Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.
Photoshop CS:
Is a RAW plugin now available for the Canon 350d?
Thanks
Will wrote:
Photoshop CS:
Is a RAW plugin now available for the Canon 350d?
Thanks
No. Only for Photoshop CS2.
On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:51:02 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:
Will wrote:
Photoshop CS:
Is a RAW plugin now available for the Canon 350d?
Thanks
No. Only for Photoshop CS2.
And it’s about time they included it in the CS RAW.
Hecate wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:51:02 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:
Will wrote:
Photoshop CS:
Is a RAW plugin now available for the Canon 350d?
Thanks
No. Only for Photoshop CS2.
And it’s about time they included it in the CS RAW.
Don’t hold your breath. Adobe has a very poor reputation when it concerns supporting older versions.
Photoshop CS:
Is a RAW plugin now available for the Canon 350d?
Will wrote:
Photoshop CS:
Is a RAW plugin now available for the Canon 350d?
Download the free DNG Converter, version 3.1. Convert your 350D Raw files to DNG.
CS, with ACR 2.3 or 2.4, should then accept the DNGs. This should continue to work for future cameras too, until new camera technology requires a new version of DNG that ACR 2.3 or 2.4 can’t handle.
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html
On 17 May 2005 04:41:47 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
Download the free DNG Converter, version 3.1. Convert your 350D Raw files to DNG.
CS, with ACR 2.3 or 2.4, should then accept the DNGs. This should continue to work for future cameras too, until new camera technology requires a new version of DNG that ACR 2.3 or 2.4 can’t handle.
Having played with it for a while now, use the Digital Photo Pro software that comes with the camera. Unlike most software made by hardware manufacturers this is actually pretty good (and the same software that comes with the 1Ds II).
Hecate wrote:
On 17 May 2005 04:41:47 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
Download the free DNG Converter, version 3.1. Convert your 350D Raw files to DNG.
CS, with ACR 2.3 or 2.4, should then accept the DNGs. This should continue to work for future cameras too, until new camera technology requires a new version of DNG that ACR 2.3 or 2.4 can’t handle.
[snip]
Having played with it for a while now, use the Digital Photo Pro software that comes with the camera. Unlike most software made by hardware manufacturers this is actually pretty good (and the same software that comes with the 1Ds II).
How does the image quality compare with the 350D > DNG > ACR 2.4 route?
How does the workflow compare with direct access to the DNGs from CS?
(Actually, that latter question isn’t very important. Where Raw workflow efficiency is important, I would expect someone to benefit from CS2 anyway, because CS’s Raw workflow can be a bit clunky).
On 18 May 2005 06:58:07 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:Raw
Hecate wrote:
On 17 May 2005 04:41:47 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
Download the free DNG Converter, version 3.1. Convert your 350D
technologyfiles to DNG.
CS, with ACR 2.3 or 2.4, should then accept the DNGs. This should continue to work for future cameras too, until new camera
route?requires a new version of DNG that ACR 2.3 or 2.4 can’t handle.
[snip]
Having played with it for a while now, use the Digital Photo Pro software that comes with the camera. Unlike most software made by hardware manufacturers this is actually pretty good (and the same software that comes with the 1Ds II).
How does the image quality compare with the 350D > DNG > ACR 2.4
A helluva lot better given that ACR 2.4 doesn’t support the 350D 😉
Hecate wrote:
On 18 May 2005 06:58:07 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:Raw
Hecate wrote:
On 17 May 2005 04:41:47 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
Download the free DNG Converter, version 3.1. Convert your 350D
technologyfiles to DNG.
CS, with ACR 2.3 or 2.4, should then accept the DNGs. This should continue to work for future cameras too, until new camera
route?requires a new version of DNG that ACR 2.3 or 2.4 can’t handle.
[snip]
Having played with it for a while now, use the Digital Photo Pro software that comes with the camera. Unlike most software made by hardware manufacturers this is actually pretty good (and the same software that comes with the 1Ds II).
How does the image quality compare with the 350D > DNG > ACR 2.4
A helluva lot better given that ACR 2.4 doesn’t support the 350D 😉
[snip]
I asked about "the 350D > DNG > ACR 2.4 route", which enables ACR 2.4 to support the 350D.
I wondered whether the OP would be better off continuing with ACR 2.4, or using DPP. But neither of us know, and it would be a subjective judgement anyway.
On 19 May 2005 01:35:33 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
I asked about "the 350D > DNG > ACR 2.4 route", which enables ACR
to support the 350D.
As I don’t trust DNG, I wouldn’t use that route and wouldn’t advise anyone else to either. YMMV.
I wondered whether the OP would be better off continuing with ACR
ACRor using DPP. But neither of us know, and it would be a subjective judgement anyway.
Personally, I think using the Canon software is the best way to go at least/or until the OP upgrades to CS2. Even then, having used both
(different camera) and the Canon software, I’d prefer the Canon software probably (unless ACR has improved a helluva lot).
Please be specific:
"partially published": what is missing? You have to read TIFF 6.0 and TIFF/EP as well, but that is OK. It is right that it re-uses those where relevant. But the DNG specification is published, and about 25 non-Adobe products have been implemented to support it! What did they miss?
"free for now": given Adobe’s published worldwide licence to use it, how could they ever charge for it? What court in the world would take them seriously? And since DNG is worth more to Adobe while free than they ever get for it by charging for it, why would they ever want to charge?
"averagely engineered": what is wrong with the engineering? I am a qualified engineer with lots of experience of writing and reading such specifications, and I think it is well-engineered.
"a specification that you have to take on trust": what is there to take on trust? When it says "DNGPrivateData has a Tag = 50740", then it has that value! Trust has nothing to do with it.
Are we reading the same thing? I am reading the 50-page PDF file dng_spec.pdf:
Digital Negative (DNG) Specification
Version 1.1.0.0
February 2005
Hecate wrote:
On 23 May 2005 09:02:15 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:
Adobe surely won’t drop it for a decade or two, if then! They actually have 2 significant themes for DNG:Adobe will support it until such times as they see whether enough people have bet their images on it by saving in DNG. If they do, then suddenly converting software will appear which uses hidden parts of the specification that no-one has seen.
What are you talking about? Lots of us have read it end to end! Where can those "hidden parts" be? So can you. It is a freely available specification that you don’t have to register for:
Adobe aren’t trying to make money directly from DNG! They make their money from selling Photoshop, etc. DNG will accelerate the growth of Raw shooting worldwide, hence more sales of Photoshop, etc.
Adobe could probably now no more stop supporting DNG than they could stop supporting TIFF 6.0 and PSD combined. It would be withdrawing support for millions of photographs of many thousands of photographers, many of them professionals, worldwide. Adobe would never recover from that loss of credibility. What would they do: announce "Photoshop CS4 will not support DNG"? And what effect would that have?Firstly, can you open a fully layered CS2 file in PS 5?
And since there about 25 non-Adobe products that support DNG, there are plenty of people waiting to pick up DNG-users! Several of those read DNG and output TIFF 6.0. Doesn’t that make DNG safe?
Clyde wrote:
[snip]
This is not a direct response, but you may be interested.
The problems with the proliferation of unpublished Raw formats are now being addressed more vigorously. The lobby group OpenRAW, and Luminous Landscape, have jointly published "The Raw Flaw", to document the problem.
They are asking Raw-shooters to send a pro-forma letter/email to their camera manufacturers (and any other decision-makers) on the topic. The OpenRAW page contains lots of relevant addresses.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/raw-flaw.shtml
http://www.openraw.org/actnow/
They say: "There really is only one solution – the adoption by the camera industry of…
– Public documentation of RAW formats; past, present and future
– Adoption of a universal RAW format"
This topic is not about to go quiet!
On 23 May 2005 16:18:34 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
[snip]What are you talking about? Lots of us have read it end to end! Where can those "hidden parts" be? So can you. It is a freely available specification that you don’t have to register for:
If they weren’t hidden you would be able to see them You can’t see them because Adobe doesn’t release them.
On 23 May 2005 16:18:34 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
Adobe aren’t trying to make money directly from DNG! They make their money from selling Photoshop, etc. DNG will accelerate the growth of Raw shooting worldwide, hence more sales of Photoshop, etc.
Why does Adobe exist? Because it makes money. What are it’s aims? To make more money. See what I’ve said above and in my other replies.
Adobe have published as much as they want to publish. I don’t assume for a moment that they have published the specs for *all the code they have developed*.[snip]
Again, you assume that Adobe has released the whole spec rather than just a simplified version which will do the job for now.
Quick question: How often do you use the last "standard" Adobe brought out? I.e. SVG.
Hecate wrote:
[snip]
Adobe have published as much as they want to publish. I don’t assume for a moment that they have published the specs for *all the code they have developed*.[snip]
Again, you assume that Adobe has released the whole spec rather than just a simplified version which will do the job for now.
[snip]
That confuses "specification" with "code".
Specification means: "A detailed, exact statement of particulars, especially a statement prescribing materials, dimensions, and quality of work for something to be built, installed, or manufactured".
Adobe’s involvement with DNG is: It owns the trademark. It is the only company that can bring out new versions of DNG. And it too has products that can read and/or write DNG-conformant files.
Hecate wrote:
On 23 May 2005 16:18:34 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
[snip]What are you talking about? Lots of us have read it end to end! Where can those "hidden parts" be? So can you. It is a freely available specification that you don’t have to register for:
If they weren’t hidden you would be able to see them You can’t see them because Adobe doesn’t release them.
Chuckle! Surreal.
"hidden parts of the specification that no-one has seen"… "If they weren’t hidden you would be able to see them. You can’t see them because Adobe doesn’t release them."
Specification means: "A detailed, exact statement of particulars, especially a statement prescribing materials, dimensions, and quality of work for something to be built, installed, or manufactured.
There is something strangely Zen-like about the concept of a detailed exact statement that has bits that haven’t been stated. Either a contradiction in terms, or a logical fallacy, or both.
Hecate wrote:<snip long multinational promotion leaflet>
On 23 May 2005 16:18:34 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
Adobe aren’t trying to make money directly from DNG! They make their money from selling Photoshop, etc. DNG will accelerate the growth of Raw shooting worldwide, hence more sales of Photoshop, etc.
Why does Adobe exist? Because it makes money. What are it’s aims? To make more money. See what I’ve said above and in my other replies.
[snip]
I’ll illustrate Adobe’s business objectives for DNG with another example, by other companies, with a published business case.
On the same day that Adobe launched DNG, the PASS Group, including Konica-Minolta, Fujifilm, and Kodak, launched PASS (Picture Archiving and Sharing Standard). PASS is about developing specifications for a "Digital Album" on physical media. (DNG and PASS do not overlap or conflict).
Their white paper, (available from the Konica-Minolta and Fujifilm websites), shows why companies make specifications and standards like this:
Perhaps they exaggerate the problems, and hence the benefits of PASS. But the essence is there. Specifications of this sort exist to create or grow industries and marketplaces. Then the participants make their money selling products and services into that larger and growing marketplace. This is why so many companies put resources into the development of specifications and standards that they will never sell.
Adobe want accelerated growth of Raw shooting worldwide. They have products to sell for lots of money into that marketplace. Lots of the statements by the PASS Group also apply to Raw shooting. DNG is one of Adobe’s methods to help that growth. For DNG to help that growth, it needs large-scale take-up. And that needs free availability, no restrictions, no costs, etc. Hard-nosed business sense says that Adobe will not interfere with DNG’s role by trying to make revenue from the DNG specification itself. Adobe, of all companies, know the role of specifications in growing marketplaces.
Adobe’s involvement with DNG is: It owns the trademark. It is the only company that can bring out new versions of DNG. And it too has products that can read and/or write DNG-conformant files.
Yes. And if it changes the specification, doesn’t publish the changed specification and is the only company that can produce a DNG reader/writer?
Adobe couldn’t care less about accelerated RAW growth except insofar as they can make money from it. That I will agree. After that, nothing is sacrosanct and no "standards" owned by a company are in any way "safe". So long as they can make money from it, they will continue with it. If they can write proprietary data into the "standard" which only they can make money from they will. The moment a better revenue stream suggests itself you’ll find yourself with yet another dead format.
Hecate wrote:[snip]
Yes. And if it changes the specification, doesn’t publish the changed specification and is the only company that can produce a DNG reader/writer?
Then Adobe would be the only company that can produce a reader/writer for this NEW version of DNG. If you have converted your propriety CR2 files to the OLD, published standard that everybody can read/write, what would you care? You can simply stop converting to DNG from that moment on, or you can keep using a converter that converts to the older version.
This is like saying "what if the JPEG group would change the JPEG specification and this new ‘JPEG 2005’ specification would not be published?". Well, then you simply wouldn’t use JPEG 2005, would you?
On 25 May 2005 03:59:34 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
[snip]There is something strangely Zen-like about the concept of a detailed exact statement that has bits that haven’t been stated. Either a contradiction in terms, or a logical fallacy, or both.
Not at all. Take for example an OS.
Adobe couldn’t care less about accelerated RAW growth except insofar as they can make money from it. That I will agree. After that, nothing is sacrosanct and no "standards" owned by a company are in any way "safe". So long as they can make money from it, they will continue with it. If they can write proprietary data into the "standard" which only they can make money from they will. The moment a better revenue stream suggests itself you’ll find yourself with yet another dead format.
Hecate wrote:And if the camera manufacturers decide to use the new version? After all it’s enhanced for your benefit, and it’ll only cost you more money won’t it? Really, we’re doing it for your benefit they will say as usual.
Adobe’s involvement with DNG is: It owns the trademark. It is the only company that can bring out new versions of DNG. And it too has products that can read and/or write DNG-conformant files.
Yes. And if it changes the specification, doesn’t publish the changed specification and is the only company that can produce a DNG reader/writer?
Then Adobe would be the only company that can produce a reader/writer for this NEW version of DNG. If you have converted your propriety CR2 files to the OLD, published standard that everybody can read/write, what would you care? You can simply stop converting to DNG from that moment on, or you can keep using a converter that converts to the older version.
Hecate wrote:The suppose you change the specification so that it requires a specific piece of software to read the results of that specification. .. And suppose that you cross license that to the camera manufacturers so their cameras and your software (or software produced by them) are the only way to read that format if you use the required specification?
On 25 May 2005 03:59:34 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
[snip]There is something strangely Zen-like about the concept of a detailed exact statement that has bits that haven’t been stated. Either a contradiction in terms, or a logical fallacy, or both.
Not at all. Take for example an OS.
No! Let’s *not* take an OS. We are talking about a specification for a file format, *not* an interface specification for a piece of code. The concepts are totally different. It is important not to think about DNG as code, or even as a specification of code, because it simply isn’t.
Let’s invent DNF, a specification for a "Digital Name Format". Something like: "the file consists solely of an ASCII character string containing the name". (Pretty simple!)
Now suppose I publish that specification for DNF on my website, and suddenly everyone decides to use DNF. Some read it. Some write it. Some do both.
Hecate wrote:
Adobe couldn’t care less about accelerated RAW growth except insofar as they can make money from it. That I will agree. After that, nothing is sacrosanct and no "standards" owned by a company are in any way "safe". So long as they can make money from it, they will continue with it. If they can write proprietary data into the "standard" which only they can make money from they will. The moment a better revenue stream suggests itself you’ll find yourself with yet another dead format.
So be it. But what do you think will be dead sooner: DNG or CRW?
Hecate wrote:
[snip]
Adobe couldn’t care less about accelerated RAW growth except insofar as they can make money from it. That I will agree. After that, nothing is sacrosanct and no "standards" owned by a company are in any way "safe". So long as they can make money from it, they will continue with it. If they can write proprietary data into the "standard" which only they can make money from they will. The moment a better revenue stream suggests itself you’ll find yourself with yet another dead format.
In what way would it be dead?
It already has about 25 non-Adobe products that can read and/or write it. They can continue whatever Adobe do.
If it became known that a new version of Photoshop didn’t support DNG, it would kill off sales of that upgrade, and probably destroy the credibility of Adobe and Photoshop.
Anyway, how could Adobe stop it working in Photoshop? Couldn’t someone else write a plug-in for it?
I suggest you study DNG instead of making bad guesses about it. You will see it is not the sort of thing you appear to think it is.
Depends whether Adobe can convince the camera manufacturers to use SDNG as a standard. A new D|NG of course, to which only the camera manufacturers and Adobe have access.
On 25 May 2005 17:31:14 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
Let’s invent DNF, a specification for a "Digital Name Format". Something like: "the file consists solely of an ASCII character string containing the name". (Pretty simple!)The suppose you change the specification so that it requires a specific piece of software to read the results of that specification.
Now suppose I publish that specification for DNF on my website, and suddenly everyone decides to use DNF. Some read it. Some write it. Some do both.
On 25 May 2005 17:43:07 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
[snip]If it became known that a new version of Photoshop didn’t support DNG, it would kill off sales of that upgrade, and probably destroy the credibility of Adobe and Photoshop.
Not for me it wouldn’t and nor for any of the other professionals I know.
On 25 May 2005 17:43:07 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:..
If it became known that a new version of Photoshop didn’t support DNG, it would kill off sales of that upgrade, and probably destroy the credibility of Adobe and Photoshop.
Not for me it wouldn’t and nor for any of the other professionals I know.
If it’s not DNG it will be something else. The difference between you and me is that I don’t trust any of these companies further than I can shot putt a jumbo jet and believe me, that’s not very far at all.
Hecate wrote:
On 25 May 2005 17:31:14 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
Let’s invent DNF, a specification for a "Digital Name Format". Something like: "the file consists solely of an ASCII character string containing the name". (Pretty simple!)The suppose you change the specification so that it requires a specific piece of software to read the results of that specification.
Now suppose I publish that specification for DNF on my website, and suddenly everyone decides to use DNF. Some read it. Some write it. Some do both.
[snip]
How? There is no point in discussing things that can’t be done. Let’s stick to things that can be done!
Earlier in this thread I said: "I would advice everyone to investigate DNG, and make up their own mind about whether it suits them". That is still my advice. It doesn’t (yet) suit you, although whether that is because it really wouldn’t improve your workflow, or simply because you don’t trust it, I can’t judge. But there is no doubt that many will benefit, and as those people increasingly use it, it will become clear that Adobe could not simply remove it from a future version of Photoshop. (Although no one is giving credible reasons why they would want to).
If it became known that a new version of Photoshop didn’t support DNG, it would kill off sales of that upgrade, and probably destroy the credibility of Adobe and Photoshop.
Not for me it wouldn’t and nor for any of the other professionals I know.
DNG converter is also a stand-alone.
The specification is public.
Vendors other than Adobe can write conversion applications. There will be no license fees associated.
End of subject?
Makes no difference. You can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that a licence fee is paid to use it? Even if there isn’t citing an apple when the issue is oranges doesn’t make a difference.If it’s not DNG it will be something else. The difference between you and me is that I don’t trust any of these companies further than I can shot putt a jumbo jet and believe me, that’s not very far at all.
Look to the history of PostScript.
On 27 May 2005 02:55:29 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
The suppose you change the specification so that it requires a specific piece of software to read the results of that specification.
[snip]
How? There is no point in discussing things that can’t be done. Let’s stick to things that can be done!
Adding file encryption as a prerequisite in the spec.
On Thu, 26 May 2005 00:44:23 +0200, (Johan W.[snip]
Elzenga) wrote:
Hecate wrote:
And if the camera manufacturers decide to use the new version? After all it’s enhanced for your benefit, and it’ll only cost you more money won’t it? Really, we’re doing it for your benefit they will say as usual.Yes. And if it changes the specification, doesn’t publish the changed specification and is the only company that can produce a DNG reader/writer?
Then Adobe would be the only company that can produce a reader/writer for this NEW version of DNG. If you have converted your propriety CR2 files to the OLD, published standard that everybody can read/write, what would you care? You can simply stop converting to DNG from that moment on, or you can keep using a converter that converts to the older version.
On 27 May 2005 03:26:50 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:
Earlier in this thread I said: "I would advice everyone to investigate DNG, and make up their own mind about whether it suits them". That is still my advice. It doesn’t (yet) suit you, although whether that is because it really wouldn’t improve your workflow, or simply because you don’t trust it, I can’t judge. But there is no doubt that many will benefit, and as those people increasingly use it, it will become clear that Adobe could not simply remove it from a future version of Photoshop. (Although no one is giving credible reasons why they would want to).
I agree except for the last sentence. I’ve never talked about removing – simply changing the specification.
Only if you believe that they’ll never change the specification and that they’ll always release the new specification for free.
On 24 May 2005 02:16:03 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
http://www.openraw.org/actnow/
They say: "There really is only one solution – the adoption by the camera industry of…
– Public documentation of RAW formats; past, present and future
– Adoption of a universal RAW format"
This topic is not about to go quiet!
And, as long as they make money from it any letters sent will go in the round filing cabinet.
Then Adobe would be the only company that can produce a reader/writer for this NEW version of DNG. If you have converted your propriety CR2 files to the OLD, published standard that everybody can read/write, what would you care? You can simply stop converting to DNG from that moment on, or you can keep using a converter that converts to the older version.And if the camera manufacturers decide to use the new version? After all it’s enhanced for your benefit, and it’ll only cost you more money won’t it? Really, we’re doing it for your benefit they will say as usual.
On Thu, 26 May 2005 01:06:46 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:
Hecate wrote:
Adobe couldn’t care less about accelerated RAW growth except insofar as they can make money from it. That I will agree. After that, nothing is sacrosanct and no "standards" owned by a company are in any way "safe". So long as they can make money from it, they will continue with it. If they can write proprietary data into the "standard" which only they can make money from they will. The moment a better revenue stream suggests itself you’ll find yourself with yet another dead format.
So be it. But what do you think will be dead sooner: DNG or CRW?
Depends whether Adobe can convince the camera manufacturers to use SDNG as a standard. A new D|NG of course, to which only the camera manufacturers and Adobe have access.
Hecate wrote:
On 24 May 2005 02:16:03 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
http://www.openraw.org/actnow/
They say: "There really is only one solution – the adoption by the camera industry of…
– Public documentation of RAW formats; past, present and future
– Adoption of a universal RAW format"
This topic is not about to go quiet!
And, as long as they make money from it any letters sent will go in the round filing cabinet.
Who is "they"?
What is "it"?
How can "they make money from it"?
On 23 May 2005 03:36:41 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:It is best to think of it as an openly published, freely licensed, well-engineered, specification.
I prefer to think of it as partially published, free for now, averagely engineered, with a specification that you have to take on trust.
On 28 May 2005 11:51:01 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:
Hecate wrote:
On 24 May 2005 02:16:03 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
http://www.openraw.org/actnow/
They say: "There really is only one solution – the adoption by the camera industry of…
– Public documentation of RAW formats; past, present and future
– Adoption of a universal RAW format"
This topic is not about to go quiet!
And, as long as they make money from it any letters sent will go in the round filing cabinet.
Who is "they"?
What is "it"?
How can "they make money from it"?
If you read the post I replied to you’d know.
This is pointless. You obviously think that a trademarked format (yes it is, the specification describes, essentially, a file format), which Adobe can do whatever it wants with, whenever it wants, is worth betting your life on. So, go ahead and do it.
In article , HecateChris, whilst I have a lot of respect for the work the developers do on Photoshop, whist it far and away the best of breed as far as I’m concerned, you work for the company so "he would say that wouldn’t he". I have seen enough companies and their so-called "promises" be shunted into a dead end because the company has decided it can make more money doing something else.
wrote:
On 23 May 2005 03:36:41 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:It is best to think of it as an openly published, freely licensed, well-engineered, specification.
I prefer to think of it as partially published, free for now, averagely engineered, with a specification that you have to take on trust.
Try: fully publicly documented, free and promised to keep it free, well engineered, and with an open specification that anybody can judge.
You really should see someone about your paranoia.
On Sun, 29 May 2005 01:50:50 GMT, Chris Cox[snip]
wrote:
In article , HecateChris, whilst I have a lot of respect for the work the developers do on Photoshop, whist it far and away the best of breed as far as I’m concerned, you work for the company so "he would say that wouldn’t he". I have seen enough companies and their so-called "promises" be shunted into a dead end because the company has decided it can make more money doing something else.
wrote:
On 23 May 2005 03:36:41 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:
It is best to think of it as an openly published, freely licensed, well-engineered, specification.
I prefer to think of it as partially published, free for now, averagely engineered, with a specification that you have to take on trust.
Try: fully publicly documented, free and promised to keep it free, well engineered, and with an open specification that anybody can judge.
You really should see someone about your paranoia.
Hecate wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 01:50:50 GMT, Chris Cox[snip]
wrote:
In article , HecateChris, whilst I have a lot of respect for the work the developers do on Photoshop, whist it far and away the best of breed as far as I’m concerned, you work for the company so "he would say that wouldn’t he". I have seen enough companies and their so-called "promises" be shunted into a dead end because the company has decided it can make more money doing something else.
wrote:
On 23 May 2005 03:36:41 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:
It is best to think of it as an openly published, freely licensed, well-engineered, specification.
I prefer to think of it as partially published, free for now, averagely engineered, with a specification that you have to take on trust.
Try: fully publicly documented, free and promised to keep it free, well engineered, and with an open specification that anybody can judge.
You really should see someone about your paranoia.
I don’t work for Adobe, I simply buy licences to use their products, so that argument doesn’t apply to me. The reason Chris and I agree with one another about this, and disagree with you, is very simple:
– Chris and I are engineers, and you are not. And DNG really is an openly published, freely licensed, well-engineered, specification.
I scrutinised it and tested it before putting so much faith in it. I don’t lightly trust my photographs to anything. I am particularly concerned about "single point of failure" problems. In my judgement, DNG is probably the least problematic part of my entire Raw processing system. After all, there are already about 25 non-Adobe products that read and/or write DNG.
I am far more concerned with other components of my Raw processing system. We have seen the Canon press release about firmware problems in some Canon cameras, and firmware problems in some Lexar cards, causing images to be lost from Canon cameras in some rare circumstances. What risks am I running with the Pentax firmware? One of my cards is such a Lexar. Does that firmware problem affect its use in the Pentax too? I know I run a risk that I may not be able to read my archival CDs back in a few years time, so I am currently keeping one copy on an external hard drive as well. Am I doing enough?
DNG was clearly designed for openness and longevity. The published licence for free use would not lightly be overturned by a court. The version numbering scheme gives readers and writings of current DNG versions independence of Adobe’s development of new versions. Whatever Adobe do, my version 1.1.0.0 DNG files will be safe for decades. (I consider the version scheme to be an aspect of the engineering, and it is as good as I’ve seen for a specification of this sort).
I don’t have to trust Adobe. I know enough about DNG to know that they *can’t* do the sort of things that you imagine they will do. And I have enough understanding about why businesses invest in publishing specifications, and standards work, to know that it is not in Adobe’s interests to do what you imagine they will do. It just isn’t how they make money from the existence of such specifications.
—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
Chris, whilst I have a lot of respect for the work the developers do on Photoshop, whist it far and away the best of breed as far as I’m concerned, you work for the company so "he would say that wouldn’t he". I have seen enough companies and their so-called "promises" be shunted into a dead end because the company has decided it can make more money doing something else.[snip]
I don’t work for Adobe, I simply buy licences to use their products, so that argument doesn’t apply to me. The reason Chris and I agree with one another about this, and disagree with you, is very simple:
– Chris and I are engineers, and you are not. And DNG really is an openly published, freely licensed, well-engineered, specification.
I scrutinised it and tested it before putting so much faith in it. I
I don’t have to trust Adobe. I know enough about DNG to know that they *can’t* do the sort of things that you imagine they will do. And I have enough understanding about why businesses invest in publishing specifications, and standards work, to know that it is not in Adobe’s interests to do what you imagine they will do. It just isn’t how they make money from the existence of such specifications.
whew, what a thread, eyes bleeding, brain all a jumble….LOL! But it’s been fun to see the "Adobe can do no wrong" arguments.
On 30 May 2005 01:29:41 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
I don’t have to trust Adobe. I know enough about DNG to know that they *can’t* do the sort of things that you imagine they will do. And I have enough understanding about why businesses invest in publishing specifications, and standards work, to know that it is not in Adobe’s interests to do what you imagine they will do. It just isn’t how they make money from the existence of such specifications.
I will take you at face value and assume that you are telling me the truth. However, the fact that you are an engineer gives you no particular insight into business practice (or malpractice). Unless, of course, you run your own company, however small, as I do.
whew, what a thread, eyes bleeding, brain all a jumble….
On Mon, 30 May 2005 14:15:27 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:
whew, what a thread, eyes bleeding, brain all a jumble….LOL! But it’s been fun to see the "Adobe can do no wrong" arguments.
I will take you at face value and assume that you are telling me the truth. However, the fact that you are an engineer gives you no particular insight into business practice (or malpractice). Unless, of course, you run your own company, however small, as I do.
It tends to be the big companies, not the small ones, that "invest in publishing specifications, and standards work". Your own experience may not be applicable.
On 31 May 2005 00:15:04 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:[snip]
I will take you at face value and assume that you are telling me the truth. However, the fact that you are an engineer gives you no particular insight into business practice (or malpractice). Unless, of course, you run your own company, however small, as I do.
It tends to be the big companies, not the small ones, that "invest in publishing specifications, and standards work". Your own experience may not be applicable.
Do you mean mine or my partner’s? She’s the Deputy Head of an engineering department for a multinational so I’ve seen both sides of the argument. I take it from your answer then that you’re just an employee.
No – a false assumption. (I used to be).
I meant YOUR experience, because you are the one writing here, and I cannot judge how well you have communicated with anyone else on this topic. (For all I know, you have let your own views colour what you ask that person, or how you interpret what that person says).
The key here is to understand why big companies "invest in publishing specifications, and standards work". That understanding reveals how companies make money by having published specifications and standards, or often simply by contributing to them.
I’ve described this at length elsewhere in this thread.
On 1 Jun 2005 00:46:24 -0700, "Barry Pearson"[snip]
wrote:
The key here is to understand why big companies "invest in publishing specifications, and standards work". That understanding reveals how companies make money by having published specifications and standards, or often simply by contributing to them.
That’s easy – for the same reason they do anything else – to make as much money as possible, pad the bottom line as much as possible and keep the shareholders happy whilst awarding themselves as many fat options as they can get away with.
I’ve described this at length elsewhere in this thread.
You seem to have missed the bit about motivation.
Yes, we all agree that they are in it for the money! But it is necessary to understand the mechanism they use to make that money. Until you understand the mechanism, you will remain suspicious.
Barry Pearson wrote:[snip]
Yes, we all agree that they are in it for the money! But it is necessary to understand the mechanism they use to make that money. Until you understand the mechanism, you will remain suspicious.
Being suspicious is not a bad thing, being paranoid is.
Barry Pearson wrote:
Yes, we all agree that they are in it for the money! But it is necessary to understand the mechanism they use to make that money. Until you understand the mechanism, you will remain suspicious.
Being suspicious is not a bad thing, being paranoid is. In another thread, Hectate accused Nikon of encrypting the WB in NEF files so that companies like Adobe couldn’t get to that information. This was, of course, to keep Adobe from attracting Nikon users to ACR.
But in this thread Hectate suddenly thinks that the camera companies (i.e. Nikon, among others!) will happily give up their proprietary RAW format just to jump into bed with Adobe to jointly create another proprietary format! Why Nikon would suddenly and freely give Adobe a piece of their profits is beyond me, but I’m sure this contradiction makes sense to Hectate somehow.
Johan W. Elzenga wrote:
Barry Pearson wrote:[snip]
Yes, we all agree that they are in it for the money! But it is necessary to understand the mechanism they use to make that money. Until you understand the mechanism, you will remain suspicious.
Being suspicious is not a bad thing, being paranoid is.
Be vigilant, and expect the unexpected!
Kung Fu, "The Tide" (February 1, 1973)
http://www.dm.net/~karen/kungfu/kungfu1.html
Young Caine and Ho Fong are sent to town to buy food for the temple. An old man steers them towards bandits, who rob and beat them. The two boys come back to the temple with only their underclothes. Master Kahn asks them what they have learned.
Ho Fong says that he has learned, "Never trust a stranger."
Young Caine says the he has learned, "Expect the unexpected."
At this point, Master Kahn sends Ho Fong away from the temple, forever.
But in this thread Hectate suddenly thinks that the camera companies (i.e. Nikon, among others!) will happily give up their proprietary RAW format just to jump into bed with Adobe to jointly create another proprietary format! Why Nikon would suddenly and freely give Adobe a piece of their profits is beyond me, but I’m sure this contradiction makes sense to Hectate somehow.
Well John (I’ll spell your name correctly when you spell mine correctly) if you had read what I said you would have seen that I created a specific set of circumstances in which it would benefit both companies, using cross-licensing. But then,. you don’t seem to be very good at reading all the way through recently…
Being suspicious is not a bad thing, being paranoid is. In another thread, Hectate accused Nikon of encrypting the WB in NEF files so that companies like Adobe couldn’t get to that information. This was, of course, to keep Adobe from attracting Nikon users to ACR.
And you asked me for proof and I gave you lots of URLs. Funny you didn’t comment any longer when you had the proof as to what Nikon was doing.
So what does ‘including white balance’ means if it doesn’t mean including white balance?
What it doesn’t mean is that you can decrypt the WB from the file and get at the data. Who knows what Nikon means? Weasel words as usual from them.
I’d be interested to know how you can be so sure. Are you a software developer who applied for the SDK? Do you work at Adobe?
Maybe that’s it. So enlighten me one more time, please. Why would Nikon give up its proprietary NEF file for a new proprietary DNG file it has to share with Adobe? Why would Canon do the same?
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Maybe that’s it. So enlighten me one more time, please. Why would Nikon give up its proprietary NEF file for a new proprietary DNG file it has to share with Adobe? Why would Canon do the same?
You were not writing to me, Johan, but my bet is that a high-ender like Nikon is betting that a significant part of their market doesn’t have Photoshop so hooking customers into a proprietary thing works for them.
Or perhaps they are holding out for a deal from Adobe so they can bundle CS into their camera package before they go to an open standard.
Nobody has ever bundled CS into a package, and I doubt that will ever happen.
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Nobody has ever bundled CS into a package, and I doubt that will ever happen.
Sorry, but that’s not true. You have to go back a way.
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Nobody has ever bundled CS into a package, and I doubt that will ever happen.
Sorry, but that’s not true. You have to go back a way.
johnboy wrote:
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Nobody has ever bundled CS into a package, and I doubt that will ever happen.
Sorry, but that’s not true. You have to go back a way.
Well? Who was it? Don’t keep me in suspense!
—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
johnboy wrote:
Sorry, but that’s not true. You have to go back a way.
Well? Who was it? Don’t keep me in suspense!
I think I got Photoshop LE (Limited Edition) with a scanner in 2001,
Well John (I’ll spell your name correctly when you spell mine correctly) if you had read what I said you would have seen that I created a specific set of circumstances in which it would benefit both companies, using cross-licensing. But then,. you don’t seem to be very good at reading all the way through recently…
Maybe that’s it. So enlighten me one more time, please. Why would Nikon give up its proprietary NEF file for a new proprietary DNG file it has to share with Adobe? Why would Canon do the same?
johnboy wrote:But may well decrease sales of their cameras. However, a joint effort with Adobe, who are now the second largest software company after Microsoft, would generate far more income.
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
Maybe that’s it. So enlighten me one more time, please. Why would Nikon give up its proprietary NEF file for a new proprietary DNG file it has to share with Adobe? Why would Canon do the same?
You were not writing to me, Johan, but my bet is that a high-ender like Nikon is betting that a significant part of their market doesn’t have Photoshop so hooking customers into a proprietary thing works for them.
I’m not saying that it doesn’t, on the contrary. I’m saying that Nikon doesn’t need Adobe for that. Nikon already have their own proprietary NEF format, and if they don’t want anybody else to have access to it, all they have to do is encrypt the sensor data rather than just the WB data. That would force all Nikon users to buy Nikon Capture.
Hecate wrote:
Being suspicious is not a bad thing, being paranoid is. In another thread, Hectate accused Nikon of encrypting the WB in NEF files so that companies like Adobe couldn’t get to that information. This was, of course, to keep Adobe from attracting Nikon users to ACR.
And you asked me for proof and I gave you lots of URLs. Funny you didn’t comment any longer when you had the proof as to what Nikon was doing.
I don’t remember you giving me any URL’s that PROVED anything, but I do remember the last three messages, which went like this:
So what does ‘including white balance’ means if it doesn’t mean including white balance?
What it doesn’t mean is that you can decrypt the WB from the file and get at the data. Who knows what Nikon means? Weasel words as usual from them.
I’d be interested to know how you can be so sure. Are you a software developer who applied for the SDK? Do you work at Adobe?
I don’t remember getting an answer on this question, though. But quite frankly I have little desire to start this thread all over again.
I’m not saying that it doesn’t, on the contrary. I’m saying that Nikon doesn’t need Adobe for that. Nikon already have their own proprietary NEF format, and if they don’t want anybody else to have access to it, all they have to do is encrypt the sensor data rather than just the WB data. That would force all Nikon users to buy Nikon Capture.But may well decrease sales of their cameras.
However, a joint effort with Adobe, who are now the second largest software company after Microsoft, would generate far more income.
It makes sense if it has a stake in the processing software and earns money from it, whilst at the same time promoting use of it’s cameras.
Now, whilst they have a proprietary file type, and especially with their use of encryption, they discourage people who are non-Nikon users from purchasing Nikon.
Similarly, if Canon were to do the same thing. Given that in the UK, for example, Nikon have stated that they are aiming for 40% of the market, and Canon have stated that they are aiming for 60% both companies would benefit from making it easier for people to use their files, if they could make an extra profit from it.
Encrypting their files, but cross-licensing with Adobe and DNG ( say a version 2.0) which is also encrypted, and having only the camera makers software or Adobe able to read the files, would both push up the market for Adobe products and earn the camera makers fees from the licensing whilst at the same time making money for Adobe through increased sales.
I don’t remember getting an answer on this question, though. But quite frankly I have little desire to start this thread all over again.
That’s funny as you always seem to be there to jump in when you dislike what I’m saying but never seem to hang around for the answers.
So, just for your benefit, here’s a copy of the reply from May 14th:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 01:08:26 +0200, (Johan W.[snip]
Elzenga) wrote:
Encrypting their files, but cross-licensing with Adobe and DNG ( say a version 2.0) which is also encrypted, and having only the camera makers software or Adobe able to read the files, would both push up the market for Adobe products and earn the camera makers fees from the licensing whilst at the same time making money for Adobe through increased sales.[snip]
OK, they may not be completely happy with it (and that is what Nikon and Adobe apparently are discussing right now), but it does ‘technically’ give them access.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:42:29 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:
OK, they may not be completely happy with it (and that is what Nikon and Adobe apparently are discussing right now), but it does ‘technically’ give them access.
Johann, it DOES NOT give them access to the RAW data, it only gives them access to the settings. I.e. it tells them it was set on say, AWB. It doesn’t allow them to access the actual information.
But now we are starting this discussion all over again, and that’s exactly what I want to avoid. That thread was long enough, if you ask me.
Hello I am a beginer in PHOTOGRAPHY and my uncle send my from USA a NIKON D70 Digital camera to make some jobs here in Cuba and try in the future be a Profesional Photographer.
RAW vs JPEG Files
is Raw better? diferens?
Please HELP
RAW vs JPEG Files
is Raw better? diferens?
Please HELP
The customer won’t care whether you used raw or not. RAW is an advanced
technique that gives only a minor improvement in quality compared to other
things you can do in Photoshop.
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
