Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DNG Petition  (Read 8431 times)
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« on: November 03, 2008, 05:12:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Please show your support for Adobe's development of the DNG format as a universal, open file, and for camera manufacturers including DNG as an option for shooting and storing files, by clicking this link: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/dng01/petition.html .  
 

From the Adobe DNG site: ( http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/ )

Raw file formats are becoming extremely popular in digital photography workflows because they offer creative professionals greater creative control. However, cameras can use many different raw formats — the specifications for which are not publicly available — which means that not every raw file can be read by a variety of software applications. As a result, the use of these proprietary raw files as a long-term archival solution carries risk, and sharing these files across complex workflows is even more challenging.

The solution to this growing problem? The Digital Negative (DNG), a publicly available archival format for the raw files generated by digital cameras. By addressing the lack of an open standard for the raw files created by individual camera models, DNG helps ensure that photographers will be able to access their files in the future.


It is time that the major camera manufacturers, in particular, Canon and Nikon as industry leaders, acknowledge and support Adobe's initiative as an industry standard, for the good of the photographic community.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 09:45:00 PM by teddillard » Logged

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

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2008, 05:39:42 AM »
ReplyReply

FIRST!


« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 06:26:58 AM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
thierrylegros396
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 721


« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2008, 05:52:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
FIRST!

Second !  

I'ts evident when you see Nikon doing "half raw format" for some cameras or other manufacturers multiplying raw formats !
Logged
sidfrisby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2008, 09:17:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Count me in
Logged

[span style='font-family:Arial'][span style='font-size:10pt;line-height:100%']Sid Frisby
Norwich (UK)
Sid Frisby Photography
Member: National Union of Journalists[/span][/span]
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1434



« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2008, 10:57:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice idea but until its truly an open standard sanctioned by an international standards organization you can't expect Canon or any other major manufacturer to really jump onboard.
Logged

Regards,
Ron
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5542


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2008, 11:07:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rdonson
Nice idea but until its truly an open standard sanctioned by an international standards organization you can't expect Canon or any other major manufacturer to really jump onboard.

That is already underway...Adobe submitted it to the ISO in May, 2008 for use in an update of TIFF-EP...course, that can take some time, but in the meantime, ya might want to get off the fence and agree they way things stand now sucks for photographers.
Logged
Ronny Nilsen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2008, 11:22:50 AM »
ReplyReply

One standard raw-format would be great. Count me in. Just think about getting a new camera and
be able to process the raw files in any old raw-converter without having to wait for an upgrade. The
LR team could concentrate on new features!  
Logged

lightstand
Guest
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2008, 12:01:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Ok I'll bite and play Devil's advocate, so please don't jump to hard I'm just asking.

Right now if the Canon R&D engineer's come up with a better feature for DPP, Canon Utility, etc. as a Canon user  I can upgrade for free. (you can substitute Nikon)

However if the Adobe (any software RAW authoring company) comes up with a new feature for working with RAW files I have to "pay" to upgrade to their software. So you are asking Canon/Nikon to show all their cards while asking us the consumers to pay for your engineers? Right now the monetary incentive is with the Camera manufactures to make the best file possible, why would I want the incentive to be with the need for me to pay additional money to a third party software company?

I do realize the archival significants of the problem I worked on an archeological project where all notes had to be done in pencil because of it's ability to last through time. My work was base on work that had been done well before any of us had been born including the Commodore 64.

I have been working on Adobe products since the 80's & I don't see them to be any more helpful to photographers than Canon/Nikon. In fact I do remember a while back a poll by Canon on developing software to go with the image files that would help photographers "byline" (for lack of a better term) their images. Photoshop does not allow us to create an internet file that can lock in our MetaData even though this is a feature photographers truly need & want.  When you look at the problem through real archival eyes no company will honor it's promises as soon as the monetary incentive is gone.
Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2008, 01:27:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lightstand
Ok I'll bite and play Devil's advocate, so please don't jump to hard I'm just asking.

Right now if the Canon R&D engineer's come up with a better feature for DPP, Canon Utility, etc. as a Canon user  I can upgrade for free. (you can substitute Nikon)

However if the Adobe (any software RAW authoring company) comes up with a new feature for working with RAW files I have to "pay" to upgrade to their software. So you are asking Canon/Nikon to show all their cards while asking us the consumers to pay for your engineers? Right now the monetary incentive is with the Camera manufactures to make the best file possible, why would I want the incentive to be with the need for me to pay additional money to a third party software company?

I do realize the archival significants of the problem I worked on an archeological project where all notes had to be done in pencil because of it's ability to last through time. My work was base on work that had been done well before any of us had been born including the Commodore 64.

I have been working on Adobe products since the 80's & I don't see them to be any more helpful to photographers than Canon/Nikon. In fact I do remember a while back a poll by Canon on developing software to go with the image files that would help photographers "byline" (for lack of a better term) their images. Photoshop does not allow us to create an internet file that can lock in our MetaData even though this is a feature photographers truly need & want.  When you look at the problem through real archival eyes no company will honor it's promises as soon as the monetary incentive is gone.

I give up.  It ain't gonna be much of a petition if you guys make it a discussion.  There are other threads running where you can discuss it.  

"(Please include a short comment, if you wish, but this post is not intended as a discussion.) "

Logged

Ted Dillard
lightstand
Guest
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2008, 01:41:19 PM »
ReplyReply



"(Please include a short comment, if you wish, but this post is not intended as a discussion.) "

[/quote]


Hi Ted, I missed that line and apologize didn't mean to step on your toes. However would your petition include asking Adobe to pass their savings onto the consumer by a tangible percentage?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5542


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2008, 02:08:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lightstand
Right now if the Canon R&D engineer's come up with a better feature for DPP, Canon Utility, etc. as a Canon user  I can upgrade for free. (you can substitute Nikon)

No, faulty premise...Nikon SELLS it's software so if they come with a Geewiz new thingie, you have to pay...

Quote
However if the Adobe (any software RAW authoring company) comes up with a new feature for working with RAW files I have to "pay" to upgrade to their software. So you are asking Canon/Nikon to show all their cards while asking us the consumers to pay for your engineers?

Your faulty premise again...Canon/Nikon don't "have to show their cards" because they already do...the moment they release a file format into the wild, it's decoded...either by Adobe, Dave Coffin (that does Dcraw) or Eric Hyman the does Bibble or a host od other small 3rd parties. The only real "secret" about Nikon's or Canon's file formats is that there really no secrets in them. The true innovations are in the analog>digital chips onboard the cameras. By the time the image data and metadata are written to media, the "secrets" are irrelevant. And that's what too many photographers don't grasp when they say that only Nikon or Canon can possible know how to process their files. Not true. Only Nikon or Canon know what's in their A/D processors, true and there's nothing wrong keeping that top secret. But the file formats are not a useful battleground for proprietary data. Sony tried that with their first pro camera. They used a teal color instead of the traditional R, G, G, B Bayer. it was R, G, T, B instead. To keep that secret, they encrypted the data. They figured that it would take about a year to decode the encryption. It was done in less than two weeks. Sony and the rest of industry learned learned a valuable lesson...don't put anything in a raw file you don't want people to look at. So, they don't.


Quote
I have been working on Adobe products since the 80's & I don't see them to be any more helpful to photographers than Canon/Nikon. In fact I do remember a while back a poll by Canon on developing software to go with the image files that would help photographers "byline" (for lack of a better term) their images. Photoshop does not allow us to create an internet file that can lock in our MetaData even though this is a feature photographers truly need & want.  When you look at the problem through real archival eyes no company will honor it's promises as soon as the monetary incentive is gone.


Then you simply are ignoring the facts...FACT: Adobe has allowed the PDF format to be adopted as an archival format called PDF-A and is an ISO standard. FACT, Adobe granted the ISO the right to use the TIFF-6 format for the ISO TIFF-EP format (without a fee BTW). FACT, Adobe has engineered and release the XMP initiative (again, also available for free) as a standard method of maintaining and extending metadata. FACT: Adobe has offered the DNG spec to the ISO (we'll see how that goes) Oh, and fact, Adobe released DNG and DNG Converter as a free utility to allow raw file formats to be converted into a documented and open standard raw file format.

So, your "archival eyes" are a bit near (or far) sighted...you say that Adobe doesn't provide a method of "locking" metadata for the internet, but you fail to realize that that would be the WRONG thing since the whole purpose of metadata is to be added to so that an image can be enriched over time by adding additional metadata to it. You seem to be pissed that Adobe won't make a file format that allows photographers to lock their image, but they have. Save out your Photoshop file as a PDF and you can put two levels of password security into your PDF. What, you don't deliver PDFs to clients? Why not? It solves the whole file security for photographers issue...

Nope, sorry, I think your point of view need revising and further research...the more Adobe does to advance DNG, the less arguments are left to allow the camera makers to continue along the route of bad behavior. No photographer should be in the least bit fooled by Nikon and Canon...there is zero, (as in no friggin') benefit to photographers to allow Nikon and Canon to continue in their slipshod manner.

This really isn't an "Adobe just wants to screw photographers" issue...no, I don't agree with Adobe's international pricing (I understand it, but don't like it). Yes, I understand and agree with Adobe's policy of only supporting "current" users for free (did I mention FREE) Camera Raw upgrades so Thomas and friends can keep working on FUTURE versions rather than waste their time developing backwards compatibility. Yes, I agree that every 18 months (I'm an author that is forced to revise a book) Photoshop and the entire suite is upgraded is too short of a time. No, I don't think Photoshop upgrades are too expensive (just a bit too often). But NONE of that stuff has ANYTHING to do with Nikon and Canon's behavior and nothing Adobe does or doesn't do should be used as motivation to allow the camera makers' behavior regarding raw files.

You can play devils advocate all ya want, but it doesn't alter the fact that what Nikon and Canon are doing sucks for the industry at large...

Logged
lightstand
Guest
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2008, 02:59:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff, first it was my oversight that Ted did not want this to be a discussion. Second I have always been very grateful of being able to visit a forum where experts like yourself post. However my post was put up mostly to understand why this way verses that way and in no way am I "Pissed" at Adobe or negative on the issue of DNG even at that.

But every post you make is so incredibly negative somewhere between a Napoleon complex and a Boxer. I'm not going to discuss this with you, quite frankly can you have a civil discussion! If you are an employee or associate of Adobe I can 100% honesty say I wouldn't want to trust you with any archival promises.

go drink a beer
Logged
Raw shooter
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 205


« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2008, 03:06:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lightstand
Jeff, first it was my oversight that Ted did not want this to be a discussion. Second I have always been very grateful of being able to visit a forum where experts like yourself post. However my post was put up mostly to understand why this way verses that way and in no way am I "Pissed" at Adobe or negative on the issue of DNG even at that.

But every post you make is so incredibly negative somewhere between a Napoleon complex and a Boxer. I'm not going to discuss this with you, quite frankly can you have a civil discussion! If you are an employee or associate of Adobe I can 100% honesty say I wouldn't want to trust you with any archival promises.

go drink a beer
I 2nd lightstand's post.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5542


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2008, 03:16:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: lightstand
If you are an employee or associate of Adobe I can 100% honesty say I wouldn't want to trust you with any archival promises.


While I sometimes work "with" Adobe on projects, I don't work "for" Adobe so nothing I say should reflect on Adobe nor can Adobe do anything to modify my behavior...as Popeye said, I yam, what I yam...

And I am civil...I attack ideas not people. I don't know you from Adam...so nothing I say should be construed to be taken by you personally...heck I don't even know your name since you are posting with a screen-name so how could I possibly attack you personally? But ideas, put out in the air, can be attacked with passion and vigor (which is my approach). I will admit I really don't care too much about being "polite"...cause that takes time and I don't have a lot of time to waste. So, I tend to go for the throat in any debate.

And to be honest, the "Petition" concept of this thread is doomed because it wasn't posted originally as a poll. There is no method of "voting" and no method of tallying the results. Sorry...
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2008, 03:19:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
And I am civil...I attack ideas not people.

Please spare us...
Logged

Nikos
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1434



« Reply #15 on: November 03, 2008, 03:52:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
That is already underway...Adobe submitted it to the ISO in May, 2008 for use in an update of TIFF-EP...course, that can take some time, but in the meantime, ya might want to get off the fence and agree they way things stand now sucks for photographers.

Sorry, Jeff.  I'm not on the fence.  Underway is not ratified and accepted.
Logged

Regards,
Ron
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5542


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 03, 2008, 04:43:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: rdonson
Sorry, Jeff.  I'm not on the fence.  Underway is not ratified and accepted.


So, you're willing to accept the current raw file format morass while the ISO does their 5 year planned review of the TIFF-EP spec which began in 2006?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 04:44:40 PM by Schewe » Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2008, 06:12:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Sign here:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/dng01/petition.html


Logged

Ted Dillard
rdonson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1434



« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2008, 07:22:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
So, you're willing to accept the current raw file format morass while the ISO does their 5 year planned review of the TIFF-EP spec which began in 2006?

Nope.... never said that.

I'm all for adoption of a RAW standard and DNG is the best on the table today.  That said I've been bit quite a number of times over the last 20 years by people rushing to standards before they've been ratified and adopted.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2008, 07:24:48 PM by rdonson » Logged

Regards,
Ron
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 04, 2008, 05:06:43 AM »
ReplyReply

OK, well you may have noticed I've moved the petition to another site:
http://www.petitiononline.com/dng01/petition.html

I checked their credentials pretty well, and they have a fairly informative "FAQ" page if you're concerned about security and SPAM.  

Again, the point of this petition is to send a message to Nikon and Canon that the market is ready for them to step up to the plate and support a RAW format and Adobe's initiative.  It's not to replace their format, per se, with DNG, but to even just include it as a menu option shooting mode.  It is, as it's been said here and on other threads, pretty simple, not threatening their proprietary work, and the best thing for the photography community.  

The 1st petition of this type was started in 2004, and apparently got around 10,000 sigs.  Times have changed, Adobe has kept the pressure, and we're moving forward.  Let's see what we can do...

...so, if you're sick of all the jibbah-jabbah, sign.  Pass it on, it's not for just this forum...  and FWIW, I've set up a Group on FaceBook to berate my students into signing too.  
http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php?ref=l...3674&ref=mf

As far as keeping this thread on line, well, I guess that's an unreasonable expectation...    

(OK it DOES crack me up that it seems there's a lot of talk here, but no actual, well, action...  HA!)
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad