Lightroom seems too intrusive, suggestions?

[finimage]

<p>Lightroom 4 forward I have taken too. I gave Lightroom 3 a go while still using ViewNX/NX2 and other third party archiving tools to manage the mass of data from my shutter happy hands. I was never satisfied with the management of my workflow.<br />Lightroom 4 was a breath of fresh air. You can adjust/edit images in RAW without compromising the original file. If it needs more work you export the basics (RAW+Lens adjustments+colour & tonal balances) in your preferred format. No more duplication of RAW images (as was with View NX/NX2)<br />I recently took time to weed out all the duplication and buckshee JPG's etc. from my master archive (having backed the whole thing up to an external HDD). I've managed to create a lot of disc space on my working Data drive. The Sync functions in the Library mode sorted out all the gaps and a few additions.<br />Editing images, easy to follow controls. Degree of adjustment with each is good.<br />Exporting, this is where lightroom still annoys me a little. it would be great if you could generate multiple instances of the same file at different sizes/resolutions. A batch export function would also be great, leave the software to churn out the final output while you go do something else. (I've not explored the Export presets or as Catalog functions yet but these may offer a solution)<br>

Reading your original post Dave, it strikes me that like myself you have a way of working you are happy with. For a long while Lightroom sat beside Viewnx2 when it came to editing/processing. Then I gave up to the complete workflow solution Lightroom offers. It's taken some learning and I have much still to get to grips with withing LR but overall it's been worth it. Sometimes you just have to give in and make the change. My folder structure is much the same as when using the old method. I've found no major issues in exporting individual files, if anything it has made me more deliberate in what I do.<br /><br />So as a result of LR I have less software on my machine, Less Data and it's made me focus more on what I'm doing.<br /><br />Oh and it's a great archiving tool with the ratings and Keyword functions, though using it on an established archive means it has major gaps and will take (a long) time to populate. As above I cannot see me going to any other solution so it's become a long term project which will yield results as I continually stumble across images that I forgot I had. </p>

[EricM]

<blockquote>

<p>DNG is <strong>not</strong> a non standard proprietary format! </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Removing your double negative, you've said dng is a standard proprietary format.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's fully documented, has a free SDK for anyone who wishes to read or write that format cost free. It's fully<em>standard</em> in LR and other Adobe products and more. It's based on TIFF, another open, non proprietary file format. Nothing proprietary about it...</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Blah blah, to most of us lay-people, dng is just another non-standard proprietary raw format by another corporation wanting their fingers in our data. Great intentions with dng, but it didn't work and wasn't adopted. In 20 years, this will all be in the review-mirror as a "remember that software company Adobe and all the money we used to spend to alter our files? I wish I could open my dng's..."</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Blah blah, to most of us lay-people, dng is just another non-standard proprietary raw format by another corporation wanting their fingers in our data.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You (lay-people) need to understand what proprietary means! There is nothing proprietary in the DNG format. Nothing. It is fully documented. DNG like TIFF are not proprietary, have fully open specifications, cost nothing for any company to use. But I've told you this over and over again, you prefer to hear Blah blah, despite actual facts! Blah, blah in your head are facts you wish to ignore, and that's absurd. The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<h2 >Definition of PROPRIETARY</h2>

 

1

<strong>:</strong> one that <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possess">possesses</a>, owns, or holds exclusive right to something; <em>specifically</em> <strong>:</strong> <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proprietor">proprietor</a> 1

 

 

2

<strong>:</strong> something that is used, produced, or marketed <strong>under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker; <em>specifically</em></strong> <strong>:</strong> a drug (as a <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patent%20medicine">patent medicine</a>) that is protected by secrecy,<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patent[2]">patent</a>, or copyright against free competition as to name, product, composition, or process of manufacture.

 

 

</blockquote>

 

Now in your mind Eric, Merriam-Webster's definition is probably wrong. Figures.

 

 

Another reference to aid you in your use (or lack of) the term proprietary:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software

<blockquote>

<strong>Proprietary software</strong> or closed source software is computer software <a title="Software license" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license">licensed</a> under exclusive legal right of the copyright holder with the intent that the <a title="Licensee" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensee">licensee</a> is given the right to use the software <strong>only under certain conditions, and restricted from other uses,</strong> such as modification, sharing, studying, redistribution, or <a title="Reverse engineering" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering">reverse engineering</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-1" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software#cite_note-1">[1]</a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-linfo_2-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software#cite_note-linfo-2">[2]</a></sup> Usually the <a title="Source code" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code">source code</a> of proprietary software is not made available.

 

</blockquote>

You want the DNG source code (SDK)? It's available and for free!

 

[Carl Stone]

<p>Com'on, Eric, do you have any evidence that Adobe is not going to be around at any point? Don't misunderstand, I'm not going to argue whether or not using dng is a good or abad idea, that's a personal choice, IMO. But, unless you can say that it will definitely be a dead format, and/or that Adobe will be likewise, your comments are just a rant. Besides, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that we will be giving money, in some manner, to some software company to better edit our images. I don't know what difference it makes if that company is Adobe, or another company. Or, are you saying that corporations are inherently evil, and we should not be giving them any money for any reason? </p>

<p>OTOH, time marches on, and so does technology. You might wish that all of your old software would work on a modern computer, but it won't. Kodak is all but a dead issue, so is everyone that ever spent a dime on Kodak products a fool for having done so? </p>

<p>Not everyone has your attitude WRT Adobe, some of us a perfectly happy. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Com'on, Eric, do you have any evidence that Adobe is not going to be around at any point?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He doesn't, he can't but that will not stop him from making absurd remarks. Doesn't matter any more to DNG or TIFF if Adobe ceases to exist. Both are openly documented formats anyone can use. A meteor could strike San Jose tomorrow and hundreds of product if not more could open a TIFF while fewer products could open a DNG. That's primarily because TIFF's been around a heck of a lot longer, any image editor worth it's salt can open a TIFF, TIFF is a rendered format where DNG is mostly raw data for the fewer raw converters out there. And if people who don't know what they are talking about stopped making false statements about DNG, it might be better adopted by end users.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But, unless you can say that it will definitely be a dead format, and/or that Adobe will be likewise, your comments are just a rant.<br /> Not everyone has your attitude WRT Adobe, some of us a perfectly happy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You nailed it, yet another DNG rant! Eric has decided that DNG isn't for him, that's great. Why he continues to bad mouth it and with incorrect statements about the format is ranting. Why I keep pointing out his silly POV is simply so others who may be on the fence about DNG at least get intelligent and fact based data points. With Eric, (and you can find all his posts on the subject here), one gets the idea is parents were killed by a DNG file or something.</p>

[digitaldog]

<h1 lang="en">I've tried to educate Eric on the term proprietary, let's see the difference in an open format like DNG.</h1>

<h1 lang="en"><strong >DNG:From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</strong></h1>

<p>The launch was accompanied by the first version of the DNG specification,<sup id="cite_ref-DNGspecification_2-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative#cite_note-DNGspecification-2">[2]</a></sup> plus various products, including <strong>a free-of-charge DNG converter</strong> utility. All Adobe photo manipulation software (such as <a title="Adobe Photoshop" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop">Adobe Photoshop</a> and <a title="Adobe Lightroom" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Lightroom">Adobe Lightroom</a>) released since the launch supports DNG.<sup id="cite_ref-PEARSONadobeproducts_3-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative#cite_note-PEARSONadobeproducts-3">[3]</a></sup><br>

DNG is based on the <a title="Tag Image File Format / Electronic Photography" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_Image_File_Format_/_Electronic_Photography">TIFF/EP</a> <a title="Open standard" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard">standard format</a>, and mandates significant use of <a title="Metadata (computing)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata_(computing)">metadata</a>. Exploitation of the file format is royalty-free; <strong>Adobe has published a license allowing anyone to exploit DNG,<sup id="cite_ref-DNHlicense_4-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative#cite_note-DNHlicense-4">[4]</a></sup> and has also stated that there are no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements for DNG.<sup id="cite_ref-CinemaDNGnoencumbrance_5-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative#cite_note-CinemaDNGnoencumbrance-5">[5]</a></sup> Adobe stated that if there was a consensus that DNG should be controlled by a <a title="Standards organization" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standards_organization">standards body</a>, they were open to the idea.<sup id="cite_ref-DMDkevinconnor_6-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative#cite_note-DMDkevinconnor-6">[6]</a></sup> Adobe has submitted DNG to ISO for incorporation into their revision of TIFF/EP.<sup id="cite_ref-DPReviewISO_7-0" ><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative#cite_note-DPReviewISO-7">[7]</a><br /></sup></strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>4:</strong></p>

 

<h2 >DNG Specification Patent License</h2>

 

 

 

 

 

 

<h3 >Digital Negative (DNG) Specification Patent License</h3>

 

<p>Adobe is the publisher of the Digital Negative (DNG) Specification describing an image file format for storing camera raw information used in a wide range of hardware and software. <strong>Adobe provides the DNG Specification to the public for the purpose of encouraging implementation of this file format in a compliant manner.</strong> <strong>This document is a patent license granted by Adobe to individuals and organizations that desire to develop, market, and/or distribute hardware and software that reads and/or writes image files compliant with the DNG Specification.</strong></p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<h3 >Grant of rights</h3>

 

<p>Subject to the terms below and solely to permit the reading and writing of image files that comply with the DNG Specification, <strong>Adobe hereby grants all individuals and organizations the worldwide, royalty-free, nontransferable, nonexclusive right under all Essential Claims to make, have made, use, sell, import, and distribute Compliant Implementations.</strong></p>

<p>“Compliant Implementation” means a portion of a software or hardware product that reads or writes computer files compliant with the DNG Specification.</p>

<p>“DNG Specification” means any version of the Adobe DNG Specification made publicly available by Adobe (for example, version 1.0.0.0 dated September 2004).</p>

<p>“Essential Claim” means a claim of a patent, whenever and wherever issued, that <strong>Adobe has the right to license without payment of royalty or other fee that is unavoidably infringed by implementation of the DNG Specification.</strong> A claim is unavoidably infringed by the DNG Specification only when it is not possible to avoid infringing when conforming with such specification because there is no technically possible noninfringing alternative for achieving such conformity. Essential Claim does not include a claim that is infringed by implementation of (a) enabling technology that may be necessary to make or use any product or portion thereof that complies with the DNG Specification but is not itself expressly set forth in the DNG Specification (for example, compiler technology and basic operating system technology), (b) technology developed elsewhere and merely incorporated by reference in the DNG Specification, or © the implementation of file formats other than DNG.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<h3 >Revocation</h3>

 

<p>Adobe may revoke the rights granted above to any individual or organizational licensee in the event that such licensee or its affiliates brings any patent action against Adobe or its affiliates related to the reading or writing of files that comply with the DNG Specification.</p>

<p>Any Compliant Implementation distributed under this license must include the following notice displayed in a prominent manner within its source code and documentation: "This product includes DNG technology under license by Adobe Systems Incorporated.”<a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/"><br /></a></p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<h3 >No warranty</h3>

 

<p>The rights granted herein are provided on an as-is basis without warranty of any kind, including warranty of title or noninfringement. Nothing in this license shall be construed as (a) requiring the maintenance of any patent, (b) a warranty or representation as to the validity or scope of any patent, © a warranty or representation that any product or service will be free from infringement of any patent, (d) an agreement to bring or prosecute actions against any infringers of any patent, or (e) conferring any right or license under any patent claim other than Essential Claims.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<h3 >Reservation of rights</h3>

 

<p>All rights not expressly granted herein are reserved.</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Carl Stone]

<p>So this is how the conversation went:</p>

<p>Joe: I just bought a new DSLR, but the editing software that comes with it sucks. </p>

<p>Pete: Hey, I can write better editing software, would you buy it?</p>

<p>Joe: Sure, but what if I later replace that DSLR with a newer model, will the software work then?</p>

<p>Pete: I can write and upgrade to the software, create a newer version with more features. Of<br>

course you'd have to pay for the upgrade. </p>

<p>Joe: Greedy bastage! </p>

 

[digitaldog]

<p>Carl, ROTFL at that one! Touché! </p>

[EricM]

It'd be naive for me to think that a software company that is around in the infancy of digital

photography, will be around when it matures. I definitely feel better that I have stopped hedging my

bets with dng and assuming I will be using adobe for an additional 20 years. It wouldn't surprise me

in the least if Apple or Google upped their game one day and made Adobe redundant. Google, with

picasa and nik, could easily do so tomorrow.

 

dng will be a useful standard for the lay-people when it is accepted like a tif and jpg. Until then, dng

is an obscure format that the big players will not adopt to. That fact alone, should be grounds for

caution when considering the conversion to dng.

[digitaldog]

<p>So you save your images how Eric? TIFF (owned by Adobe but open). PSD owned and controlled by Adobe and not an open format. JPEG, another open format but oh so limited. <br>

Assuming you save as TIFF which is the most logical archival raster format, be happy that DNG is the same deal. If you are optimistic you can open your TIFFs in years coming, you'll have the same ability with DNG. I know you don't want to accept these facts but facts they are. A DNG is a TIFF. For that matter, the proprietary camera raw file you use is also based on TIFF. It's all those proprietary bits of unnecessary data that make it messy. <br>

As for Apple, I hope you're joking. Aperture hasn't seen any love in a long time. As we've disucssed, Apple's Finder is buggy enough whereby viewing thumbnails is hit or miss. I did submit a bug report to Apple about this, we'll see if this gets fixed but don't hold your breath. The photo market that Apple has it's radar on isn't one that produces raw data but rather, the images that come off their cameras. Don't know about Google, but so far, they haven't done much either in this space other than purchase product. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>dng will be a useful standard for the lay-people when it is accepted like a tif and jpg. Until then, dng is an obscure format that the big players will not adopt to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, Adobe isn't a big player....<br>

Right, the format as it stands today isn't viable because X number of people don't use it. <br>

It IS entertaining to see how your mind works and you attempt to connect the dots.<br>

So how many users, or lay-people, whatever that defines, must use DNG to make it usable by virtue of not being obsure? You came up with those number how? </p>

[EricM]

wow. there's more in there that I didn't say, than I actually did.

 

dng will remain insignificant until canon and

nikon etc start outputting dng. It was a nice thought coming

up with the idea of a universal and archival raw, but it never flew.

 

back to work and converting nefs into $'s

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>dng will remain insignificant until canon and nikon etc start outputting dng. It was a nice thought coming up with the idea of a universal and archival raw, but it never flew.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, more interesting thinking on your part. Let's see, Nikon and Canon don't output TIFF's, so that format must be a loser too. I guess your answer to my question Eric is you save all your images as JPEG. Nikon and Canon love that format too, so it must be the best choice. At least that's my assumption of your POV since you will not answer the question and based on what appears to be your criteria for a useful file format. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>back to work and converting nefs into $'s<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, if you convert them, they are lousy images that can't possibly make $. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

DNG flies quite nicely actually and it's lovely not having to deal with XMP sidecar files.

[EricM]

<p>Don't assume I'm like Andrew and speak without experience. After nearly ten years of doing dng, I know exactly how they fly. Today, it's lovely not having to wait as I duplicate my raws to dng, and then drag my original nefs, sidecars, and dngs from hard drive to hard drive. Crashplan works quicker too as the tiny xmp is uploaded as opposed to the whole dng over and over. If you want to fly and save yourself time and a headache, stop converting to dng. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>After nearly ten years of doing dng, I know exactly how they fly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Considering that:<br>

1. DNG hasn't been around 10 years... (depsite your use of '<em>nearly</em>') <br>

2. For years you've said you hate and thus don't use DNG...<br>

Your BS factor has now notched up to a new level! Congratulations.</p>

<p>Considering that you must archive all those $ images of yours in JPEG (you couldn’t possibly use TIFF or PSD, both are owned, controlled by Adobe and behave exactly as DNG will based on your silly premiums that at least two of us dismissed that you can't '<em>open</em>' your files in the future), your opinions and their lack of fact based origins seems crystal clear. And probably most here with the exception of you sir. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't assume I'm <strong>like Andrew and speak without experience.</strong><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Based on your written history here, I assume your experience is based on flat earth mind set, especially when your points are dismissed with facts which you always conveniently ignore. So telling Eric! <br>

Let's see Eric, in terms of my experience vs. yours, YOU started with Photoshop 1.0.7 in 1990? You were doing Photoshop work on your photography with clients like Apple, GTE, Forbes, Dinsey? You wrote your first article on digital imaging back in 1994? I dont' recall seeing your name posted as a technical editor on any such magazines as mine was for two publications, can you point out such merits? You've been a beta tester for Photoshop since version 2.5, an alpha tester since Photoshop 5? You were an alpha tester for Lightroom before it shipped? You've been on the speaking circuit for the likes of Adobe, Imacon, Epson, X-rite, GretagMacbeth? You wrote what book on digital imaging? <br>

Can't find anything about <strong>your</strong> bio other than your facebook link here and a few of those hugely money making JPEGs. <br>

Does anyone actually take Eric seriously or is this just more of his verbal diarrhea?</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Well, I happen to know Eric is a very very good photographer, and does earn his living from it, if that's what your asking.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I happen to know Eric is a very very good photographer, and does earn his living from it, if that's what your asking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that's directed at me, no, that's <strong>not</strong> what I'm asking. I asked him a boat load of questions about his stance on DNG, what format he saves his data in etc, however, few if any he answered. </p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Right, if you convert them, they are lousy images that can't possibly make $.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>and..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can't find anything about <strong>your</strong> bio other than your facebook link here and a few of those hugely money making JPEGs. <br />Does anyone actually take Eric seriously or is this just more of his verbal diarrhea?<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did I misconstrue what you said? Wow, if I did, I will slit my wrist in shame. Or do you believe your sarcasm doesn't suggest that you don't believe Eric makes money off his photographs. You know I really respect your knowledge and background in digital photography, and I sort of like your irascible personality (which I don't expect you to give a fig about) But when you go after someone you really are a bit of a bollux. :)</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Did I misconstrue what you said?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes but please don't slit your wrists, I'll try to further explain the sarcasm! Eric wrote:<em>back to work and converting nefs into $'s</em>. The implication is that somehow, the file format is somehow connected to the quality of the image and it's worth which of course it isn't. Eric has a problem with DNG, that's clear. He doesn’t want to use it, fine as I said. Doesn't matter a lick if the image is a JPEG, a DNG, a TIFF unless you're Eric, DNG=Bad. <br /> In terms of asking about his bio, did you miss his statement: <em>Don't assume I'm like Andrew and <strong>speak without experience</strong>.</em> <br /> Since you seem to know Eric, maybe you can answer my question about how he archives his images. Why? That silly statement he made: <em>In 20 years, this will all be in the review-mirror as a "remember that software company Adobe and all the money we used to spend to alter our files? <strong>I wish I could open my dng's</strong>..." </em>Two of us have called him out on this nonsense. That's why I have to assume, until you or he answers the question, he archives his money making images only as JPEG. If instead, like most of us, it's TIFF or (for Eric's argument worse, PSD), he's full of poop! As I pointed out using facts about the technology (which could be wrong, someone point to the errors), a DNG and TIFF will suffer no such problem opening up 20 years from now based on his faulty premise. Do <strong>you</strong> really believe based on what you know about this topic that Eric's statement has any basis in fact? That he hasn't answered this and other questions about how he has formed this concept, it's impossible to understand his POV, it doesn't appear to have any basis in facts. It smells of FUD!</p>

[Brad_]

It's a real shame photonet doesn't have a "Like" button for comments, like on Facebook...

[Uhooru]

<p>I do know Eric for years here from p.net and some emails we have from time to time. To be up-front, I do consider him a friend. To be fair, I don't think he is correct about dng's. My main experience with them is I like to use a Ricoh GRD 4 and it outputs its "raw" files as dng's. I've never had any issue with them in any program I used. LR, photoshop, Aperture or Cap 1.<br>

I really don't know how many prefer to use dng as their standard format or how it's caught on with photographers. I only have used if for use with Ricoh. I suppose it not out of the question that if it does happen to be (and I'm not saying it is) an insignificant percentage that perhaps the format could be abandoned in a few years as there is the already popular tiff format. But I have no way of knowing and it is now one of the "standard" formats. For me, I've always exported all my keepers as tifs, but it sounds that dng may have some advantages.<br>

In any event, I am familiar with Eric's work and I happen to know he is long standing professional photographer and that whatever method he uses to turn raw files into $, works, as I know he makes a living from his photography and has for many years.<br>

Now I have to go and get some stitches!</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone actually take Eric seriously or is this just more of his verbal diarrhea?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I don't think anyone of us take anything as serious as you do when it comes to opinions about photography workflows, but I hope the PN administrators take you, Andrew, seriously enough to realize you've "jumped the shark" in the personal attack department on making your point in hopes this thread gets shut down.</p>

<p>I and others have recently had our comments removed by PN moderators on far lesser offenses, so I'm a bit perplexed why this one is being ignored.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>No, I don't think anyone of us take anything as serious as you do when it comes to opinions about photography workflows...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Got nothing to do about an opinion about workflow Tim. It's about facts concerning a file format. I'll say for the umpteenth time here, I don't care if Eric or anyone else uses DNG or not. But if they are going to dismiss the format with technical foibles, then ignore the facts about the technology, I'll call em out. IF there's anything technically, factually incorrect in my arguments about the format directed towards Eric, <strong>please</strong> point them out so we can all continue to educate ourselves. </p>

[EricM]

<p>Thanks Barry. Cheers Tim, thanks to folks for standing up! And, lol, Brad, your "fb like" comment, I'm certain it was intended to follow Barry's comment. I'm FB friends with one, two, three, four, five posters in this thread and these five know my personal and professional life inside and out...if they chose. If in fact I was bs'ing...I'd certainly be called out.</p>

<p> I'm not sure why he gets a pass either. Perhaps this is why only a dozen people visit here?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let's see Eric, in terms of my experience vs. yours, YOU started with Photoshop 1.0.7 in 1990?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I'm happy you're smart enough to glean info off of the internet and from Adobe users manuals and then regurgitate it back to us, the ignorant. Man, do I wish I had that time to spend in my armchair reading cool geeky stuff! But, that's all you do. After all these years, there's still no indication that you enjoy photography as a hobby, or have to do it as a profession. You can talk monitor specs and icc profiles all you want, but it's not photography experience. You can only earn that insight by making photos.<br>

<br>

Wiki says 9.3 years ago, not 10, that dng was released. Opps, my apologies. I can't keep track of time like I used to. And for the record, I still export dng for my "work for hire" material.</p>