Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)  (Read 26086 times)
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1704


« Reply #220 on: April 18, 2013, 03:24:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually, if this is a concern, I am sure you are aware it is fairly easy to set up.  I mentioned in another post that I store all finished products as either TIFF (print) or JPEG (web).  For the export to the web, I create copies of the JPEG at the same time, in a subfolder (JPEG) so not mixed in with the "digital negative" or intermediate product.  When I print, I have a export preset, which allows me to select the printed images, and create a TIFF subfolder (PRINT).  I you are really concerned with what you stated, it would be easy to select your images and have LR crank away to create them...and in easily to distinguish subfolders.  
This is very interesting. My folder structure is of the form:
2007\01.01 - event A
2007\07.01 - event B
...

I would like to keep the folder structure (or, equivalently, a duplicate of it) and make a JPEG file of each imported image in my catalog (including virtual copies). Can I do this?

-h
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #221 on: April 18, 2013, 03:26:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Again, this is less about DNG and more about eradicating undocumented, proprietary raw files. DNG is only one potential solution to the problem and I've never advocated that people only use DNG...the only use cases where DNG is a useful solution is where a new camera buyer's camera isn't supported in their current version of ACR/LR and cases where you want to use DNG as an interchange raw file without relying on a .xmp sidecar file.

In terms of changing the behavior of the camera companies, public opinion can have an impact. As Andrew point out, LuLa is an influential platform...and Michael has used it judiciously to try to bring about change with the camera companies–and not just related to undocumented, proprietary but many other aspects of the ways camera companies do or don't respect their customers. I think Mike has had a positive impact, don't you?

So, the bottom line is, are you gonna keep giving the camera companies a pass when it comes to the proliferation of undocumented, proprietary raw files?

Jeff, did I mention DNG in the referenced post?

The value prop has to be open RAW, as you say.

You cannot get public opinion based on preaching.  There has to be something...directly...for them...not some future problem that they do not see.

I am gonna give 'em a pss and buy their stuff.

I asked Andrew, "What wouldyou expect me to do to change there minds?"  I'll ask the same to you.  What "action" should I take?

Understand...Using DNG for all my RAWs is not viable at this time.  You don't even do this.
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #222 on: April 18, 2013, 03:39:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Understand...Using DNG for all my RAWs is not viable at this time.  

Because:

It's a burden on your workflow to convert?
It's a burden on your backup strategy?
It's because (you should fill in the blanks).

The first IS a burden to some degree. It takes more time to do this upon import into Lightroom. But I don't sit there and watch this anyway, I move onto other tasks. I wish the DNG would just come out of the camera.

The 2nd back up issue I discussed. It might be cool if there were a way to backup just the metadata as we can do with sidecar files. But this isn't enough an issue to make me stop converting.

The benefits FOR ME well out weight the disadvantage and there are some. Less file space, no sidecar files to possibly lose, the ability to embed DNG profile (this one is big IF you build your own and use multiple systems as this important profile is now embedded inside the DNG. It travels with the image). Fast Load previews in LR, verification of the data file, embedded rendered JPEG (the belt and suspenders approach, at least I can extract that and have more than I got with those DCS files). And going back full circle, a non proprietary raw.

Yes, having a DNG come directly out of the camera would aid my workflow. But the other goodies make it such that converting upon import isn't that much more painful time wise had I not selected this option. And upon import, LR will gladly archive the original raw data to another drive before conversion IF you want both file formats.
Logged

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

Posts: 750


« Reply #223 on: April 18, 2013, 03:40:39 PM »
ReplyReply

This is very interesting. My folder structure is of the form:
2007\01.01 - event A
2007\07.01 - event B
...

I would like to keep the folder structure (or, equivalently, a duplicate of it) and make a JPEG file of each imported image in my catalog (including virtual copies). Can I do this?

-h

Attached is an example of the export dialog I use for creating Print TIFFs.  Next, a snap of how the subfolders look, which is right under the original folder, so no change to your structure.

I have a preset, so I can select the images, right click, export, and select "TIFF pRGB' (my name for the preset).  Going through the export dialog, you can see that there are lots of options.  JPEGs, for example, can be resized, different quality, etc....and of course, put in a JPEG folder, separate from the PRINT folder.

If you have any questions, feel free to message me.

John
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #224 on: April 18, 2013, 03:54:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Because:

It's a burden on your workflow to convert?
It's a burden on your backup strategy?
It's because (you should fill in the blanks).

The first IS a burden to some degree. It takes more time to do this upon import into Lightroom. But I don't sit there and watch this anyway, I move onto other tasks. I wish the DNG would just come out of the camera.

The 2nd back up issue I discussed. It might be cool if there were a way to backup just the metadata as we can do with sidecar files. But this isn't enough an issue to make me stop converting.

The benefits FOR ME well out weight the disadvantage and there are some. Less file space, no sidecar files to possibly lose, the ability to embed DNG profile (this one is big IF you build your own and use multiple systems as this important profile is now embedded inside the DNG. It travels with the image). Fast Load previews in LR, verification of the data file, embedded rendered JPEG (the belt and suspenders approach, at least I can extract that and have more than I got with those DCS files). And going back full circle, a non proprietary raw.

Yes, having a DNG come directly out of the camera would aid my workflow. But the other goodies make it such that converting upon import isn't that much more painful time wise had I not selected this option. And upon import, LR will gladly archive the original raw data to another drive before conversion IF you want both file formats.
My view...

Less file space- relatively insignificant, particularly with today's HD fiiles.  If I need to save the native RAW...well, real bad

no sidecar files to possibly lose-never lost 'em...I passed kindergarten and learn to follow instuctions...all changes made in LR...pluss LR could recreate if lost in files.

 the ability to embed DNG profile (this one is big IF you build your own and use multiple systems as this important profile is now embedded inside the DNG. It travels with the image).  I have evaluated DNG profiles and I do not have a requirement for them.  If I were in the business of needing exact color rendition, I might look again.  Also, if I export my LR catalog, don't I have them?

Fast Load previews in LR, same as the RAW cache, which I have on an SSD

verification of the data file
 my RAWs do not get written to...what need to be verified.  DNG messes with the file, so need this.,

embedded rendered JPEG One possible Item of interest...if Adobe folds an LR not available.  Can I read the preview without the Adobe SDK?  Which could also be gone if Adobe folded.
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #225 on: April 18, 2013, 04:41:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Fast Load previews in LR, same as the RAW cache, which I have on an SSD

I don't think so. Fast load is faster, it's not a rolling cache (so you never lose it). It's part of the DNG so again, unless you never travel with multiple drives, you're leaving leaving that data behind.

Quote
verification of the data file  my RAWs do not get written to...what need to be verified.  DNG messes with the file, so need this.,
You don't think the data is ever accessed? You don't think they can become corrupted?

Quote
Can I read the preview without the Adobe SDK? 
I believe so yes, but I'll have to ping someone like Peter Krogh to find out what 3rd party software will extract them.
Logged

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

Posts: 2886



WWW
« Reply #226 on: April 18, 2013, 04:49:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: nowonderyouhidebehindapseudonym
Can I read the preview without the Adobe SDK?

I believe so yes, but I'll have to ping someone like Peter Krogh to find out what 3rd party software will extract them.

At the risk of being repetitive, of course you bloody well can. Many programs can do so, and have done so for years. Shortly after DNG was first introduced, almost 10 years ago, I was using Extensis to do so. Nowadays obvious examples might be Aperture in its preview mode, or PhotoMechanic. But as I said before, you have no need of Adobe software to read this preview, output it, or read and write metadata to the file.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5530


WWW
« Reply #227 on: April 18, 2013, 04:54:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I asked Andrew, "What wouldyou expect me to do to change there minds?"  I'll ask the same to you.  What "action" should I take?

I guess you didn't read (or understand) my previous post...here it is again:

What would be useful is for you and other photographers to stop defending the behavior of the camera companies...what would be useful is to join those photographers who ARE concerned about the long term conservation and preservation of the original raw image data and encourage the camera makers to wean themselves of the habit of spawning new undocumented, proprietary raw file formats each time they release new cameras.

What would be useful is for you and other photographers to acknowledge that the current situation will only continue to get worse until such time that the camera makers proactively make changes. What would be useful is for you and other photographers acknowledge that the current situation sucks (even if it doesn't have a direct impact on you personally). What would be useful is to have a sense of community with other photographers and work towards the common good.

I have never advocated boycotting the camera companies for failing to provide documented, non-proprietary raw files. I do advocate not giving them a pass either privately or publicly for failing to do so. You get the difference?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #228 on: April 18, 2013, 04:55:09 PM »
ReplyReply

At the risk of being repetitive, of course you bloody well can. Many programs can do so, and have done so for years. Shortly after DNG was first introduced, almost 10 years ago, I was using Extensis to do so. Nowadays obvious examples might be Aperture in its preview mode, or PhotoMechanic. But as I said before, you have no need of Adobe software to read this preview, output it, or read and write metadata to the file.

The question I believe is, what software do you use to extract that JPEG? I know and am happy they are in there but have yet never tried to extract them out.
Logged

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

Posts: 750


« Reply #229 on: April 18, 2013, 05:00:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think so. Fast load is faster, it's not a rolling cache (so you never lose it). It's part of the DNG so again, unless you never travel with multiple drives, you're leaving leaving that data behind.

I think if you check withAdobe development, your assumption on speed is wrong.  ON my main system, cache size is never a problem.  I don't think I have ever exceeded it.  If I were to go to a new file, the initial build will take a really short time.  Will be interesting how this will change with LR5.  Those who travel may find it worthwhile, but gain, the cache build is short...again, LR5  

Quote
You don't think the data is ever accessed? You don't think they can become corrupted?

Accessed, yes...that is read.  Yes there are lots of ways data can be corrupted, which is why we backup.  However, DNG being continually written to requires a much greater level of verification.

Quote
I believe so yes, but I'll have to ping someone like Peter Krogh to find out what 3rd party software will extract them.

Thanks...I really do not know...and hope none of us has to find out.  If they don't use Adobe code, it would be interesting to know who reverse engineered it and maintains it.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #230 on: April 18, 2013, 05:12:43 PM »
ReplyReply

At the risk of being repetitive, of course you bloody well can. Many programs can do so, and have done so for years. Shortly after DNG was first introduced, almost 10 years ago, I was using Extensis to do so. Nowadays obvious examples might be Aperture in its preview mode, or PhotoMechanic. But as I said before, you have no need of Adobe software to read this preview, output it, or read and write metadata to the file.

Thanks, John....I was aware that other could read it. 

Actually, my reason to possible need it would be if Adobe and LR disappeared.  I assume the 3rd parties use SDK or other code licensed from Adobe (free or not).  If Adobe went belly up, would those licenses be null and void...therefore not to be used any more?

This is an unlikely event, but if you are worrying about putting all your eggs in one basket....
Logged

John
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2886



WWW
« Reply #231 on: April 18, 2013, 05:18:08 PM »
ReplyReply

The question I believe is, what software do you use to extract that JPEG? I know and am happy they are in there but have yet never tried to extract them out.
Take your pick, Andrew. Just open a DNG in PhotoMechanic and select File > Export. It's that trivial.
Logged

john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2886



WWW
« Reply #232 on: April 18, 2013, 05:24:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually, my reason to possible need it would be if Adobe and LR disappeared.  I assume the 3rd parties use SDK or other code licensed from Adobe (free or not).  If Adobe went belly up, would those licenses be null and void...therefore not to be used any more?
Your assumption is quite wrong, and I think you've already been told so by Jeff, probably 3 or 4 times, somewhere earlier in the thread. There is no licensing, and no tie to the SDK. At most, someone might want to read publicly-available documentation.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #233 on: April 18, 2013, 05:51:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Take your pick, Andrew. Just open a DNG in PhotoMechanic and select File > Export. It's that trivial.

Sorry I missed the list and now see Aperture. I have that but not PhotoMechanic so I'm assuming Aperture will do the job. IF so, we need to talk to Adobe about putting in something in LR to do this. Can't let Apple get away with this <g>.
Logged

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

Posts: 2886



WWW
« Reply #234 on: April 18, 2013, 05:54:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry I missed the list and now see Aperture. I have that but not PhotoMechanic so I'm assuming Aperture will do the job. IF so, we need to talk to Adobe about putting in something in LR to do this. Can't let Apple get away with this <g>.
Yes, Aperture can do this because it reads the embedded previews. That's a feature I'd love LR to offer, partly for the PM browsing speed but also so users could compare the camera-baked JPEGs with LR output. Yes, there are dangers in doing so, but upsides too.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #235 on: April 18, 2013, 05:57:19 PM »
ReplyReply

That's a feature I'd love LR to offer, partly for the PM browsing speed but also so users could compare the camera-baked JPEGs with LR output. Yes, there are dangers in doing so, but upsides too.

OK, maybe Jeff and you (and I) can see if that feedback can affect a positive change.
Logged

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

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #236 on: April 18, 2013, 07:08:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Can I just break into this "discussion" to say that I think the LR 5 beta is pretty good. I was a little underwhelmed initially by the new features but I do really like them, but most of all I think it's faster than LR 4. I've gone through and added effects. Radial masks, Grad filters, Spot removals, Adjustment Brushes, then I've made adjustments to every slider including Sharpness, NR, lens corrections...everything..and with all this running it's still pretty responsive. The Develop module slider adjustments slow down a little when it's this heavily loaded..but I imagine there's still room for optimisation before the full release. I think this is all promising and I'll certainly be taking the upgrade....especially for the promised Sigma Merrill support.

Agreed, I'm pretty impressed with it so far, although I haven't used it for major work.. just playing around.  None of my plugins (export, etc.) work with Lr5 so I won't be using it for "real" work till it actually comes out, but it definitely seems to be an improvement in all areas, and I haven't even used the smart previews yet.
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #237 on: April 18, 2013, 07:52:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Your assumption is quite wrong, and I think you've already been told so by Jeff, probably 3 or 4 times, somewhere earlier in the thread. There is no licensing, and no tie to the SDK. At most, someone might want to read publicly-available documentation.

Sorry, John.  I did read the links Jeff posted.

First one on DNG support: http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/products_y6.htm

Following some of the links in the article, which discussed licensing
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/commentary1.htm

Specificlly:

"Adobe have published a royalty-free license for anyone to develop and supply products using the DNG specification. Adobe have released a freely-available (optional) SDK, and a royalty-free license for anyone to use it."

This linked me to: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/extend.displayTab2.html

Where in one section it said:

'Digital Negative (DNG) Specification Patent License
Adobe is the publisher of the Digital Negative (DNG) Specification describing an image file format for storing camera raw information used in a wide range of hardware and software. Adobe provides the DNG Specification to the public for the purpose of encouraging implementation of this file format in a compliant manner. This document is a patent license granted by Adobe to individuals and organizations that desire to develop, market, and/or distribute hardware and software that reads and/or writes image files compliant with the DNG Specification.'

Plus:
"Revocation
Adobe may revoke the rights granted above to any individual or organizational licensee in the event that such licensee or its affiliates brings any patent action against Adobe or its affiliates related to the reading or writing of files that comply with the DNG Specification." 

OK...well it is a broad based license, but it is a license, unless I read it wrong, which is not impossible ;-)

In the last article it also mentioned:
"DNG SDK
The DNG SDK provides support for reading and writing DNG files as well as for converting DNG data to a format that is easily displayed or processed by imaging applications. This SDK can serve as a starting point for the addition of DNG support to existing applications that use and manipulate images or as an aid to the inclusion of DNG support within cameras."

And:
"DNG Codec for Windows
The DNG Codec provides a method for Windows 7 customers to view DNG files in the Windows Explorer and Photo Gallery."

So it seemed to me that read/writing to the files was via the SDK.  I was not aware that any of the viewers or other applications had implemented the own code to read the DNG files.  However, I believe that they are still contained within the license.

Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #238 on: April 18, 2013, 08:00:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, Aperture can do this because it reads the embedded previews. That's a feature I'd love LR to offer, partly for the PM browsing speed but also so users could compare the camera-baked JPEGs with LR output. Yes, there are dangers in doing so, but upsides too.

I am sorry, but I am confused.

Native RAWs contain a "camera-baked" JPEG.  I thought, from prior comments in this thread, that DNG previews were based on LR changes.  Further, isn't this preview automatically created on import and overrides the "camera-baked" version.  Does DNG contain both the camera-baked" version and the LR preview?
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #239 on: April 18, 2013, 08:18:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I am sorry, but I am confused.

Native RAWs contain a "camera-baked" JPEG.  I thought, from prior comments in this thread, that DNG previews were based on LR changes.  Further, isn't this preview automatically created on import and overrides the "camera-baked" version.  Does DNG contain both the camera-baked" version and the LR preview?

The embedded JPEG in the camera raw is tiny and it's a rendering the camera would have produced IF you set it to JPEG.

The embedded JPEG in the DNG can be very large and more importantly, represents the current rendering you've produced within Lightroom (assuming you invoke the Update DNG). Big difference. I'm referring to extracting that JPEG.

The embedded JPEG in the raw is pretty much worthless.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad