretty sure that's what Martin was primarily referring to there.

As for converting to DNG, you'll note that he "sometimes" keeps backup copies of the original. So do I for the primary reason of being able to reconstruct exactly what was written to a camera card in case I need to recreate the process of ingesting raw images into Lightroom for screenshots in books.

Again, what Martin is advocating is to make an informed decision...he's not telling you to convert to DNG and delete your originals.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #50 on: October 13, 2018, 04:16:04 pm »

"...should you keep the original RAW files?"  His response, "...it depends on whether you feel comfortable discarding the originals and keeping just the DNGs."

Again, not advocating converting to DNG and deleting originals...he's advocating making an informed decision.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #51 on: October 13, 2018, 04:18:52 pm »

Again, not advocating converting to DNG and deleting originals...he's advocating making an informed decision.
The last bit is difficult for some  ;)
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

fdisilvestro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1852
    • Frank Disilvestro
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2018, 04:42:42 pm »

...he's advocating making an informed decision.

You would be surprised (maybe not) about how many people don't want to make decisions but follow what others have said and then having someone to blame when things go wrong.

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #53 on: October 13, 2018, 05:37:18 pm »

I'm still amazed at the complacency of allowing one's own intellectual/creative property (photographs) to be held within proprietary containers (camera makers' Raw file formats). I allow it myself with most of my cameras. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. don't own our photos. So by what right are they encoding them via non-publicly-disclosed means?

-Dave-
Logged

32BT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3095
    • Pictures
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2018, 05:47:13 pm »

I'm still amazed at the complacency of allowing one's own intellectual/creative property (photographs) to be held within proprietary containers (camera makers' Raw file formats). I allow it myself with most of my cameras. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. don't own our photos. So by what right are they encoding them via non-publicly-disclosed means?

-Dave-

Because the end product is a jpeg which is a publicly readable image. Whatever intermediate dataformats are used, is none of your business even if you think it is. In reality your treshpassing on their ip rights, not the other way around.
Logged
Regards,
~ O ~
If you can stomach it: pictures

DP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 727
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #55 on: October 13, 2018, 06:00:29 pm »

I'm still amazed at the complacency of allowing one's own intellectual/creative property (photographs) to be held within proprietary containers (camera makers' Raw file formats). I allow it myself with most of my cameras. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. don't own our photos. So by what right are they encoding them via non-publicly-disclosed means?

-Dave-

you claim that something "yours" is held within proprietary containers, but you forget that Adobe (for example only, same goes for C1, etc) are keeping your work (raw conversion) hostage even more by not disclosing how their parametric adjustments work and it is way more serious problem than the issue with raw "formats"
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2018, 06:26:14 pm »

you claim that something "yours" is held within proprietary containers, but you forget that Adobe (for example only, same goes for C1, etc) are keeping your work (raw conversion) hostage even more by not disclosing how their parametric adjustments work and it is way more serious problem than the issue with raw "formats"
Only if knowing how the raw is rendered is necessary to producing a rendered image. I don't know how Canon and Sony produce a JPEG in camera from raw, yet I can end up with a JPEG and do what I please with it. Isn't that the bottom line? I don't know how Kodachrome is processed but it didn't stop me from shooting and producing transparencies. So how are we being held hostage by not knowing every proprietary set to produce an image?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

fdisilvestro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1852
    • Frank Disilvestro
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2018, 09:10:13 pm »

Adobe, Phase one, DxO & others provide tools that let you work on your images, raw and rendered, and produce a final image for display or print. They don't have to disclose how they do it, and they never said they would. Most people would not understand the associated maths anyway and what would likely happen is having a bunch of developers trying to copy the software.

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #58 on: October 14, 2018, 12:19:59 am »

you claim that something "yours" is held within proprietary containers, but you forget that Adobe (for example only, same goes for C1, etc) are keeping your work (raw conversion) hostage even more by not disclosing how their parametric adjustments work and it is way more serious problem than the issue with raw "formats"

There is a fundamental difference between having access to your original image inside a proprietary file and undisclosed parametric adjustments which can always be redone using a different software–assuming you have access to the original image.

If you don't understand the fundamental difference then you really don't understand the real and serious risk of loosing access to a legacy of original digital images in the future.

I guess you didn't read about the sustainability of digital objects and the risk of not being able to access original content for future generations. See, we have photography from the birth of the medium that we can access–as long as the original negs or positives survive but we WON'T be able to access original digital content if steps are not taken to preserve them.

So, ya see, photographers get kinda uppity when you start dong things that put access to their original images at risk (assuming you are a photographer–we still don't know you from Adam).
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: DNG puzzle
« Reply #59 on: October 14, 2018, 06:07:24 am »

There is a fundamental difference between having access to your original image inside a proprietary file and undisclosed parametric adjustments which can always be redone using a different software–assuming you have access to the original image.

If you don't understand the fundamental difference then you really don't understand the real and serious risk of loosing access to a legacy of original digital images in the future.

Hi Jeff,

I don't follow, but perhaps I'm misreading your statements.

Allow me to quote the mission statement by Dave Coffin, the author of DCRaw (https://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/):

Quote from: Dave Coffin
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 building on to that, there is LibRAW (https://www.libraw.org/), an open source library project by Alex Tutubalin by Iliah Borg and it's actively being updated with new Raw file formats, and some of their own applications built on that, such as RawDigger and FastRawViewer.

You then say (bold emphasis is mine):
Quote
I guess you didn't read about the sustainability of digital objects and the risk of not being able to access original content for future generations. See, we have photography from the birth of the medium that we can access–as long as the original negs or positives survive but we WON'T be able to access original digital content if steps are not taken to preserve them.

So that's something I do not understand because, since DCRAW, there is no risk that we won't be able to access original digital content.

Maybe you are referring to something else, I don't know.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up