Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · DNG format
  
 
alvit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · DNG format


How and IF do U use it.
I dont know if it's a good thing leave all my raw format for it.



Feb 06, 2013 at 02:19 AM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · DNG format


I thought DNG was going to be useful when talk of it first started. I suppose it's awesome if indeed your camera supports it directly and when you select RAW+JPeg shooting you get one file per set on the card (including maybe the unapplied camera settings as a third and separate chunk). But as a converted format on the computer after the importation and/or editing? Why? I guess I just don't see the advantage in it. Fewer icons in your windows? Ummm... OK, but how long to it take to convert 2,000 files into 1,000 and how has that affected preview compatibility across all your apps, on-line sharing, and within the OS itself? I guess it makes everything slower and probably it's going to cause you a few extra steps per image for something like webpage slideshows or even image sharing here on FM. I guess DNG is directly supported by about the same number of apps and processes that your RAW files are. This seems true in my case anyway (untested). It's probably better that DNG exists than not for those who find it fitting to their workflow but it hasn't found a place in mine.

I think I would rather deal with more icons. And if fewer icons is the only advantage here then thee are systems in place where all 2000 files becomes a single icon if you like.



Feb 06, 2013 at 03:30 AM
mhayes5254
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · DNG format


A very good concept that does not yet seem usefull, for the reasons outlined above. For now, I am waiting for the mainstream camera manufacturers need to adopt it as their native format.


Feb 06, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · DNG format


The camera makers all seem to put different amounts of secret sauce in their proprietary raw files that never makes it to dng. They want it that way in order to give their own software some sort of perceived advantage over third party solutions. The idea was that dng would become an open industry standard that would never become obsolete, but it might be more of a solution in search of a problem. How many cameras now shoot dng as their raw file format? One or two, I think, and there are still evangelists out there preaching that this is where we're heading. Maybe one day but not this day.


Feb 06, 2013 at 11:17 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · DNG format


There's this: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57371809-264/adobe-offering-new-reasons-to-get-dng-religion/

a little long winded but some interesting points...

And some of the changes mentioned might account for the LR slowness being discussed in other threads here. :P




Feb 07, 2013 at 02:48 AM
abraxsis
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · DNG format


I didn't know there were people who didn't use DNG, I have never had a single issue with it, and portability across platforms while retaining edits is great. The other built-in functions that help automate the doldrum day-to-day processes make my life way easier. The way I look at DNG is exactly as it sounds, a digital negative which I can non-destructively edit. I can easily make digital copies to try other processing vectors without doubling file storage and the storage, organization, and metadata tagging are bar none. I can create unlimited storage schemes without increasing my storage space or having multiple files.

As someone who once rebuilt a 700GB media database as the Art Director for my former employer, I swore I would never use manual files and folders to organize stuff ever again. Beyond all this, backup is a breeze since everything is in a single folder. All my catalogs incrementally backup to the RAID every night at 3am, and includes all the edits for the day without the creation of multiple files/folders, or keeping gigs and gigs of "originals."

Just my take on it.



Feb 08, 2013 at 06:11 AM
Snead
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · DNG format


One issue with the DNG format conversion is if the native camera profile has additional features such as the Canon G1X, which has lens corrections. These corrections are not available in the DNG format.

I do wish more cameras came with a DNG format option. This would eliminate the need for software upgrading when new cameras are introduced and provide a much needed industry standardization but I doubt this will happen due to the economic implications.



Feb 08, 2013 at 02:54 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · DNG format


abraxsis wrote:
I didn't know there were people who didn't use DNG...


My Canon and Nikon bodies don't support DNG, so I see no purpose.

EBH



Feb 09, 2013 at 02:22 AM
alvit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · DNG format


Peter Figen wrote:
The camera makers all seem to put different amounts of secret sauce in their proprietary raw files that never makes it to dng. They want it that way in order to give their own software some sort of perceived advantage over third party solutions. The idea was that dng would become an open industry standard that would never become obsolete, but it might be more of a solution in search of a problem. How many cameras now shoot dng as their raw file format? One or two, I think, and there are still evangelists out there preaching that this
...Show more

I Agree! 100%



Feb 09, 2013 at 02:49 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · DNG format


"I didn't know there were people who didn't use DNG"

I actually don't know a single person who does use dng on a regular basis. The only time I ever recommend dng is when someone is not running current a current version of ACR or LR and needs to convert a newer raw file to dng in order to process.



Feb 09, 2013 at 05:07 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · DNG format


This is a long historical tangent not directly related to DNG for photographs, but it explains the Abobe agenda in the broader graphic arts and publishing market. Skip this one Peter, it will just get your knickers in a twist..

Back in the 80s when vector based DTP typography was conceived it was Adobe which created the Postscript standard. If you are unfamiliar with the term "vector" it describes the outline of letter shapes in fonts and other objects as 2D coordinates of points connection lines on screen or paper. Fonts and shapes can be scaled to any size by just taking that list of points (contained in a very small computer file) and applying a multiplier. The illusion of 3D shape can be created on the 2D output surface by turning a flat looking square consisting of four dot coordinates into parallelogram that looks 3D by just moving the the dots to different coordinates to create near/far perspective seen in person with 3D shapes. Curves are defined in vector graphics via the angle and length of "handles" at the points, which you'd seen in Photoshop if you've created paths with the pen tool.

Postscript [tm] was universally adopted via licensing in other products you now rarely see it used, but it is incorporated into every application you use.

Score 1 for Adobe.

A few years later Adobe introduced the Portable Document Format (PDF). A PDF file is a container for text rendered with Postscript vector fonts, vector art created in applications like Illustrator and bit-mapped files like photos. The PDF coding controls the layouts on the page. It solved the problem of sending a Word document to someone who didn't have Word and made the concept of an electronic book possible. In a calculated marketing move Abobe gave away the reader for free, but charged several hundred dollars for the application needed to create a PDF.

Everyone downloaded the free reader and anyone producing content bought the creation application. I was managing publication production at USIA when PDF was introduced and we were an early adopter, using it to distribute our publications via the Internet starting in back in the mid-90s. Unlike HTML it allowed the end-user to print the file on a laser printer (using Postscript [tm] ) and take into the crapper to read in the days before tablets.

Score 2 for Adobe's master plan to rule the world of publishing.......

On a parallel tracks digital photography was starting to get traction and DTP systems started to replace pasting columns of type on boards with wax and photographing them with litho film and "stripping" then into layouts. Nearly everyone in professional graphic arts used Apple computers for this in the late 80s through the early 2000s because PCs simply couldn't do it. Before profile controlled color the Apple Sony trinitron based monitor set to a "paper white" 5000K white point and 1.8 gamma like the original B&W Mac SE was, for lack of a better one, was the color management standard between computer users. But a file edited in a Mac in 5000K / 1.8 Gamma looked too flat and off color on PC adjusted to a higher white point and gamma of 2.2. That fueled a lot of the early PC is better because files created on Macs suck arguments in the late 90s.

How did we calibrate visually back them? With a utility that came with Abobe Photoshop called Adobe Gamma [tm].

Apple incorporated "ColorSync" ICC profile based color management into the old OS back in 1992. Microsoft didn't incorporate profile based color in Windows until Windows98. After a mis-step in adding ICC based color to Photoshop, Abobe created a new editing gamut it called "AdobeRGB 1998" in Photoshop 4 which was larger than the "sRGB" used in the first implementation and different than the native monitor gamut. As others have pointed out to me AbobeRGB was based on an existing gamut used for HDTV but they didn't get it exactly correct and gave it a different name. The differences editing in AbobeRGB vs sRGB are seen when printing. Back in 1998 printing meant offset in a magazine not ink jet next to the computer and AbobeRGB was a better match of color to the SWOP offset printing standard. The 3D shape of the sRGB monitor gamut and SWOP inks both fit inside AdobeRGB. So everyone at the time adopted AdobeRGB.

Part of the AdobeRGB and sRGB standard are a white point of 6500K. What that means in practical terms is the monitor calibration to 6500K made more sense on a computer monitor than the status quo of 5000K in use on Radius ColorMatch Monitors, the high-end choice at the time. It also made sense to change the standard for room lighting from 5000K to D65 (6500K) so a print would be a closer perceptual match to a screen image.

The AdobeRGB standard plus third part calibration devices changed the entire paradigm of color management on the desktop and put Radius, the maker of the best selling high end monitors, out of business. Camera makers responded to AdobeRGB as a new editing / color management standard and the wider use of ink jets for final output by incorporating the option for AdobeRGB encoding to JPGs (before the introduction of RAW)

SCORE A HUGE SLAM DUNK # 3 for Adobe

The gamuts of ink jets expanded as printers evolved from 4 colors CYMK, to 6, 8, and even 12 color output. The gamuts soon exceeded the size of the AdobeRGB editing space and the larger ProPhotoRGB became the standard at the high end of the market. That one caught Abobe napping which is why we are using open source ProPhotoRGB not AbobeWide 2003, a wider editing gamut carrying the Adobe brand. But the masses unschooled in the finer points of color management still shot and edit in AdobeRGB so the brand name is getting out there with every shot taken and edited by millions.

RAW capture makes setting of color space on the camera irrelevant, except for how the playback JPGs look. RAW shooters apply the editing space, usually ProPhotoRGB in the RAW editor bypassing the subliminal marketing burning the ABOBE brand into their subconscious. That is if they don't use an Adobe product to view the RAW file.

The solution to that marketing dilemma? Propose a new ADOBE capture standard called DNG format to replace RAW. The advantage in universal adoption of DNG as a standard for ADOBE, besides the world domination aspect, is that they'd only need to incorporate on decoding schema into the products.

The idea for DNG was likely an afterthought at the point Adobe created ACR and made the "rosetta stone" decoding incorporated in to Photoshop a modular, stand alone application shared with Lightroom. So creating a DNG converter wasn't a lot of work.

Adobe's oversight with DNG was a lack of foresight as occurred when ProPhotoRGB became the de facto editing gamut for savvy photographers. Had Adobe proposed DNG back in the late 1990s as a standard before Nikon, Canon and Minolta had marketed different RAW encoding it might have gotten more traction. Adobe also made a marketing blunder because there is no brand association as with AdobeRGB 1998 (tm). They should have called it ADBE (the Adobe stock symbol) which is an anagram for:

Advancing Digital Branding on Everything

That boys and girls is the background behind DNG. It hasn't caught on because there's no compelling reason to use it. Like ProPhoto editing space Adobe's market timing was off.

So DNG is a draw for Abobe so far.

It could if it wanted to change PS and Lightroom so they would ONLY accept SOOC files in DNG format. That would put pressure on camera makers to add DNG as an alternative to RAW just as with AdobeRGB vs. sRGB with JPGs. But that would piss off the user base and tip the hand on their plan to dominate and monopolize the technical underpinnings of all aspects of publishing.

There's another long term Adobe agenda in the publishing market photographers are totally unaware of, and need not worry about except to be more knowledgable and well rounded technologists - artists shouldn't even still be reading this...

In the realm of magazine production Adobe also has been working since the introduction of PDF on a plan to make PDF the universal standard for workflow for publishing in print and for electronic distribution of files electronically which can be printed and look similar on any printer because the color management is managed at the printer, not embedded in the files.

Printers would have built-in profile creation. They'd print a test on whatever paper is being used then create a profile on the spot that allows the RGB photo files in the document to be adjusted. Printer / Press would mange color dynamically.

That differs from the established high-end publication workflow established and entrenched in the 90s and early 2000s, a market Heidelberg / Hell dominated. Those brands aren't even familiar to most but over my career in publication production I bought or leased over 20 million of dollars worth of scanners, imagesetters, plate makers and presses from them. That a market Adobe saw back in the mid-80s and wanted to have a piece of and control via licensing of the underlying technology like PDF.

