ted_marcus1

I archive all my raw files directly from the camera (CR2) by shooting date, stored on hard disk and BluRay. But I convert the (small percentage of) images I actually process into finished images to DNG. First, I use Photoshop CS5 and one of my cameras is too new for it to support. So I have to convert those files to DNG before I can do anything with them. (That's a better option for me than renting CC.) CS5 can read my other camera's files, but I export those to DNG in Camera Raw before I open them in Photoshop. The DNG files for the "keeper" images contain the adjustments I made in Camera Raw. I archive those "keeper" DNG files with the finished images. Those files are between 15% and 20% smaller than the original CR2 files, which can be significant when archiving to BluRay (alongside hard disks). But I also archive all the original CR2 files, whether I make finished images from them or not. That way I keep all my options open.

It's a bit of a shock to see the long-time look of photo.net replaced with a completely new look. It's certainly "fresher" and more "modern" than the old software, which I suppose is an extremely important consideration for the desirable young demographic that advertisers exclusively care about. I'll reserve judgment about whether the new photo.net is an improvement until I've spent some time with it. The only complaint I have is the weird way the system displays user names. I'm "ted_marcus|1" which presumably means it's trying to distinguish me from another account I created something like 15 years ago but abandoned in favor of a new account, possibly because I forgot the password (I don't remember what happened). I was able to add a more human name through the user profile, but that displays under the weird generated name. It's really not for me to question the wisdom of designers who are far smarter than I am, but I don't think that's the best way to identify users in forums.

<blockquote> <p>those products are effectively redundant today, although they did provide the unique service of providing slides with the negatives</p> </blockquote> <p>Those labs could also make slides from normal C-41 negative film. I used that service from Dale Labs for years, with various films. It offered several advantages: It was cheaper than prints; ISO 400 negative film produced slides with finer grain, better color, and lower cost than ISO 400 slide film; negatives produced better prints and (later) scans that are easier to work with. But it's now one of the numerous "legacy" photo technologies the Digital Revolution has made extinct.</p> <p>As the Kodak movie print film they used to make the slides is still available, it should still be possible to provide this service. I suppose there just isn't enough demand for it to make it economically viable for any lab. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The 2nd kind of discussion about DNG involves politics.</p> </blockquote> <p>I suppose, although I'd call it "business" rather than "politics." Adobe essentially gives users a choice of ways they can contribute to Adobe's mission of maximizing shareholder value.</p> <p>The preferred way is to directly contribute to Adobe's revenue stream by paying monthly or annual rent for the use of their industry-standard software. Many users are very happy to do that, often because their livelihood depends on that software. They find the rental model a cost-effective way to ensure that they always have the latest updates, including support for the latest camera raw files (as soon as Adobe can reverse-engineer them).</p> <p>Other users, mainly those whose livelihood does not depend on Adobe software, find the rental model unacceptable. But Adobe gives those users another option. They can continue to use their obsolete legacy software with new cameras by converting the unsupported raw files to DNG, using software Adobe provides free of charge.</p> <p>How does that benefit Adobe? DNG is Adobe's solution to the problem of proliferating raw file formats. Adobe would surely prefer that camera manufacturers recognize the benefits of that standard, and voluntarily abandon their proprietary formats in favor of DNG. It would make things so much easier for Adobe, and probably benefit users as well (although I'll admit the benefit to camera manufacturers is much less clear, particularly those like Nikon that sell raw converters as an extra-cost accessory). But until that happens, promoting a growing base of DNG users is another way to increase the viability of that standard and encourage camera manufactures to see the light.</p> <p>There is no free lunch. But at least for now, Adobe is willing to let users of legacy software obtain support for newer cameras free of charge, in exchange for helping Adobe advance the DNG standard and adding a trifling extra step to their workflow. If you're not willing to rent the current version of Photoshop, and you're satisfied with CS5 (or whatever legacy version you have), I consider the free DNG converter a very good alternative. I don't understand why anyone would object to that.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Their DNG converter really isn't a solution</p> </blockquote> <p>Why not? When I got a new camera that CS5 did not support, I considered the various options of buying Lightroom, renting CC, or using some other third-party converter. Then I tried the Adobe DNG converter, and found it a reasonable and cost-effective solution.</p> <p>Copying the files from the memory card to my computer's hard disk has always been the first step in my workflow. Now I use the DNG converter for this task. The DNG converter can traverse all the directories on the card and move the files to a single directory in one step. That's actually more convenient than manually copying the files from each directory. While the copying process does take longer when each file has to be converted to DNG, I don't find it a significant inconvenience. The converted DNG files are also about 10% smaller than the native Canon CR2 files, which does make a difference when archived to Blu-Ray disks.</p> <p>While I have not become a zealous evangelist for DNG, I do consider the converter a reasonable alternative for anyone who finds a "legacy" version of Photoshop adequate and doesn't want to rent the latest version. It also provides the possibility (though no guarantee) of future-proofing the converted raw files for archiving.</p>

<p>If the negatives are indeed from 1970, they were C-22 process film. C-22 negatives had a denser orange mask than the current C-41 process, which replaced C-22 in 1973. It's likely that the scanning software (including the "color restoration" function) is not designed to correct the mask in C-22 negatives. On top of that, the dyes in the negatives are almost certain to have deteriorated significantly after so many years. Those two factors would explain the difficulty you're having.</p> <p>I don't know of any scanning software that includes color correction settings for old C-22 film. But an automatic color correction feature or plug-in for Photoshop, Elements, or Paint Shop Pro may be able to get you a reasonable color balance even if the scanning software can't produce a scan with good color by itself.</p>

<p>Absolutely. I use Color Efex and Viveza all the time, DFine when I'm scanning film, Silver Efex when I convert to black and white, and Sharpener Pro when I make prints. A bargain at $150. Even more of a bargain at $0.</p>

<p>Lightroom is an image management system that also includes Adobe Camera Raw and parametric (non-destructive) image editing. It is (as far as I know) still available as a stand-alone with a perpetual license. It supports the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw, along with the latest cameras; that support will continue until Adobe releases a new version of Lightroom.<br /><br />Photoshop is an image editor (among many other things), available only on a subscription basis. The subscription also includes Lightroom. I understand that CS6, the last perpetual-licensed version, is still available (if you can find it), but Adobe Camera Raw updates are no longer compatible with it. Adobe really wants you to make your monthly contributions to its revenue stream if you need Photoshop.<br /><br />The two programs complement each other, though many users find that Lightroom provides all the image editing capability they need. But the thing to keep in mind is that Lightroom is primarily an image management system. A professional photographer who needs to keep track of thousands of images may find it an invaluable tool. A non-professional photographer who doesn't need the image management features may conversely find it unduly cumbersome.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I use CS5. When I got a new camera that CS5's version of Adobe Camera Raw did not support, I carefully considered the options of either renting CC or buying Lightroom. I concluded that I did not want to rent CC, and I did not want to ascend the learning curve of Lightroom image management at this time. Instead, I opted for the DNG converter. It works well with CS5, and also has the advantage of DNG files that are roughly 20% smaller than the native raw format. Adobe claims other advantages for DNG files, but the jury is still out on that. For now, it's a workable and cost-effective solution (for me, if not for Adobe).</p>

