Call for DNG support from camera manufacturers Locked

Started Nov 8, 2008 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Jeff Schewe Regular Member • Posts: 430
Re: Won't matter ...

cityphotographer wrote:

Adopting DNG would actually HELP
those people who seem predisposed to hate Adobe because it would
provide opportunities to use NON-Adobe software.

so you do it: adopt DNG: you can do it right now.

I do...of my 90K plus digital collection I've gotten around to converting about 60K to DNG. Some of the previous non-DNG I've not gotten around to converting or editing the entire take, only the selects. I'm not maniacal about it...I have however adopted a workflow where I import the original raws, make all the preliminary color edits, crops, ranking and keywording then convert to DNG which nicely binds all the metadata into a single file rather than a raw + sidecar file. If I need to send a raw file to a client or magazine I always ONLY send DNGs since all my edits and metadata are in that single file. With the Orphan Works being brought into the US Congress, all digital photographers whose copyright info is NOT in the file may loose the right to sue for infringement if the infringer could not identify whose image was used.

Pulling the metadata OUT of a DNG is a willful act...loosing a sidecar file could just be stupidity...and let an infringer off the hook. And before you state you never, ever give a client a raw file, I guess you don't work for magazines since they now routinely require a raw as well as a rendered file for the purpose of image providence. Seems to many photographers are prone to, uh, well embellishing the truth shall we say? So, magazines like to have a record of what the original raw file contains and they are just fine getting a DNG...

But because I (for one again) am not stupid and care about my stuff I
can't let Adobe to be in charge of the raws because when they will be
they'll do exactly what they are doing now: mandatory upgrades to use
the raws on new cameras.

I won't call you stupid, and I'm sure you do care about your stuff, but I find it odd you are willing to keep your raws in a format that is undocumented and considered proprietary yet refuse to put them in a file format that is fully documented and open. See the irony there?

If you are a photographer, it would behoove you to actually know and
understand what the issues are. The industry, as it stands today is
NOT in the best interests of photographers...a standardized and fully
documented raw file format is–regardless of what you may think of
Adobe.

DNG is an Adobe thing. And Adobe can't defend our interests (by
definition) because we are the Customers and they sell to us. Our
interests go into two opposite directions.

I guess you missed out on the fact that Adobe has submitted DNG to the ISO for the upcoming TIFF-EP spec revision, huh? So, Adobe is willing (and has offered it) to give it to the ISO (for no fees by the way) but you are still clinging to the "Adobe thing" and can't see the forest for the trees...so, it all sounds like for YOU, it's all about YOU and the heck with the best interests of the industry, right? So what if 100 years from now, decades of original digital photography is lost to society because of undocumented and proprietary raw file formats can no longer be accessed. Why should YOU care, you won't be around...do I have that part right?

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Jeff Schewe

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow