Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom is a surrender  (Read 10400 times)
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3976



WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2007, 05:49:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I apologize, publicly and basely to the nice people at Adobe - apparently there is a reference DNG decoder.

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=3350

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4808



« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2007, 05:55:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Let's have a bit more civility and less name calling please.

Discussions should be about ideas. Not personalities.

Michael
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3976



WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2007, 06:05:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A little information has always been a dangerous thing, but thanks to the internet, every sad attention whore with too much time on their hands on the planet can pass themselves off as an expert. The unfortunate side-effect to all of this begging and brown-nosing is that some people might actually see your work and remember what they saw. Having seen both your photos and your writing, I'd probably go back to applied mathematics and give up on this whole internet celebrity dream if I were in your shoes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104083\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Orange, I would take your comments more seriously if you couched them more politely. You are probably right about some issues, you are wrong, in my opinion about others, but if you had talked like this at any scientist's conference you would have got thrown out.  If you aplogize for the personal insults above, I will address your comments. However direct personal insults do not encourage me to do so.


Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2007, 09:00:33 AM »
ReplyReply

HOT DAMN, orangekay! All I can say is OUCH! And to think I thought my Blahnik heels were a great source of pain. Talk about molar-chomping on a Ph.D. and spittin' it right out and then grinding your Doc Marten steel-toed-heel into it. Suddenly, being pushed into an on-coming NYC subway train looks like fun. Maybe it's time for the treadmill, dear.

Btw, I'm looking for a new Rep, can I interest you in joining my team?  
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7902



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2007, 09:28:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To date, more than half the cameras on the market that write Raw files are made by Canon and Nikon together -care to dispute that ?-  and do not use DNG as a native format. Thus DNG has failed to become a success as a camera format.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=103019\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, the figure I have heard would be closer to 75% combined market share for Canon and Nikon.

Considering the initial hopes of Adobe, it seems pretty obvious to me that DNG is a failure as we speak.

This has, by the way, nothing to do with the value of DNG. The idea is good, but it was not proposed by the right company. My opinion has always been that a standart raw format would only be doable if it were created by Canon and Nikon themselves. Anyone even remotely trying to put herself in their shoes would find this pretty obvious actually.

Aren't you gonna laugh at me if I come ring at your door and try to force you to start speaking Esperando instead of English?

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3976



WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2007, 12:37:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Re my apology to Adobe, I have just tracked down the license of the Adobe DNG SDK, and it's very nice. It looks like Adobe are going the extra mile.

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/dng...k_eula_win.html
---snip

1. LICENSE GRANT

Software License.  Subject to the restrictions below and other terms of this Agreement, Adobe hereby grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free license to use, reproduce, prepare derivative works from, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Software for any purpose.

Document License.  Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Adobe hereby grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free license to make a limited number of copies of the Documentation for your development purposes and to publicly display, publicly perform and distribute such copies.  You may not modify the Documentation.
---snip

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3976



WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 02, 2007, 12:38:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,

 Not only are you right politically, but there are also some truly technical reasons involved.

 Simply put, when film reigned, cameras had completed their contribution to the image once the the shutter had clicked behind the lens. At that point the processing lab took over. Now cameras do some processing work themselves *after* the actual exposure has taken place.

 Intensively post-processing and massaging the sensor data is now a way to gain competitve advantage for the camera corps - and they want to be able to do it outside the camera -in a sealed black box converter - without their competitors seeing what they're up to. This massaging needs to be done on ALL the data the camera has, which may include a lot of details about the specific lens mounted on the camera, and its settings when the shot was taken. Even ambient light sensing can count - color appearance models take ambient light into account.

 Think of it as every company developing its own proprietary, finely tuned and thus more capable, version of Dxo.

 Christian Poulsen of Hassleblad told me during Photokina that his company sees postprocessing Raws rather than "just" converting them as a competitive advantage that is being asserted with the H3D, and he wants to do so even more.

 We can see Leica going there too in the M8 - lens detection by coding and then vignetting correction. Although the M8  outputs a DNG file, this is in fact is the product of much in camera processing , I believe. I think it's a sort of intermediary-format DNG rather than a real Raw.

From information that has come my way, I would think that Nikon and Canon are going down that road too.

 As long as picture quality improves, photographers won't complain, but such "secret sauce" processing obviously goes against the idea of a one size-fits-all Raw format or processor.

 It has been observed before that the audio/video industry goes through this repetitive 2-phase cycle of innovation and standardization. I guess we'll have to wait some time for the second phase of the current cycle.

Edmund

 


Quote
This has, by the way, nothing to do with the value of DNG. The idea is good, but it was not proposed by the right company. My opinion has always been that a standart raw format would only be doable if it were created by Canon and Nikon themselves. Anyone even remotely trying to put herself in their shoes would find this pretty obvious actually.

Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: March 02, 2007, 12:51:20 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #27 on: March 02, 2007, 12:47:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This has, by the way, nothing to do with the value of DNG. The idea is good, but it was not proposed by the right company.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104215\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There is no "right company" unless there's a not-for-profit organization who mandates these decisions of behalf of all users and players.

I thought Digital Negative (DNG) was brilliant the moment I first heard the term. It makes perfect sense! The real problem is cock fighting: the corporate suits who believe their company shouldn't make it easier for another company to dominate, even if there's no monetary gain and the single idea makes universal sense.

I'm sure the question has been raised more than once: "Why should we (Canon or Nikon) make it easier for Adobe?" One would think the answer to that question lies in the number of Canon/Nikon photographers who earn a living using Photoshop.

The way I see it, Canon and Nikon aren't going anywhere and I can't imagine my workflow without Photoshop. The sooner some corporate leader with balls steps forward and says, "This is good for the future of all photographers!," the better. Given my experience with men, I won't be holding my breath.  
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3976



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 02, 2007, 12:57:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think the execs at C and N are dumb.

Maybe they're really getting extra quality out of their postprocessing - in this age of software, having your own postprocessor is like having your own brand of glass that allows you to make special aberration-free lenses which your competitor cannot imitate.

Maybe the execs are
Quote
the corporate suits who believe their company shouldn't make it easier for another company to dominate, even if there's no monetary gain and the single idea makes universal sense.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: March 02, 2007, 01:01:00 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
mistybreeze
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 177


« Reply #29 on: March 02, 2007, 02:23:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't think the execs at C and N are dumb.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104277\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For the record, I never claimed anyone was dumb. I just happen to think cockfights are for the birds.
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 709


« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2007, 01:11:09 PM »
ReplyReply

DNG may not yet be the format of choice for camera manufacturers.

But, DNG does have one huge plus, which I make full use of:

It is open source.

Therefore, if at some stage in the future, both Canon (my camera of choice) and Adobe no longer existed, I could still access my images using a third party.

As a result, even though I process my RAW files as they emerge from my Canon, I save *everything* I shoot as a DNG and keep them in more than one location. DNG turns my files into "negatives" that I will be able to use in any "enlarger".

DNG gives me long term security. Nothing else does.

D.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2007, 02:01:51 PM »
ReplyReply

DNG is not open source. For something to be open source it needs to be released under a OSI approved license. The most common is the GPL.

That is not to say DNG is not freely available. It is under a royalty free license authored by Adobe.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2007, 02:08:07 PM by 61Dynamic » Logged
Robert Roaldi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 488


WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 05, 2007, 02:25:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Strictly speaking, being open source is not enough, by itself, to guarantee the long-term viability of DNG files because you still need a program and an operating system to run that program on to get at and do something with your DNG negative. But that's probably semantics. At the moment, that seems like a pretty safe bet. Nothing in computers ever seems to go completely away. It would add a minor complication if/when an upgrade to DNG is released. There will probably be software to process DNG for a long time to come, so long as there is a need.

But C, N and others could go a long way toward negating the effect of DNG (if they wanted to) by adopting a strategy of releasing their proprietary raw formats into the public domain after, say, 5 years of the release of a camera model. That gives them time to make money from unique proprietary technologies and (maybe) software sales but still addresses the long-term worries of creators of the images. So far, there's no sign of them doing that although since their raw formats have been deciphered anyway, it may be an exercise that they see no point engaging in. This is idle speculation, of course, I have no idea what the manufacturers' strategies are.

I detect some vehemence against the manufacturers for acting in a proprietary way. I understand this completely. Our images do belong to us and we don't want to be held to ransom to get at them. But it's not 100% black and white, I don't think. In the film days, everyone was better off by standardizing on common colour development protocols. But nowadays, when each one of us can build our own proprietary darkroom, the manufacturers could take the attitude that preserving our images for posterity is our problem, not theirs.

If you write a novel using Microsoft Word, it's good practice to save an ASCII text version somewhere. There's a better chance of being able to read that text file in 50 years that today's Word version, I would guess.

If a manufacturer gains a marketplace advantage over competitors by bucking that trend and fully supporting an open format like DNG, that might change their collective minds. So long as it doesn't affect sales, though, they may decide that they don't need to do anything.
Logged

--
Robert
robertroaldi.zenfolio.com
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad