Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ACR support for Canon 5d mk2  (Read 42121 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2008, 12:00:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
Nikon makes some money from selling it's own software (as well as it's cameras)

And you know this how? And by supporting DNG, dismisses this so called fact how? What's the file format got to do with this? How is making the format proprietary in any way make their software better? Or, they simply fear any competition (which they have anyway)? And even if what you say is true, as the consumer, how can you allow this company to hold your data hostage?

I'd gladly pay a reasonable software premium to Canon if they'd support DNG. I'd highly consider jumping from one camera manufacturer to another if the hardware were comparable but the other guy didn't force a proprietary format on me.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2008, 12:01:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
The first part could also be said about Adobe supporting earlier versions of ACR but they dont offer their goodwill towards us do they.

Sure they do. You can run the data through the DNG converter.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
laughingbear
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2008, 01:22:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
As I suspect the vast majority of photographers are not using DNG they probably dont see the point of wasting the money to make life easier for Adobe.
Wayne

Hi Wayne,

I think you are on the wrong track with that assumption. To my experience, most colleagues in my small circle, and they do use all kinds of cameras, do use DNG in deed, not to make life easier for Adobe, but for themselves.

I see your point though, but as Andrew said, the DNG converter is available, and free if I am not mistaken, and allows for continuation of "older" photoshop versions such as CS3.

Your other assumption that camera manufacturers would have to spend a fair amount of money on writing DNG files, well, I do not know how much money is involved in supporting that, but I intend to think it is not a question of possible investments, rather than being somewhat unsupportive of a common standard, may be?
« Last Edit: November 16, 2008, 01:24:47 PM by laughingbear » Logged
Ken Rahaim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2008, 03:36:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Czornyj
They seem to have some technical problem, that delayed 5D2's production.

Hi Czornyj,

Do you have a reference link regarding the reported technical problem?
Logged

Ken Rahaim
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2008, 04:56:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ken Rahaim
Hi Czornyj,

Do you have a reference link regarding the reported technical problem?

I've only heard vague information from a european wholesaler. It seems to be reliable - 5D2 was expected to be available in November, now they say something about December:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5839...5D_Mark_II.html


Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2008, 08:27:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I always shoot RAW + JPEG and rename the files in Bridge. When you rename the RAW files, Bridge also renames the JPEG with same name [albeit different extention]. Also if I move the RAW files the JPEGs also move too. Very handy.
Now if I shoot with a camera that uses Adobe's RAW standard and rename the DNG file, the associated JPEG now does not get renamed, which makes for a whole lot of work. So by using Adobe standard RAW files, Adobe products are less usable. Nice one!


PS - I don't any dumb comments about why it's pointless to shoot JPEGs as well as RAW - thank you. I've found it can be very a useful timesaver on occasions.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 599


« Reply #26 on: November 17, 2008, 04:04:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
And you know this how? And by supporting DNG, dismisses this so called fact how? What's the file format got to do with this? How is making the format proprietary in any way make their software better? Or, they simply fear any competition (which they have anyway)? And even if what you say is true, as the consumer, how can you allow this company to hold your data hostage?

I'd gladly pay a reasonable software premium to Canon if they'd support DNG. I'd highly consider jumping from one camera manufacturer to another if the hardware were comparable but the other guy didn't force a proprietary format on me.
I know a number of Nikon users who have bought the software, therefor nikon have made money from it. as for a company holding my data hostage  DNG is Adobe brand of raw, how is this different  and we have to use THEIR converter/software to open it, every bit as much hostage to adobe as canon. (remember I can open my canon raw in both photoshop and canons software, I cant open DNG in canons software only adobes!)
I am a working photographer, out of the few dozen other local togs I have asked (6 work for us) only one uses dng (only to backup his canon raw).  Judging by the response of Nikon Canon (probably the 2 biggest camera companies) it's not taking the world by storm.
I'm not suggesting people shouldn't use DNG, nor am I saying it would be a bad thing if all cameras used DNG as an option, what I don't want is a DNG only situation which forces me to use adobes products (at around twice the US price) I like to have the option of the makers own raw and their own software if I choose.  Wayne
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2008, 04:27:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
as for a company holding my data hostage  DNG is Adobe brand of raw, how is this different  and we have to use THEIR converter/software to open it, every bit as much hostage to adobe as canon.


Its an open, fully documented format, free for anyone to use (like TIFF).

Quote
(remember I can open my canon raw in both photoshop and canons software, I cant open DNG in canons software only adobes!)

Not so, there are other products like the newer version of Bibble that "open" DNG. Anyone who wants to support it can do so easily and at no cost. The fact that YOUR camera maker's software doesn't "open" a DNG is more due to their lack of adopting standards and flexibility with data formats.

Quote
I am a working photographer, out of the few dozen other local togs I have asked (6 work for us) only one uses dng (only to backup his canon raw).  Judging by the response of Nikon Canon (probably the 2 biggest camera companies) it's not taking the world by storm.
I'm not suggesting people shouldn't use DNG, nor am I saying it would be a bad thing if all cameras used DNG as an option, what I don't want is a DNG only situation which forces me to use adobes products (at around twice the US price) I like to have the option of the makers own raw and their own software if I choose.  Wayne

There's no force from Adobe. The force is from the camera manufacturers who refuse to provide us with the options of an open format which does have advantages over the proprietary formats we have little choice to use directly. For your "tog" friends, they might actually understand the more of advantages of DNG after reading this and decide to use the format (more so if the stubborn manufacturers would listen):

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf

Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 599


« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2008, 07:34:32 AM »
ReplyReply

What advantages?  Yes the  file size is slightly smaller, big deal with data storage so cheap (1 TB under a hundred quid)  this makes no difference to me.
I have yet to see any real tests of DNG proving it's as good as the cameras native raw.  
You use what you want I'll use what I'm happy with.
  Wayne
Logged
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1446



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2008, 08:18:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
I'll use what I'm happy with.
  Wayne

Actually, you're using what you have to use. A standard digital negative format could be opened in any RAW converter, so you could basically use anything.
Now we're forced to buy the newest converters, (no matter if we like it or not) becouse the old ones just don't support newer RAW files, and - what's even worse - some RAW formats are not supported by some converters.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2008, 08:19:17 AM by Czornyj » Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2904



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2008, 09:27:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
DNG is Adobe brand of raw, how is this different  and we have to use THEIR converter/software to open it
Nope, you can use Aperture for example. Lightzone too, I think, and no doubt others too before long.

John

Logged

madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2008, 03:20:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I believe Capture One, SilkyPix, and Raw Developer also read DNG raw files.

It is true that Nikon sells its own software (Capture NX). But having basic raw decoding support for NEF isn't one of CNX's advantages. Lots of programs decode NEFs already. No, the real advantages of CNX, at least in the views of some photographers, are the qualities or features that it provides that aren't offered by competing software (e.g., integrated U-Point technology, color rendering presets, etc.).

In other words, yes, CNX has competitors, but those competitors are raw conversion software products (Bibble, Camera Raw, Capture One, etc.), not file formats like DNG.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5542


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2008, 05:03:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
The first part could also be said about Adobe supporting earlier versions of ACR but they dont offer their goodwill towards us do they.

Different issue entirely. The issue if not making updates for software no longer shipping and supported has nothing to do with the file format except for the fact that if Nikon and Canon _DID_ offer a DNG option, then people all the way back to Photoshop CS using Camera Raw 2.4 COULD use that DNG file–which pretty much busts that argument.

Quote
Nikon makes some money from selling it's own software (as well as it's cameras) both Canon and Nikon would have to spend a fair amount of money making all their cameras DNG format as well as their own RAW.  As I suspect the vast majority of photographers are not using DNG they probably dont see the point of wasting the money to make life easier for Adobe.

"Nikon" doesn't even write Capture NX, Nik Software does (with Nikon's cooperation). Nikon makes some revenue, yes but it's unclear if Nikon makes any profit. One would have to look into Nikon's books to know for sure. Canon doesn't even try to sell their software, but neither of these arguments are on topic for the issue of the usefulness of DNG. DNG is a proposed standardized, documented and open raw file format. DNG does NOT require the camera makers disclose ANYTHING because their are designed private maker notes that would allow them to maintain their "secrets". The camera makers (at least Nikon and Canon) would only need to do trivial coding to be able to use DNG and there is no cost associated with using DNG since Adobe has a liberal license that costs nothing. So, the argument that it would cost Nikon and Canon a lot of money to offer DNG is false.

The vast majority of photographers WOULD use DNG if the camera makers offered it because it's an open, documented standard, has the advantage of being able to be written to safely so metadata can be embedded into the file without a sidecar file and DNG offers optimal compression. There would be zero negative consequences to photographers should Nikon and Canon offer DNG and very little if any negative consequences to the actual camera makers. If their cameras offered DNG and their software read DNG they would actually benefit by being able to compete directly with Camera Raw & Lightroom by processing all of the camera formats that DNG supports which is over 200 raw file formats.

The unfortunate situation we're in at the moment is that many photographers are either ignorant to the downsides of the current situation regarding undocumented and proprietary raw files or simply don't car. They will care in the future if the industry fails to maintain all these proprietary raw file formats long term and that's a serious risk. Look, there is zero downside to photographers if the camera makers adopt DNG and very little downside to the camera makers themselves. Far too many photographers either don't know or don't care about the issues...but any photographer who actually thinks the current situation is good for photographers is deluded.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2008, 05:06:14 PM by Schewe » Logged
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2008, 08:14:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Different issue entirely. The issue if not making updates for software no longer shipping and supported has nothing to do with the file format except for the fact that if Nikon and Canon _DID_ offer a DNG option, then people all the way back to Photoshop CS using Camera Raw 2.4 COULD use that DNG file–which pretty much busts that argument.



"Nikon" doesn't even write Capture NX, Nik Software does (with Nikon's cooperation). Nikon makes some revenue, yes but it's unclear if Nikon makes any profit. One would have to look into Nikon's books to know for sure. Canon doesn't even try to sell their software, but neither of these arguments are on topic for the issue of the usefulness of DNG. DNG is a proposed standardized, documented and open raw file format. DNG does NOT require the camera makers disclose ANYTHING because their are designed private maker notes that would allow them to maintain their "secrets". The camera makers (at least Nikon and Canon) would only need to do trivial coding to be able to use DNG and there is no cost associated with using DNG since Adobe has a liberal license that costs nothing. So, the argument that it would cost Nikon and Canon a lot of money to offer DNG is false.

The vast majority of photographers WOULD use DNG if the camera makers offered it because it's an open, documented standard, has the advantage of being able to be written to safely so metadata can be embedded into the file without a sidecar file and DNG offers optimal compression. There would be zero negative consequences to photographers should Nikon and Canon offer DNG and very little if any negative consequences to the actual camera makers. If their cameras offered DNG and their software read DNG they would actually benefit by being able to compete directly with Camera Raw & Lightroom by processing all of the camera formats that DNG supports which is over 200 raw file formats.

The unfortunate situation we're in at the moment is that many photographers are either ignorant to the downsides of the current situation regarding undocumented and proprietary raw files or simply don't car. They will care in the future if the industry fails to maintain all these proprietary raw file formats long term and that's a serious risk. Look, there is zero downside to photographers if the camera makers adopt DNG and very little downside to the camera makers themselves. Far too many photographers either don't know or don't care about the issues...but any photographer who actually thinks the current situation is good for photographers is deluded.

Ok; I give up.  After reading this and other threads which make abundantly clear the many reasons why all camera manufacturers of raw-capable cameras should use a common raw format, could someone please tell me why they don't?  Or at least a hypothesis?

Thanks,
Bruce
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2008, 08:21:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BruceHouston
Ok; I give up.  After reading this and other threads which make abundantly clear the many reasons why all camera manufacturers of raw-capable cameras should use a common raw format, could someone please tell me why they don't?  Or at least a hypothesis?

Not invented here syndrome, cultural issues, stubbornness to name a few.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2008, 08:55:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BruceHouston
Ok; I give up.  After reading this and other threads which make abundantly clear the many reasons why all camera manufacturers of raw-capable cameras should use a common raw format, could someone please tell me why they don't?  Or at least a hypothesis?

Thanks,
Bruce
They already have a format and the cost of switching is not $0.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5542


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2008, 09:17:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BruceHouston
Ok; I give up.  After reading this and other threads which make abundantly clear the many reasons why all camera manufacturers of raw-capable cameras should use a common raw format, could someone please tell me why they don't?  Or at least a hypothesis?


I'm pretty sure that the real reason is that the camera companies have fallen into the trap of "oh, lookie here at what we found". None of the camera companies have any real background or experience at file formats or even image processing. The traditional role of a camera company was to provide a light tight film transport and form an image on unexposed film. Neither Nikon nor Canon have EVER been involved in image processing. The only company that does have any track record is Fuji in that they also made film and did processing. Nikon and Canon are really rookies in this field. Nikon and Canon BOTH had a tie with Kodak–Kodak DOES have a long track record of image processing and substantial background in digital processing–too bad Kodak let things slip away. Back before either Nikon nor Canon ever made a digital camera, Kodak sold digital cameras with both Nikon and Canon bodies. The early 35mm camera style digital cameras were wholesaled by Nikon and Canon to Kodak who in turn handled all the sensor work and analog to digital conversion. Neither Nikon nor Canon really liked that arrangement but Nikon broke loose from that triad first and camera out with their own digital camera first...Canon followed by a year or so.

When Nikon and Canon started making digital cameras (and Canon actually started making their own sensors) they decided that now they could control the whole image capture process including the actual file formats. Nikon actually DID already have their own digital file format, NEF (Nikon Electronic File is what I think it stands for) and made the incredibly stupid choice of also giving their raw captures the same extension. Canon started with .crw and for their first full frame (1Ds) switched to .tif (which was also incredibly stupid but followed what Kodak had started as Kodak's raws were also .tif).

From there–and we're only talking 8-9 years ago, both Nikon and Canon have heavily invested and competed with each other on the basis of the "Nikon" or the "Canon" "Look". Which is an absolute joke because neither company has any real experience in doing that. But, you have to understand the typical Japanese mindset...they play the game on the long field and are incredibly reluctant to release anything that hold in their grasp–even if what they hold, the raw file format, really has no secrets or value. Understand, the really big secret when it comes to digital processing ain't in the file format, it's what goes on in the camera where the sensor data is converted to digital data. Once it's written to media, all the secrets are pretty much over and done with. But Nikon and Canon are both very, very stubborn and so far have refused to accept hardly any raw file standards...ironically, both Nikon and Canon's own recent raw file formats have evolved and substantially improved. Why? Because of DNG. See, DNG does point out how raw file data can live with metadata in a safe and useful way. The current NEF and CR2 raw files from recent cameras are so close to being well formed DNG files that it would be trivial to take them the rest of the way to being fully formed DNG.

But, one roadblock to all of this is that the marketplace isn't really pushing Nikon nor Canon to adopt DNG. There are still photographers who think .nef and .cr2 undocumented and proprietary raw file formats are a good thing. Some photographers also seem to have a decidedly anti-Adobe vibe and continue to to think and say that DNG is a bad thing for the industry. That DNG will stifle competition (FALSE), make Nikon or Canon surrender secrets (FALSE), give Adobe ownership of raw processing (FALSE), make Adobe a lot of money (FALSE) or any of a variety of really pretty stupid reasons why DNG is not good for the industry. They are wrong–these photographers that drink the camera companies Kool-Aid, but that's the why the photo biz is...get ten photographers in a room and you end up with ten distinct opinions and the inability to act in their own best collective interest. I've been there, done that and have the tee shirts (and scare) to prove it. I'm a past national president of the Advertising Photographers of America (APA) and I've dealt with other photo organizations such as ASMP, PPA and EP and it's very, very difficult to get any sort of collective effort off the ground and accomplished.

Point of fact, if the photo organizations had any balls, this issue of undocumented and proprietary raw file formats should be an issue that ALL photographers should be able to get behind. Unfortunately, there's enough photogs out there that there is no single unified voice out there telling Nikon and Canon to fix this problem. And I'll tell you that photographers actually arguing on behalf of the camera companies purely pisses me off  (which is one reason I tend to be very, uh, blunt about this issue). Personally, I'm of the opinion that any photographer that defends Nikon and Canon's approach to raw file formats is an idiot.
Logged
laughingbear
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


« Reply #37 on: November 18, 2008, 02:57:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting Insights Jeff. Thanks!

Back in 2006 the Open Raw Initiative conducted a survey with interesting results.

http://openraw.org/files/2006rawsurveyreport.pdf

I was delighted when this OpenRaw started to initiate a discussion on the issue. Sad to see that this is long ago, and not much has changed ever since.


Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 599


« Reply #38 on: November 18, 2008, 02:35:45 PM »
ReplyReply

An interesting and blunt reply Jeff, sadly coloured by your connections with Adobe.  I don't know what circles you move in but here in the UK in the real world DNG is not a big issue, I would honestly say most digital photographers don't use it, certainly almost none of the "idiots" I spoke to don't.
I personally suspect it would cost more than a trivial sum for Canon/Nikon to convert their cameras and software to DNG.  It certainly seems to cost Adobe too much to offer updates for older versions of it's ACR, but it's alway cheaper when it's someone else money your spending.
As I said in my earlier post I am still waiting to see any real evidence DNG is better than the cameras own brand RAW.  There have been a few other file formats launched recently jpeg xr for one, I wonder how quick Canon/Nikon will be to convert all their cameras to this, or will they wait and see what happens? after all other file formats have fallen by the wayside in the past.     Wayne
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2008, 03:06:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: sniper
after all other file formats have fallen by the wayside in the past.     Wayne
Hee hee hee!
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad