Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)  (Read 55578 times)

jferrari

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 484
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #120 on: April 17, 2013, 08:00:48 am »

If it was ANYONE else this thread would have locked long ago. Don't ya just love double standards?
Logged
Nothing changes until something changes.

John Cothron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
    • Cothron Photography
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #121 on: April 17, 2013, 08:20:10 am »

Oh I don't know if it's double standards.  It's a hot topic, and obviously dear to some people's heart (rightly so I suspect).  If there were never any noise made, it probably wouldn't get dealt with.  I don't know whether the answer is DNG or not, but there needs to be SOME answer.
Logged
John
Flickr

jferrari

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 484
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #122 on: April 17, 2013, 08:33:39 am »

I agree with you on the subject matter but not with calling people a$$holes just because you don't like the coolaid.
Logged
Nothing changes until something changes.

John Cothron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
    • Cothron Photography
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #123 on: April 17, 2013, 08:35:55 am »

I agree with you on the subject matter but not with calling people a$$holes just because you don't like the coolaid.

Agreed, but it wasn't the "one" you mentioned that was doing the name calling, it was the other party.  Unless I missed something, but I don't think I did.
Logged
John
Flickr

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #124 on: April 17, 2013, 09:03:21 am »

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

Or in other words you have to update anyway to get usable profiles (point 2 would still not filter down to older software, even 1 year old software if the speed of this new release is anything to go by) so the argument that DNG would circumvent that issue are also false.

As for the idea that DNG would be more archival. I just can't see it. If the DNG standard is adopted then it would provide Adobe with less work and would provide a more archival standard, perhaps, for cameras made with this new DNG standard for the next couple of decades, maybe. If Adobe is still around and I wouldn't place any bets on it for the 20 year from now mark. If it is not adopted then Adobe has the choice to either continue to support all the different formats or for LR/ACR to die because they don't. I just can't see what DNG would do for archiveability. 30 years from now it will be as difficult to read a DNG as it will be to read a CR2 or MOS or whatever. Whether it is adopted as a standard or not. You will need the hardware, software, profiles, etc. I can see why the museums do not consider raw files to be archival period.
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #125 on: April 17, 2013, 09:24:07 am »

Or in other words you have to update anyway to get usable profiles (point 2 would still not filter down to older software, even 1 year old software if the speed of this new release is anything to go by) so the argument that DNG would circumvent that issue are also false.
Huh? They'd be usable, maybe just not optimal. That's a very big difference.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 09:47:40 am by johnbeardy »
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #126 on: April 17, 2013, 10:03:19 am »

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

Certainly your ears fall into that camp.

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

Why not go away?

Quote
I have given you and Andrew lucid, resonable, balanced responses and reasons for my stance.
 

I disagree strongly. Had you done so, I'd be in a position to consider your POV yet no matter how often I (or others in this 'debate') ask for clarity, proof of concept, we get sent down another rabbit hole.

Quote
Rather than understanding my side, you totally turn deaf ears to any discussion but that which you believe in.
 

Pot calling the kettle black. Look, let's agree to disagree (not that I know what to disagree with, your points are not well spelled out). Move on, or do this: Make a single post whereby you answer a question asked of you numerous times, namely, why would any photographer or perhaps you yourself find the current proprietary raw situation anything but a problem? Maybe not for you personally but for other's in our industry. Do I seriously have to dig up posts from people who ask why their shiny new raw files can't be accessed? You honestly haven't heard this complaint? IF the answer is yes, you do understand that hundreds of proprietary and 'unique' raw files cause some headache’s please, PLEASE explain how you can side with the companies who produce this issue? Are you able to answer that single question? If not, someone please lock this thread.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #127 on: April 17, 2013, 10:21:06 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.

Let me see if I understand how your mind works to better understand your POV.

A company makes a raw file (from my image) that is different year after year. At the same time and in the same product, they also make a format that's been around since Photoshop 1 and there are no issues with that data. So due to this difference in a file format that always needs updating, it's Adobe's fault?

Let's pretend for just a minute that this camera company makes a raw file that acts just like the JPEG. Adobe is now not at fault?

Just trying to understand how when one company who controls how a file is written and changes it all the time isn't responsible for that, while everyone else who has to understand that file is responsible. Oh wait, not all companies even though it affects them too. Only Adobe.

Please help me connect the dots in your above logic.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #128 on: April 17, 2013, 10:23:52 am »

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.

You realize that's true of TIFF (and of course PSD) under Adobe's control. So do you archive all your images in JPEG?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #129 on: April 17, 2013, 11:17:22 am »

Let me see if I understand how your mind works to better understand your POV.

A company makes a raw file (from my image) that is different year after year. At the same time and in the same product, they also make a format that's been around since Photoshop 1 and there are no issues with that data. So due to this difference in a file format that always needs updating, it's Adobe's fault?

Let's pretend for just a minute that this camera company makes a raw file that acts just like the JPEG. Adobe is now not at fault?

Just trying to understand how when one company who controls how a file is written and changes it all the time isn't responsible for that, while everyone else who has to understand that file is responsible. Oh wait, not all companies even though it affects them too. Only Adobe.

Please help me connect the dots in your above logic.

Canon provide software for reading their Raw files, ditto all the other companies. Why should they care about adobe? They have and do provide a solution. Your argument doesn't wash. Adobe would like everyone to use their format. Given that Adobe is already and dangerously a monopoly I can see why the manufacturers would tell them to get lost.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #130 on: April 17, 2013, 11:34:06 am »

Canon provide software for reading their Raw files, ditto all the other companies.

Agreed they do (all other companies meaning camera companies). But I don't like their software. Do you think they are justified in forcing me to use their raw converter but no such restrictions on the JPEG?

Quote
Your argument doesn't wash.

Which part?
The part that says Adobe isn't at fault here because a camera company builds a new file that can only be viewed within it's software (for a time being)?
The part that says I should be able to handle my raw data as I can my JPEG data?
The part that says a proprietary format provides zero advantages to me, the end user compared to an open format (like JPEG)?

I'm willing to discuss and understand your POV, and I'd appreciate if you'd explain it based on my questions to you in my last post. In the scenario I provide, according to you, Adobe is at fault for this issue because one of the two files a camera creates in proprietary. Can you explain how it's their fault for the raw but the JPEG, being an open format anyone can decipher isn't a problem?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4755
    • My photography site
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #131 on: April 17, 2013, 11:36:11 am »

Canon provide software for reading their Raw files, ditto all the other companies. Why should they care about adobe? They have and do provide a solution. Your argument doesn't wash. Adobe would like everyone to use their format. Given that Adobe is already and dangerously a monopoly I can see why the manufacturers would tell them to get lost.

While in some ways you are being realistic about their motives, that doesn't mean their behaviour is good for photographers or something to be accepted in dumb silence - and certainly not when there is a good way forward.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 12:00:05 pm by johnbeardy »
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #132 on: April 17, 2013, 11:56:53 am »

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.

Well, past experience indicates you are wrong...the last several Pentax and Leica cameras came out using DNG and they were well supported from the word go without requiring any effort on Adobe or the camera owner's part. I guess you don't understand how this works...the camera maker takes the required metadata and places in the correct location in the file. Presto-chango, the new camera is supported as if by magic! Pretty cool huh? That's what a friggin' standard is supposed to be all about.

Quote
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.

Do your homework...go back and read the article about the long term sustainability of digital objects. If you did, you would then understand that DNG is very sustainable...do the reading before you express an ill-informed opinion.

As for not trusting Adobe? Well, let's see, Adobe has granted TIFF-6 to the /ISO, for free...it's used as the basis of TIFF-EP (that's TIFF for Electronic Photography) which ironically is the basis of all the raw file formats out there except for Sigma (there may one or two other oddball raw formats as well). Adobe released DNG because, well, that's what Thomas Knoll wanted to do. He thought having a model raw file format was important for the industry...and who better to do that than a guy that has reverse engineered about 300 different raw file formats? Thomas knows a thing or two about file formats and digital imaging. He's the guy who kinda jump started this whole digital imaging thingie...

You seem to be jumping into this fray without the prerequisite understanding of the technical and political issues. I'm more than happy to engage...but I don't like repeating myself. Read  DNG File Format & DNG Converter and sustainability factors. If you have questions, ask. Just don't bother to spout out ill-informed opinion as fact.

The whole thing isn't about whether DNG becomes a standard, it's about the fact the industry and the camera companies have to settle the dust and develop and adhere to some sort of standards or an entire generation of photography is at greater risk of being unavailable in the future. That's what it at stake.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #133 on: April 17, 2013, 12:00:13 pm »

Canon provide software for reading their Raw files, ditto all the other companies.

Lucky you didn't shoot Kodak DCS cameras of have stuff scanned to Photo CD. Ya see, Kodak is kinda out of the photo biz these days. I think it's really short sighted to think it's ok for camera companies to produce undocumented, proprietary raw file formats with the expectation those companies will always be around to support them. History tells us otherwise...
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #134 on: April 17, 2013, 12:03:57 pm »

The whole thing isn't about whether DNG becomes a standard, it's about the fact the industry and the camera companies have to settle the dust and develop and adhere to some sort of standards or an entire generation of photography is at greater risk of being unavailable in the future. That's what it at stake.

Well said, the bottom line. There IS a lot at stake here, hence some of the passion. Some of us have been burned in the past. Not fun. Not necessary. All political.

I don't care if as a Canon shooter, Nikon comes out with an open raw format and DNG dies on the vine. Might be the reason to move to Nikon. I just want my camera raws to behave like the camera JEPGs. You select what data you want and it can be read by the software I desire to use. I don't care if the solution is Adobe's or someone else’s. I want a solution. That said, DNG becomes more and more useful as the format progress. Case in point (and back to the topic), DNG verification inside of LR5 is yet another feather in the DNG cap.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

John Cothron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
    • Cothron Photography
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #135 on: April 17, 2013, 12:23:45 pm »

Jeff,

I have a question.  It seems like I recall your recommendation at one time was to not archive files under DNG, although it was available in Lr.  I could be remembering wrong so feel free to let me know.  If so, do you now recommend doing so?  Have things been changed around enough with DNG that we should do the conversion as we are importing files into our catalogs?  As of yet, I haven't done anythign with DNG outside of creating a camera profile.  

Thanks,

John

Edit:  I just answered my own question by reading your article.  It's ironic that I JUST read your book The Digital Negative but I must have been dosing off as I went through that part :)
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 12:30:49 pm by John Cothron »
Logged
John
Flickr

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #136 on: April 17, 2013, 01:06:58 pm »

It seems like I recall your recommendation at one time was to not archive files under DNG, although it was available in Lr.

Yeah, for the purposes of using raw files in Lightroom, I don't personally convert all raws to DNGs because of the issue of backing up. If you write out the xmp metadata to a raw file, the DNG file modification date gets updated and then any backup software will catch the modification date change and backup the entire DNG. If you use the original raw file, LR/ACR creates a tiny .xmp sidecar file. When you save out the metadata for the original raw file, the raw file doesn't get modified, just the tiny .xmp file. So, the differences in the size of the backup requirement can be huge...particularly if you are shooting large MP raw captures!

What I do tend to do is convert to DNG once an image has been "finished". DNG makes for an optimal file format for exchanging raw files because it contains all the raw settings, the Exif and ITPC metadata as well as any snapshots in one single file unit.

And for those who may say "ah ha, you don't even use DNG", that isn't the point of the discussion about undocumented, proprietary raw files...
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #137 on: April 17, 2013, 01:59:14 pm »

Or in other words you have to update anyway to get usable profiles (point 2 would still not filter down to older software, even 1 year old software if the speed of this new release is anything to go by) so the argument that DNG would circumvent that issue are also false.
Yes it would. If the raw file includes proper profiles of the camera, then proper raw developers ought to be able to read those profiles (even older raw developers reading future camera files) and output reasonable developements.
Quote
As for the idea that DNG would be more archival. I just can't see it. If the DNG standard is adopted then it would provide Adobe with less work and would provide a more archival standard, perhaps, for cameras made with this new DNG standard for the next couple of decades, maybe. If Adobe is still around and I wouldn't place any bets on it for the 20 year from now mark. If it is not adopted then Adobe has the choice to either continue to support all the different formats or for LR/ACR to die because they don't. I just can't see what DNG would do for archiveability. 30 years from now it will be as difficult to read a DNG as it will be to read a CR2 or MOS or whatever. Whether it is adopted as a standard or not. You will need the hardware, software, profiles, etc. I can see why the museums do not consider raw files to be archival period.
I think you fail to see the amount of work done by Dave Coffin only to get access to the raw sensel data in raw files. They may be compressed using an unknown compression algorithm.
http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

It is cumbersome but not impossible to write something like a JPEG encoder/decoder from the documentation. Doing it without the documentation is borderline insane. Anything that is a widely published standard today is likely to live on the internet (or something like it) for a very long time.

-h
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
« Reply #138 on: April 17, 2013, 02:42:19 pm »



What I do tend to do is convert to DNG once an image has been "finished". DNG makes for an optimal file format for exchanging raw files because it contains all the raw settings, the Exif and ITPC metadata as well as any snapshots in one single file unit.


Help me understand....

We now have a "finished" DNG.  Let's assume it is ISO industry standard and non-proprietary. 

What software can decode it so that one can see, view, print, project the finished image that the photographer has saved for postarity. 

Is this software open sourced, non-propietary?
Logged
John

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #139 on: April 17, 2013, 02:46:18 pm »

I think you fail to see the amount of work done by Dave Coffin only to get access to the raw sensel data in raw files.

Dave Coffin is quite the hero in my eyes...it was Dave's initial work decoding raw file formats that really led to the process of reverse engineering the raw image data and discovering the various metadata tags such as white balance that really bootstrapped the whole 3rd party raw image processing. Even Thomas Knoll built upon Dave's work for Camera Raw (and arranged for Dave to get a little prize for his work).

The really funny thing about undocumented, proprietary raw files is there's really nothing secret (nor valuable) contained in proprietary raw files. There's also nothing that's really proprietary either...all the really secret stuff is done onboard the camera's analog to digital conversion of the sensor data to the raw file data written to media. This is one of the most frustrating aspects of the camera companies' behavior...there's nothing really secret nor proprietary in raw files. The camera companies failure to document the files is silly. It comes back to the fact that they simply don't want to kinda like a baby refusing to eat their carrots...and just about as juvenile too.

Which is also why I find it particularly irritating when photographers defend the behavior of the camera companies.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 13   Go Up