DNG open or not?

[Barry Pearson]

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
[snip]

why go to the hassle of converting it to another
form of RAW...?

[snip]

DNG will transform the world of raw shooting within years. It will open up raw shooting to more people, more products, and more opportunities, and make it easier for photographers and users of photographs to build more valuable and comprehensive workflows. It will become the accepted archival raw file format.

Whether particular photographers can get any benefit from DNG depends on their workflow and the tools they use. (The situation gradually improves over time). Not everyone can get immediate benefit yet, or enough benefit to counter any perceived disadvantages. So any photographer who sees no current personal benefit in using DNG, and assumes therefore that there are no benefits to any other photographers, is wrong!

http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/benefits.htm

 

[jeffkrol]

This was an overall comment re: Adobes track record. The two are related. Precident setting, methods of doing business, corporate philosophy ect. Sorry you don't see this...
Companies rarely "switch hats" so to speak.
--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Hang on a minute...didnt Adobe buy out Pixmantec recently? Now why
was this? Maybe they didnt like the idea of a "free RAW convertor"
being out there...I for one dont buy the "we liked their
technology" argument.

[snip]

There are lots of free raw converters out there. The best known is
called ACR.

That is a joke right? ACR is free...so why can I only use it with an Adobe product?...the more I read, the more I wonder if you are on the Adobe payroll.....

--

 

[John Bean (UK)]

This was an overall comment re: Adobes track record. The two are
related. Precident setting, methods of doing business, corporate
philosophy ect. Sorry you don't see this...
Companies rarely "switch hats" so to speak.

Please don't make assumptions about what "I see" just because my conclusions don't agree with yours.

Have fun with your conspiracy theories, I'll leave you to it ;-)

--
John Bean

PAW Week 41:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1082841/3/102365782/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

 

[James O'Neill]

Then there's the possibility of Adobe "steering" the DNG standard
in any direction they choose. This can lead to a competitive
disadvantage to other software creators.

Look. Adobe publish A standard. changing that standard at all is bad (because then we have some people support Version x and some supporting Version x+1).

Changing that standard and not making it publicly available, means no one else would adopt it, hence wasted R&D effort for adobe.

Writing

“DNG Specification” means any version of the Adobe Digital Negative
(DNG) Specification made publicly available by Adobe (e.g., version
1.0.0.0 dated September 2004).

just means they don't have to give out any interim version they're thinking about but haven't published

There seems to be two grounds for objection to DNG.
(a) It comes from Adobe.

(b) It has a makerNote field in which camera makers can put any kind of information, including their own format of White Balance information (which Nikon encrypt). That's not the end of the world - the DNG processing software has to get WB from scratch, but it takes the edge of truly open.

Again - what is the advantage to adopting an open standard and implementing it a way which makes it less open ?

 

[Barry Pearson]

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
[snip]

That is a joke right? ACR is free...so why can I only use it with
an Adobe product?...the more I read, the more I wonder if you are
on the Adobe payroll.....

Many photographers use Photoshop or Elements. If they do so, ACR is free. (Do you use PS or PSE? If so, you KNOW that ACR is free to you).

I am not on the Adobe payroll. I'll assume you are not on an anti-Adobe payroll.

 

[geoffcole]

So people are going to shoot in pentax RAW, the convert to DNG? And
do what? Embed the original RAW in the DNG thus creating a far
larger file?

Embedding the original raw in DNG only makes sense if you're evaluating DNG and want the option of recovering original raw files if you don't decide to use the format long-term. If on the other hand you don't consider that DNG will be around for the long haul, then there's no point to using DNG in the first place -- so the question shouldn't arise. Then of ourse is the third possibility: someone wants to store their images in two or more different raw formats as a hedge against the raw converter corrupting the file or as a hedge against long-term viability of either format. Again the situation is if you're already retaining the native camera raw, there's no point in embedding it in the DNG that gets created because you already have the original raw elsewhere, and people should be making multiple backups of their work anyway . Failure to do so is just plain stupid and asking for trouble.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

That is a joke right? ACR is free...so why can I only use it with
an Adobe product?...the more I read, the more I wonder if you are
on the Adobe payroll.....

Many photographers use Photoshop or Elements. If they do so, ACR is
free. (Do you use PS or PSE? If so, you KNOW that ACR is free to
you).

I am not on the Adobe payroll. I'll assume you are not on an
anti-Adobe payroll.

Something which can only be used on a companies product, that you pay for..is not free. It is part of it. Free means that I could use it without ps or elements. This isnt the case.

I dont think a lot of adobe being honest. From my pc experiences it is hard to like a company that installs hidden details on a pc, without consent. Previous versions of their own software etc. Also you have to worry that a company as large as Adobe cannot make working unistaller for acrobat pro..is a tad strange in itself...(version 6 is nightmare to get rid of)

Leaving that aside...if adobe did the right thing..then I would be happy about DNG..but they wont, they have no intentions of releasing control of DNG to a neutral party, and I have no intentions of using their DNG format if this is the case.

--

 

[jeffkrol]

Not suspicious, just funny.
--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

 

[Barry Pearson]

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:
[snip]

Something which can only be used on a companies product, that you
pay for..is not free.

[snip]

If you use the main product ANYWAY, the marginal extra cost is zero.

IF a photographer has ALREADY chosen to use PS or PSE, ACR is FREE! If you dispute that, please identify what extra such a photographer has to pay. How many pounds, dollars, pence, cents, francs, euros, ....? (Zero, of course).

I am talking about REAL money - the amount that a photographer is out of pocket as a result of choosing ACR rather than Capture One or Bibble or .... It is necessary to look at pre-conditions - does the photographer have to upgrade? Or migrate to a different OS? What existing investments can the photographer capitalise on?

For a photographer with PS or PSE, ACR is fee.

 

[Dan Zemke]

Barry Fitzgerald -

Eventually, ISO seems like it would be a good choice. But an ISO working group isn't even likely to be considered until at least one of the two largest vendors in the market support DNG. IMO, insisting that ISO take ownership at this stage, even if well intentioned, pragmatically amounts to a delaying tactic.

On the Microsoft and Open Office format analogy - in my mind there is a very significant difference. MS Office dominates the market for PC office software. By opening up their specs and even providing source code for file access, they remove an objection and reduce the desire for their customers to go through the pain of conversion.
In the case of a cross-industry RAW format, there isn't any dominant standard.

I'm personally disappointed in the lack of leadership exhibited by Nikon and Canon. Each knows that there is a rapidly growing interest in RAW shooting by professional and presume photographers, but neither has stepped up to the plate to do anything about it. Both continue to cling to their own proprietary formats and "manage any PR issues" with statements like we don't see the need or the classic delaying technique of - we're studying it.

Dan

 

[Joe Barnhart]

For a photographer with PS or PSE, ACR is fee.

With this qualification, your statement is true. You should not have compared it to Pixmantec's offering, which was free to anyone. Big difference.

 

[Joe Barnhart]

Certainly in the classic sense of the word. "Open" software has a process for the software to grow and evolve over time -- a process that includes everyone who uses the product. Open software includes packages such as Linux (e.g. Debian distro) and Python.

DNG is "open" only inasmuch as Adobe's current license allows other companies to use the same format without paying a fee. Since the license is owned by Adobe, who exerts sole control over it, it may be changed at any time to include any provision that Adobe may want in the future. Don't make the error of believing that the DNG format is free of license fees forever. If the DNG format takes off, license fees could be demanded at any time.

Those of you old enough to remember GIF and the license brouhaha it created will know what I'm talking about. At one time, GIF was free of license fees and Compuserve encouraged its use. When it became ubiquitous the license was changed and fees demanded. It threw the graphics market into a turmoil. Only now, after the patents have expired, is GIF becoming respectable again. The same could happen with DNG at any time.

I will use DNG because it offers some degree of portability today. But I will never "trust" it as an "open standard." It is no such thing.

 

[Godfrey]

Heya Joe!

What, don't you trust Adobe? ];-)

Godfrey

Certainly in the classic sense of the word. "Open" software has a
process for the software to grow and evolve over time -- a process
that includes everyone who uses the product. Open software
includes packages such as Linux (e.g. Debian distro) and Python.

DNG is "open" only inasmuch as Adobe's current license allows other
companies to use the same format without paying a fee. Since the
license is owned by Adobe, who exerts sole control over it, it may
be changed at any time to include any provision that Adobe may want
in the future. Don't make the error of believing that the DNG
format is free of license fees forever. If the DNG format takes
off, license fees could be demanded at any time.

Those of you old enough to remember GIF and the license brouhaha it
created will know what I'm talking about. At one time, GIF was
free of license fees and Compuserve encouraged its use. When it
became ubiquitous the license was changed and fees demanded. It
threw the graphics market into a turmoil. Only now, after the
patents have expired, is GIF becoming respectable again. The same
could happen with DNG at any time.

I will use DNG because it offers some degree of portability today.
But I will never "trust" it as an "open standard." It is no such
thing.

 

[Barry Pearson]

Joe Barnhart wrote:
[snip]

Don't make the error of believing that the DNG
format is free of license fees forever. If the DNG format takes
off, license fees could be demanded at any time.

[snip]

Those changes couldn't be retrospective. With a published license, no court would allow Adobe to charge for developments already committed to DNG.

But why should Adobe want to charge? That isn't how they make their money. It is a fundamental error to see Adobe's motive with DNG to be about collecting fees for DNG!

They are expanding the raw-shooting industry and marketplace, knowing that they can sell into that expanded marketplace. They know it would be lunacy to inhibit the expansion of that marketplace - they won't do it. They need to make raw shooting as easy and fear-free as possible, without any lock-ins that would sour the marketplace. It is Canon and Nikon that are the problems, not Adobe.

 

[Zion Frost]

Ah yes. the old tactic of spreading of FUD (fear, uncertainty or
doubt). DNG may not be the best thing in the market, but its the
best of whats available now for openness and compatibility.
Speaking for myself I'll be using DNG as soom as I upgrade from
MZ-5n film to DSLR. I won't be keeping photos in PEF if I choose
a K100D or earlier, and I'll set camera raw to write DNG if
selecting the K10D instead.

Really when you get down to the essence of the OpenRAW argument,
they're objecting to the fact that DNG was developed by Adobe
rather than by committee (as happened with the fibre-channel
'standards' which guaranteed years of incompatibility in the
midrange and enterprise storage market), and -- conveniently --
ignoring the fact that Adobe distributes DNG source with a
royalty-free license to develop competing but compatible products.

Great analysis. It's like the car manufacturers can't even agree on the type of fuse to use in their autos. Why standardize when they can make extra money on after-market sales? I think DNG is a great format, and Pentax has really gone out on a limb, admitting there is possible a better way to do something than PEF. Also...it's great for Pentax and Adobe to have an alliance, even though it may not seem that way to some people. I can't believe that Nikon still charges $100 for their own software when you lay-out $2000 for a camera! Oh well... good questions, good thread.
--
Zion Frost
'The greater the artist,
the greater the doubt;
perfect confidence is
granted to the less talented
as a consolation prize.'
-Robert Hughes in Time Magazine



http://www.pbase.com/zionfrost

 

[Barry Pearson]

Certainly in the classic sense of the word. "Open" software has a
process for the software to grow and evolve over time -- a process
that includes everyone who uses the product. Open software
includes packages such as Linux (e.g. Debian distro) and Python.

[snip]

There are many different, and incompatible, views about what "open" is. Here is a view:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=20055362

"The man who coined the term and founded "The Open Group" laid down the definition that the only requirements are that the standard documentation and whatever intellectual property is required to implement it (patents, copyrights, etc) be available to anyone on a RAND (reasonable and non non-discriminatory) basis."

It is obviously always necessary to distinguish between "open standard" and "open source" - they are very different concepts. DNG is an open specification, becoming a de facto standard. It is not claimed to be open source, (what source?), and it would be wrong to judge it as such. But people could develop open source support for DNG if they choose to.

(There can be open source support for HTML, without HTML itself being open source. Ditto DNG).

 

[jeffkrol]

Yep , every time I see the 1000's of Canon cameras sold, I see the fear on the faces regarding their raw files.......... yep I do

--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

 

[jeffkrol]

Your words here is what got to me............

all you need do is look at their track record. Until they demonstrate otherwise by acting badly I'm happy to trust their declared intentions
...............

I was hoping (besides the DNG thing) how they demonstrated to be "trustworthy". Matter of fact, if you could prove it to me with some facts, I would be more than happy to change my opinion of it. Conspiracy theories are based on shoody and loose facts. The EULA, the plug in thing, the MANNER (not the need for) of product activation, the monopolistic stance of Adobe all lead to my conclusions, some I suppose could be called a stretch, but the fact remains Adobe, to my knowledge has never done anything to encourage it's competition, and rightfully so. They should not be in charge of DNG. Period. I also believe that it they said OK here's all the DNG "rights" and gave them to the likes of OpenRAW then it would INCREASE the acceptance of a "standard. They are by their very nature, and echoed by the many voices expressed here and everywhere else, impeding the adoption of it...I am not alone in this.

Secondly, over my dead body would I accept the excuse, well it's better than nothing...... the crux of many of the ills in the world. almost as bad as following dogma.
--
360 minutes from the prime meridian. (-5375min, 3.55sec) 1093' above sea level.

 

[Dan Zemke]

Joe Barnhart wrote:
snip ...

I will use DNG because it offers some degree of portability today.
But I will never "trust" it as an "open standard." It is no such
thing.

I will use DNG too and agree, that it is not an "open standard". But I definitely want cross vendor/platform portability of my images. Neither Canon or Nikon have demonstrated any active support for this. Whether DNG is truly "open" or not at this stage pales in comparison to the lack of any support from the major camera vendors. So why haven't the major high-end camera makers done ANYTHING about portable RAW standards yet?

Dan