Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)  (Read 55560 times)

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #160 on: April 17, 2013, 06:28:24 pm »

I suppose someone that has your DNG file can also open it and edit the file (as well as see your edits).  That condition exists now of course, but there isn't a method of "locking" it is there?...or in the proprietary RAWS either.

Not that I'm aware of...so, you just have to be careful who you give your raw files to!
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
« Reply #161 on: April 17, 2013, 06:45:30 pm »

The only thing that may suffer long term "sustainability" are the settings...not the raw image data–which was the whole point of this friggin' debate. What you are still failing to grasp is the long term conservation and preservation of the RAW IMAGE DATA is at risk. As you've already said, you don't even want people to see your raw images...but plenty of areas of photography do need access to the original raw data which DNG facilitates...and here's the irony, over time, the original raw image data has improved with new raw image processors–which is something totally new for photography...film didn't get better with age, but raw image data can as algorithms are improved.

You keep circling the drain bud, but you ain't winning many converts (and I don't count Vlad as a convert, he's just a pain, although he knows far more about the subject that you do, prolly more than I do too).

Look...you pointed to the museums. They want (need?) the raw original data, as well as intermediate works and the final output.

DNG or any other open RAW standard would be nice....and hopefully we will get that some day....but as your comments on Phase One, Canon, and Nikon, etc. are best worked "from within", not in a forum.

You only put your "finished" works in DNG format.  You have faith that Adobe will continue to support ACR/LR so that you can go back and work these in the future.  I submit, that there is a greater chance of the Adobe support disappearing sometime in the future than we have of the ability to "decode" the proprietary RAW formats we have today.  Only Adobe supports ACR; many are decoding RAW.  Could all this knowledge be lost...maybe, but not likely.

You keep bringing up Kodak.  How many concerns were able or bothered to decode those RAW formats.  How many are working with today's formats (no, Jeff...I am not fishing for and answer...rhetorical, you know).  

I submit, if it were worth their while, Dave Coffman or Eric Chan could work the Kodak code.  Photodisk...I don't know if that is a media problem, which I suspect, or a codex, or both.

As far as showing people my RAW images, I do it all the time when reviewing with friends and camera clubs when discussing processing methods (and I have no fear that a museum curator will "need" access to them either).  However, I only "show"...i.e. print, post, email...finished works.  We all have a visualization of our finished work.  Adams did not display his negatives...his final image needed work to pull out what he saw when he shot the image.  David DuChemin, Guy Tal...and, I am sure, you work the same way.  You are rather small to turn an obvious statement that I made in an attempt to demean me.

I am overjoyed with the work of Adobe, specifically Eric Chan, to improve RAW conversion...and I go back to my old RAW originals to see if I can improve selected ones, or do something with the ones I was just not able to get the way I wanted them.

I am not trying to convert you.  I am just providing an alternative view.  Your chicken little act may have some validity.  The validity however is that it would be easier with an open standard (which I agree to), but the sky is not falling.
Logged
John

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #162 on: April 17, 2013, 06:53:21 pm »

You are confusing access to the original raw data to access to the image settings. The lack of access to ACR/LR processing does not invalidate, in any way, the usefulness of the long term preservation and conservation of the original raw data–which regardless of your point of view, is what is the most critical aspect of this issue. If you have access to the original raw image data you can always go back and re-render an image from the raw image and likely do so with better image quality because of improvements in raw processing. That is just work...it's the original raw data that is critical to maintain. Get it yet? It's all about the raw data...

Common, Jeff.  If you have an Adams negative, can you get HIS print out of it?  Curators do not want a recreation of the final work...they want the actual work.  The historians also want the steps along the way.

Your reference to the "7 Steps" clearly points it out.

You know what is frustrating dealing with you.  You keep changing what is important, to win you individual narrow arguments.  Without ever providing a balanced discussion.  You can't point to the museum digital format document and not include all they desire.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 08:28:50 pm by jrsforums »
Logged
John

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)p
« Reply #163 on: April 17, 2013, 10:21:33 pm »

Look...you pointed to the museums. They want (need?) the raw original data, as well as intermediate works and the final output.

No I didn't...I pointed to the Library of Congress as being concerned about the long term conservation and preservation of all digital objects...not just raw image files, but written text, audio and video and any object where the original source file was digital...digital photography is only the tip of a very large iceberg. Yes, I mentioned that the Library of Congress is working on this...but as far as I can remember, I never said anything about museums. I know the National Archives in England is also working on these issues...but I'm not aware of any particular museum involvement although I would be shocked if they weren't...(I would be shocked if they weren't)

Quote
DNG or any other open RAW standard would be nice....and hopefully we will get that some day....but as your comments on Phase One, Canon, and Nikon, etc. are best worked "from within", not in a forum.

Actually, ya gotta work both the companies AND the photographic community and the LuLa forum is a perfect place to educate photographers on the issues. Again, I simply can't believe if photographers are educated about the issues that could possibly be willing to give the camera makers a pass on their behavior.

Quote
You only put your "finished" works in DNG format.

No, you have that wrong too...I said I only put my finished raw files in DNG...I do have some raw files who don't need Photoshop but most do...my "finished" works end up as TIFF–which, wait for it, is an open documented, non-proprietary file format. This is why I don't use PSDs, because while documented, you have to sign a special Photoshop PSD format NDA for the PSD documentation. Note, Adobe also owns the TIFF file format (they got it when they bought Aldus) and have maintained the format and have ceded TIFF to the ISO (as they are willing to do with DNG). Another example of Adobe trying to do the right thing for the industry.

Quote
I submit, if it were worth their while, Dave Coffman or Eric Chan could work the Kodak code.  Photodisk...I don't know if that is a media problem, which I suspect, or a codex, or both.

Actually Thomas DID reverse engineer the DCS raw file format and you can convert them to DNG...as far as Photo CD (it wasn't photodisk), that was a Kodak solution to scanning film to digital, popular in the early 1990's that a lot of photographers used. Kodak ceased supporting the SDK and plug-in which is why people with Photo CD disks need to keep an old version of Photoshop around to read them because Kodak orphaned the technology...

Quote
You know what is frustrating dealing with you.  You keep changing what is important, to win you individual narrow arguments.  Without ever providing a balanced discussion.

Huh? what you wrote doesn't make sense...my arguments have been very clear and consistent since the first time I've engaged with you on this issue. Yes, I'm really good a poking holes in your arguments. I don't care about balanced discussion, I care about an informed and accurate discussion. I haven't called you names...I've not attacked you personally (only your ideas) and my only concern is that photographers learn about the risks this industry faces because the cowboy camera makers.

Quote
You can't point to the museum digital format document and not include all they desire.

I have zero idea what you meant...what "all they desire" are you referring to?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2013, 10:23:34 pm by Schewe »
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #164 on: April 17, 2013, 11:17:59 pm »

Open letter to jrsforums:

I think you have made it abundantly clear that you have little idea of the broader scope and issues surrounding digital asset management much less those more specific to photography per se.
Your knowledge of file formats, both their technical aspects as well as their history, is appalling.

I really think you need to independently research some of the issues before mouthing off about things you are clearly completely ignorant of.
Neither Jeff Schewe nor Andrew Rodney need me to defend them.
However, I will say this: they do know what they are talking about and none of what they are saying is in the slightest bit surprising or controversial to anyone who understands digital asset management and the substantial challenges that are currently with us.

So, get on the net and start doing some research.

Tony Jay
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #165 on: April 18, 2013, 12:03:47 am »

Open letter to jrsforums:

I think you have made it abundantly clear that you have little idea of the broader scope and issues surrounding digital asset management much less those more specific to photography per se.
Your knowledge of file formats, both their technical aspects as well as their history, is appalling.

Yes, I do.  As far as I am concerned, I do not have a problem and much of the "problem" I blown out of proportion.  The user problems that are quoted are those users who, as early adoptors of new cameras complain they need to wait a few months or have to pay Adobe for an upgrade.  No one supplied a count of the user complains, but out of the millions of users....these forums would be buried if even  small percentage of them complained.

The archival issue were new to me in detail, but not in concept.  From reading Jeff's references (and following some references from it), it is fairly apparent that this work has a long way to go before it is "cooked".  DNG may or may not be a standard.  Actually, preservation of an asset, per UDFR, does not require an underlying understanding of the asset format.  Higher level preservation requires and understanding of the format....not necessarily a standard (my words).

Jeff waves his arms about the "lost" Kodak RAW...then it later comes out that...gee...it was able to be reverse engineered.  That, plus the number of concens actively reverse engineering today's RAW formats, make it clear that these formats are understood. (Again, I am not saying a RAW standard would not make life easier, but not having it is not going to cause archival to be impossible).

Quote
I really think you need to independently research some of the issues before mouthing off about things you are clearly completely ignorant of.
All along, I have been consistant that my opinions were based on my experience (and what I see and hear from others) as a user...not an archivist.  Though I have read what Jeff pointed to, which I have addressed above.

Quote
Neither Jeff Schewe nor Andrew Rodney need me to defend them.

They don't so why are you sticking your nose in it.  However, If you have something valuable, feel free to express it
Quote
However, I will say this: they do know what they are talking about and none of what they are saying is in the slightest bit surprising or controversial to anyone who understands digital asset management and the substantial challenges that are currently with us.

However, they "cherry pick" there arguements.  For example, making the issue about Kodak RAW without mentioning that it has been solved. 

When I mentioned TIFF was fine for sustainablity, I was poked at by Jeff that photojournalists need to hand in RAW.  But later he mentions thathis finished goods are in TIFF.

Promoting DGN as the solution, but then saying that they don't use it for all their images because of the problems it causes with backup.....and then ignoring the pont that DNG does not solve one of the sustainablity desires as it will not provide that due to the propietary nature of the work product.

Quote
So, get on the net and start doing some research.

Tony Jay

Tony, thanks for your suggestion.  Consider it ignored.
Logged
John

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #166 on: April 18, 2013, 12:09:53 am »

BTW...PHOTO CD

per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_CD

"...Despite Kodak not releasing the specifications for the Photo CD format, it has been reverse engineered, so allowing images to be converted to more modern formats. The original reverse engineering work was performed by Hadmut Danisch of the University of Karlsruhe..."

One more time Jeff uses an argument to scare us, but does not tell all of the story.
Logged
John

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #167 on: April 18, 2013, 12:24:46 am »

When I mentioned TIFF was fine for sustainablity, I was poked at by Jeff that photojournalists need to hand in RAW.  But later he mentions thathis finished goods are in TIFF.

Yeah, you still don't get it...there are lots of other areas of photography where the original raw file is the most important (and potentially most valuable) version of an image. And yes, photojournalists must submit raw files and those raw files need long term conservation and preservation. Something you apparently never considered. I'm not a photojournalist so the fact that I save rendered, manipulated TIFFs has nothing to do with the debate that raw files are at risk...

And yes, Thomas has reverse engineered Kodak DCS files...very nice of him to do so (he didn't have to but Bruce Fraser had a lot of shots with Kodak cameras so Thomas did it anyway–even though he never used any Kodak cameras) and the fact that those DCS files can be converted to DNG is actually an important factor of my argument, that relying on the camera makers to provide long term access to your digital originals is a foolish expectation and that a standardized raw file format is important. Because Thomas developed DNG, one can now take DCS raw files and convert them to a file format that will allow long term conservation and preservation...

When your original creation-regardless of the media-is a digital object, maintaining that object becomes a technical challenge. When the format of the original is undocumented and proprietary it adds to the risk and makes long term conservation and preservation more difficult. Not impossible, but more difficult. The more difficult the process is, the less likely that the digital object will survive in an accessible state.

The fact that the camera makers refuse to either document their formats or adopt any standards puts original raw captures at greater risk. And, there is no way you can argue otherwise. At least not with a straight face...
Logged

rasterdogs

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
« Reply #168 on: April 18, 2013, 12:31:15 am »

 :o
All,
Please be aware that what appears to be the Luminous Landscape Forum has been hijacked by some adolescent nimrod from DP  Review. This fellow is here to try everyone's patience with insults and argumentative postulations that have no basis in reality. Please remember that trying to teach pigs to sing is not a productive endeavor. Also they have yet to be known to be able to fly. Other than that, enjoy the entertainment.   :P  Hopefully the irritant will get bored and return to other venues where insult and irrational argument are more highly valued.

Yes, I do.  As far as I am concerned, I do not have a problem and much of the "problem" I blown out of proportion.  The user problems that are quoted are those users who, as early adoptors of new cameras complain they need to wait a few months or have to pay Adobe for an upgrade.  No one supplied a count of the user complains, but out of the millions of users....these forums would be buried if even  small percentage of them complained.

The archival issue were new to me in detail, but not in concept.  From reading Jeff's references (and following some references from it), it is fairly apparent that this work has a long way to go before it is "cooked".  DNG may or may not be a standard.  Actually, preservation of an asset, per UDFR, does not require an underlying understanding of the asset format.  Higher level preservation requires and understanding of the format....not necessarily a standard (my words).

Jeff waves his arms about the "lost" Kodak RAW...then it later comes out that...gee...it was able to be reverse engineered.  That, plus the number of concens actively reverse engineering today's RAW formats, make it clear that these formats are understood. (Again, I am not saying a RAW standard would not make life easier, but not having it is not going to cause archival to be impossible).
All along, I have been consistant that my opinions were based on my experience (and what I see and hear from others) as a user...not an archivist.  Though I have read what Jeff pointed to, which I have addressed above.

They don't so why are you sticking your nose in it.  However, If you have something valuable, feel free to express it
However, they "cherry pick" there arguements.  For example, making the issue about Kodak RAW without mentioning that it has been solved. 

When I mentioned TIFF was fine for sustainablity, I was poked at by Jeff that photojournalists need to hand in RAW.  But later he mentions thathis finished goods are in TIFF.

Promoting DGN as the solution, but then saying that they don't use it for all their images because of the problems it causes with backup.....and then ignoring the pont that DNG does not solve one of the sustainablity desires as it will not provide that due to the propietary nature of the work product.

Tony, thanks for your suggestion.  Consider it ignored.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #169 on: April 18, 2013, 12:40:16 am »

"...Despite Kodak not releasing the specifications for the Photo CD format, it has been reverse engineered, so allowing images to be converted to more modern formats. The original reverse engineering work was performed by Hadmut Danisch of the University of Karlsruhe..."

One more time Jeff uses an argument to scare us, but does not tell all of the story.

Yeah, some good hearted engineer has spent the time to reverse engineer Photo CD...thanks Hadmut...but did you actually follow the links to see what apps can actually use Hadmut's work? Well, let me warn you that trying to use what Hadmut wrote pretty much requires command line control of Max, Windows or Linux. One of them is ImageMagick...so, say you have a Photo CD...go to the web site and see if YOU can figure out how to open your images...good luck with that bud.

But, again, you've missed the point entirely...Photo CD files were undocumented and proprietary file formats that required the dedication of a geeky guy (that prolly had a bunch of friends with Photo CDs they couldn't open) to bootstrap the reverse engineering efforts to make the conversion open source.

Do you really want to rely upon the kindness of others to access your original raw files? You good with that?

I'm not.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
« Reply #170 on: April 18, 2013, 12:43:12 am »

Also they have yet to be known to be able to fly.

Not true, I saw a TV commercial with a pig in first class (could have been business class depending on the airlines) and he was using his smart phone to check his insurance...so clearly pigs can fly if they have the money for airfare!
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
« Reply #171 on: April 18, 2013, 12:44:06 am »

:o
All,
Please be aware that what appears to be the Luminous Landscape Forum has been hijacked by some adolescent nimrod from DP  Review. This fellow is here to try everyone's patience with insults and argumentative postulations that have no basis in reality. Please remember that trying to teach pigs to sing is not a productive endeavor. Also they have yet to be known to be able to fly. Other than that, enjoy the entertainment.   :P  Hopefully the irritant will get bored and return to other venues where insult and irrational argument are more highly valued.


Thank you for yor valuable insight.

Jeff and I are having little arm twisting contest.  A little vocal, from both of us at times, but it is our "fun"  We may talk past each other at times, but I may learn something...though I really don't expect Jeff would ever admit it if he did :-)

Please feel free to not read this thread and/or disengage from notifications.

Regards and salutations....
Logged
John

Glenn NK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #172 on: April 18, 2013, 12:48:25 am »

. . . the issue of standard formats is becoming a critical issue not just for journalism but for archiving 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.  

I read an article several years ago (might have been in Discover Magazine - don't recall and not important), but the gist of the argument was that ALL digital files (music, photography, computations in engineering) are susceptible to becoming obsolete and hence quite useless.

His focus was photography, and the author suggested the best archival medium was a high quality print on a good long life medium.  At first thought I was writing him off as crazy, but a few moments reflection and I realized I had the problem with text and spreadsheet files.

Michelangelo's artwork is still impressive after more than a few years, it's not obsolete, and the human eye can still see it.

In closing, I have some 5 1/4" floppy disks of engineering reports, letters, and spreadsheets written by an Apple II Plus computer - is there anyone here that can transcribe them for me?  ;)  I wonder if Apple could even do it?

Glenn
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 12:50:08 am by Glenn NK »
Logged
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources

rasterdogs

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
« Reply #173 on: April 18, 2013, 12:54:08 am »

Thank you for yor valuable insight.

Jeff and I are having little arm twisting contest.  A little vocal, from both of us at times, but it is our "fun"  We may talk past each other at times, but I may learn something...though I really don't expect Jeff would ever admit it if he did :-)

Please feel free to not read this thread and/or disengage from notifications.

Regards and salutations....
You missed something. Oh, you tend to do that. Jeff's got chops, you don't. You need to get some rest so you don't miss your ride to junior high school.
Logged

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #174 on: April 18, 2013, 12:58:15 am »

I read an article several years ago (might have been in Discover Magazine - don't recall and not important), but the gist of the argument was that ALL digital files (music, photography, computations in engineering) are susceptible to becoming obsolete and hence quite useless.

His focus was photography, and the author suggested the best archival medium was a high quality print on a good long life medium.  At first thought I was writing him off as crazy, but a few moments reflection and I realized I had the problem with text and spreadsheet files.

Michelangelo's artwork is still impressive after more than a few years, it's not obsolete, and the human eye can still see it.

In closing, I have some 5 1/4" floppy disks of engineering reports, letters, and spreadsheets written by an Apple II Plus computer - is there anyone here that can transcribe them for me?  ;)  I wonder if Apple could even do it?

Glenn

Yes, Glenn...the issues are both format and media.  

The Library of Congress group is only focused on format.  As has been discussed above, format can be resolved, though it is not always pretty.

Media, is much more difficult.  If you cannot read in the bits, you cannot reverse engineer any format. It is not only floppies.  Many optical drives were touted with long life...however, if the drive died and a replacement could not be found, well..  Many people found that certain early CD and DVD drives had characteristics that caused them to have difficulty being read by newer, supposedly compatible drives.  Then, there is the story of the long life CD/DVDs would have...oh well.

So the story is much bigger then the narrow minded rant of the Adobe fanboys pushing DNG as the savior of the world.
Logged
John

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
« Reply #175 on: April 18, 2013, 12:59:23 am »

You missed something. Oh, you tend to do that. Jeff's got chops, you don't. You need to get some rest so you don't miss your ride to junior high school.

Grow up and go back in your hole with the rest of the dogs
Logged
John

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1288
Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
« Reply #176 on: April 18, 2013, 01:00:51 am »

Not true, I saw a TV commercial with a pig in first class (could have been business class depending on the airlines) and he was using his smart phone to check his insurance...so clearly pigs can fly if they have the money for airfare!

Jeff...we don't agree on some issues, but don't fall into the mire of a slinging contest.
Logged
John

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1882
Re: Warning - Luminous Landscape Hacked by DP Review!
« Reply #177 on: April 18, 2013, 01:02:11 am »

Not true, I saw a TV commercial with a pig in first class (could have been business class depending on the airlines) and he was using his smart phone to check his insurance...so clearly pigs can fly if they have the money for airfare!

Jeff,

I think we've mixed our metaphors.  What you've been doing is casting pearls before swine.   ;D

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #178 on: April 18, 2013, 01:04:52 am »

I read an article several years ago (might have been in Discover Magazine - don't recall and not important), but the gist of the argument was that ALL digital files (music, photography, computations in engineering) are susceptible to becoming obsolete and hence quite useless.

Yep...that is what all the fuss is about! Loosing huge quantities of original digital objects would be a tragic loss for humanity. And yes, I've heard the argument for making prints because there is a longer tradition of conservation and preservation of prints than digital objects. Better than nothing but nowhere nearly as good at preserving the original raw files.

Quote
I wonder if Apple could even do it?

I'll bet Apple could...if not perhaps the Computer History Museum could...they recently got the original Photoshop 1 source code that they've made available as a download. I actually have an old G4 running 10.5.8 which can launch Photoshop 1...I keep it around just for the purpose of being able to do Photoshop 1.0 screenshots (not that I have to do that often, but I can).
Logged

Glenn NK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 313
Re: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)
« Reply #179 on: April 18, 2013, 01:06:11 am »

Yes, the problem is huge.

I have a photo of my grandfather and great uncle shortly after they arrived in Canada circa 1911-1912.  It's fuzzy, but I recognize them both.

How many of my 25,000 images will my great-grandchildren be able to view?  And why NOT?

The solution isn't just a standard digital file format - it's much larger than that.

Suppose they inherit my HDDs - how and on what will they view the images?

Is someone going to re-transcribe the images every five to ten years?

However - if I print them and put them in an album. . . . .  Naw - that's too low tech. ::)

I think the argument over which digital format should be used (or finding a standard format), is like fighting over the table scraps.

There's a lot more to the dinner than the scraps.

Glenn
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 01:09:44 am by Glenn NK »
Logged
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 13   Go Up