Reading mode: Light Dark

ERI-JEG

Go to last post
Thx Masterdeath, guess I misread or understood the 14n's file sizes.
hoggy
Masterdeath said:
hoggy said:
Tom M said:
Very good points John! This is why I started this thread - to
bring out discussion on the merits of the technology. To be honest
with you, I didn't consider many of the points you make.

I truly believe that when a new product comes out, many people
don't have a clue what it really can mean to them. Yes the
manufacturers put out the glossies, but reading them does not
necessarily leave one with a full appreciation of what the product
can or cannot do for the end user. Only when the end users
actually put the product through its paces and seek to find out how
it can actually benefit the end user do the true pros and cons of a
product come to the forefront.

Carefully prepared marketing jargon and carefully selected sample
images are one thing, but real world use and testing is another.

Thanks for your input, you make very valid and great points.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ken,

This may help you.

From the ReadMe:

A feature that did not get into the User Guide is the Space Bar-Select of an image. If you hold down the Space Bar while selecting an ERI image to open, the User Interface will be bypassed and the image will open as a standard JPEG in Photoshop.

Enjoy.
Crow Leader said:
Does anybody know of a way to get photoshop to open the camera
generated ERI-jpegs without the kodak ERI-jpeg module?

I want to open multiple files at once, or batch process images.

KEN
Click to expand...
 
So are you saying that as a
Tom Maxwell said:
printer you prefer that your clients provide you with underexposed
low contrast negatives rather than properly exposed negatives?
Click to expand...
No, what I am saying is that negs have a very long tonal range with the ability to hold an enormous brightness range. A properly exposed neg or an overexposed neg and even underexposed negs can yield excellent prints. A digital file with data bumping the limits at the high end or low end has permanently lost image information.

To visualize this, imagine a histogram with no clipping. Now imagine that it is represented as three inches wide. A print can only hold two inches of the info. Thus the printer has to decide which is the important two inches.

We always prefer a properly exposed neg. What I was also pointing out is that even with a certain carelessness in ones exposure, a photographer shooting color neg could be confident of getting a print that was saleable.

The ERIjpg ensures that exposure extremes are contained in the file and not lost at 255 or at 0. By post processing, the photographer then decides at what contrast he/she wants to print.

BTW, I enjoy the rancor free exchange here as a refreshing change from some threads.
 
The ERI concept is interesting. I do have a few concerns, and would be interested in hearing comments from others on these:

1. Non-documented JPEG extension. Although KODAK is releasing an SDK, I don't think they are releasing the details on the actual extensiion. At least NEF, CRW, et al have been reverse engineered and we know the format details.

2. Already post processed. My understanding is that the format essentially does the following:
a) Converts the raw image to a usable image
b) Saves a compressed 8 bit copy as JPEG
c) Saves the difference between (b) and (a) as the ERI extension

My concern here is that if this is indeed true, then what you are getting out of ERI is NOT WHAT CAME OFF THE CCD (or CMOS). Because it already has transformation curves applied, and it has already had some sort of CFA de-mosaicing applied, what ERI in effect gives you is a 12 bit processed image, which is quite different from say NEF where you get the 12 bit raw data as it came off the CCD.

In other words, if my understanding is right above, then ERI does not give you the raw unprocessed original data from the camera. So in this respect NEF et al are better IMO.

3. If the ERI-JPEG file is edited and resaved by some software that reads JPEG but not ERI-JPEG, then the ERI information is lost, so you revert back to a normal compressed 8 bit JPEG file. The main problem here is that it would be quite easy to forget, and load the image, change something, and goodbye additional ERI information. This could happen if you do something as simple as adding some IPTC data to an existing ERI-JPEG file. The problem is that ERI uses a number of non-standard JPEG tags (0xffe3, 0xffe4, 0xffe5 etc) to store the ERI difference data. Most applications will not re-save unknown JPEG tags when a file is loaded then saved again. If an application does save these tags, then the reverse problem occurs - you have invalid ERI data attached to a modified JPEG file, which is equally dangerous.

The only easy solution to this is to write-protect ERI-JPEG files and never save over them.

Note that if you have an application with an ERI-JPEG plugin, it presumably can re-write the 12 bit ERI extension back out so (3) above is not a problem in this case.

Overall, perhaps KODAK should have stuck with a pure raw file format, and added JPEG 2000 support for 12 bit images. Lossless compressed JPEG 2000 files will typically give 3:1 to 5:1 compression on files created from CFA demosaiced photo images, so you end up with something that is a standard, has 12 bit range, and does not suffer from the above problems.

Given my own main reason for using raw images is to beable to perform post-processing CFA demosacing and curve transformations, I can't see that ERI offers a lot to my work flow, as ERI offers neither of these to me.

PCs have more processing power and more RAM than digital cameras, so can apply the latest techniques, even to old photos in raw mode that were taken before the latest software advances. So I don't like the idea of saving my images in an already processed format.

It could be that I misunderstand aspects of ERI, so comments are most welcome to the above.

What is really annoying is that manufacturers seem to forget that we want to archive our raw digital images. Will ERI-JPEG, NEF and CRW etc all still be around in 20 years, with software still able to read them? I suspect not.

Regards,

Stuart
 
Stuart Nixon said:
The ERI concept is interesting. I do have a few concerns, and would
be interested in hearing comments from others on these:

1. Non-documented JPEG extension. Although KODAK is releasing an
SDK, I don't think they are releasing the details on the actual
extensiion. At least NEF, CRW, et al have been reverse engineered
and we know the format details.

2. Already post processed. My understanding is that the format
essentially does the following:
a) Converts the raw image to a usable image
b) Saves a compressed 8 bit copy as JPEG
c) Saves the difference between (b) and (a) as the ERI extension
My concern here is that if this is indeed true, then what you are
getting out of ERI is NOT WHAT CAME OFF THE CCD (or CMOS). Because
it already has transformation curves applied, and it has already
had some sort of CFA de-mosaicing applied, what ERI in effect gives
you is a 12 bit processed image, which is quite different from
say NEF where you get the 12 bit raw data as it came off the CCD.

In other words, if my understanding is right above, then ERI does
not give you the raw unprocessed original data from the camera. So
in this respect NEF et al are better IMO.

3. If the ERI-JPEG file is edited and resaved by some software that
reads JPEG but not ERI-JPEG, then the ERI information is lost, so
you revert back to a normal compressed 8 bit JPEG file. The main
problem here is that it would be quite easy to forget, and load the
image, change something, and goodbye additional ERI information.
This could happen if you do something as simple as adding some IPTC
data to an existing ERI-JPEG file. The problem is that ERI uses a
number of non-standard JPEG tags (0xffe3, 0xffe4, 0xffe5 etc) to
store the ERI difference data. Most applications will not re-save
unknown JPEG tags when a file is loaded then saved again. If an
application does save these tags, then the reverse problem occurs
  • you have invalid ERI data attached to a modified JPEG file, which
is equally dangerous.

The only easy solution to this is to write-protect ERI-JPEG files
and never save over them.

Note that if you have an application with an ERI-JPEG plugin, it
presumably can re-write the 12 bit ERI extension back out so (3)
above is not a problem in this case.

Overall, perhaps KODAK should have stuck with a pure raw file
format, and added JPEG 2000 support for 12 bit images. Lossless
compressed JPEG 2000 files will typically give 3:1 to 5:1
compression on files created from CFA demosaiced photo images, so
you end up with something that is a standard, has 12 bit range, and
does not suffer from the above problems.

Given my own main reason for using raw images is to beable to
perform post-processing CFA demosacing and curve transformations, I
can't see that ERI offers a lot to my work flow, as ERI offers
neither of these to me.
PCs have more processing power and more RAM than digital cameras,
so can apply the latest techniques, even to old photos in raw mode
that were taken before the latest software advances. So I don't
like the idea of saving my images in an already processed format.

It could be that I misunderstand aspects of ERI, so comments are
most welcome to the above.

What is really annoying is that manufacturers seem to forget that
we want to archive our raw digital images. Will ERI-JPEG, NEF and
CRW etc all still be around in 20 years, with software still able
to read them? I suspect not.

Regards,

Stuart
Click to expand...
------------------------

Excelent article Stuart-I didnt understand any of it. (just joking).

As a full time photographer,what I need is a is a digital NEG.

I cant use RAW as its to slow,TIFF is to me a total waste of time,as it doesnt seem to do anything.

The ERI from Kodak seems to be the answer.

It processes very quickly in the camera,and I can adjust any overexposures later on in the computer,RE-SAVE as a normal JPG and sent it to the client via DSL or disc.

IMPORTANT NOTE : Some clients (who are now getting used to digital) told me NOT to mess with the image (in photoshop) as they want the image straight from the camera and onto a CD/DVD and THEY will colour correct it for pre press etc-as they claim the I dont know what im doing once the picture is taken,and I suspect that they are right,even though none of us want to admit it,so I let them get in with it.

I presume that with ERI I could send the client a copy of the softwear,download all the images from the camera onto a CD/DVD and they then process the ERI jpg's at their own leisure,which should make them very happy,as they can correct all my overexposed (about 10%) pictures,which they could'n in the past.

Am I on the right track ?

http://www.pbase.com/digital/tabloidgirls

GR
 
George Richardson said:
IMPORTANT NOTE : Some clients (who are now getting used to digital)
told me NOT to mess with the image (in photoshop) as they want the
image straight from the camera and onto a CD/DVD and THEY will
colour correct it for pre press etc-as they claim the I dont know
what im doing once the picture is taken,and I suspect that they are
right,even though none of us want to admit it,so I let them get in
with it.
Click to expand...
I am training my clients to allow me to color correct. Every job we shoot with our DCS 760 is shot in DCR raw format. We convert the best shots to tif files, set levels and color correction curves in PhotoShop as well as any minor cleanup and sharpening to the image. We upsize in Genuine Fractals if needed- we have done 4 or 5 billboards this way! They are given a CD of RGB files set to US Prepress defaults in PhotoShop's color settings (in other words Adobe RGB 1998 color space). We charge for computer time in this service, which offsets our income loss for film and processing markup. We have clients coming to us for advice on color and PhotoShop methods. My reason for doing all this is it keeps us involved in the look of the final image. It is amazing how much more you can do to finish the vision you have during the shoot, and to surrender control to others makes no sense to me if you want your vision to make it to print correctly.

Richard
 
Stuart- while I agree with the "trees" in your post, I see a different "forest". Kodak is not abandoning RAW, so all the advantages remain. Even better, photodesk is a MUCH better program than Capture, and I suspect the new version will be even more so,,(I look for continuous color temp control, the one thing NC has that I miss in PD). The eri-jpg is a very important convenience. For one, if all you really want to do is correct exposure problems, including Kodak's unique ability to pull back blown highlights, you've got it. As you know, sometimes it's helpful to stay in an all jpg workflow for speed and for memory conservation. With my 720X and it's small files, I'd always stay RAW. With the 14N, I'm sure I'll be finding a use for eri's.....Peter
Stuart Nixon said:
The ERI concept is interesting. I do have a few concerns, and would
be interested in hearing comments from others on these:

1. Non-documented JPEG extension. Although KODAK is releasing an
SDK, I don't think they are releasing the details on the actual
extensiion. At least NEF, CRW, et al have been reverse engineered
and we know the format details.

2. Already post processed. My understanding is that the format
essentially does the following:
a) Converts the raw image to a usable image
b) Saves a compressed 8 bit copy as JPEG
c) Saves the difference between (b) and (a) as the ERI extension
My concern here is that if this is indeed true, then what you are
getting out of ERI is NOT WHAT CAME OFF THE CCD (or CMOS). Because
it already has transformation curves applied, and it has already
had some sort of CFA de-mosaicing applied, what ERI in effect gives
you is a 12 bit processed image, which is quite different from
say NEF where you get the 12 bit raw data as it came off the CCD.

In other words, if my understanding is right above, then ERI does
not give you the raw unprocessed original data from the camera. So
in this respect NEF et al are better IMO.

3. If the ERI-JPEG file is edited and resaved by some software that
reads JPEG but not ERI-JPEG, then the ERI information is lost, so
you revert back to a normal compressed 8 bit JPEG file. The main
problem here is that it would be quite easy to forget, and load the
image, change something, and goodbye additional ERI information.
This could happen if you do something as simple as adding some IPTC
data to an existing ERI-JPEG file. The problem is that ERI uses a
number of non-standard JPEG tags (0xffe3, 0xffe4, 0xffe5 etc) to
store the ERI difference data. Most applications will not re-save
unknown JPEG tags when a file is loaded then saved again. If an
application does save these tags, then the reverse problem occurs
  • you have invalid ERI data attached to a modified JPEG file, which
is equally dangerous.

The only easy solution to this is to write-protect ERI-JPEG files
and never save over them.

Note that if you have an application with an ERI-JPEG plugin, it
presumably can re-write the 12 bit ERI extension back out so (3)
above is not a problem in this case.

Overall, perhaps KODAK should have stuck with a pure raw file
format, and added JPEG 2000 support for 12 bit images. Lossless
compressed JPEG 2000 files will typically give 3:1 to 5:1
compression on files created from CFA demosaiced photo images, so
you end up with something that is a standard, has 12 bit range, and
does not suffer from the above problems.

Given my own main reason for using raw images is to beable to
perform post-processing CFA demosacing and curve transformations, I
can't see that ERI offers a lot to my work flow, as ERI offers
neither of these to me.
PCs have more processing power and more RAM than digital cameras,
so can apply the latest techniques, even to old photos in raw mode
that were taken before the latest software advances. So I don't
like the idea of saving my images in an already processed format.

It could be that I misunderstand aspects of ERI, so comments are
most welcome to the above.

What is really annoying is that manufacturers seem to forget that
we want to archive our raw digital images. Will ERI-JPEG, NEF and
CRW etc all still be around in 20 years, with software still able
to read them? I suspect not.

Regards,

Stuart
Click to expand...
 
I allways looked at the ERI method slightly differently. I agree with the problem that if you open it in one program and save it the ERI data is lost but whos fault is that? Compared to shoting with a normal JPEG or RAW the ERI is by far the best... You may not have the exact same range or quaility as if you shoot in RAW itself.. I have read a review that says their is slightly more quaility in the correction if you use a RAW instead of a ERI but the point was that every JPEG the camera takes has this ERI added to it... I can remeber taking pictures before is a dark musem and every so often shoot one or two in RAW so I could tweak it later... You can get good prints from under exposed digital, but not as good as the ones shot in RAW.

The ERI is lossy compression so you do lose some more quaility their too... Thats fine compared to slow write times and needing many CF cards... Their is no negative side to ERI. It is a new feature that has been added for us, and for Kodak to get people to buy this camera... I would have purchased a Ds if not for ERI.... I am a wedding photographer and shot with a S2 and with film for a wedding.. Not being able to fix the 2 over exposed shots from the S2 really upset me. If It was in RAW or ERI, I would have been in good shape :)
Stuart Nixon said:
The ERI concept is interesting. I do have a few concerns, and would
be interested in hearing comments from others on these:

1. Non-documented JPEG extension. Although KODAK is releasing an
SDK, I don't think they are releasing the details on the actual
extensiion. At least NEF, CRW, et al have been reverse engineered
and we know the format details.