With a Heidelberg equipment based workflow our magazines photos would be prepared as two files: high resolution pre-separated in Photoshop (or Heidelburg Software) into CYMK channels, and an RGB file "for position only (FPO), file the designer would used and scale when importing it into the QuarkXpress layout.

When the Quark file was sent for output on the Heidelburg 8-page imagesetter the "FPO" RGB files are replaced with the high-res CYMK image parked on the server, and resizes to the dimensions of the FPO jpg in the layout per the encoding in the layout and output with the Postsript [tm] based vector into the page images burned directly into the plate emulsion with the laser in the platemaker.

Adobe's agenda in that market is to make the CYMK offset plate burner like an ink jet, or skip the standalone platemaker and impose the image directly to the cylinder of a "digital" press. Like printing one copy on an ink jet (with a laser beam instead of ink) then using it like a rubber stamp to print a million more copies (which is how offset printing works).

Instead of needing to edit separate high res CYMK everything stays in RGB in a Adobe PDF [tm]file format all color management to match press ink and paper is done in the plate maker with ICC profiles as with an ink jet. Adobe calls it a PDF workflow and it has gotten traction in part because it created a DTP layout program "InDesign".

From the standpoint of running an offset operation the PDF workflow is far more economical and allows better control of color because it is managed at the final step before printing. With the older Heidelberg workflow the technician making the High-Res CYMK file stored on the server for incorporation with the plate must know what press / paper / ink it will be printed on to apply the correct color management profile. A photo printed on a sheetfed press would need a different profile than the same photo printed in the text on a web press and different ink/paper. So the tech would need to save two high-res versions.

In the PDF workflow the technician would just need to edit one file in ProPhotoRGB space and save it as RGB. At the press the pressman presses a [profile paper] button and feed a test image printed on paper loaded on the press into a slot in he console. A green light comes on over the [prepare press] button and the 8 page imposed form store in the memory for the press burns the color managed page images onto the press cylinders. A green light comes on over the [run press - print perfect color) button. The pressman presses it, sits down and only need to get up to put more paper in the press....

What holds back the implementation of a PDF workflow like that is mostly the investment printing companies have in the legacy equipment for imposition and platemaking (which cost millions and last about 10 years) and the fact the replacement consumables are more expensive. A laser imaged printing plate typically costs 3x more than a convention. If you use several hundred thousand a year as we did it's a consideration.

In our publishing operation we started switching to the PDF workflow around 2005 and in 2007-2010 leased about $15 million worth of new toner based and direct to digital presses.

Score #4 for Adobe because all the page layout for the Abobe PDF [tm] based workflow was done in Adobe InDesign [tm] with Abobe Photoshop [tm] and Adobe Illustrator [tm] with photos archived in DNG format.

You might have thought in the 80s > 200n that Microsoft was the "evil empire" or that Google and Facebook are today, but by the evidence it appears the Jedi-like mind control of the Force via product development and brand placement was with Adobe

Why should you care about the high end stuff? Wouldn't you like a printer where you could put any paper in it and send any file to in and not worry about profiles. Some high end printer already do this. The barrier preventing it trickling down is the cost of incorporating a photo-spectometer into the printer.

It would work like this:

Insert paper - press "profile" button on the printer.

Printer prints target (as it does now when any ink cart. is changed)

On output path sheet passes over photo-spectometer which creates custom profile for that paper.

Profile is stored on printer and sent to Photoshop which automatically shifts into "soft proofling mode" as displays the file with the new custom profile. The profile is not used to manage the file sent to the printer, just to simulate how it will change in appearance when printed. To make this understood a dialog would pop up automatically up saying...

"Profiling of the printer for the paper being used is complete. The image seen when closing this dialog is an approximate simulation (within the gamut of your monitor) of how the file will look when printed. Areas outside the gamut of the printer are shown in gray and will appear less saturated on the print in those areas than seen on screen. Press the button (view out of gamut) button below to toggle out of gamut warning off for comparison and (exit) to close this dialog box."

Then because "Let Printer Manage Color" is the default all you you'd is select "print" and get a perfectly color managed image.

What a copy on matte paper also? Just put the paper in the printer and press the [profile paper ] button on the printer...

That was the vision for ICC profile based color management when it was created. If you were around as I was in the industry in the mid-90s it was touted as the Holy Grail. The technology has been available to make printing of a single photo on your desktop or an entire book "push button" simple but it just isn't economical yet on an end user scale, mostly due to the cost of the photo-spectometer needed to create the bespoke profile on the printer.

That's what I'm holding out for before buying a new printer. I just hope I live long enough










Feb 09, 2013 at 06:14 PM
James_N
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · DNG format


I initially wasn't going to participate in this discussion but some clarifications are in order.

1. I use DNG on a regular basis; my workflow since November 2004 is entirely DNG. Every raw file is converted to DNG using the DNG converter prior to opening in ACR, or importing into Lightroom. Since I work regularly with a mix of CR2, NEF, and ORF files it makes sense to me to convert them into a standardized format. Add to that the ability to utilize lossy compression in saving DNG files while still maintaining the full raw functionality.
I also back up all my raw files for those times I may want to use the camera manufacturer's software, or any other converter that doesn't support the DNG format.

2. The ability to process DNG using the new 32-bit floating point function is huge to anyone who creates HDR images.

The camera makers all seem to put different amounts of secret sauce in their proprietary raw files that never makes it to dng
I'm not sure what "secret sauce" is being referenced here. Every single setting in the raw file, including all the settings in the Maker Notes that some camera manufacturers encrypt, is transferred to the DNG file. Now, by design Adobe's raw converters don't read all the in-camera settings but all those settings are still there in the DNG file. I recall asking Thomas Knoll about this a few years ago at a Photoshop Soup2Nuts conference in Ann Arbor and he told me that all the settings are saved in the DNG file.

The analogy is to a letter in a sealed envelope; if the letter is removed from that envelope and put into another envelope or file folder the actual contents of the letter haven't changed, just the container it was in. Similarly DNG retains all the original information; its just the container bearing the information that is changed.



Feb 09, 2013 at 07:21 PM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · DNG format


James - What does converting to dng bring you that can't do do by simply importing your raw files directly into ACR/LR, other that having the same file format for all your raws - assuming that they're all readable, which I think they are.

As far as Chuck's tome is concerned, it's only barely tangentially connected to dng, and while there are some valid points in there, it really belongs in its own thread.



Feb 09, 2013 at 09:31 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · DNG format


Yeah, I couldn't be arsed to read such a long post - especially when the first line says it's not even related to DNG - the topic here.

I do understand James. There is the advantage of consolidation in consolidating - whatever that means to the person doing it. A few points to his few points tho:

The disadvantages (for me) far outweigh the advantages of consolidation however - and really that's all DNG has over native formats and processing systems.

  1. I believe DNG only retains all the camera settings IF you choose to embed the RAW file - untested.

  2. Every OS has the ability to compress a folder, partition, or entire drive transparently and of course there are 3rd party utilities with the same functionality plus the ability to control the amount of lossless compression that is applied using any of a multitude of various compression algorithms. 7up for example can losslessly compress a RAW file to between 36% and 60% of its original size. Lossy compression would be kind of lame for RAW or RAW embedded file chunks IMO and in DNG for some reason it's actually larger than no compression assuming you embedded fast load data and the original RAW file - wEirD!. What, we spend thousands of dollars on equipment which in a broad sense is only slightly better than the cheap stuff only to knock that advantage back down via file compression because we're too cheap to spend $100 on another 3TB drive? That doesn't seem to make senses on several levels. For full compatibility embedding the RAW files means the file sizes are considerably larger - about 30% larger on average. So a 200MB folder becomes 300MB a 1TB folder structure becomes 1.5TB and so on.

  3. Each DNG of my camera's output is approximately 25MB before processing and 32MB after any processing - and they grow after every additional edit by about a meg or two! Yet I can save 10 different edits using ACR snapshots and retain all the various settings for each (recallable in a single click) in just 50 or 60k bytes.
    EDIT: On the newest version 7.3, it only adds 2 to 5MB after the 1st image edit. All consecutive edits add nothing to the file size. (I guess it was a bug?)

  4. Because of the above two items back-ups will additionally take longer and consume more space. Browsing and viewing images will take longer (be slower) because of this.

  5. DNG is slower than crap - depending on ones diet of course. Every time you make a change to a DNG file it has to "Update Settings" on that file and that takes considerably longer than writing a entire file of the same size - typically between 5 and 8 seconds per file. About 5 to 8 seconds is what it takes for ACR to write all the side-car files for 700 images. To "Update Settings" for 700 DNG files we're talking well over an hour. (well, 70 min. with each file taking an average of 6sec.)

  6. Conversion to DNG takes too long. I just timed it at 56s for 12 files with embedded RAWs. So 120 files is going to take about 10min, and 360 files a half an hour. My last shoot was about 700 files. I have no intention of waiting an hour just to change file wrappers and generate previews.
    EDIT: The latest version 7.3 takes nearly twice as long. Version 7.3 took 2:03 to convert the same 12 files as above.

  7. Just about complete lack of support across the board. Sure many apps will open or display them but try making any changes and one sees messages like:
    This document can be duplicated to a format that supports editing. and/or The file “_1040936_Zeiss_MP_100mm_f2.8_Macro.dng” does not support editing. Garrr! Of course this is the same with RAW files but that only shows DNG as having no advantages in this area.

I suppose I could go on listing a few more things but this gives us some idea of what dealing with DNG is actually like. For some it's worth it to have a generated partially processed preview, the RAW, and a settings sidecar file all in one "envelope". For others the DNG format is a non-consideration way wide of the mark missing almost all of the potential a good file format could offer.

Compression types, and OS X Finder Display:









Feb 10, 2013 at 06:47 AM
Alan321
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · DNG format


A DNG with embedded raw file is bigger than the raw file. Furthermore, every change you make alters the dng file whereas it would not alter the raw file. That causes the backup system(s) to make a fresh copy of the whole dng file instead of just the xmp file or, if like me you do not use xmp files, it makes a fresh copy of the Lr catalog instead.

Because I use Apple Time Machine I would use tons of almost duplicated dng files in my backups - not a great expense cost-wise but painful on wi-fi connected backup drives time-wise.

If I avoid embedding the raw files into dng files then I need to keep the raw files as well because the next processing engine will no doubt do better raw file conversions than existing engines. To not keep the raw files would mean I'd be stuck with the old raw conversion done when the dng was created.

The dng standard seems to be changing over time like most raw formats do. So long as the software of the day adapts we're ok whether or not we use dng. If the software did not adapt then there would still be a bunch of old software versions and alternative programs to do what we needed. If all fails we'd convert to dng then.

On balance, I see no pluses for dng and a few minuses. I'm sticking with raw files.

- Alan

P.S. One great use for dng is to verify the likely validity of an image file. If it passes conversion then it cannot be all bad. If it fails then it must be unreadable. Image Verifier uses it for this purpose.

A second great use is to provide access to raw files from new cameras with old versions of Ps. But I'd still retain the raw files.




Feb 10, 2013 at 02:06 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · DNG format


Peter Figen wrote:
James - What does converting to dng bring you that can't do do by simply importing your raw files directly into ACR/LR, other that having the same file format for all your raws - assuming that they're all readable, which I think they are.


That's how I feel. I keep CR2/NEF, PSD, and output files (TIFF/JPG). I would never keep a DNG and delete the original RAW file as there may be changes in the future. For example, Canon DPP added an interesting feature in 2012, the DLO. It has been surprisinlgy effective in processing some images from 8 years ago. Who knows what else will be available in the future.

EBH



Feb 10, 2013 at 04:02 PM
I.G.I.
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · DNG format


I was wondering the same as the OP, but in reverse. Why would anyone buy and use hyper proprietary equipment which have been designed from the onset to lock you in? It is a vile business model akin to the one used during the slavery trade: it grooms and place one it the position of dependency, after which the important decisions when, and what software to upgrade with are effectively taken by corporations, not by the user. It is a sort of cartel agreement by everyone who matters in the camera industry today -- only a few marginal players adopted the DNG; the rest, neither offer the DNG as a file option, nor they publish the specifications of their stupid files. Most brands have no direct revenue stream from this insane arrangement; and some even flagrantly act to the detriment of the users who support them with their wallets (Fuji is the most recent and glaring example).

I've been left high and dry by this business model not once but twice, and I swore never ever again to buy a camera/into a camera system designed to lock me in with proprietary formats, lenses etc., no matter how good they are.



Feb 10, 2013 at 08:36 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · DNG format


I don't see the accuracy in your metaphor examples above. I see it simply like:

1) File format = film
If we buy Kodak film we us Kodak, etc.
And AFAIK the file specifications are published - even if only to those who ask.
Simple.

2) RAW converter = developer
We can use any of the softwares (commercial developers or DIY chemicals) that works on our file format (film type).
Some solutions are even free!
Simple.

No need to compare any of that to slavery or elitism - although I know this is a favorite topic for northern europeans to occupy their time on. And I'm glad they and some others do this as it helps to keep things in general open and more sane in terms of copyright law and so on. But so far I've seen no evidence that camera RAW file formats and the tools needed to fully access them were encroaching on our natural or legal rights. Have you?

It's another matter when speaking of mechanical standards like lens mount specifications. But I think the very nature of optical instrumentation demands that the designers and engineers have all the say. Gawd, imagine the problems we'd all be facing if all manufacturers were forced to comply with some standards committee. Naw, if someone sees a better way (even if it "locks you in" - whatever that means) then let them both freely implement it as well as profit from their design and implementation - even if that means it's 3rd party manufacturers and developers have to sign an agreement to mutually not screw each other.




Feb 10, 2013 at 11:48 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · DNG format


I.G.I. wrote:
I've been left high and dry by this business model not once but twice, and I swore never ever again to buy a camera/into a camera system designed to lock me in with proprietary formats, lenses etc., no matter how good they are.


What cameras don't have a proprietary lens mount nowadays, maybe micro 4/3?

EBH



Feb 11, 2013 at 02:23 AM
I.G.I.
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · DNG format


EB-1 wrote:
What cameras don't have a proprietary lens mount nowadays, maybe micro 4/3?

EBH


Indeed not many I am afraid... Unfortunately nowadays there are more ways that limit our choices, and diminish the value of our purchases. For instance in-camera highly corrected lenses that function excellently only on the manufacturer's cams, a fact which severely narrows the resale market; or lenses that cannot function without properly operating firmware, and where any glitch may spell a visit to the manufacturer-only service that is costlier than a new lens. Not to highjack the post but new gadgets aren't any cheaper compared to the quality stuff of yesteryear, but while the later might be transferred across systems and as a consequence hold it's value well the former are mostly disposables with limited resale value.

To return on topic, I am anything but a fan of Adobe yet with the cancer-like proliferating new proprietary RAW formats with every camera iteration the DNG, which is open and changes much less frequently, sound like a sane voice in the RAW formats lunatic asylum. It is not a question DNG_OR_the Manufacturer_proprietary_stuff; nor the provision of DNG oblige the end user in any way (Pentax is the one and only example in this regard). On the contrary, proprietary RAWs or JPEG (as in many recent top cams no TIFF option) is not a choice: one is forced either to use the manufacturer secret sauce, or live with the serious compromise of the JPEG format.

Market changes quickly, and what was thought yesterday an absurdity may become a reality today. No one could predict the exit of KM. Mac users today can not use the KM RAW developing utility because it won't work on Intel PC. And here we are: in the spate only of a few years the files of one of the once established players cannot be developed anymore by a sizable portion of photographers (all the third parties RAW processors offer is a guesswork; it is very difficult to match the rendition of the otherwise atrocious KM software; of course even on the death bed KM did not publish their format). The same story - business not profitable enough, refocussing the company priorities - could be repeated in the future with any of the market players today; and taking with them their petty RAW IP.



Feb 11, 2013 at 12:43 PM





FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password