Better Raw file software

[Barry Pearson]

CS supports the same set of cameras that CS2 supports. There was no
need to upgrade to CS2 because of new cameras.

ACR 2.4 supports about half of those cameras directly, and all of
them via the DNG route.

[snip]

CS does NOT support the same set of cameras as CS2.

[snip]

Yes it does. CS, using ACR 2.4, supports precisely the same set of cameras as CS2, using ACR 3.3. Therefore, as I said, there was no need to upgrade to CS2 because of new cameras.

It may not do it in precisely the way you want, but that does not alter the basic facts, which are as I stated earlier and above. It is completely inaccurate for anyone to claim that it is necessary to upgrade to CS2 because they have a new camera. They MAY WANT to upgrade to CS2 because they prefer its workflow, but that is a different matter, and not suprising, because CS2 was designed to improve raw workflow.

--
DNG is better than sliced bread.
DNG images don't become toast.

 

[danegeld]

CS supports the same set of cameras that CS2 supports. There was no
need to upgrade to CS2 because of new cameras.

ACR 2.4 supports about half of those cameras directly, and all of
them via the DNG route.

[snip]

CS does NOT support the same set of cameras as CS2.

[snip]

Yes it does. CS, using ACR 2.4, supports precisely the same set of
cameras as CS2, using ACR 3.3. Therefore, as I said, there was no
need to upgrade to CS2 because of new cameras.

It may not do it in precisely the way you want, but that does not
alter the basic facts, which are as I stated earlier and above. It
is completely inaccurate for anyone to claim that it is necessary
to upgrade to CS2 because they have a new camera. They MAY WANT to
upgrade to CS2 because they prefer its workflow, but that is a
different matter, and not suprising, because CS2 was designed to
improve raw workflow.

--
DNG is better than sliced bread.
DNG images don't become toast.

Then please explain to me why I am unable to open CR2 files from my Canon 350XT in ACR 2.4.

----------------
http://www.pbase.com/tmalcom/

 

[crash447]

Barry,

I shoot Canon and want to thank you for your post. I would have written the same things however probably not as well. I am glad you wrote that so everyone can be well informed.

John

 

[Barry Pearson]

danegeld wrote:

[snip]

CS does NOT support the same set of cameras as CS2.

[snip]

Yes it does. CS, using ACR 2.4, supports precisely the same set of
cameras as CS2, using ACR 3.3. Therefore, as I said, there was no
need to upgrade to CS2 because of new cameras.

[snip]

Then please explain to me why I am unable to open CR2 files from my
Canon 350XT in ACR 2.4.

[snip]

Who said it did? I said "CS, using ACR 2.4, supports precisely the same set of cameras as CS2, using ACR 3.3. Therefore, as I said, there was no need to upgrade to CS2 because of new cameras".

There is a vast difference between "CS doesn't support camera X" and "CS supports camera X, but only via route Y". I know that many photographers handle their 350Ds via CS / ACR 2.4. For those who convert to DNG directly from their memory cards, it isn't even an extra step, just a different one. If you don't find it convenient, OK - sometimes people change raw converters because another one is more convenient. But that is their personal choice.

--
DNG is better than sliced bread.
DNG images don't become toast.

 

[PSmith06]

... For those who
convert to DNG directly from their memory cards, it isn't even an
extra step, just a different one. If you don't find it convenient,
OK - sometimes people change raw converters because another one is
more convenient. But that is their personal choice.

--
DNG is better than sliced bread.
DNG images don't become toast.

Are you converting to DNG and throwing out your RAWs? If you are... you are degrading the quality of your original RAWs. Did you know that? You are negating a chance to process your original RAWs in the future with a better future converter.

You may think DNG is OK, but DNG is an ACR interpretation of your original RAWs. It's like seeing your original RAWs through a color filter.

Peter

 

[Steve Bingham]

CS needs upgrading to CS2. Sorry. My mistake.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

 

[Wayne Larmon]

Barry, we are going to have to agree to disagree. For me, DNG
isn't worth using until Canon supports it at the camera level. Or
if I find that software (other than Adobe software) can read DNG
but not the native RAW format.

I'm not saying YOU should start using DNG now. What I am doing is
disagreeing with your assertion that DNG isn't of any value until
Canon (etc) supports it.

OK, but I still believe that converting to DNG and deleting the original RAW files is ill advised. Unless Adobe states in writing that no information is lost in the conversion.

It IS of value to many others, and I am just trying to make that
clear to anyone else reading this thread, so they can make their
own informed decisions.

I hope that their informed decision doesn't involve deleting the native RAW files. Other than that, the benefit of using the DNG format is in the eye of the beholder.

Wayne Larmon

 

[Barry Pearson]

Wayne Larmon wrote:
[snip]

OK, but I still believe that converting to DNG and deleting the
original RAW files is ill advised. Unless Adobe states in writing
that no information is lost in the conversion.

Thomas Knoll has stated this for certain formats, in an Adobe forum and elsewhere. Those are TIFF-based formats with properly-formed EXIF Makernotes, in which case the recent DNG Converters transfer the Makernotes into DNGPrivateData.

I think that Adobe should indeed be more forthcoming with what is preserved and what isn't, especially for the formats that are NOT well-behaved. And I have been critical about this in Adobe forums - the DNG Converter is not as well documented as it should be.

[snip]

I hope that their informed decision doesn't involve deleting the
native RAW files. Other than that, the benefit of using the DNG
format is in the eye of the beholder.

I think this "information lost" issue is misleading. What is the information that people are worrried about? The raw image data needed for a raw conversion gets copied across, so that ACR can do the same conversion whether or not DNG is involved. Probably future raw converters will be able to do a better job on DNGs.

But some people are concerned that some other information is lost, and they may want it in future, even though they don't need it now. Yet some people still sometimes use JPEG. Others cull a proportion of their raw files instead of keeping all of them. Few people take comprehensive records of the contents of each image. No one captures every image appearing in front of them. We all throw away information each day that may have been useful in future.

As I said elsewhere, it depends on your workflow and the tools you use.

--
DNG is better than sliced bread.
DNG images don't become toast.

 

[Barry Pearson]

PSmith06 wrote:
[snip]

Are you converting to DNG and throwing out your RAWs? If you are...
you are degrading the quality of your original RAWs. Did you know
that? You are negating a chance to process your original RAWs in
the future with a better future converter.

What evidence is there for any such degradation? And those future raw converters will see the same raw image data in my DNGs that they would see from my original raws files - except for the possibility that they won't even support the original raw files from my current camera!

New raw converters tend to support the most recent cameras, not historical ones. There are exceptions, but have a look at the lists of supported cameras for new raw converters, and see how many older cameras are in the lists. Exceptions include improvements to exisiting raw converters, because, so far, they appear not to remove support for their existing cameras. Which 2006 cameras will raw converters launched in 2011 or 2016 support? I think the real hope then will be via DNG.

You may think DNG is OK, but DNG is an ACR interpretation of your
original RAWs. It's like seeing your original RAWs through a color
filter.

My DNG files contain a copy of the original raw image data, (even though the original raw file is not embedded). The DNG Converter reorganises the data in the file, and adds new data to describe the camera. It doesn't do a raw conversion, or even a partial raw conversion. The DNG Converter is really a file format converter, not an image data converter.

(Some people say this is not the case with X3F image data from the Foveon sensor - I can't find evidence either way. And I'm not talking about the extra non-default options in the DNG Converter).

--
DNG is better than sliced bread.
DNG images don't become toast.

 

[danegeld]

DNG is not the One True Religion, contrary to much of what has been written in this thread and a couple of others. Nor is it the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's just another file format that at the end of the day some people may want to use and others, like me, will avoid simply because it comes from a company with a proven track record of not supporting their products or their customers. Making it into a religion and promoting it like one is just another reason to avoid it and those who proselytize for it.

----------------
http://www.pbase.com/tmalcom/

 

[Trustyd]

In fact, the original RAW file can be embedded within the DNG file as one save option when you create a DNG. Of course, there is a hit on file size.

DNG is not just another RAW file format but an attempt to establish a universal standard. As one who spend decades is the various wars concerning any number of computing standards, I can tell you that history shows that 99% of proprietory file formats die and become unsupported by any software, in time. Then you'll be sorry.

By the way, without universal file formats and other universal standards, there would be no Internet and we would not be having this discussion.



Of course, many now universal file formats do start out as proprietory but then dominate the market to such a degree that they become universal de facto standards. Adobe hopes to achieve this with DNG and has opened the standard to all and sundry to encourage them to take it up. Hurrah!

Personally I think Adobe Photoshop software is the epitome of what good software should be. It works very well, it achieves useful things not before possible and it keeps up with the new needs of the tools that consume its services.

Nevertheless, when I'm dictator it will be made freeware - although I will give Thomas Knoll a Very Big Medal.

 

[Barry Pearson]

DNG is not the One True Religion, contrary to much of what has been
written in this thread and a couple of others.

[snip]

It's just another file format
that at the end of the day some people may want to use and others,
like me, will avoid simply because it comes from a company with a
proven track record of not supporting their products or their
customers.

[snip]

The future health of top-end digital photography needs a common raw format, to put an end to the shoddy technique of reverse-engineering proliferating unpublished raw file formats, and to enable photographers and users of photographs to build their choice of workflows from a comprehensive set of tools.

The camera manufacturers could have done the sensible thing. They didn't. Other raw converter developers could have tried it. They didn't. Perhaps Microsoft could have tried it. ISO tried, and although they published a standard raw format, it is not fit for this purpose.

DNG is the only contender for a well-engineered common raw format. It will succeed for that reason, because photographers, companies, and organisations, that need such a common raw format, have just one option.

It is NOT "just another file format" - it has specific characteristics that differentiate it from other raw formats. "Self contained". "XMP metadata". "Published specification". "Free license for everyone". "Used by multiple camera makers". These things matter to many people.

--
DNG is better than sliced bread.
DNG images don't become toast.

 

[Barry Pearson]

Trustyd wrote:
[snip]

DNG is not just another RAW file format but an attempt to establish
a universal standard. As one who spend decades is the various wars
concerning any number of computing standards, I can tell you that
history shows that 99% of proprietory file formats die and become
unsupported by any software, in time. Then you'll be sorry.

[snip]

Interesting personal history. It matches mine. I suspect that some of the most enthusiastic supporters of DNG are seeing it from the point of view of computing/IT design and engineering, and transfering experience from that domain to digital imaging. To us, it isn't some amazing new concept, but an example of what inevitably happens as an industry matures. If it wasn't DNG, it would be some other common raw format.

--
DNG is better than sliced bread.
DNG images don't become toast.

 

[danegeld]

It is NOT "just another file format" - it has specific characteristics that differentiate it from other raw formats. "Self contained". "XMP metadata". "Published specification". "Free license for everyone". "Used by multiple camera makers". These things matter to many people.

You might want to add to that list "Unsupported by any major camera manufacturer". I'll stick to keeping my CR2 files and worry about their longevity and compatibility when it becomes a problem. It's still just another file format, no matter what Adobe or Adobe zealots say about it and arguing with zealots is always pointless.

----------------
http://www.pbase.com/tmalcom/

 

[Barry Pearson]

danegeld wrote:
[snip]

I'll stick to keeping my CR2 files and worry about
their longevity and compatibility when it becomes a problem. It's
still just another file format, no matter what Adobe or Adobe
zealots say about it and arguing with zealots is always pointless.

It is your choice, of course. (I hope you now feel better informed about DNG. It is unlikely that you have recently become better informed about CR2, because it isn't a published format).

I suspect that within 5 years you will "shoot DNG" rather than "shoot raw", but we will have to see. (I wonder how many people felt about TIFF the way some people feel about DNG?) I suspect Nikon will be the last camera maker to switch, and Canon the last but one.

Then in 6 years time we will all wonder what the fuss was about.

--
DNG is better than sliced bread.
DNG images don't become toast.

 

[Trustyd]

"......and arguing with zealots is always pointless".

Indeed; and with those having closed minds impermeable to either reason or experience.

Perhaps I should go to one of those blokes that will "deprogramme" my obviously insane liking for open standards, before zealots of another hue come to burn me at their stake?

 

[danegeld]

"......and arguing with zealots is always pointless".

Indeed; and with those having closed minds impermeable to either
reason or experience.

Perhaps I should go to one of those blokes that will "deprogramme"
my obviously insane liking for open standards, before zealots of
another hue come to burn me at their stake?

I also have a liking for open standards. As long as they're not owned by Adobe or any other company that, as Adobe did with PostScript, will inevitably decide it wants to get a return on their investment. My objection to DNG isn't the format or the universality. It's who owns it. It may be freely licensed now, but that license isn't worth the electrons it's written with. All Adobe has to do is change the format slightly to break everyone else's software and then have their lawyers write a new license.

----------------
http://www.pbase.com/tmalcom/

 

[Trustyd]

Danegeld,

I would agree with your mistrust of any claimed altruism by Adobe (or such motives claimed any other capitalist organisation). But the current reality is that most technical standards are generated out of commercial activity. With the exception of the Internet and some other global technical arenas, technical standards are driven by products and their sale - software in this instance.

Even Internet standards, universal though they are, were to some extent determined by commercially-based (eg Microsoft and IBM) as well as the more public-minded individuals of the IETF et al

But this doesn't mean that Adobe's (real) commercial interests in promoting DNG do not coincide with our interests as consumers. As with PDF, DNG may help Adobe to sell its products but it will also let us easily interchange RAW files without worrying about whether our correspondents have the necessary arcane software to read them.

Of course, one would be more at ease if Adobe were to issue Camera Raw as a free utility, as with the PDF Reader. Perhaps they will, in time - if DNG becomes widely supported by camera manufacturers.

But if you want to promote a different universal standard for RAW instead, and the world takes it from you, then I will be more than happy to use it too.

 

[Barry Pearson]

danegeld wrote:
[snip]

My objection to DNG isn't the format or the
universality. It's who owns it. It may be freely licensed now, but
that license isn't worth the electrons it's written with. All Adobe
has to do is change the format slightly to break everyone else's
software and then have their lawyers write a new license.

Please think this through! You will then see that your statement doesn't make sense. How can changing the format break anyone's software?

Suppose that all software supports DNG 1.1.0.0, and all DNG files in the world are 1.1.0.0. And suppose Adobe publish DNG 1.2.0.0. What happens?

All that software continues to work, under the current license. It will handle all of those DNG files. Any DNG-writer, for example DxO, or a camera, that outputs 1.1.0.0, will continue to do so under the existing license, and those files will be handled by all that software. New DNG-writers can also write 1.1.0.0 if they choose to - the specification is published, and there is a license for them to do so.

So what threat does 1.2.0.0 pose to anyone? It can simply be ignored by anyone who doesn't need it. If it supports some vital new sensor configuration, such as circular sensors, then any product that wants to handle circular sensors without paying whatever you think Adobe will charge can just use a non-DNG file format with similar characteristics. Call it XYX 1.2.0.0 - all products can then handle DNG 1.1.0.0 and XYZ 1.2.0.0, and ignore DNG 1.2.0.0!

DNG doesn't compel companies. They can use it or ignore it as they choose. DNG provides them with an opportunity. But you need to understand the DNG version scheme and how it interacts with the license to realise this.

--
DNG is better than sliced bread.
DNG images don't become toast.

 

[danegeld]

Oh please! Adobe can change the license any time they want. They have a history of it. Just look at PostScript. Licenses exist solely at the pleasure of whatever company writes them and they can do whatever they like with them whenever it suits their purposes.

What it gets down to is that you trust Adobe and I don't. A lot of other people don't either. You might want to ask yourself why you're on this religious crusade.

----------------
http://www.pbase.com/tmalcom/