2. Already post processed. My understanding is that the format
essentially does the following:
a) Converts the raw image to a usable image
b) Saves a compressed 8 bit copy as JPEG
c) Saves the difference between (b) and (a) as the ERI extension
My concern here is that if this is indeed true, then what you are
getting out of ERI is NOT WHAT CAME OFF THE CCD (or CMOS). Because
it already has transformation curves applied, and it has already
had some sort of CFA de-mosaicing applied, what ERI in effect gives
you is a 12 bit processed image, which is quite different from
say NEF where you get the 12 bit raw data as it came off the CCD.

In other words, if my understanding is right above, then ERI does
not give you the raw unprocessed original data from the camera. So
in this respect NEF et al are better IMO.

3. If the ERI-JPEG file is edited and resaved by some software that
reads JPEG but not ERI-JPEG, then the ERI information is lost, so
you revert back to a normal compressed 8 bit JPEG file. The main
problem here is that it would be quite easy to forget, and load the
image, change something, and goodbye additional ERI information.
This could happen if you do something as simple as adding some IPTC
data to an existing ERI-JPEG file. The problem is that ERI uses a
number of non-standard JPEG tags (0xffe3, 0xffe4, 0xffe5 etc) to
store the ERI difference data. Most applications will not re-save
unknown JPEG tags when a file is loaded then saved again. If an
application does save these tags, then the reverse problem occurs
  • you have invalid ERI data attached to a modified JPEG file, which
is equally dangerous.

The only easy solution to this is to write-protect ERI-JPEG files
and never save over them.

Note that if you have an application with an ERI-JPEG plugin, it
presumably can re-write the 12 bit ERI extension back out so (3)
above is not a problem in this case.

Overall, perhaps KODAK should have stuck with a pure raw file
format, and added JPEG 2000 support for 12 bit images. Lossless
compressed JPEG 2000 files will typically give 3:1 to 5:1
compression on files created from CFA demosaiced photo images, so
you end up with something that is a standard, has 12 bit range, and
does not suffer from the above problems.

Given my own main reason for using raw images is to beable to
perform post-processing CFA demosacing and curve transformations, I
can't see that ERI offers a lot to my work flow, as ERI offers
neither of these to me.
PCs have more processing power and more RAM than digital cameras,
so can apply the latest techniques, even to old photos in raw mode
that were taken before the latest software advances. So I don't
like the idea of saving my images in an already processed format.

It could be that I misunderstand aspects of ERI, so comments are
most welcome to the above.

What is really annoying is that manufacturers seem to forget that
we want to archive our raw digital images. Will ERI-JPEG, NEF and
CRW etc all still be around in 20 years, with software still able
to read them? I suspect not.

Regards,

Stuart
Click to expand...
 
Oh yea... Forgot a few things :) You should keep a CD/DVD with the original files.... And on that CD keep a copy of the program that can read the ERI and a program that can read JPEG... I will make a bet... In 20 years you may not be able to run the OLD RAW viewers for the Canon, Nikon and Fuji Raw files.. But at least ERI can be read as a normal Jpeg... Their will still be old Jpeg viewers for a LONG LONG LONG time... So many people use Jpeg and want to see old Jpegs their will be a need for viewers.... Then, they will make fast easy programs to transfer the old JPEGs to the new formats of the time..
 
Richard Boyd said:
Richard Boyd said:
IMPORTANT NOTE : Some clients (who are now getting used to digital)
told me NOT to mess with the image (in photoshop) as they want the
image straight from the camera and onto a CD/DVD and THEY will
colour correct it for pre press etc-as they claim the I dont know
what im doing once the picture is taken,and I suspect that they are
right,even though none of us want to admit it,so I let them get in
with it.
Click to expand...
I am training my clients to allow me to color correct. Every job we
shoot with our DCS 760 is shot in DCR raw format. We convert the
best shots to tif files, set levels and color correction curves in
PhotoShop as well as any minor cleanup and sharpening to the image.
We upsize in Genuine Fractals if needed- we have done 4 or 5
billboards this way! They are given a CD of RGB files set to US
Prepress defaults in PhotoShop's color settings (in other words
Adobe RGB 1998 color space).
Click to expand...
What you are doing is great,but in my case,I have to get on with my next job.

Film was a pain,and cost me a lot of money in lost time,I dont intend that the same thing happens in digital

Also I dont think that you can use Genuine Fractals to a ERI jpg- as it will loose the ERI,so (in my case) its better that the client does the lot.

Its bad enough having to rotate 300 pictures out of 500-that still does my head in,as they say.
Regards
GR
-----

We charge for computer time in this
Richard Boyd said:
service, which offsets our income loss for film and processing
markup. We have clients coming to us for advice on color and
PhotoShop methods. My reason for doing all this is it keeps us
involved in the look of the final image. It is amazing how much
more you can do to finish the vision you have during the shoot, and
to surrender control to others makes no sense to me if you want
your vision to make it to print correctly.

Richard
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the topic. I've read all the posts and from what I can gather, ERI JPGS can be read by all photo viewing software as simply JPGS. To access the ERI function one must use the Kodak supplied software. Does this software come as a PhotoShop plug in?

I use the Windows XP Pro thumbnail viewer, choose some images and then open them up in PS7. Photoshop has a thumbnailer to, but I still like the larger layout of the Windows browser. Then it is off to Qimage for most printing, though I find my self printing directly from PS more and more.

From what I'm reading, ERI viewing should not be a problem for any of these softwares, but ERI ability will be lost if an ERI JPG is modified in any software that is nor ERI specific (such as the windows thumb viewer).

AS an aside, I experimented and printed once from the windows browser. SHUDDER! GASP, GULP! NEVER AGAIN!! Holy high contrast blown highlights Batman!

ERI JPG is one main reason I want the 14n. It does sound like one of THE answers in JPG land. The other JPG helper will likely be JPG2000 IF any one actually impliments it.
Best,
Robert
 
As far as I know, the PS plugin is all that is available at this time. It can be downloaded from the Kodak web site. Download it along with the sample images and play with it a while and let us know what you think. The software has not been implemented into the Photodesk software at this time but I imagin it will be at some point in the future.
 
I have had the 720X and used Photodesk for about two weeks now. I have used Nikon NC in one variant or another for almost two years. PD seems very limiting when compared to NC. I must be missing something. Can you tell me why PD is so much better?

Regards,
Trent
Peter said:
Stuart Nixon said:
The ERI concept is interesting. I do have a few concerns, and would
be interested in hearing comments from others on these:

1. Non-documented JPEG extension. Although KODAK is releasing an
SDK, I don't think they are releasing the details on the actual
extensiion. At least NEF, CRW, et al have been reverse engineered
and we know the format details.

2. Already post processed. My understanding is that the format
essentially does the following:
a) Converts the raw image to a usable image
b) Saves a compressed 8 bit copy as JPEG
c) Saves the difference between (b) and (a) as the ERI extension
My concern here is that if this is indeed true, then what you are
getting out of ERI is NOT WHAT CAME OFF THE CCD (or CMOS). Because
it already has transformation curves applied, and it has already
had some sort of CFA de-mosaicing applied, what ERI in effect gives
you is a 12 bit processed image, which is quite different from
say NEF where you get the 12 bit raw data as it came off the CCD.

In other words, if my understanding is right above, then ERI does
not give you the raw unprocessed original data from the camera. So
in this respect NEF et al are better IMO.

3. If the ERI-JPEG file is edited and resaved by some software that
reads JPEG but not ERI-JPEG, then the ERI information is lost, so
you revert back to a normal compressed 8 bit JPEG file. The main
problem here is that it would be quite easy to forget, and load the
image, change something, and goodbye additional ERI information.
This could happen if you do something as simple as adding some IPTC
data to an existing ERI-JPEG file. The problem is that ERI uses a
number of non-standard JPEG tags (0xffe3, 0xffe4, 0xffe5 etc) to
store the ERI difference data. Most applications will not re-save
unknown JPEG tags when a file is loaded then saved again. If an
application does save these tags, then the reverse problem occurs
  • you have invalid ERI data attached to a modified JPEG file, which
is equally dangerous.

The only easy solution to this is to write-protect ERI-JPEG files
and never save over them.

Note that if you have an application with an ERI-JPEG plugin, it
presumably can re-write the 12 bit ERI extension back out so (3)
above is not a problem in this case.

Overall, perhaps KODAK should have stuck with a pure raw file
format, and added JPEG 2000 support for 12 bit images. Lossless
compressed JPEG 2000 files will typically give 3:1 to 5:1
compression on files created from CFA demosaiced photo images, so
you end up with something that is a standard, has 12 bit range, and
does not suffer from the above problems.

Given my own main reason for using raw images is to beable to
perform post-processing CFA demosacing and curve transformations, I
can't see that ERI offers a lot to my work flow, as ERI offers
neither of these to me.
PCs have more processing power and more RAM than digital cameras,
so can apply the latest techniques, even to old photos in raw mode
that were taken before the latest software advances. So I don't
like the idea of saving my images in an already processed format.

It could be that I misunderstand aspects of ERI, so comments are
most welcome to the above.

What is really annoying is that manufacturers seem to forget that
we want to archive our raw digital images. Will ERI-JPEG, NEF and
CRW etc all still be around in 20 years, with software still able
to read them? I suspect not.

Regards,

Stuart
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I agree with you Trent. I came to the same conclusion although I will admit that I have used NC for about 2 years now and have only played with Photodesk a little.

The only advantage I found to PD over NC is that PD does incorporate a viewer into the program. Select file and then a folder and it will open all of the images fairly quickly in nice looking thumbnail format. I admit that this is nice rather than having to start another program like Nikonview to screen images.

Other than that, I think the adjustment capabilities of PD are much less robust that those of NC. The limited exposure I have had to Kodak Photostudio tells me that it is much better than Photodesk and more closely matches the capabilities of NC. I am not sure why Kodak feels a need for these two programs. I think Photostudio should be their standard with all cameras.

Maybe I am missing something as well. But then again, I have a hard time understanding why people think Macs are so much better than PCs. When I ask, I usually get a response like, "The Mac just looks cool and sexy" :)

Tom
 
Trent and Tom- Here's why

1. whether we call it the PD program or the Kodak system, the ability to really change exposure, as in bring back up to 2 stops "overexposed", or what really amounts to a 2 stoop greater range over NEF/NC, is enough in itself.

2. ability to click set WB on all shots taken in that light at once- much quicker than saving and batch converting and allowing immediate visual feedback and chance to tweak. I'm sure PD3 will add continuous color temp change as well
3. as in #2, having essentially nikon view and NC in one package

4. I do use Mac, (not just for sex appeal), and PD is much quicker than NC on the Mac
5. ability to assign any ICC you want

6. saves TIFFs while transferring to photoshop, the "negative" is saved before working it., and before forgetting to save it, as I've done for sure.

What I prefer in NC

1. continuous color temp control, again I'm sure it's coming in PD3 as it's in the body software of the 14N
2.Levels...but I really do prefer doing this in Photoshop
Best..Peter
Tom M said:
I agree with you Trent. I came to the same conclusion although I
will admit that I have used NC for about 2 years now and have only
played with Photodesk a little.

The only advantage I found to PD over NC is that PD does
incorporate a viewer into the program. Select file and then a
folder and it will open all of the images fairly quickly in nice
looking thumbnail format. I admit that this is nice rather than
having to start another program like Nikonview to screen images.

Other than that, I think the adjustment capabilities of PD are much
less robust that those of NC. The limited exposure I have had to
Kodak Photostudio tells me that it is much better than Photodesk
and more closely matches the capabilities of NC. I am not sure why
Kodak feels a need for these two programs. I think Photostudio
should be their standard with all cameras.

Maybe I am missing something as well. But then again, I have a
hard time understanding why people think Macs are so much better
than PCs. When I ask, I usually get a response like, "The Mac just
looks cool and sexy" :)

Tom
Click to expand...
 
Tom M said:
The software has not been implemented into
the Photodesk software at this time but I imagin it will be at some
point in the future.
Click to expand...
I hope it's the near future as it's supposed to be included with 3.0 release accompanying the 14n, isn't it?
 
Fair enough. Appreciate the feedback.

Regards,
Trent
Peter said:
What I prefer in NC
1. continuous color temp control, again I'm sure it's coming in PD3
as it's in the body software of the 14N
2.Levels...but I really do prefer doing this in Photoshop
Best..Peter
Tom M said:
I agree with you Trent. I came to the same conclusion although I
will admit that I have used NC for about 2 years now and have only
played with Photodesk a little.

The only advantage I found to PD over NC is that PD does
incorporate a viewer into the program. Select file and then a
folder and it will open all of the images fairly quickly in nice
looking thumbnail format. I admit that this is nice rather than
having to start another program like Nikonview to screen images.

Other than that, I think the adjustment capabilities of PD are much
less robust that those of NC. The limited exposure I have had to
Kodak Photostudio tells me that it is much better than Photodesk
and more closely matches the capabilities of NC. I am not sure why
Kodak feels a need for these two programs. I think Photostudio
should be their standard with all cameras.

Maybe I am missing something as well. But then again, I have a
hard time understanding why people think Macs are so much better
than PCs. When I ask, I usually get a response like, "The Mac just
looks cool and sexy" :)

Tom
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Trent Mulkern said:
Regards,
Trent
Peter said:
What I prefer in NC
1. continuous color temp control, again I'm sure it's coming in PD3
as it's in the body software of the 14N
2.Levels...but I really do prefer doing this in Photoshop
Best..Peter
Tom M said:
I agree with you Trent. I came to the same conclusion although I
will admit that I have used NC for about 2 years now and have only
played with Photodesk a little.

The only advantage I found to PD over NC is that PD does
incorporate a viewer into the program. Select file and then a
folder and it will open all of the images fairly quickly in nice
looking thumbnail format. I admit that this is nice rather than
having to start another program like Nikonview to screen images.

Other than that, I think the adjustment capabilities of PD are much
less robust that those of NC. The limited exposure I have had to
Kodak Photostudio tells me that it is much better than Photodesk
and more closely matches the capabilities of NC. I am not sure why
Kodak feels a need for these two programs. I think Photostudio
should be their standard with all cameras.

Maybe I am missing something as well. But then again, I have a
hard time understanding why people think Macs are so much better
than PCs. When I ask, I usually get a response like, "The Mac just
looks cool and sexy" :)

Tom
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thomas H. wrote:
[cut]
Thomas H. said:
A feature that did not get into the User Guide is the Space
Bar-Select of an image. If you hold down the Space Bar while
selecting an ERI image to open, the User Interface will be bypassed
and the image will open as a standard JPEG in Photoshop.
Click to expand...
I just played with this and what it does is skip the enable and play with ERI option and just opens the file with some sort of of "product look" or unknown color profile. All pics end up washed out looking by default with this Kodak ERI module.

Maybe somebody can explain to me exactly what a Kodak "product look" really is. After installing Camera Manager and Photo Desk my machine is now full of what look to be broken color profiles only these two programs can use.

I'd like to just get plain images from the camera and meddle with color myself with ICC profiles I make myself for each type of lighthing situation.

KEN
 
Has anyone been able to get the plugin work with Paint Shop Pro 7 ?

I tried to run 'instal.exe', but the program terminates at about 70%.

I was able to copy 'KodakERI.8bi' file to PSP7's 'Plugins'-folder. However, when trying to open an ERI-jpg sample photo, it opens just
as an ordinary jpg file..

-jkp-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top