Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DNG Workflow  (Read 9833 times)
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 03, 2008, 05:24:23 AM »
ReplyReply

please post to show your support:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=29138
Logged

Ted Dillard
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 03, 2008, 05:56:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
Thanks, John...

About this metadata point.  First, regarding sidecar files, last I checked, over a year ago, mind you, nobody could read each other's sidecar files, has this changed?  Minor point, and in service of the DNG argument, but just to clarify...

Now, as far as the metadata in the DNG that is sidecar-related, the tests I ran showed that no one, at that point, made or read the DNG metadata, specifically the processing settings, interchangeably either.  I could process the file, save as DNG, then open the DNG in Camera RAW and it would show none of my processing.  Again, is this no longer the case?  At that time I did a bit of cross-program attempt with all the same result.

Finally, as far as Aperture goes, are you saying that Aperture 2 will now read DNG files made from non-supported cameras?  Again, last I checked, it could not and the folks I talked to at Aperture indicated it would not...
Hm, thought I'd replied to this.

iView has been able to read sidecars for ages. Also add PhotoMechanic, idImager, MS PhotoTools. And obviously other Adobe tools. As the sidecars are simple text files, it's not rocket science to interrogate them with Applescript or VB too, and then pass the values into scriptable apps. But there's more support for embedded metadata as in DNG.

Maybe you weren't saving your adjustments to the DNG but that has always worked. I was mostly meaning sending files to other computers or other people, but all using Adobe software, and didn't talk about cross program processing. The adjustment parameters are unique to apps, but Adobe's parameters are visible - so someone could conceivably try to translate them (eg translating WB from Adobe's measures to Aperture's). It would be a lot of effort and would never be perfect, but might save time, though I doubt it..

re Aperture, no doubt those Apple guys gave you all sorts of convincing reasons why it wasn't ever going to possible and that if you were truly faithful to Steve Jobs you would believe reading DNGs as DNGs was a really bad thing. Then things changed with 2.1 (might be 2.0).

John
« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 05:57:44 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 03, 2008, 06:19:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: johnbeardy
Maybe you weren't saving your adjustments to the DNG but that has always worked. I was mostly meaning sending files to other computers or other people, but all using Adobe software, and didn't talk about cross program processing. The adjustment parameters are unique to apps, but Adobe's parameters are visible - so someone could conceivably try to translate them (eg translating WB from Adobe's measures to Aperture's). It would be a lot of effort and would never be perfect, but might save time, though I doubt it..

re Aperture, no doubt those Apple guys gave you all sorts of convincing reasons why it wasn't ever going to possible and that if you were truly faithful to Steve Jobs you would believe reading DNGs as DNGs was a really bad thing. Then things changed with 2.1 (might be 2.0).

John

yeah, I was very carefully doing that, taking raw files, processing them, saving as DNG.  Phase, notably, if memory serves, I'll have to check my notes, or just do it again, but the point of the test was to address some users wanting to use the "handles" in some processing, like Raw Processor or Phase, and then working with Adobe and getting worked files rather than back to the starting point.  That would be one of the points of working a DNG file, I'd think, the ability to save your work across processing "platforms".

As far as Apple goes, ...actually I had a really interesting talk with one of the not so senior developers at Apple who was in on my Aperture training class.  (they like to send the engineers to a class so they get both real-world experience as well as a complete view of the package, something a lowly line engineer doesn't get apparently).  He was telling me horror stories about how impossible it was to get the manufacturers to even talk to them about file support, nevermind DNG, thus the early limited file support.  I can't understand the attitudes of Nikon and Canon, but then, I've always been of the opinion that the more accessible stuff is, the more market share you're going to get.  Apparently I'm horribly mistaken, but whatever.
Logged

Ted Dillard
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 03, 2008, 06:26:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: johnbeardy
Hm, thought I'd replied to this.

iView has been able to read sidecars for ages. Also add PhotoMechanic, idImager, MS PhotoTools. And obviously other Adobe tools. As the sidecars are simple text files, it's not rocket science to interrogate them with Applescript or VB too, and then pass the values into scriptable apps. But there's more support for embedded metadata as in DNG.

I guess I was more interested in the sidecar files importance in processing packages, rather than DAM packages...  Again, I haven't looked at most DAM systems for a while, but last I saw they had very limited processing capability at best, no?
Logged

Ted Dillard
PECourtejoie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #24 on: November 03, 2008, 09:20:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
I guess I was more interested in the sidecar files importance in processing packages, rather than DAM packages...  Again, I haven't looked at most DAM systems for a while, but last I saw they had very limited processing capability at best, no?

Ted, FYI, a similar initiative was done 4 years ago: http://avondale.typepad.com/rawformat/2004...ion_to_adv.html it gathered more than 1000 signatures, one might have to contact Steve Broback to hear what happened...

Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 03, 2008, 02:02:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PECourtejoie
Ted, FYI, a similar initiative was done 4 years ago: http://avondale.typepad.com/rawformat/2004...ion_to_adv.html it gathered more than 1000 signatures, one might have to contact Steve Broback to hear what happened...

yeah, I know, thanks...  thought it might be time to hit it again.  

Just moved it to here: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/dng01/petition.html since the other thread turned into another disc.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 10:03:06 PM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2008, 09:31:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: johnbeardy
re Aperture, no doubt those Apple guys gave you all sorts of convincing reasons why it wasn't ever going to possible and that if you were truly faithful to Steve Jobs you would believe reading DNGs as DNGs was a really bad thing. Then things changed with 2.1 (might be 2.0).

John

cool, found this on Apple, re/Aperture support of DNG for unsupported cameras:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2709

Logged

Ted Dillard
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2008, 09:49:32 AM »
ReplyReply

They can't justify the resources to support all the raw formats out there, so it's a smart move for them to build on Adobe's work.

FYI also see this post.

John
Logged

teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2008, 10:02:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: johnbeardy
They can't justify the resources to support all the raw formats out there, so it's a smart move for them to build on Adobe's work.

FYI also see this post.

John

oh MAN you're not shy about stirring it up are you?  HA!  Bored today?

...no, I know...  I honestly can't understand the way Apple has handled Aperture, right from the get-go.  But I am glad to see this one more step towards the industry using DNG to solve these types of problems.
Logged

Ted Dillard
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2008, 10:07:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually, I'm giving them credit for a sensible move!

John
Logged

teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 04, 2008, 10:21:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: johnbeardy
Actually, I'm giving them credit for a sensible move!

John

got that...  
Logged

Ted Dillard
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2008, 03:54:22 PM »
ReplyReply

damn.  

I feel like I've been down the DNG rabbit hole and back...  

I had this nagging question about whether there was an advantage to working with DNG in a Smart Object RAW workflow or just using the native RAW files.  Suddenly, a very simple thought occurred to me.  

If you have a native RAW file as a Smart Object layer, it depends on Camera RAW to work with it.  If the file format is dropped, Camera RAW will no longer work with that RAW file in the layer.  

Now, it's one thing if you have a bunch of native RAW files sitting around that need to be converted.  That's not a problem, just run Adobe DNG Converter, but if the native RAW files are built in as Smart Objects then it's a crisis.  There's no way to convert those layers (nor, I'm guessing will there be) to a supported format.  

My conclusion is that not using DNG as Smart Objects could be a disasterous mistake.

...that is all.  

 
Logged

Ted Dillard
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2008, 07:36:43 AM »
ReplyReply

OK HOW COME nobody told me about the DNG Profile Editor?  HUH?
 

This is a HUGE reason to use DNG over maker RAW files...  the ability to build a specific camera "profile" and plug it into the Camera RAW calibration pulldown?  whoa.  I haven't worked with it yet, but I'm assuming it's specific to DNG files, and does not apply to maker's raw formats?

Windows: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4214
Mac: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4219

(supplied with the Camera RAW 5.2 update)
Logged

Ted Dillard
PECourtejoie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2008, 09:11:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
If the file format is dropped, Camera RAW will no longer work with that RAW file in the layer.
Huh? the support for DCR files was dropped by Kodak (they no longer update their file format plug-in for newer operating systems), but that does not prevent Camera Raw/Lightroom to open these files. (and save them as Smart Objects  ).

Even if at some point, if camera makers have not seen the light of common sense and are still using their !#$% proprietary raw files, and there are too many of them to be supported by Camera Raw, I suspect that the DNG converter would still be there to fill in the blanks... But I hope that DNG output will be a reality everywhere, like the standard JPEG is.
Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2008, 09:44:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: PECourtejoie
Huh? the support for DCR files was dropped by Kodak (they no longer update their file format plug-in for newer operating systems), but that does not prevent Camera Raw/Lightroom to open these files. (and save them as Smart Objects  ).

Even if at some point, if camera makers have not seen the light of common sense and are still using their !#$% proprietary raw files, and there are too many of them to be supported by Camera Raw, I suspect that the DNG converter would still be there to fill in the blanks... But I hope that DNG output will be a reality everywhere, like the standard JPEG is.

...not quite sure if that speaks to the issue, but let's say if Camera RAW ceases to be able to open a RAW file, then the Smart Object will cease too.  At least that's what I was told by the Adobe product manager...

I think we're talking semantics here, but if the files are still able to be processed in Camera RAW, then I would have thought that is considered "support".

And, yes...  my point is the DNG converter can fill in the blanks, but only if your RAW file is not embedded in a Smart Object.  Again, yes, you can yank the RAW file out of the Smart Object, but all your work is lost.  You can't replace a proprietary RAW file with a DNG and keep all your editing moves.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 09:47:11 AM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad