Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom 5 beta (news MIA)  (Read 23963 times)
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2013, 01:37:17 PM »
ReplyReply

As the core issue appears to be every new camera having a new proprietary raw format

it is a lie and you lie knowingly... changes in formats are very rare.

Logged
Vladimirovich
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1320


« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2013, 01:39:41 PM »
ReplyReply

if Adobe persist in updating LR every year giving users a choice of update or pain in the neck DNG conversion I've got a feeling they may start losing customers.

only if there is a better alternative (raw converter + DAM + ecosystem of tutorials/training, etc + pricing) and there are not so many (if any at all)...
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 736


« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2013, 01:41:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Why should they? Until there's enough customer pressure to provide an open raw file, technically easy to do for them, they have no motive.

As long as photographers and people who buy such products question DNG, or more appropriately, question the silliness of what the camera manufacturers are doing and make a stink, nothing will change. If people would put as much effort in slamming proprietary raws as they do DNG (for whatever reason), change may come about. I just can't understand the logic behind Adobe being at fault here. They didn't create the proprietary raws but they do have to hack em like everyone else to access the data that belongs to us.

Please, Andrew......

I did not "slam" DNG.  I only said I understand the issues.  I also said that Adobe provided an "out" for those who needed new camera support and did not want to upgrade.

You can make good arguments presenting Adobe's case.  However, the continual "arm twisting" to support DNG, should be expected to garner voices from the other side, who, in the present environment, do not see a problem....at least it does no directly effect them.

If ll the camera manufacturers supported DNG, would Adobe significantly reduce their prices due to reduced DE?  What do the camera manufacturers get out of the expence to convert....and be confined by Adobe's standard....or, if it becomes a formal industry standard, those constraints to inititive and invention?
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9110



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 15, 2013, 01:42:48 PM »
ReplyReply

it is a lie and you lie knowingly... changes in formats are very rare.

Then if there is such a small change, how come it's either not documented and every raw converter has to update to this access new format? IOW, why doesn't this data behave exactly like a JPEG or the last camera's raw file release?
Logged

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

Posts: 9110



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 15, 2013, 01:44:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Please, Andrew......
I did not "slam" DNG.  

I was speaking towards a general group all over the web that does, not specifically you.

Quote
However, the continual "arm twisting" to support DNG, should be expected to garner voices from the other side, who, in the present environment, do not see a problem....at least it does no directly effect them.

The latest camera technology I have is a 5DMII so it's NO problem for me. But I recognize it's a problem for many others and it's a problem that doesn't have to exist one bit. 
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 01:45:55 PM by digitaldog » Logged

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

Posts: 1320


« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2013, 01:44:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Canon for one supply free software with every camera, I don't know the current position with Nikon.
the real problem is not DNG - they do not need DNG really, nobody needs, they just can provide a description of what their writing in their raw files, that's it... and that way their hands will not be tied by the necessity ask for somebody's permission to change anything... and in a current situation they can use DNG and still write undocumented information there in a special field that Adobe provides for that specifically purpose - so you have an open format w/ proprietary content inside... how good is that ? a little better than "proprietary" (which really is not - source code of dcraw, Adobe DNG SDK, etc available for developers) format w/ the same proprietary content inside
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 736


« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2013, 01:47:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Then if there is such a small change, how come it's either not documented and every raw converter has to update to this access new format? IOW, why doesn't this data behave exactly like a JPEG or the last camera's raw file release?

So they can add new innovative function without having to spend months/years before a standards committee.
Logged

John
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9110



WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2013, 01:50:45 PM »
ReplyReply

so you have an open format w/ proprietary content inside... how good is that ?

IF I just purchased a new camera and wanted to render the data in my copy of Lightroom or Raw Developer etc, VERY good. Proprietary data is, well proprietary and only the people who write it need to use it and understand it. Those that don't understand it can't and will not. I don't need some proprietary Nikon or Canon data only their processor can use. But I'd like to have access to the raw data the day the camera ships for use in ACR or LR. If that means an open raw format (or DNG) with proprietary tags, I'm just fine with that.

In fact, IF these proprietary kinds of data are so darn useful, such a killer technology, then let us see what a DNG or open raw can look like in the manufacturers converter AND in a 3rd party which can't access this wonderful data. Then we can decide if that's useful or not.  
Logged

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

Posts: 9110



WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2013, 01:54:00 PM »
ReplyReply

So they can add new innovative function without having to spend months/years before a standards committee.

Such as?

If indeed this data is so proprietary, then just what can anyone expect the manufacturer do with it? Nothing. Hide it, show it, doesn't really matter.

+23 Vibrance in the ACR engine means nothing outside the ACR engine.

Nothing stops them from embedding this wonderful proprietary metadata in DNG today if they want. The same is true for ICC profiles. All kinds of places to store such data but an open format that is accessible from day one. How is this a negative impact on the photographer?
Logged

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

Posts: 1320


« Reply #29 on: April 15, 2013, 01:54:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Then if there is such a small change

you mix format w/ content... and that Adobe's supply its own camera profiles and that Adobe still needs to do the testing... that is where the effort spent (besides that every new LR/ACR release brings bugs fixing, new functionality).

Logged
sniper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 583


« Reply #30 on: April 15, 2013, 01:55:32 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't want to use that software. EVERY 3rd party product that can handle the raw data falls into the same trap as Adobe, yet Adobe has provided a free way to over come this. Yet they (and DNG) are the bad guys.

Every new camera that ships also spits out a JPEG which every copy of Photoshop I've ever owned (going back to 1.0.7) can open. As well as many other products. Yet I'm penalized by Canon (and Nikon) if I buy their new camera and want to shoot raw and use anyone else software. Why?  Why is Adobe the bad company in this scenario?
I never claimed Adobe  were the bad guys, I was simply pointing out that some makers do supply free software.  
And to follow your further point why should Mr canon/Nikon use DNG? whats in it for them, yes it'll save Adobe a ton of money no doubt but I suspect thats not high on Canon/Nikons agenda, like Adobe their in it to make money not friends.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9110



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2013, 01:59:10 PM »
ReplyReply

you mix format w/ content... and that Adobe's supply its own camera profiles and that Adobe still needs to do the testing... that is where the effort spent (besides that every new LR/ACR release brings bugs fixing, new functionality).

Format or content, the results are the same: a new camera ships, the data you have access to is either fully accessible (JPEG) or it's not. All I want is for the 5DMIV file to be accessible like the 5DMIII data is as well as the JPEG. Is this somehow technically impossible? Don't lie!

Adobe's other technologies, lens, color etc are not a factor here. And yes, of course every new build requires testing for bugs and new functionality. Again, has zero to do with the wait many photographers have to go through to use the software of their choice with their data files. Please explain how this is good for the end user and why it must be so. Why can't Nikon or Canon provide a raw file that acts just like the JPEG in terms of being understood by a piece of software? And why is Adobe the problem and not Capture 1 or Raw Developer or any of the 3rd party raw converter manufacturers? Because Adobe provides a free way to access data that should be accessible in the first place?
Logged

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

Posts: 9110



WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2013, 02:01:33 PM »
ReplyReply

And to follow your further point why should Mr canon/Nikon use DNG? whats in it for them, yes it'll save Adobe a ton of money no doubt but I suspect thats not high on Canon/Nikons agenda, like Adobe their in it to make money not friends.

Because they should be thinking less about Adobe and more about their customers! They should be happy that I purchased Canon bodies and lens. They shouldn't care what software I decide to process my raws. They don't seem to care how I handle the JPEGs. Why as a raw shooter is my data being handled this way? Is this a technological problem or a political one? Seems pretty clear which.
Logged

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

Posts: 5479


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 15, 2013, 02:28:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Back OT...

You all might want to check out the Lightroom Journal in a short while...
Logged
jrsforums
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 736


« Reply #34 on: April 15, 2013, 02:33:03 PM »
ReplyReply

And why is Adobe the problem and not Capture 1 or Raw Developer or any of the 3rd party raw converter manufacturers? Because Adobe provides a free way to access data that should be accessible in the first place?

Adobe is not the problem.  You (and others like you) acting as Adobe's "agents" continually shove this in our face.  I do not see any other raw converter manufacturers making the significant amount of noise about this.

This forum is not the place to make this case.  It has failed, so far, over the years and will probably continue to fail until a cogent, financial case can be made to convince the manufacturers that it is in their best interests to change.

From a user perspective, it is, essentially, a non-issue.  When a new camera comes out, we are going to have to wait for testing to be done, whether it is RAW or DNG.  No software provider I ever dealt with is going to make a statement of support without such testing.  BTW...all DNG and support for all cameras will change Adobe's business case on releases and probably the cost of the upgrades.

Logged

John
RikkFlohr
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


« Reply #35 on: April 15, 2013, 02:36:15 PM »
ReplyReply

The Beta is Live http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom5/
Logged

Rikk Flohr
Sagas in Light
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9110



WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 15, 2013, 02:36:53 PM »
ReplyReply

From a user perspective, it is, essentially, a non-issue.  

Thanks for speaking for ALL users (even those that clog the web forums asking "why can't I access my new raw camera files").

It's a non issue for YOU. It's really a non issue for me today. But I do plan to buy a new camera someday, then get hosed waiting for my data to be accessible in the software I prefer to use. And the reason's this is good for me and other is? Oh, as yet, no one has told us why expect it somehow is a benefit in creating proprietary data that today could be inserted into a format like DNG.
Logged

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

Posts: 2108


« Reply #37 on: April 15, 2013, 02:56:47 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.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9110



WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 15, 2013, 03:00:41 PM »
ReplyReply

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.

Amen, the bottom line! It's a waste of time that benefits no one (other than maybe the camera manufacturers). The cost comes out of the consumer's pocket in either case and for no reason. How or why consumers defend such practices and worse, blame a big company for trying to fix the issue is something I can't understand but I try. I really do.
Logged

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

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 15, 2013, 03:06:22 PM »
ReplyReply

LAB color readout is available.  Good stuff.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad