DNG

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess what I'm saying is, there are some rather clueless users out there!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have any accurate stats to prove that since you keep pushing the importance of relying on facts.</p>

<p>If an industry wants their customers to all adopt one approach as the best and only approach then that industry has to make it known with facts that everyone's onboard or else no one trusts that one and only approach. </p>

<p>How does that industry reassure its customers that all digital imaging companies are adopting DNG?</p>

[EricM]

<p><strong>"LR is always saving (on the fly) to the catalog."</strong></p>

<p>What vague and dangerous words, Andrew. Especially for an inexperienced LR user to take to heart after following this banter about the perils of our work being lost from not backing up our catalog. There's a big difference between our work being saved to the catalog by backing it up, than "lr is always auto saving on the fly" to the catalog. It's sad, these ambiguous half-truths for your strawman arguments and is just another ridiculous "Andrew" thread that clearly shows your emotional...investment with Adobe. I, and others apparently, see right through your incentive as you stoke fear in attempt to sell your "dng safety". Dng didn't take off. Get over it. I know it means you're wrong after all these years. But, as NoMeansNo says, be strong be wrong.</p>

<p><strong>"As for your questions regarding Eric responding to those messages, what don't you understand about what Eric wrote? I might be able to fill in the blanks, otherwise I'll ask Eric to do so...it's not really rocket science...DNG is a lot easier to grasp if you know what you are talking about."</strong></p>

<p>Ask all you wish, Jeff. Whether you get an answer or not, is another matter. I've asked for my words to be cited, and they haven't. But I can hear Andrew now going at this task this very second only to come back again and fill these pages by putting more words into my mouth. And simply Jeff, I don't have the luxury of sitting on forums all day like you two. Thank goodness I have a bit more free time and not wasting it on dng conversion. Anyways, have a good row everyone. <br>

<br>

<img src="http://cbswzlx2.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/arguing-on-the-internet.jpg?w=406" alt="" width="406" height="464" /><br>

</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Have any accurate stats to prove that since you keep pushing the importance of relying on facts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No stat's but I'd be happy to forward you to forums and posts where some stupid ideas about imaging are laid bare for all to see. I mentioned two I just saw in the last 24 hours, be happy to provide URL's. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If an industry wants their customers to all adopt one approach as the best and only approach then that industry has to make it known with facts that everyone's onboard or else no one trusts that one and only approach.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>What industry? Who's customers? Are you suggesting Adobe alone? </p>

<blockquote>

 

 

<p>How does that industry reassure its customers that all digital imaging companies are adopting DNG?</p>

 

 

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>One suggestion is education. But as I've tried to point out, some just don't want to be educated because their belief systems are based on religion and politics not facts. No matter how much data I show to the new Pope, he isn't going to agree the Earth <strong>wasn't</strong> created in 6 days. No matter how much I post facts about DNG, Eric is going to believe it's not the cause of his workflow ringer problems. </p>

 

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>That way they don't have to keep the original Raw...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That be a bad idea unless you're 100% certain you're done processing. That's a huge advantage of raw un-rendered data. Prefect example is taking raws you've edited with PV2010, then updating to PV2012.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I meant the original camera manufacturer's Raw. Keep the DNG version of course. Keep it so we have a finished tiff/jpeg at the same time the original Raw data in the form of the DNG. You get it all in one file without having to use Adobe products to retain the original finished version containing edits applied by old Adobe editing software.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>What vague and dangerous words, Andrew. Especially for an inexperienced LR user to take to heart after following this banter about the perils of our work being lost from not backing up our catalog</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He's back (and we're down a new rabbit hole). <br>

Saving data on the fly and backing up are two very different operations. But I suppose you want to now go down this path since you're unable to properly explain your point about how the data is saved when backing up the catalog. If anyone is vague, it is you sir. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's sad, these ambiguous half-truths for your strawman arguments and is just another ridiculous "Andrew" thread that clearly shows your emotional...investment with Adobe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perfect, just what I'd expect and predicted before you wrote it! You've made a number of statements here without an ounce of proof. When asked to prove your point (like specifying exact steps to confirm or deny your rabbit hole venture about saving XMP while backing up the LR catalog), you ignore the question and worse, suggest those who do provide steps and facts are providing half truths and strawman arguments.<br>

Whatever you say Eric, you're obviously a legend in your own mind. I take comfort that those here who can read and comprehend English have apparently seen through your smokescreen. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>and others apparently, see right through your incentive as you stoke fear in attempt to sell your "dng safety".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure they have Eric, sure they have. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I meant the original camera manufacturer's Raw. Keep the DNG version of course.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keep one, keep both, up to you of course. <br>

So what about Virtual Copies? They only reside inside the (proprietary) LR catalog. What if you want that iteration but you want real data? Can't save it out as a proprietary raw, but you can export as DNG and it's just as raw as the original. For me, I spin a lot of VC's and do a lot of work on them, but am somewhat uncomfortable they <strong>only</strong> reside inside the catalog. So it's not uncommon that I'll spin off a DNG of my hero VC's. Or later delete them. I'd rather have DNG's from VC's with all my work intact than worry about a proprietary CRW plus the DNG. I don't keep em. But I have no problem with those that do. Whatever blows your skirt up <g>. <br>

But to get back to your question about DNG and an embedded rendering that isn't raw, it's there if you setup LR to do so. And without getting into trouble (cause Schewe is around <g>), you're going to see such options increase not decrease, making the use of DNG even more compelling. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>...some just don't want to be educated because their belief systems are based on religion and politics not facts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, do you have any facts to support this?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>No stat's but I'd be happy to forward you to forums and posts where some stupid ideas about imaging are laid bare for all to see. I mentioned two I just saw in the last 24 hours, be happy to provide URL's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can only find "some"? or "two"? Well then it's a consensus!</p>

<p>Again, I think it's going to take an act of Congress to make laws to protect digital imaging content by letting everyone know that DNG is the answer and that it is guaranteed to allow all digital content creators that they don't have to keep spending money to keep up to date with their software just so they can access their content they created.</p>

<p>I see practicality more than politics on this. You do know that there are far more "family shooter archivists" who buy and use Adobe products than there are pro's and prosumers, right? The industry (Adobe, camera manufacturers, etc.) needs to make this less complicated with less fear mongering.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>You can only find "some"? or "two"? Well then it's a consensus!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I said I can find two that are a mere 24-48 hours old!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Again, I think it's going to take an act of Congress to make laws to protect digital imaging content by letting everyone know that DNG is the answer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which Congress would that be? I know of one in the US that can't get anything done and even if they could, I don't see the point, this is an international issue. <br /> How about all the Nikon and Canon customers that understand the implications that Jeff wrote in his piece just let their voices be heard? If a group on the net can get a silly TV show from being canceled, maybe photographers have some strength in numbers too?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You do know that there are far more "family shooter archivists" who buy and use Adobe products than there are pro's and prosumers, right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you have any facts to support this? <G> I <strong>suspect</strong> that's correct. Especially if you add the Elements users, Photoshop on iPhone etc. <br /> <br /> You no more need to supply stat's to this post about <em>family shooter archivists</em> than I should have to supply stat's to the dumb things people write about imaging wouldn’t you agree? I suspect that the years both of us have read posts about imaging, the idea that stupid ideas are expressed shouldn’t be much of a stretch to accept. Unless you just want to argue. We have Eric for that <g></p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"As for your questions regarding Eric responding to those messages, what don't you understand about what Eric wrote? I might be able to fill in the blanks, otherwise I'll ask Eric to do so...it's not really rocket science...DNG is a lot easier to grasp if you know what you are talking about."</strong><br /> Ask all you wish, Jeff. Whether you get an answer or not, is another matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wrong Eric, Eric! Jeff's referring to a guy who <strong>actually understands</strong> DNG and imaging. Eric Chan (check your ACR/LR splash screen).</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect that the years both of us have read posts about imaging, the idea that stupid ideas are expressed shouldn’t be much of a stretch to accept.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless those stupid ideas were posted deliberately by marketing trolls in an attempt to increase X brand product's google rankings in a search by continually name dropping in a long contentious debate on any enthusiast based subject under the sun with any one who could have the time and energy to engage in.</p>

<p>You really can't know how many ignorant people there are on any given subject going by what's read on the internet unless you believe everything you read on the internet is true. And I wouldn't think an educated and informed person as you, Andrew, would stoop to that belief.</p>

<p>Let's just say right here and now that there are no accurate statistics that prove DNG is being adopted by the majority of digital imaging device manufacturers, software authors and content creators.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Let's just say right here and now that there are no accurate statistics that prove DNG is being adopted by the majority of digital imaging device manufacturers, software authors and content creators.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. If the opposite were true, it wouldn’t affect my use or preferences for DNG anyway. <br>

Let's just say right here and now that there are no accurate statistics that prove PSD, NEF, CRW, you name it, is being adopted by the majority of digital imaging device manufacturers, software authors and content creators.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>But to get back to your question about DNG and an embedded rendering that isn't raw, it's there if you setup LR to do so. And without getting into trouble (cause Schewe is around <g>), you're going to see such options increase not decrease, making the use of DNG even more compelling.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I and others don't have Lightroom and shouldn't have to. I'm talking about an embedded rendering in the DNG file (created by Adobe's customers edits using Adobe's image editing products) that can be accessed/extracted without the use of Adobe products decades later due to old software incompatibility, the reason for a non-proprietary open source format. And this would apply to any added DNG options into the future.</p>

<p>If it acts, walks and talks proprietary, it's proprietary, so don't create options that act proprietary that can only be used by one software vendor, the one that created the options and not be made accessible by camera manufacturers. Otherwise we're back to the same proprietary peddling of options only it's now in the DNG format. Back to square one.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>I and others don't have Lightroom and shouldn't have to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To do what with a DNG? Any application that supports DNG can do what LR can do as far as saving this embedded JPEG. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Extracting the jpeg, Andrew, without requiring the use of the source application (in this case Lightroom's user edits) that created and embedded the edited JPEG/TIFF into the DNG. Not saving the JPEG out of Lightroom or within the DNG, extracting out. Shouldn't need Lightroom decades from now to view those old edits. Extract the JPEG that were formed by the Lightroom edits.</p>

<p>Also did you ever find out what Sandy meant in that Adobe Labs linked thread exchange between you and Eric Chan about not assuming a native color space by the use of the color matrixes embedded within a DNG?</p>

<p>Sandy says the color matrixes tell you everything you need to know..."Why assume?". The DNG profile still doesn't tell you what that color space is. Is there a way to find out deciphering the matrixes? </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Dupe delete!</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Not saving the JPEG out of Lightroom or within the DNG, extracting out. Shouldn't need Lightroom decades from now to view those old edits. Extract the JPEG that were formed by the Lightroom edits.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

LR doesn't do that. It allows you to embed the rendering (who's process IS proprietary) as a JPEG (another open format). I told you Peter used something else to extract that JPEG. But if you have the DNG and you have the processor, you can build a JPEG or anything you want. It is just a belt and suspenders backup: a JPEG is inside the DNG. How that was processed is proprietary. You could in theory hand of this DNG to a completely different raw converter that can embed it's JPEG rendering and metadata, which is again proprietary into the DNG in terms of how that JPEG or anything else is processed. The DNG just holds the raw data and a bunch of other data and what is done with it is up to whoever you want to choose as your raw application. I use Lightroom. <br>

You're making this more complex than it has to be. DNG is just a container like TIFF. If you want to save a TIFF with layers, go for it. Who's going to be able to read those layers? If the layer has a blend mode, is that proprietary? DNG is open such that if Raw Developer wanted to embed and also extract the JEPG (which is silly, the raw processor can do this and more), they could do it. It isn't DNG itself doing anything other than letting some software product save stuff inside it. There's no licensing cost to use it and how you use it is openly described. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>You're making this more complex than it has to be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I'm making it easier for those who won't have Lightroom and other Raw converters to deal with at the time the edits were made decades later. As long as there's an embedded JPEG to extract that shows the finished image from the edits applied by whatever Raw converter, that would be easier to deal with than hunting up a compatible Raw converter that still reads those edits written into the DNG.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I told you Peter used something else to extract that JPEG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know you told me. You didn't say what app that was and if it would be around decades later to extract the embedded JPEG. As long as it is and remains compatible decades later with the old DNG spec. file containing the JPEG, then that's even easier and better. Just not sure about that app Peter used.</p>

<p>I guess you're not going to tell me about the matrixes embedded in the DNG that defines the native RGB colorants of the original Raw file.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>You didn't say what app that was and if it would be around decades later to extract the embedded JPEG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no idea, you'll have to ask him:<br>

Peter Krogh can be contacted at<br>

3301 Oberon St. <br />Kensington, MD 20895<br />301-933-2468<br>

You can send me email at<br /><a href="mailto:book@peterkrogh.com">book@peterkrogh.com</a><br>

</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I guess you're not going to tell me about the matrixes embedded in the DNG that defines the native RGB colorants of the original Raw file.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

I have no idea.