Adobe - today the world, tomorrow the universe...

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Alan Browne, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Mxsmanic, Mar 30, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. :)

    Sure looks that way. I wonder if any digital photographer really
    has been waiting for an Adobe creative community directory?

    Roland Karlsson, Mar 30, 2005
  4. Alan Browne

    John Francis Guest

    John Francis, Mar 30, 2005
  5. Dave R knows who, Mar 30, 2005
  6. Dave R knows who, Mar 30, 2005
  7. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Aha! You get it.
    Alan Browne, Mar 30, 2005
  8. Alan Browne

    McLeod Guest

    I know I'm backing up my RAW files as DNGs. I presently have a bunch
    of Kodak files from the 90's I can no longer open because they have a
    bad habit of totally dropping support for their products when there is
    no more profit to be made from them.
    RAW files that are totally proprietary to camera manufacturers make me
    nervous. Everything looks pretty good right now, but 15 years from
    now when we are running Windows ZX or Mac OS19 and the Nikon D1, Fuji
    S2, and Canon 10D haven't been produced for that long I'd rather take
    the 15 minutes now to double archive my images in an open source type
    format than regret it at that point.
    McLeod, Mar 30, 2005
  9. Alan Browne

    ian lincoln Guest

    I would suggest a straight conversion to tiff. for your raw files.
    Information intact except the file sizes will be twice as large.
    ian lincoln, Mar 30, 2005
  10. Except that TIF does not contain the entire info from the RAW.
    Different RAW converters gives different results.

    Another option is to make a copy of the dcraw code and then
    use that code to decrypt your old RAW files.

    Roland Karlsson, Mar 30, 2005
  11. Alan Browne

    Basic Wedge Guest

    They used to say that about lasers.



    Basic Wedge, Mar 30, 2005
  12. I have completely moved to DNG. I convert straight off my camera. To my way
    of thinking there is no downside. My Oly E-10 is getting could
    vanish any day. It still works but how long will the software support the
    native format. I like the concept of DNG and I see no downside to it.
    Gene Palmiter, Mar 31, 2005
  13. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    A "General" member, too, which means you have to have made "most" of your
    income from publishing sales for 3 years running. So much for breaking
    into the biz...

    Makes me glad I left photography behind as a profession when I did. The
    business side of things is just a disaster any more.

    On the other hand, at least the "directory" won't be full of people willing
    to sell their work for next to nothing, which is a plus.
    Jeremy Nixon, Mar 31, 2005
  14. No downside, except it being ... ehem ... nothing?

    It is just a cointainer. RAW format is still RAW format
    - but now contained in DNG.

    Roland Karlsson, Mar 31, 2005
  15. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    When converting to DNG one has the option of containerizing the RAW or
    not. Once converted to DNG, if the RAW is not containered, then the
    camera RAW cannot be (directly) resurected by Adobe s/w. I suppose that
    they have no intention of doing so either. So perhaps a 3rd party will
    write a utility to take DNG back to the OEM raw format for DNG's that
    don't contain the OEM RAW.
    Alan Browne, Mar 31, 2005
  16. The idea behind DNG is that RAW formats are similar. They are
    almost all Bayer matrices. But - there are problems. The Fuiji
    being the most complicated problem - with both 45 degree
    tilted images and the double images with different sensitivity.

    Personally I think that published specs for the format on
    all RAW formats and a free software that can read them all
    is a much better idea. Dcraw comes to my mind.

    Roland Karlsson, Mar 31, 2005
  17. Alan Browne

    Owamanga Guest

    ...and simply archive a copy of DCRAW or similar (inc. source code
    where available) with the native RAW files.

    Arguments that 'we won't be able to run that software in the future'
    have so far been shown to be bogus. I can still run 8 bit ZX-81,
    Commodore VIC-20, Sinclair Spectrum & BBC Micro software with suitable
    (and free) emulators. These are 25 year old home micros, with
    extremely limited popularity compared to MS-DOS based systems.
    Owamanga, Mar 31, 2005
  18. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Roland Karlsson wrote:

    It is non proprietary:

    "About This Document
    The Digital Negative (DNG) Specification describes a non-proprietary
    file format for storing camera raw files that can be used by a wide
    range of hardware and software vendors. This section contains
    information about this document, including how it is organized and
    where to go for additional information.

    Audience This document is intended for developers of hardware and
    software applications that will generate, process, manage, or archive
    camera raw files."
    Alan Browne, Mar 31, 2005
  19. The real win with DNG will come when it's adopted as the native RAW
    format of most cameras. There's no need AFAIK for more than one RAW
    format in the world, and DNG should be that format, because it's
    open and will probably remain that way.

    IMHO anyway.
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 31, 2005
  20. Alan Browne

    John Francis Guest

    Then you miss the point. Dcraw not only knows how to read
    many RAW files (which is a good thing) - it also imposes the
    authors choice of RAW-to-RGB conversion algorithms (which isn't).

    Furthermore, dcraw doesn't really understand much about the RAW
    formats in question - just enough to know where the values from
    the sensor are stored, and some (hard-coded, camera-dependent)
    knowledge about the sensor layout.

    Look at the DNG spec some time, and see how much additional
    data is included besides the RAW sensor data values. Note,
    too, that this data is all in a format for which the specs
    have indeed been published - this isn't going to happen for
    the proprietary file formats used by the manufacturers.
    John Francis, Mar 31, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.