Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)  (Read 55556 times)

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #100 on: April 16, 2013, 11:21:40 pm »

Yeah, I'm a whore...I'm a shill for Adobe...I couldn't care less about fellow photographers (and everything I've done in my career proves that).

Look in the mirror bud...proud of yourself in this debate? You still think Nikon and Canon are the good guys? Really?

YES I AM PROUD...even though at this point I am feeling as foolish continuing this dialog as you look doing the same.

...and you sure look the part of a shill, whether you are or not.
Logged
John

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #101 on: April 17, 2013, 12:32:46 am »

YES I AM PROUD...even though at this point I am feeling as foolish continuing this dialog as you look doing the same.

Really? Go back and reread your contributions to the thread...you take the side of the camera makers even though you have no valid reasons (that I can see).

You mention that you don't want Nikon and Canon to suffer restrictions to their progress (even though there is zero evidence that adopting a standard would stifle their technical advances–which it wouldn't).

You say you are not against DNG and that you really don't want your raw images to survive you–just the manipulated images you've produced.

You admit that you are not a photojournalist but clearly you've not considered the plight that professionals in different genres of photography face. And apparently you couldn't care less (which is telling)

In spite of the concerns that have been put out there by the Library of Congress about the future access to digital objects in the future, you think what Nikon and Canon are doing isn't risky and putting the long term conservation and preservation of today's digital images at risk for posterity.

And you think I've been attacking you (while what I'm attacking is your arguments). I guess you never really engaged in healthy debate in school? I'm not attacking you...I don't know you from Adam. I am attacking your narrow minded, and ill-informed points of view.

Rather than actually debating the issues, you seem to want to paint me as a shill for Adobe–which is an ad hominem attack. You attack me while I attack your ideas–do you know the difference?

You ain't gonna win this one bud...you've already painted yourself into a corner with the weaknesses of your own arguments.

You don't like me (nor Andrew), I get that...I don't care. The whole reason I'm still responding to you is to drive home the arguments for other people who may be reading this thread. I just want to expose your arguments as being part of the problem and not part of any solution.

Oh, and it's fun...yes, I'll admit it's fun picking holes in your arguments (partially because you make it so easy :~)

(sorry, couldn't resist)
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #102 on: April 17, 2013, 01:10:05 am »

Really? Go back and reread your contributions to the thread...you take the side of the camera makers even though you have no valid reasons (that I can see).

You mention that you don't want Nikon and Canon to suffer restrictions to their progress (even though there is zero evidence that adopting a standard would stifle their technical advances–which it wouldn't).

You say you are not against DNG and that you really don't want your raw images to survive you–just the manipulated images you've produced.

You admit that you are not a photojournalist but clearly you've not considered the plight that professionals in different genres of photography face. And apparently you couldn't care less (which is telling)

In spite of the concerns that have been put out there by the Library of Congress about the future access to digital objects in the future, you think what Nikon and Canon are doing isn't risky and putting the long term conservation and preservation of today's digital images at risk for posterity.

And you think I've been attacking you (while what I'm attacking is your arguments). I guess you never really engaged in healthy debate in school? I'm not attacking you...I don't know you from Adam. I am attacking your narrow minded, and ill-informed points of view.

Rather than actually debating the issues, you seem to want to paint me as a shill for Adobe–which is an ad hominem attack. You attack me while I attack your ideas–do you know the difference?

You ain't gonna win this one bud...you've already painted yourself into a corner with the weaknesses of your own arguments.

You don't like me (nor Andrew), I get that...I don't care. The whole reason I'm still responding to you is to drive home the arguments for other people who may be reading this thread. I just want to expose your arguments as being part of the problem and not part of any solution.

Oh, and it's fun...yes, I'll admit it's fun picking holes in your arguments (partially because you make it so easy :~)

(sorry, couldn't resist)

You are delusional.  You think you have an argument and save the world solution...but it falls on deaf ears.

My arguement is simple...I don't have aproblem so leave me alone....which you won't.

I do not dislike you or Andrew...I do respect you...mostly...but this whinging on DNG just goes too far and is too irrational to not respond to.

I have given you and Andrew lucid, resonable, balanced responses and reasons for my stance.  Rather than understanding my side, you totally turn deaf ears to any discussion but that which you believe in.  You are not engaging in a discussion.  Every response from you or Andrew ignores any response that you do not agree with and slams it as unworthy...or just ignores it and tries to blow by it with bluster and BS.

I have offered alternatives to long term artistic output retention, but you ignore it.  I cannot imagine even you have the chutzpa to claim that what you capture in RAW is the legacy you want to leave the world. As captured maybe documentary, but it is not, necessarily art...that is the finish product that people want to be remembered by.

You try to diminish me by stating that all I want to leave are "just the manipulated images you've produced."  Manipulated....So what are you showing in your book, The Digital Negative?  Unaltered RAW files.  

Jeff, you need to step out from behind the bluster and lies and get real.  You cannot preach enhancing RAW images in your book and then try to win this discussion with that type of rhetoric.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 01:18:20 am by jrsforums »
Logged
John

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #103 on: April 17, 2013, 01:25:59 am »

You are delusional.  You think you have an argument and save the world solution...but it falls on deaf ears.

Well, the various arguments I put forth which you've failed to respond to does indicate that your "hearing" is none too good...

So, now I'm "delusional"? As well as a shill and an AH? More name calling isn't helping your point of view...

Quote
...but this whinging on DNG just goes too far and is too irrational to not respond to.

I guess you still aren't getting it...I care less if the industry adopts DNG than the fact that the major camera makers are refusing ANY sort of standard and keep spawning off new raw file formats...over 300 or so cameras in the last 10-12 years. And that's ok with you, right? The camera makers should be free to pollute the industry with undocumented, proprietary raw file formats. And make no mistake about it, I do indeed consider it pollution...

Quote
Jeff, you need to step out from behind the bluster and lies and get real.  You cannot preach enhancing RAW images in your book and then try to win this discussion with that type of rhetoric.

Oooh...now you are claiming I'm lying? Care to point out even a single lie I've stated in this thread? Come on...there's gotta be something I've said that you think is a lie, right? Either that or I just caught you out...

As far as taking a raw image and enhancing the raw image in ACR/LR (which has zero to do about the long term preservation and conservation of raw images), I'll admit I'm pretty good at getting the most out of a raw image. And, exactly how does that position help you argument? So, I manipulate raw images aggressively–I'm good at it. So I'm good at manipulating images in Photoshop. That's a skill set I've developed over 2 decades of working.

None of that has diddly-squat to do with the point of debate–that the proliferation of undocumented and proprietary raw file formats is bad for the photographic industry. You seem to keep loosing sight of what we are debating bud. Stay on track...pay attention...undocumented, proprietary raw file formats suck.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 01:28:35 am by Schewe »
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #104 on: April 17, 2013, 01:44:11 am »

Well, the various arguments I put forth which you've failed to respond to does indicate that your "hearing" is none too good...

So, now I'm "delusional"? As well as a shill and an AH? More name calling isn't helping your point of view...

I guess you still aren't getting it...I care less if the industry adopts DNG than the fact that the major camera makers are refusing ANY sort of standard and keep spawning off new raw file formats...over 300 or so cameras in the last 10-12 years. And that's ok with you, right? The camera makers should be free to pollute the industry with undocumented, proprietary raw file formats. And make no mistake about it, I do indeed consider it pollution...

Oooh...now you are claiming I'm lying? Care to point out even a single lie I've stated in this thread? Come on...there's gotta be something I've said that you think is a lie, right? Either that or I just caught you out...

As far as taking a raw image and enhancing the raw image in ACR/LR (which has zero to do about the long term preservation and conservation of raw images), I'll admit I'm pretty good at getting the most out of a raw image. And, exactly how does that position help you argument? So, I manipulate raw images aggressively–I'm good at it. So I'm good at manipulating images in Photoshop. That's a skill set I've developed over 2 decades of working.

None of that has diddly-squat to do with the point of debate–that the proliferation of undocumented and proprietary raw file formats is bad for the photographic industry. You seem to keep loosing sight of what we are debating bud. Stay on track...pay attention...undocumented, proprietary raw file formats suck.


I have responded to your points...you just do not want to accept them

Unfortunately, Jeff, you are not debating.  if we were debating, we would be having a reasonable conversation with  balanced give and take.

You are very much like the NRA Spokesman Wayne LaPierre’s Insane Paranoia....never give on any point....no matter what.

Well, maybe you believe in it, but that does not mean thateveryone else does or should.  The world will go on with or without DNG acceptance...and somehow images will survive, with or without "manipulation".

I hope your images are all preserved without any amnipulation, in their basic raw form.  Why should anyone know of your skills in post processing....and what you could have shown the future if only your "manipulated" images been preserved.  Since only RAW preservation is important to you, this seems to be your desire.

This has gone on long enough and I am sure that other forum viewers think us both AH's.  Don't feel you have won because I want to spare them any more of this. 

30
Logged
John

Glenn NK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #105 on: April 17, 2013, 01:44:39 am »

Dammit, I ran out of popcorn. :D

Glenn
Logged
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #106 on: April 17, 2013, 01:47:13 am »

Dammit, I ran out of popcorn. :D

Glenn

at the perfect time, it's over.... :-)
Logged
John

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #107 on: April 17, 2013, 02:05:31 am »

Well, maybe you believe in it, but that does not mean thateveryone else does or should.  The world will go on with or without DNG acceptance...and somehow images will survive, with or without "manipulation".

Again it ain't about DNG...it's about holding the camera makers toes to the fire to force them to adopt some sort of standardized raw file format that will help (help mind you, not guarantee) the long term conservation and preservation of digital images. You still think this is about DNG...it isn't. It's far more important that DNG. DNG just happens to be a really well formed and mature container to hold raw image data...is it perfect? Nope...that's why there's been 4 revs (currently at 1.4) based on the feedback of a lot of different sources (including Nikon and Canon BTW). Thomas is happy to get feedback and technical critique from legitimate parties. He's shown he's prepared to make changes and incorporate solutions to technical issues...

But my argument is far less about DNG as a leading potential standard and much more about trying to modify the thinking and behavior of the camera makers and unfortunately, photographers who fail to grasp the importance of the issues...
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #108 on: April 17, 2013, 02:08:44 am »

at the perfect time, it's over.... :-)

Naw, it ain't over...I'm in this for the long haul and until the camera makers budge and work towards adopting some sort of standardized raw file format, the effort (and my efforts) go on.

It actually makes me sad that photographers still support the behavior of the major camera makers...it only goes to help perpetuate the problems and let the camera makers off the hook.
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #109 on: April 17, 2013, 02:34:12 am »

I am a firm believer in open-ness. Canon & friends should compete on technically good solutions (and they may patent and hide away their proprietary focus algorithms etc all that they want).

File-formats, APIs and similar should be kept open. This tends to make your customers happy (and inspire them to make another purchase), and it tends to expand the total market because 3rd parties come up with useful additions that one organization cannot do itself. The end-result is that you get a thriving ecosystem where you (publisher of fileformat/API and manufacturer of essential components) have a significant head-start.

I believe that these ideas have a hard time penetrating certain cultures (after owning a Sony flash music player with proprietary Memorystick storage and proprietary Magic Gate technology ensuring that only crappy Sony PC/Mac apps could upload music to the device I have strong feelings on the subject and on Sony culture...).

I find it really interesting that after 15 years or so of endless proprietary cell phone charger formats, it was not the "free market" that finally put some sense into it. It was (formerly communist) China and (bureacratic) EU that forced the cell phone makers to charge via USB. And we are all happier for it....


I have put a large amount of time into my LR catalog. What happens if Adobe goes out of business? Or if they decide that the new business model will be based on a $100 per month subscription for access to all of their products, and not other option? How open is the LR catalog? I don't expect Adobe to share their demosaic engine, but the metadata found in JPEG-files exported from Lightroom suggests that they are willing to share the high-level edit actions?

-h
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 02:37:06 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #110 on: April 17, 2013, 02:49:43 am »

How open is the LR catalog? I don't expect Adobe to share their demosaic engine, but the metadata found in JPEG-files exported from Lightroom suggests that they are willing to share the high-level edit actions?

The settings stored in the LR catalog can be saved out as .xmp files to raw and TIFF/JPEG/PSD images. The LR catalog is stored as a MySQL database which is an open source database. So the database is pretty darn open but the algorithms for processing out ACR/LR settings is still proprietary...but trying to compare and contrast processing algorithms with undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are lie trying to compare apples and oranges.

I'm not advocating the camera makers disclose proprietary algorithms...just that the raw image data not be locked into an undocumented, proprietary raw file format. The real magic is how the camera makers convert the analog to digital signal, not the way in which the signal is recorded to media.
Logged

Jyda

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #111 on: April 17, 2013, 03:53:17 am »

I don't want to put fuel on this heated debate, but I remember thinking about the drawbacks of proprietary RAW formats when I read that "At his death, [Garry] Winogrand left behind 2500 undeveloped rolls of 36-exposure 35mm film."* I couldn't help thinking if that had been 90000 "undeveloped" RAW images in an old, and now unreadable, proprietary format.

*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030131.htm
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 04:04:41 am by Jyda »
Logged

wattsies

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #112 on: April 17, 2013, 03:53:41 am »

Guys. Go take some photos... :)
Logged

mac_paolo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 431
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #113 on: April 17, 2013, 04:05:47 am »

The settings stored in the LR catalog can be saved out as .xmp files to raw and TIFF/JPEG/PSD images. The LR catalog is stored as a MySQL database which is an open source database. So the database is pretty darn open but the algorithms for processing out ACR/LR settings is still proprietary...
Actually SQLite. Still open source, though.
Logged

Simon Garrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 742
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #114 on: April 17, 2013, 04:25:54 am »

Just to add to Jeff's and Andrew's points, the issue of standard formats is becoming a critical issue not just for journalism but for achiving of all sorts.  I'm involved with museums where we constantly have to deal with information in obsolete formats.  We can access information hundreds of years old, but once it gets to around 40 years old, we have to deal first with cranky obsolete formats of microfiche (for which readers are no longer available) and now cranky digital formats.  Sure, someone somewhere will offer a service to convert old formats, but most museums have little money, so information in obsolete formats is effectively lost.  For digital images we've got TIFF and JPEG, which can probably be regarded as long-lived, but present-day raw (except DNG) will be hopeless in future years. 

