Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)  (Read 26103 times)
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #60 on: April 16, 2013, 02:45:32 PM »
ReplyReply

It could add to the cost, or it could not.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they don't have it laying on a shelf somewhere right now (figuratively).  The point on the firmware is valid, although it might be a one-time thing unless the DNG standard doesn't stay consistent.

One thing that did come to mind after my last post was some of the internal lens corrections manufactures are starting to do.  I'm not sure how they facilitate that into a "standard" DNG as their methods may be different from one manufacture to another.  That in itself could provide a road block.

If you have ever been involved in a hardware/software development operation, you would know that on a new product, nothing is on the shelf.  The design might be, but the actual final code...and more importantly...the regression testing is not.
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #61 on: April 16, 2013, 02:46:50 PM »
ReplyReply

You present no data points to support your OPINION, yet ask (demand) data points to demean opinions you do not believe in.

Perhaps you don't read other photo forums or even the Adobe UtoU forums? Cause there are comments and complaints on nearly a weekly basis from users aking why they can't use version X of ACR or LR or even another 3rd party converter on their NEW camera. I suspect this is a more common complaint than "my prints are too dark". If you wish, I will spend some time linking to various forums where the above complaints are being voiced. I'm kind of surprised that you're not hearing this complaint...

Quote
If you read through the posts here, and other threads on similar DNG discussions, you will see that those who do not support your view do not hate DNG or Adobe....they just do not agree with you.

That they don't agree is clear. WHY isn't. Why anyone should have to suffer incompatibilities with new camera generated raws but not JPEG has not be expressed by 'your side' of the argument. Or how a proprietary format is in our best interest. I'm still waiting....


Quote
You believe there is a problem in need of a solution.  Not all see it that way.

Here we agree! I don't find it a problem as I expressed because it's been a few years since I purchased a new camera. Are you suggesting that there is no issue considering the following facts (please dismiss these facts if incorrect):

1. Every new proprietary camera file system requires all 3rd party converters to get said data files and update their software? Yes or no?
2. Until such time, anyone else with said camera system can't use that software and in fact can only use the manufacturer's converter. Yes or no?
3. While those of us without such cameras are not affected, some of us feel their pain, have undergone this problem at one time and don't see a single reason why the camera makers can't fix this by either spitting out a 3rd option (DNG or open raw format) or just creating new raw files that behave just like the old ones in terms of software accessibility.

Quote
For every person who whinges that they have t wait for RAW support for their camera or, good forbid, upgrade to get support, there are (in MY OPINION) just as many or more that understand the delay/cost and can live with it.

Why oh why should they? I've still waiting on an answer. It's like going to a restaurant with 7 people and 3 are served their food while the others have to wait. You think that's a sign of good service or a company that cares about their customers?

Quote
BTW...you gun debate argument is a poor analogy.  Are you know going to say the Nikon/Canon are the NRA....actively buying of Senators to kill any chance Adobe has of making DNG a success....come on now :-)

Maybe it is. But what I see in both cases is this argument that:

1. Unless a fix helps 100%, it's not worth doing.
2. If it doesn't affect me personally, I don't care.
3. Politics can't be affected in a direction people want when those people are vocal and don't accept the status quo.

Explain to me and others why we as consumers should allow this behavior to continue? Or how it's in our best interest? When Canon or Nikon give away camera bodies or sell them at a reasonable price, maybe I'll accept having to wait to use the software I prefer on my data.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2013, 02:53:16 PM by digitaldog » Logged

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

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #62 on: April 16, 2013, 02:51:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the explanation Jeff, so as I kind of expected.. it boils down to well..  politics.  Imagine that, the moment the p word comes into play progress gets hard to come by.  I would like to address this part of your explanation/information:

Quote
Then, there are departments that control the processing software...and it is from these folks that the greatest resistance comes. Even though a good 75-80% of all raw processing is done in ACR/LR, the camera software still likes to claim that only in their software can you get the best results. It would not surprise me at all that refusing to adopt DNG is largely because the camera software guys don't want to make it any easier on Adobe (Thomas) incorporating new cameras because that give the camera software a period of exclusive processing till Adobe adds the cameras. It forces people who buy unsupported cameras to at least try the camera software for a period.

I don't know about Nikon, but Canon's software is a give away.  Other than that departments job security, I don't see how more people NOT using DPP is such a big issue.  Perhaps it's just that however, the people working in those sections don't want to have nothing to do....and become irrelavent. Smiley
Logged

John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #63 on: April 16, 2013, 02:52:40 PM »
ReplyReply

If you have ever been involved in a hardware/software development operation, you would know that on a new product, nothing is on the shelf.  The design might be, but the actual final code...and more importantly...the regression testing is not.

It might surprise you to know that I have, on more than one occasion.  I was the guy writing the code...  I have stuff I never actually used lying on the shelf right now.  Programmers come up with stuff they don't use at the time for many reasons, just like everyone else.
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #64 on: April 16, 2013, 02:54:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps you don't read other photo forums or even the Adobe UtoU forums? Cause there are comments and complaints on nearly a weekly basis from users aking why they can't use version X of ACR or LR or even another 3rd party converter on their NEW camera. I suspect this is a more common complaint than "my prints are too dark". If you wish, I will spend some time linking to various forums where the above complaints are being voiced. I'm kind of surprised that you're not hearing this complaint...

That they don't agree is clear. WHY isn't. Why anyone should have to suffer incompatibilities with new camera generated raws but not JPEG has not be expressed by 'your side' of the argument. How how a proprietary format is in our best interest. I'm still waiting....


Here we agree! I don't find it a problem as I expressed because it's been a few years since I purchased a new camera. Are you suggesting that there is no issue considering the following facts (please dismiss these facts if incorrect):

1. Every new proprietary camera file system requires all 3rd party converters to get said data files and update their software? Yes or no?
2. Until such time, anyone else with said camera system can't use that software and in fact can only use the manufacturer's converter. Yes or no?
3. While those of us without such cameras are not affected, some of us feel their pain, have undergone this problem at one time and don't see a single reason why the camera makers can't fix this by either spitting out a 3rd option (DNG or open raw format) or just creating new raw files that behave just like the old ones in terms of software accessibility.

Why oh why should they? I've still waiting on an answer. It's like going to a restaurant with 7 people and 3 are served their food while the others have to wait. You think that's a sign of good service or a company that cares about their customers?

Maybe it is. But what I see in both cases is this argument that:

1. Unless a fix helps 100%, it's not worth doing.
2. If it doesn't affect me personally, I don't care.
3. Politics can't be affected in a direction people want when those people are vocal and don't accept the status quo.

Explain to me and others why we as consumers should allow this behavior to continue? Or how it's in our best interest? When Canon or Nikon give away camera bodies or sell them at a reasonable price, maybe I'll accept having to wait to use the software I prefer on my data.

I, and others have given you our reasons.  You don't like it, so you are not hearing.  Stop asking.
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #65 on: April 16, 2013, 02:57:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I, and others have given you our reasons.  You don't like it, so you are not hearing.  Stop asking.

So you say, where? I read one post that implied that proprietary data is necessary for better processing etc. I've said to this that proprietary data CAN be stored in a DNG and that anything proprietary can't be understood outside whoever wrote it. So IF I want to use a 3rd party processor, how useful is that proprietary data? Am I incorrect it's absolutely worthless outside the manufacturer’s converter?

You have another (presumably) advantage to this system of proprietary data for each camera release has for consumers? The one above doesn't wash in my book, what else you got?
Logged

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

Posts: 750


« Reply #66 on: April 16, 2013, 02:59:44 PM »
ReplyReply

It might surprise you to know that I have, on more than one occasion.  I was the guy writing the code...  I have stuff I never actually used lying on the shelf right now.  Programmers come up with stuff they don't use at the time for many reasons, just like everyone else.

Programming is easy, relatively.  Including the cost of your work must be included in the business plan....as well as integrating it with everything else that is going on in the rest of the development activity on the product...then the estng of the product, then the regression testing with all existing and peripheral parts that might be effected by the code, then the changes/improvements that need to be done down the road, etc. etc.

All this things need to be worked and evaluated in the business plan....not just your piece of code.
Logged

John
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #67 on: April 16, 2013, 03:07:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Programming is easy, relatively.  Including the cost of your work must be included in the business plan....as well as integrating it with everything else that is going on in the rest of the development activity on the product...then the estng of the product, then the regression testing with all existing and peripheral parts that might be effected by the code, then the changes/improvements that need to be done down the road, etc. etc.

All this things need to be worked and evaluated in the business plan....not just your piece of code.

Why is it you think you are the only one around here that understands the potential difficulty in implementing something new?  I never said programming was the hard part, I never said it was hard at all.  What I'm saying is YOU don't know enough to just dismiss the concept out of hand.  You have no idea what these guys have already developed and not used, nor do I... what I said was I wouldn't be surprised.

***As you should have read in Jeff's statement above... at one point Canon was going to do JUST what I said (offer DNG as an alternative), but got "mad" for some reason and didn't.  You going to tell me they don't have the technology sitting around and basically ready?  Niether of us KNOW, but I believe it to be likely..at least in Canon's case.
Logged

jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #68 on: April 16, 2013, 03:12:24 PM »
ReplyReply

So you say, where? I read one post that implied that proprietary data is necessary for better processing etc. I've said to this that proprietary data CAN be stored in a DNG and that anything proprietary can't be understood outside whoever wrote it. So IF I want to use a 3rd party processor, how useful is that proprietary data? Am I incorrect it's absolutely worthless outside the manufacturer’s converter?

You have another (presumably) advantage to this system of proprietary data for each camera release has for consumers? The one above doesn't wash in my book, what else you got?

I said, "I, and others, WHO PURCHASE NEW CAMERAS, have stated that the current state is not an issue.  Yet you do not recognize that as it does not agree with your OPINION.  Not your facts, which have not been documented."

I don't care about proprietary data, as long as it doesn't effect me...if it does, I care...you say it won't either way, so OK.

From Jeff's post, as expected, Adobe has been working with Canon and Nikon....great, as expected.  If something works out, great...I'll be happy.  If something doesn't...well, it is not so bad where we are right now.

If the Adobe standard does not get in the way of innovation...great.  However, anyone with any sense of history is aware of instances where standards, either industry or within companies, cause major problems to change when change was needed.

If Adobe gets DNG as a standard, it will not be from user pressure...so stop badgering us.  I am not going to stop buying new cameras because they do not support DNG....or buy more because they do.

Logged

John
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5530


WWW
« Reply #69 on: April 16, 2013, 03:15:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know about Nikon, but Canon's software is a give away.  Other than that departments job security, I don't see how more people NOT using DPP is such a big issue.  Perhaps it's just that however, the people working in those sections don't want to have nothing to do....and become irrelavent. Smiley

The typical employer/employee relationship in Japan is considerably different than in the US. While recent economic realities have hurt the Japanese economy to the extent this is changing, in effect, an employee in Japan used to expect employment for life. Once the employee joined a company, they expected to keep their jobs and move up the ranks in seniority. What that means is that department cutting and reorgs don't happen much in Japan (although it's happening more). Compare that to the US where employees hop about on a more regular basis.

So, yes, even though Canon doesn't sell DPP, that departments takes job security very, very seriously.

I actually met one of the head programers for Canon in Japan at about the time that Canon was developing DPP. He came walking in the meeting with a Mac laptop–which he was really proud of. Seems that Canon refused to provide anything other than Windows computers to their programers. He was really proud of the fact that he had learned how to code on Mac–which they don't teach in school there (or didn't then). So, he had to take night classes partially organized by Apple Japan to learn how to code and compile for Mac.

He was very envious of Thomas Knoll and really lookup to him for doing Camera Raw (this was said in private) publicly, he said that it was obvious that Adobe software couldn't process Canon raw files as well as Canon software could. That was the party/company line. When DPP first came out, it was a huge jump over the previous software–particularly on the Mac.

Nikon has had their fair share of problems developing software as well. Nikon had to join a cooperative relationship with NIK software to make major upgrades to Nikon Capture. There are some stories to tell about that, particularly since NIK is now owned by Google. Talk about strange bedfellows!

If you want some additional info about DNG and some of the new things in the DNG spec (and the basis of LR5 Smart Previews) check out DNG File Format & DNG Converter in this DPP article. In particular the link to digital object sustainability factors.

The bottom line is that undocumented, proprietary raw file formats is bad for photography and bad for society when it comes to the long term conservation and preservation of digital images. Canon and Nikon's attitudes are reckless and selfish.
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #70 on: April 16, 2013, 03:18:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Why is it you think you are the only one around here that understands the potential difficulty in implementing something new?  I never said programming was the hard part, I never said it was hard at all.  What I'm saying is YOU don't know enough to just dismiss the concept out of hand.  You have no idea what these guys have already developed and not used, nor do I... what I said was I wouldn't be surprised.

***As you should have read in Jeff's statement above... at one point Canon was going to do JUST what I said (offer DNG as an alternative), but got "mad" for some reason and didn't.  You going to tell me they don't have the technology sitting around and basically ready?  Niether of us KNOW, but I believe it to be likely..at least in Canon's case.

Sorry, I was responding to your statement, "It could add to the cost, or it could not.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they don't have it laying on a shelf somewhere right now (figuratively)"

I was pointing out that lying on the shelf nd actually implementing are two different things, which was not implied in your statement.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #71 on: April 16, 2013, 03:26:24 PM »
ReplyReply

The typical employer/employee relationship in Japan is considerably different than in the US. While recent economic realities have hurt the Japanese economy to the extent this is changing, in effect, an employee in Japan used to expect employment for life. Once the employee joined a company, they expected to keep their jobs and move up the ranks in seniority. What that means is that department cutting and reorgs don't happen much in Japan (although it's happening more). Compare that to the US where employees hop about on a more regular basis.

So, yes, even though Canon doesn't sell DPP, that departments takes job security very, very seriously.

I actually met one of the head programers for Canon in Japan at about the time that Canon was developing DPP. He came walking in the meeting with a Mac laptop–which he was really proud of. Seems that Canon refused to provide anything other than Windows computers to their programers. He was really proud of the fact that he had learned how to code on Mac–which they don't teach in school there (or didn't then). So, he had to take night classes partially organized by Apple Japan to learn how to code and compile for Mac.

He was very envious of Thomas Knoll and really lookup to him for doing Camera Raw (this was said in private) publicly, he said that it was obvious that Adobe software couldn't process Canon raw files as well as Canon software could. That was the party/company line. When DPP first came out, it was a huge jump over the previous software–particularly on the Mac.

Nikon has had their fair share of problems developing software as well. Nikon had to join a cooperative relationship with NIK software to make major upgrades to Nikon Capture. There are some stories to tell about that, particularly since NIK is now owned by Google. Talk about strange bedfellows!

If you want some additional info about DNG and some of the new things in the DNG spec (and the basis of LR5 Smart Previews) check out DNG File Format & DNG Converter in this DPP article. In particular the link to digital object sustainability factors.

The bottom line is that undocumented, proprietary raw file formats is bad for photography and bad for society when it comes to the long term conservation and preservation of digital images. Canon and Nikon's attitudes are reckless and selfish.

Jeff...nice story...but...whether you a correct or not...it does not support the last paragraph.

Logged

John
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #72 on: April 16, 2013, 03:30:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, I was responding to your statement, "It could add to the cost, or it could not.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if they don't have it laying on a shelf somewhere right now (figuratively)"

I was pointing out that lying on the shelf nd actually implementing are two different things, which was not implied in your statement.

Agreed, they are two different things.. but certainly not impossible.  I would think, maybe not, they had an implementation plan developed at the time.  It's still going to create some short-term cost, but that could very well be offset with the stuff you no longer have to do (in the future) and be more cost-effective long term.  

In any event, I have no dog in this race really.  I'm still using the proprietary RAW format. Smiley  I do think the day has to come where everyone is speaking the same language however, and I find the discussion interesting. Smiley
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5530


WWW
« Reply #73 on: April 16, 2013, 03:33:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff...nice story...but...whether you a correct or not...it does not support the last paragraph.

Read the article and the 7 sustainability factors for digital objects ; Disclosure, Adoption, Transparency, Self-documentation and External dependencies are 6 factors where undocumented, propriety raw file formats put digital images at greater risk in conservation and preservation. Of the 7, only Impact of patents hasn't impacted raw file formats–yet.

Read that and come back and tell me with a straight face that the current undocumented and proprietary raw file formats is good for photography and society...and that Nikon and Canon's attitudes are NOT reckless and selfish
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #74 on: April 16, 2013, 03:35:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I said, "I, and others, WHO PURCHASE NEW CAMERAS, have stated that the current state is not an issue.  Yet you do not recognize that as it does not agree with your OPINION.  Not your facts, which have not been documented."

So besides speaking for others, you seem to disagree with me that other's all over the web are expressing this as a problem. I guess I really DO need to supply you links to forums? Considering you can't or will not provide equally accessible info, I wonder if this is worth my effort...

You are sure that few if any users outside your radar who purchase a new camera but can't process their raws in their preferred software, isn't a problem for them?
And they are not voicing this opinion? I must be misunderstanding all these posts?

Quote
I don't care about proprietary data, as long as it doesn't effect me...if it does, I care...you say it won't either way, so OK.

It appears you don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect you (yet you are very good at speaking for others).

Quote
From Jeff's post, as expected, Adobe has been working with Canon and Nikon....great, as expected.  If something works out, great...I'll be happy.  If something doesn't...well, it is not so bad where we are right now.

Frankly, that Adobe and Nikon or Canon don't get along doesn't concern me a lick. They all should be concerned with their customers and forget this stilly infighting. Kind of like if you spent as much time arguing why the current conditions are good for everyone, maybe I'd understand why I'm tilting at windmills!

If I spend energy asking for a raw format, I might get it. If you spend the same energy dismissing this need, it gets you (and others) what? If this isn't a problem that affects you, walk away. Canon and Nikon don't need additional mouth pieces to express an opinion about a condition that doesn't affect them in order to do nothing to fix a problem that does affect others. Is there some moral incentive not to have an open raw format in your mind? Kind of like gay marriage in my mind: if you don't like or believe in it, don't marry someone who's gay. Otherwise, step out of the way and let the rest of us get some work done in aiding this industry.

Maybe you can tell us why the current system is preferable to an open raw format that is designed to remove this problem of incompatible 3rd party software support.  
Logged

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

Posts: 750


« Reply #75 on: April 16, 2013, 04:18:02 PM »
ReplyReply

So besides speaking for others, you seem to disagree with me that other's all over the web are expressing this as a problem. I guess I really DO need to supply you links to forums? Considering you can't or will not provide equally accessible info, I wonder if this is worth my effort...

You are sure that few if any users outside your radar who purchase a new camera but can't process their raws in their preferred software, isn't a problem for them?
And they are not voicing this opinion? I must be misunderstanding all these posts?

It appears you don't care about anything that doesn't directly affect you (yet you are very good at speaking for others).

Frankly, that Adobe and Nikon or Canon don't get along doesn't concern me a lick. They all should be concerned with their customers and forget this stilly infighting. Kind of like if you spent as much time arguing why the current conditions are good for everyone, maybe I'd understand why I'm tilting at windmills!

If I spend energy asking for a raw format, I might get it. If you spend the same energy dismissing this need, it gets you (and others) what? If this isn't a problem that affects you, walk away. Canon and Nikon don't need additional mouth pieces to express an opinion about a condition that doesn't affect them in order to do nothing to fix a problem that does affect others. Is there some moral incentive not to have an open raw format in your mind? Kind of like gay marriage in my mind: if you don't like or believe in it, don't marry someone who's gay. Otherwise, step out of the way and let the rest of us get some work done in aiding this industry.

Maybe you can tell us why the current system is preferable to an open raw format that is designed to remove this problem of incompatible 3rd party software support.  

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

How many times in one thread do I need to state it is my OPINION.  Yours is only opinion also.

We all know that people who are upset for any reason post the problems.  Those who do not have a problem usually don't....except for the ones here who are trying to refute your opinion and you do not want to hear from. 

You have an interesting methodology...count those who prove your point...don't count those who don't agree with you.

I did not say one way was better than the other...nor voice any "moral incentive".  I just said I could be happy either way....and that I was not disturbed with the current status.

As I said in my earlier post....stop beating us (those who do not agree with you) up.  We are not going to facilitate any change.
Logged

John
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #76 on: April 16, 2013, 04:29:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Read the article and the 7 sustainability factors for digital objects ; Disclosure, Adoption, Transparency, Self-documentation and External dependencies are 6 factors where undocumented, propriety raw file formats put digital images at greater risk in conservation and preservation. Of the 7, only Impact of patents hasn't impacted raw file formats–yet.

Read that and come back and tell me with a straight face that the current undocumented and proprietary raw file formats is good for photography and society...and that Nikon and Canon's attitudes are NOT reckless and selfish


Jeff....let's just be pragmatic.  If, in the future, Adobe, DCRAW, Capture One, and others...ALL, no longer support the current RAW implementation...AND, the camera manufacturer no longer support it, we could have a problem.

Likely...I don't know.  Probably as likely as DNG not being supported in the future.  None of us really know.

That does not mean that the industry should not be concerned about it. From your statements, the next shoe to drop has to be the ISO standard.  That (in my opinion, this is for Andrew) is what I expect will be needed before you have any chance to get all your ducks in line.

However, you are not going to solve this by arm waving and beating up forum posters.
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9222



WWW
« Reply #77 on: April 16, 2013, 04:53:47 PM »
ReplyReply

You have an interesting methodology...count those who prove your point...don't count those who don't agree with you.

You haven’t provided anything here to prove or disprove. You're not very good at even answering questions in an attempt to understand your points.

Quote
I did not say one way was better than the other...nor voice any "moral incentive".  I just said I could be happy either way....and that I was not disturbed with the current status.

Well that's progress for you (or lack thereof).

Quote
As I said in my earlier post....stop beating us (those who do not agree with you) up.  We are not going to facilitate any change.

Not and apparently unable to. As I've already said, I'm trying to understand your POV and those who don't give a crap about an open format, I really am. That you're doing such a piss poor job is of course my fault.
Logged

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

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #78 on: April 16, 2013, 04:57:45 PM »
ReplyReply

While image format changes are rare, locations of essential metadata do often change.  For example, the location of the white balance parameters set by the camera (so if you're shooting auto WB in the camera this camera-chosen WB setting is correctly preserved when initially loading the image in the raw converter) changes on some cameras from model to model.  There are other essential metadata like focus distance (for doing lens corrections) which can also change from model to model, within a given vendor's product line.  

While these issues are relatively minor individually, they add up when you consider the large number of raw-capable cameras on the market (we add about 100 a year).  Frankly that's a lot of time chasing silly issues which have no benefit on photographic workflow or image quality, instead of spending that time developing new features and implementing requested changes & improvements.

Eric,

OK, fair points, but please go out and buy a Sigma DPx Merrill. Nice little camera. Then at least we'd know we'll get Merrill support in LR 5.1
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5530


WWW
« Reply #79 on: April 16, 2013, 05:14:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff....let's just be pragmatic.  If, in the future, Adobe, DCRAW, Capture One, and others...ALL, no longer support the current RAW implementation...AND, the camera manufacturer no longer support it, we could have a problem.

We already have this problem with Photo CD files...try to use the current version of Photoshop to open digital images scanned to Photo CDs. You can't...why? Kodak quite updating the Photo CD API. So, photographers who scanned digital images to Photo CD can no longer open them. Yes, they have the original film (if they kept it).

Want another example? The Kodak DCS cameras...Kodak suspended updating the software to open the original raw files. So, you say this isn't a problem because Camera Raw still supports them (I'm not sure DCRAW and I'm pretty sure C1 doesn't). And this is from cameras sold within the last 15 years. Look forward 50, 100 years from now. Will all raw captures made since the beginning of digital photography be accessible in the future? That's what is at risk...that's what the Library of Congress (as well as the National Archives in London) are concerned about. Original photo negs from the 1800's, if they've been properly stored using established conservation and preservation practices can still be accessed and printed. There are no established conservation and preservation practices for undocumented, proprietary raw file formats.

Quote
That does not mean that the industry should not be concerned about it. From your statements, the next shoe to drop has to be the ISO standard.  That (in my opinion, this is for Andrew) is what I expect will be needed before you have any chance to get all your ducks in line.

However, you are not going to solve this by arm waving and beating up forum posters.

Agreed...it's all about education...educating photographers that the way things are now sucks. Educating the camera makers that the way things are now sucks. The biggest problem (and the one that purely pisses me off) are photographers who advocate for the camera makers to keep their undocumented, proprietary raw file formats. That position is one of ignorance of the issues. I can understand debating technical issues, but how can photographers honestly think the way Nikon and Canon are behaving is "a good thing" for the industry?

The biggest problem that I see are photographers willing to let Nikon and Canon off the hook for the mess they've help create. Personally, I refuse to give them a pass...
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad