RAW and DNG

Bobby Edwards wrote:

I’m experimenting with CS2 and RAW. My original RAWs are CRs from a Canon. If I open these in CS2 I can save them as DNGs which are smaller files. Does that mean information is lost?

It means that DNG uses a very good lossless compression scheme. (It happens to be a JPEG compression, but it really is lossless!)

(If you are still worried, note that the Leica DMR Back uses DNG as its raw format. But if you save those DNGs with ACR or the DNG Converter without doing anything to them, they are then much smaller, even though they have the same information! Because the Leica doesn’t compress its DNG well, if at all).

There is also a check box called Embed RAW data in the save dislogue. Should this be checked or unchecked? When it is checked the files expand in size markedly

That option puts the original raw file from the camera into the DNG file. Any product that reads DNG will ignore it, so you can still use the DNG file normally. But you can then run a folder full of DNG files with embedded raw files through the DNG Converter using the "Extract" button, and you will get back the original raw files as they came from the camera. Anyone who wants the advantages of DNG, but wants to pay ultra-safe and know that they can get back their original NEFs or CR2s or whatever anytime in future, can use this "embed" option. Some people use DNGs with embedded raw files as their archive format, and use DNGs without that as their working format, but it is very personal what combination you use.

Sadly, the Adobe Help says nothing of value about this.

Chuckle! It’s probably there somewhere, but I find out most things either by experimenting or by reading the Adobe forums.

My concern is, if I convert and then destroy my CR data and just save in DNG am I losing data and the very purpose of using RAW in the camera rather than JPEG

[snip]

If you want to play ultra-safe, embed the original files. But, as you point out, the file is larger. If you use other converters sometimes, either use the embed option or don’t use DNG.

(I don’t bother to embed. The DNG file contains everything that ACR needs, and that is the converter I use. Adobe now puts stuff they don’t need from the camera’s raw file into special fields in the DNG file, at least for certain cameras, which I believe includes Canon, Nikon, and Pentax. Adobe themselves don’t then do anything with that data, but their theory is that at some future date code will be able to extract it if necessary).

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 22:50:04 +0100, "Bobby Edwards" wrote:

I’m experimenting with CS2 and RAW. My original RAWs are CRs from a Canon. If I open these in CS2 I can save them as DNGs which are smaller files. Does that mean information is lost?

No.

There is also a check box called Embed RAW data in the save dislogue. Should this be checked or unchecked? When it is checked the files expand in size markedly

Yes, because they are then the DNG file plus the RAW file in one package.

Sadly, the Adobe Help says nothing of value about this.

There’s a surprise 😉

My concern is, if I convert and then destroy my CR data and just save in DNG am I losing data and the very purpose of using RAW in the camera rather than JPEG

I’d be grateful for some elicidation

Nope that helps. However, personally, I keep the RAW files rather than trust Adobe now or in the future. I generally find that trusting large software manufacturers results in future pain. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:
[snip]

Nope that helps. However, personally, I keep the RAW files rather than trust Adobe now or in the future. I generally find that trusting large software manufacturers results in future pain. 🙂

True. But trusting small software manufacturers can result in even more future pain! (This of all those other operating systems that people used to use on their personal computers).

The problem often comes from "single sourcing". The trick is to avoid getting locked-in. That is one of the reasons why open specifications & standards, open source, etc, are good for consumers.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Hecate wrote:

Nope that helps. However, personally, I keep the RAW files rather than trust Adobe now or in the future. I generally find that trusting large software manufacturers results in future pain. 🙂

So you trust a large camera maker instead…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Bobby Edwards" wrote in message

My concern is, if I convert and then destroy my CR data and just save in

DNG

am I losing data and the very purpose of using RAW in the camera rather

than

JPEG

I’d be grateful for some elicidation

Bobby Edwards

I would hold on to your original Canon files like glue, but for a different reason. A few weeks ago I posted a message in this group regarding some odd colour effects caused by Adobe Camera Raw with Canon Raw files which have blown highlights. The colour errors are difficult if not impossible to correct without a mask. Other raw converters (e.g. RawShooter Essentials) did not display these weird colours when converting from the original CRW file, but when I had converted the CRW file to DNG using Adobe’s converter, when these DNGs were opened in RSE, I saw the same weird colours as when using ACR. Be extremely careful!

—
John
Replace ‘nospam’ with ‘todnet’ when replying.

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message

The problem often comes from "single sourcing". The trick is to avoid getting locked-in. That is one of the reasons why open specifications & standards, open source, etc, are good for consumers.

Forgive if this idea is just too Far Out, but what we need is a medium that is more stable, not subject to vendor blackmail, portable, archival. I envision a thin, polyvinyl surface coated with an emulsion sensitive to light…

On 27 Aug 2005 00:37:43 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:

Hecate wrote:
[snip]

Nope that helps. However, personally, I keep the RAW files rather than trust Adobe now or in the future. I generally find that trusting large software manufacturers results in future pain. 🙂

True. But trusting small software manufacturers can result in even more future pain! (This of all those other operating systems that people used to use on their personal computers).

True. The difference I find is that small software producers are often far more responsive and often care far more about their clients simply because they don’t have the mindset of "another customer will be along in a minute".

The problem often comes from "single sourcing". The trick is to avoid getting locked-in. That is one of the reasons why open specifications & standards, open source, etc, are good for consumers.

I agree, which is why I have no intention of getting locked into Adobe’s DNG either.

If, however, it becomes a truly open standard used, and not abused by all software and hardware (camera) ,manufacturers, then I’ll happily think about using it. Though I’m not convinced about the lossless compression and would likely keep the original RAW files anyway. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:03:02 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Nope that helps. However, personally, I keep the RAW files rather than trust Adobe now or in the future. I generally find that trusting large software manufacturers results in future pain. 🙂

So you trust a large camera maker instead…

No, I just make sure that I keep the minimum number of variables. Adding a software manufacturer to the equation is one more variable and, so far, the hardware manufacturers (despite Nikon’s RAW WB encoding) have proved to be more reliable. (See lens mounts for example)

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

No, I just make sure that I keep the minimum number of variables. Adding a software manufacturer to the equation is one more variable and, so far, the hardware manufacturers (despite Nikon’s RAW WB encoding) have proved to be more reliable. (See lens mounts for example)

Bad example. You use Canon, don’t you? Did you forget what happened with the Canon ‘F’ lens mount?

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Hecate wrote:
[snip]

No, I just make sure that I keep the minimum number of variables. Adding a software manufacturer to the equation is one more variable and, so far, the hardware manufacturers (despite Nikon’s RAW WB encoding) have proved to be more reliable. (See lens mounts for example)

For any serious photographer, software manufacturers are *already* part of the equation. (I assume you use Photoshop!) The problem is that the major camera manufacturers tend to forget this.

That appears to have been the issue when Canon upgraded the firmware in someone’s 350D and stopped it working with ACR 3.1. (It may only be a problem with European models). Like the D2X WB problem, it suggests that the camera manufacturers are not adequately raising their heads beyond their own products to examine what their users actually do in practice.

The software makers appear to understand photographers’ workflows far better than the camera makers do. They have a better understanding of what is both upstream and downstream. The software makers appear to validate against lots of camera models. But the camera makers don’t always appear to validate against lots of software products – perhaps they don’t care that much?

There is something rather cynical about camera makers who don’t help their users obtain the tools they need in a timely way. I don’t like to think that this ignorance (or arrogance) is an inevitable part of the future of top-end photography.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message

Chuckle! It’s probably there somewhere, but I find out most things

I’ve read about chuckling, but I’m convinced I’ve never actually heard anybody do it.
Gorm.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:57:49 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

No, I just make sure that I keep the minimum number of variables. Adding a software manufacturer to the equation is one more variable and, so far, the hardware manufacturers (despite Nikon’s RAW WB encoding) have proved to be more reliable. (See lens mounts for example)

Bad example. You use Canon, don’t you? Did you forget what happened with the Canon ‘F’ lens mount?

No, I didn’t. The reason being that the F mount had had it’s day. If you’;re using Leica’s for example, that wouldn’t apply. OTOH, I doubt very much that even the best Leica lenses of say, 40 years ago, will be any use with a Leica digital. I know some people were upset when the F mount ended, but the EOS mount was a sensible change.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On 28 Aug 2005 04:03:12 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:

Hecate wrote:
[snip]

No, I just make sure that I keep the minimum number of variables. Adding a software manufacturer to the equation is one more variable and, so far, the hardware manufacturers (despite Nikon’s RAW WB encoding) have proved to be more reliable. (See lens mounts for example)

For any serious photographer, software manufacturers are *already* part of the equation. (I assume you use Photoshop!) The problem is that the major camera manufacturers tend to forget this.

You’re not comparing like with like though. Software isn’t some amorphous mass – it’s specific to a task – programs that try to do everything usually fail at all tasks miserably. And there’s a difference between file storage and image manipulation – I have no wish to be any further in hock to one company than I already am. I purchase different applications to do different things and I do not want it to be the case that everything is Adobe. You see the difference is that you believe that just because Adobe says something is open and will be forever and I don’t. Nor do I believe that the camera manufacturers will do anything to harm profit margins. Were there to be some advantage for them in using DNG I have no doubt they would. But there isn’t any advantage in allowing a third party to provide software/hardware/firmware. You assume that they will welcome open standards – I assume that they will do everything they can to corner the market and then switch to encoded proprietary standards to lock in their consumers.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On 28 Aug 2005 04:03:12 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:

[snip]

For any serious photographer, software manufacturers are *already* part of the equation. (I assume you use Photoshop!) The problem is that the major camera manufacturers tend to forget this.

You’re not comparing like with like though.

I’m simply responding accurately to what you said.

Software isn’t some
amorphous mass – it’s specific to a task – programs that try to do everything usually fail at all tasks miserably. And there’s a difference between file storage and image manipulation – I have no wish to be any further in hock to one company than I already am. I purchase different applications to do different things and I do not want it to be the case that everything is Adobe.

DNG opens up Raw processing. It doesn’t lock into Adobe! That is a paranoid conspiracy theory based solely in ignorance, and refuted by the facts. In fact, it makes it easier to build workflows from components from different suppliers, because it makes it easier to pass partial results from one product to another. Doesn’t DXO allow you to do some work, then output in DNG format to do further work in another product? Perhaps (I don’t know) there are ways of doing some work in ACR, saving in DNG, then doing more work in another product.

Welcome to a world of open systems! In future, I would expect to see lots of examples of this – there just hasn’t been enough time to develop many examples yet. (Just as, for example, TIFF enables photo-editing to be open. I know of people who do bits of work in one product, then pass the results via TIFF to another. In fact, I’ve done it myself, doing work in a product with interesting special features, and finishing in Photoshop, perhaps combining two or more TIFFs).

You see the
difference is that you believe that just because Adobe says something is open and will be forever and I don’t.

No – that is simply a red-herring!

*Published* versions of DNG *are* open for ever. Adobe have published a licence for free use by anyone, and no court would take them seriously if they tried to impose restrictions later on those published versions.

What Adobe may try to do with *future*, as-yet unpublished, versions is not a threat. The current, free, versions will still exist, and anyone can continue to use them. And product makers can decide what to do about future versions according to any imposed conditions, including ignoring those versions. People need to think of DNG as an evolving set of foreward-compatible specifications, with all published versions valid and beyond Adobe’s control. And no one can be forced to move to new versions if the existing versions are sufficient for them.

It is necessary to understand how the combination of the version-control scheme and the published licence works. Your fears are seen to be groundless.

Nor do I believe that the
camera manufacturers will do anything to harm profit margins. Were there to be some advantage for them in using DNG I have no doubt they would.

There IS an advantage to all, except possibly Nikon who appear to want to coerce users to buy their software. But what is also clear is that the camera makers haven’t properly understood those advantages. Nikon got caught by surprise with the D2X WB encryption issue, and issued silly statements, one of which they later withdrew. It would be foolish to believe they are all acting from fully-analysed positions.

Think of Canon. What are the profit margins advantages to them of the delay, when they release a new camera, before 3rd-party software catches up with it? What were the advantages, when they upgraded firmware, of users finding they couldn’t use CS2 anymore for a while? Those aren’t the result of cost-benefit analysis. They are cock-ups!

But there isn’t any advantage in allowing a third party to provide software/hardware/firmware.

Yes there is! The Leica DMR back shipped with Photoshop Elements 3 instead of a Leica-written Raw converter. They at least saved development cost. They also gained some credibility and publicity. In a world (such as you describe) where photographers build their workflows from components from various suppliers, realistic camera makers will benefit by fitting in with that.

You assume that they will welcome
open standards – I assume that they will do everything they can to corner the market and then switch to encoded proprietary standards to lock in their consumers.

I don’t assume they will welcome open standards. I’m sure that SOME people in Nikon, perhaps in Canon too, want to corner the market and lock in their customers. But I am not resigned to that result!

Photographers and users of photographs need to do the best we can to prevent that happening. Assuming we care, which I do.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Hecate wrote:

No, I just make sure that I keep the minimum number of variables. Adding a software manufacturer to the equation is one more variable and, so far, the hardware manufacturers (despite Nikon’s RAW WB encoding) have proved to be more reliable. (See lens mounts for example)

Bad example. You use Canon, don’t you? Did you forget what happened with the Canon ‘F’ lens mount?

No, I didn’t. The reason being that the F mount had had it’s day. If you’;re using Leica’s for example, that wouldn’t apply. OTOH, I doubt very much that even the best Leica lenses of say, 40 years ago, will be any use with a Leica digital. I know some people were upset when the F mount ended, but the EOS mount was a sensible change.

It was, but that’s not the point. The point is that people who had invested heavily in Canon glass were left in the cold. That’s not exactly a prime example of how more reliable hardware manufacturers are.

Now, if you had given Nikon or Pentax as an example… They still use their old mount, and made the AF-version compatible with the non AF-version. But somehow I don’t believe you would ever mention Nikon as an example of anything good, would you? 😉

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Barry Pearson" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

On 28 Aug 2005 04:03:12 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:

[snip]

For any serious photographer, software manufacturers are *already* part of the equation. (I assume you use Photoshop!) The problem is that the major camera manufacturers tend to forget this.

You’re not comparing like with like though.

I’m simply responding accurately to what you said.

Software isn’t some
amorphous mass – it’s specific to a task – programs that try to do everything usually fail at all tasks miserably. And there’s a difference between file storage and image manipulation – I have no wish to be any further in hock to one company than I already am. I purchase different applications to do different things and I do not want it to be the case that everything is Adobe.

DNG opens up Raw processing. It doesn’t lock into Adobe! That is a paranoid conspiracy theory based solely in ignorance, and refuted by the facts. In fact, it makes it easier to build workflows from components from different suppliers, because it makes it easier to pass partial results from one product to another. Doesn’t DXO allow you to do some work, then output in DNG format to do further work in another product? Perhaps (I don’t know) there are ways of doing some work in ACR, saving in DNG, then doing more work in another product.
Welcome to a world of open systems! In future, I would expect to see lots of examples of this – there just hasn’t been enough time to develop many examples yet. (Just as, for example, TIFF enables photo-editing to be open. I know of people who do bits of work in one product, then pass the results via TIFF to another. In fact, I’ve done it myself, doing work in a product with interesting special features, and finishing in Photoshop, perhaps combining two or more TIFFs).

You see the
difference is that you believe that just because Adobe says something is open and will be forever and I don’t.

No – that is simply a red-herring!

*Published* versions of DNG *are* open for ever. Adobe have published a licence for free use by anyone, and no court would take them seriously if they tried to impose restrictions later on those published versions.
What Adobe may try to do with *future*, as-yet unpublished, versions is not a threat. The current, free, versions will still exist, and anyone can continue to use them. And product makers can decide what to do about future versions according to any imposed conditions, including ignoring those versions. People need to think of DNG as an evolving set of foreward-compatible specifications, with all published versions valid and beyond Adobe’s control. And no one can be forced to move to new versions if the existing versions are sufficient for them.
It is necessary to understand how the combination of the version-control scheme and the published licence works. Your fears are seen to be groundless.

Nor do I believe that the
camera manufacturers will do anything to harm profit margins. Were there to be some advantage for them in using DNG I have no doubt they would.

There IS an advantage to all, except possibly Nikon who appear to want to coerce users to buy their software. But what is also clear is that the camera makers haven’t properly understood those advantages. Nikon got caught by surprise with the D2X WB encryption issue, and issued silly statements, one of which they later withdrew. It would be foolish to believe they are all acting from fully-analysed positions.
Think of Canon. What are the profit margins advantages to them of the delay, when they release a new camera, before 3rd-party software catches up with it? What were the advantages, when they upgraded firmware, of users finding they couldn’t use CS2 anymore for a while? Those aren’t the result of cost-benefit analysis. They are cock-ups!

But there isn’t any advantage in allowing a third party to provide software/hardware/firmware.

Yes there is! The Leica DMR back shipped with Photoshop Elements 3 instead of a Leica-written Raw converter. They at least saved development cost. They also gained some credibility and publicity. In a world (such as you describe) where photographers build their workflows from components from various suppliers, realistic camera makers will benefit by fitting in with that.

You assume that they will welcome
open standards – I assume that they will do everything they can to corner the market and then switch to encoded proprietary standards to lock in their consumers.

I don’t assume they will welcome open standards. I’m sure that SOME people in Nikon, perhaps in Canon too, want to corner the market and lock in their customers. But I am not resigned to that result!
Photographers and users of photographs need to do the best we can to prevent that happening. Assuming we care, which I do.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

round and round we go

this crap gives me a headache
that and color management articles
I am using JPG.
I can see no positive difference using the RAW. It’s slower, takes more space on the card, needs more after processing, looks different on each software converter. I know most of you who make fine art type photos will disagree.
And I don’t trust Adobe or Canon to care about protecting formats as they make more money from us by selling us new software and equipment, it is to their advantage to keep changing everything.
I am still mad at Canon for touting it’s digitals as being able to use all the old EF lenses when they damn well knew the results are far from satisfactory and you would have to buy all new IS lenses. Somehow they kept that tidbit tucked into the fine print.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:51:51 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

No, I just make sure that I keep the minimum number of variables. Adding a software manufacturer to the equation is one more variable and, so far, the hardware manufacturers (despite Nikon’s RAW WB encoding) have proved to be more reliable. (See lens mounts for example)

Bad example. You use Canon, don’t you? Did you forget what happened with the Canon ‘F’ lens mount?

No, I didn’t. The reason being that the F mount had had it’s day. If you’;re using Leica’s for example, that wouldn’t apply. OTOH, I doubt very much that even the best Leica lenses of say, 40 years ago, will be any use with a Leica digital. I know some people were upset when the F mount ended, but the EOS mount was a sensible change.

It was, but that’s not the point. The point is that people who had invested heavily in Canon glass were left in the cold. That’s not exactly a prime example of how more reliable hardware manufacturers are.
Now, if you had given Nikon or Pentax as an example… They still use their old mount, and made the AF-version compatible with the non AF-version. But somehow I don’t believe you would ever mention Nikon as an example of anything good, would you? 😉

You ,must have missed some of my posts. I may not like the way Nikon is acting re. the WB, but if, when I was starting out, someone had bought me Nikon equipment rather than Canon I would’ve been very happy. I think you get an extra warmth with Nikon glass and their lenses are superb. In fact, even up to 5-6 years ago I was still wondering, sometimes, whether I could afford to change from Canon to Nikon. However, in the last ten years nor, ISTM, Canon have overtaken Nikon in the camera field by quite a long way – and their lenses are as good, if a little cooler. Now I wouldn’t change.

(As an aside, you won’t find me ever saying anything bad about Pentax film cameras and lenses. My very first proper camera was a Pentax P130 and it was good, whilst the Pentax lenses I had with it were excellent. And I love the Pentax 67 and lenses. But you wouldn’t catch me buying Pentax digital kit <g>).

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On 29 Aug 2005 01:45:50 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:

You see the
difference is that you believe that just because Adobe says something is open and will be forever and I don’t.

No – that is simply a red-herring!

Yeah, and I’m sure you also believe that Adobe are in business for pure altruism.

What Adobe may try to do with *future*, as-yet unpublished, versions is not a threat.

In your opinion. Just as I believe, IMO, that you’re wrong. If Adobe produce a DNG version at the behest of the camera manufacturers, for example, which allows encryption, and this is the version they use, then it won’t matter that you can use the open versions.

But there isn’t any advantage in allowing a third party to provide software/hardware/firmware.

Yes there is! The Leica DMR back shipped with Photoshop Elements 3 instead of a Leica-written Raw converter. They at least saved development cost. They also gained some credibility and publicity. In a world (such as you describe) where photographers build their workflows from components from various suppliers, realistic camera makers will benefit by fitting in with that.

And as I pointed out in a previous post, the only camera manufacturers likely to do that are ones that in trouble, or have a really small market share and hope to increase it a fraction by parading this a USP. Leica is, in fact, an excellent example of this.

You assume that they will welcome
open standards – I assume that they will do everything they can to corner the market and then switch to encoded proprietary standards to lock in their consumers.

I don’t assume they will welcome open standards. I’m sure that SOME people in Nikon, perhaps in Canon too, want to corner the market and lock in their customers. But I am not resigned to that result!
Photographers and users of photographs need to do the best we can to prevent that happening. Assuming we care, which I do.

And professional users, who give a damn, are a small part of the market. The vast majority of camera users couldn’t care less. Guess whose opinion Nikon and Canon care about?

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:36:47 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

I am still mad at Canon for touting it’s digitals as being able to use all the old EF lenses when they damn well knew the results are far from satisfactory and you would have to buy all new IS lenses. Somehow they kept that tidbit tucked into the fine print.

It depends on the ;lens. The problem with digital is that it requires a number of changes to lenses. Once I’d got used to it, I’ve had no problem with any of my L lenses, my 100mm macro or 50mm f1.4.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

It was, but that’s not the point. The point is that people who had invested heavily in Canon glass were left in the cold. That’s not exactly a prime example of how more reliable hardware manufacturers are.

Indeed! Being forced, for no good technical consideration, to obsolete our hardware is a sign that the vendor is desperate. I put Nikon right there in the centre of my criticism. If Nikon cannot stand on the merits of its hardware as evinced by their introducing firmware dependencies, they are history, out of my world. After all, the differences between Canon and Nikon are so slim now that the differences they force upon us work against them. I swear, Nikon must have hired an MBA from Yale or Harvard to fuck themselves up this bad.

Hecate wrote:

On 29 Aug 2005 01:45:50 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:

You see the
difference is that you believe that just because Adobe says something is open and will be forever and I don’t.

No – that is simply a red-herring!

Yeah, and I’m sure you also believe that Adobe are in business for pure altruism.

You know perfectly well I don’t believe that, because I have explained to to you in previous threads in great detail! Your arguments have all been answered elsewhere – you are failing to introduce any new ones.

What Adobe may try to do with *future*, as-yet unpublished, versions is not a threat.

In your opinion. Just as I believe, IMO, that you’re wrong. If Adobe produce a DNG version at the behest of the camera manufacturers, for example, which allows encryption, and this is the version they use, then it won’t matter that you can use the open versions.

Totally irrelevant! If camera makers want to produce a totally encrypted format, they will do so, with or without Adobe. It is irrelevant whether they call that "DNG". It won’t be the DNG that is currently in use, which is open and free to use and implement and has no traps in it.

Suppose that Microsoft produced a format that allowed encryption, and called it XYZ. And suppose that camera makers used XYZ. What would that have to do with the DNG we have available? Nothing. So what would something called DNG which was not like the current DNG have to do with it? Nothing. Your argument is based on the use of the name "DNG" for something that doesn’t resemble DNG in specification, in writing-products, in reading-products, or anything else. You have hypothesised something totally different, and given it the name "DNG" so that you can criticise the real DNG.

That makes no more sense than saying "suppose a milk-bottle maker started to make lenses and persuaded Canon to use them as "Canon lenses"; then Canon lenses would probably become bad lenses; so, in case that happens in future, everyone should stop using "Canon lenses" now"!

[snip]

I don’t assume they will welcome open standards. I’m sure that SOME people in Nikon, perhaps in Canon too, want to corner the market and lock in their customers. But I am not resigned to that result!
Photographers and users of photographs need to do the best we can to prevent that happening. Assuming we care, which I do.

And professional users, who give a damn, are a small part of the market. The vast majority of camera users couldn’t care less. Guess whose opinion Nikon and Canon care about?

That attitude appears to be "Nikon and Canon will screw photographers anyway, so we shouldn’t use DNG". Hm!

Whereas if they intend to contine to screw photographers, that is why we should all use DNG to protect ourselves from them s much as we can.

—
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

On 30 Aug 2005 00:56:58 -0700, "Barry Pearson" wrote:

Whereas if they intend to contine to screw photographers, that is why we should all use DNG to protect ourselves from them s much as we can.

Whatever. You and I are not going to agree so let’s save some bandwidth.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:51:51 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Now, if you had given Nikon or Pentax as an example… They still use their old mount, and made the AF-version compatible with the non AF-version. But somehow I don’t believe you would ever mention Nikon as an example of anything good, would you? 😉

You ,must have missed some of my posts. I may not like the way Nikon is acting re. the WB, but if, when I was starting out, someone had bought me Nikon equipment rather than Canon I would’ve been very happy. I think you get an extra warmth with Nikon glass and their lenses are superb. In fact, even up to 5-6 years ago I was still wondering, sometimes, whether I could afford to change from Canon to Nikon. However, in the last ten years nor, ISTM, Canon have overtaken Nikon in the camera field by quite a long way – and their lenses are as good, if a little cooler. Now I wouldn’t change.

For more heated discussions, and beyond, please see rec.photo.digital. A few dozen each of Canon and Nikon fans and bashers, with a scattering of other brands, 24/7. Sometimes, photography is discussed there, just as PS might be discussed here.

—
John McWilliams

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:39:03 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

For more heated discussions, and beyond, please see rec.photo.digital. A few dozen each of Canon and Nikon fans and bashers, with a scattering of other brands, 24/7. Sometimes, photography is discussed there, just as PS might be discussed here.

LOL! That’s for those whose camera’s are jewellery 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…