This is the point: while obsolete formats can theoretically be read in most cases, in practice they can't because it's too expensive. 

Standard formats for digital storage are very important for the future, and it's little short of tragic that illusory commercial advantage, pig-headedness and arrogance should get in the way. 
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #115 on: April 17, 2013, 04:30:14 am »

Andrews data for the complaints about a lack of DNG are all based on users complaining that they cannot use their software with their cameras. That is due to Adobe's policy of forcing an update so as to keep raw software current. Adobe's DNG is needed to solve the problem caused by Adobe. If the problem was a new camera which was as yet unsupported then the fact it has a DNG file would do nothing to help the fact that the camera is as yet unsupported, you get weird colours, noise, banding, etc. I agree that there needs to be a standard set, we're shooting repro for a museum in a studio where our backup is the Leaf Raw files because we cannot afford to back up in 16bit TIFF which is the industry standard. However I do not trust Adobe's standard. It's too self serving and to be honest I doubt that it is any more archival in the long run. I doubt cameras 50 years in the future will know what RAW is ditto their software. RAW files will have become as archaic as the hardware they were stored on. DNG will be as dead as CR2 even if it does somehow manage to become a standard.
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #116 on: April 17, 2013, 04:39:03 am »

Ben, I got to say that you are not making a lot of sense.
Perhaps you need to explain your points better.

Tony Jay
Logged

mprager

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #117 on: April 17, 2013, 04:57:11 am »

The settings stored in the LR catalog can be saved out as .xmp files to raw and TIFF/JPEG/PSD images. The LR catalog is stored as a MySQL database which is an open source database. So the database is pretty darn open but the algorithms for processing out ACR/LR settings is still proprietary...but trying to compare and contrast processing algorithms with undocumented, proprietary raw file formats are lie trying to compare apples and oranges.

I'm not advocating the camera makers disclose proprietary algorithms...just that the raw image data not be locked into an undocumented, proprietary raw file format. The real magic is how the camera makers convert the analog to digital signal, not the way in which the signal is recorded to media.

Well, new to me that LR catalog is stored as a MySQL database - this is good news - as this is not a propriatry format. And I agree with Schewe on Nikon and Canon completely. Just when did I skip this information  :-\

But I would like to add the issue I have with DNG: It is not truly in the open domain, it belongs to Adobe, is not an ISO standard and therefore the further development an use completely depends on Adobe. A situation that could turn into a problem. And for me this is the only reason not to use it today
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #118 on: April 17, 2013, 05:14:59 am »

Again, actually an SQLite database.

You need to read the history of the development of the DNG format - it was precisely to make it an open format - but don't take my word for it, do your research.
Having read this thread there has been a lot of BS typed about various aspects of digital formats and archival fidelity so lets not add to the confusion shall we.

BTW welcome to LuLa.

Tony Jay
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #119 on: April 17, 2013, 06:13:21 am »

Andrews data for the complaints about a lack of DNG are all based on users complaining that they cannot use their software with their cameras. That is due to Adobe's policy of forcing an update so as to keep raw software current. Adobe's DNG is needed to solve the problem caused by Adobe. If the problem was a new camera which was as yet unsupported then the fact it has a DNG file would do nothing to help the fact that the camera is as yet unsupported, you get weird colours, noise, banding, etc. I agree that there needs to be a standard set, we're shooting repro for a museum in a studio where our backup is the Leaf Raw files because we cannot afford to back up in 16bit TIFF which is the industry standard. However I do not trust Adobe's standard. It's too self serving and to be honest I doubt that it is any more archival in the long run. I doubt cameras 50 years in the future will know what RAW is ditto their software. RAW files will have become as archaic as the hardware they were stored on. DNG will be as dead as CR2 even if it does somehow manage to become a standard.
If cameras used an open raw format (like dng), one would hope that old Lightroom version would be able to _read_ raw files from future cameras.

It might not make sense to expect Adobe to make new profiles for those cameras which they would provide for free.

In other words:
You would be able to read raw files from new cameras from day 1. "Optimal" image quality might be expected when:
1) Adobe, a 3rd party or you yourself made the necessary profiles for the new camera
2) Camera manufacturers chose to provide Adobe, their users or the raw files with the necessary profiles for interpreting the raw data in some "optimal" form.

-h
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 13   Go Up