<p>The rental model is really a necessity if Adobe is to remain a thriving company that satisfies its paramount obligation to shareholders. When you have a product that's as mature and feature-rich as Photoshop, it's probably impossible to keep adding truly compelling new features and improvements that make users <em>want</em> to spend $200 for upgrades every year and a half or so.<br /><br />Users who skip upgrades because they don't see enough reason to justify the expense and hassle-- or, God help us, users who remain satisfied with five year old versions-- are effectively worthless parasites who contribute nothing to Adobe's shareholders. And that parasitism was probably threatening an unacceptable increase due to the problem I noted above.<br /><br />The only recourse Adobe had was to adopt a business model that <em>forces</em> users to constantly contribute revenue to Adobe. Many users who depend on Adobe's (monopoly) products for their livelihood, who would buy every new version anyway, find the rental model advantageous. They'll even rise to defend Adobe when someone complains. <br /><br />A minority of users don't find Adobe's new business model advantageous. They tend to be amateurs who do not depend on Adobe's products for their livelihood. They also tend to be the ones who were not consistently buying each new version. Although those users are effectively useless parasites as far as Adobe is concerned, Adobe still wants whatever revenue they're willing to contribute. Thus, Adobe still offer perpetual licensing for Elements and Lightroom, which may adequately meet the needs of users whose livelihood does not require renting the latest version of Photoshop. (They have to offer perpetual licensing for those products because, unlike Photoshop, there <em>are</em> alternatives to them.)<br /><br />Adobe also generously provides the DNG converter as a viable no-cost option for users satisfied with old versions of Photoshop who get new cameras. That, of course, is not offered out of altruism. Adobe wants to encourage adoption of DNG as the standard for raw files. Each user who converts unsupported raw files to DNG helps Adobe toward that goal. As DNG has potential advantages for those users, it's possibly a win-win situation for everyone. <br /><br />While the foregoing explains why Adobe needs to offer their software by subscription, it does not excuse or justify the terrible customer service the original poster experienced.</p>

<p>I have a large collection of negatives from the 1980s, mostly the ISO 200 and 400 versions of Kodak VR and VR-G. The oldest ones were processed by Berkey (then one of the largest wholesale labs); later ones were processed by Asami, a reputable lab in Los Angeles. None of the negatives have noticeable fading, although many of the original prints from those negatives have noticeable color shifts. The negatives are grainier than later generations of color negative film, and perhaps less saturated. Those failings require a bit more work in Photoshop, but that doesn't involve correcting color shifts. I use a film scanner with VueScan, which has profiles for those old films.</p> <p>I suspect the original poster's problem might be caused by imperfect storage conditions, perhaps too much heat, exposure to light, and non-archival plastic sleeves. Any of those can cause (or exacerbate) color shifts or fading.</p>

<p>I still use CS5. I saw no reason to upgrade to CS6 when it came out, and I see no reason to perpetually pay Adobe rent for CC.</p> <p>I do have the inconvenience of converting the raw files from my Canon SL1 to DNG before CS5 can process them, but it's not a big inconvenience. Even though Adobe are greedy monopolists, they still care enough about the customers they wrote off in the transition to a rental model to offer a no-cost DNG converter as an alternative. Of course, that's really more about helping Adobe realize their vision of DNG as the universal raw format than any concern for users who reject the rental model, but it's still a very usable alternative. DNG also offers the possibility (not yet realized) of "future-proofing" the converted raw files.<br> <br />If I do decide to buy an Adobe upgrade, it will be Lightroom rather than renting CC. At least for now, Lightroom is still available as a perpetual license (i.e., buy once instead of every month). The main reason I haven't done that is Lightroom is primarily a digital asset management system that incidentally hosts the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw. I don't need a digital asset management system, and I'm not particularly interested in ascending the learning curve that goes with it.</p>

<p>110 film is available from an outfit called <a href="http://shop.lomography.com/en/films/110-film">Lomography</a>. They have an ISO 200 color negative film, an ISO 100 black and white film, an ISO 200 slide film, and a weird "redscale" negative film. I haven't tried any of them, mainly because the "K" battery my Pocket Instamatic 60 needs is extinct (and I'm not really interested in reloading the dead battery I have). The camera can't properly expose the slide film because its meter is fixed at ISO 80. Even if it could, I don't know where to get it processed. And even if I could get it processed, I have no way of mounting the slides for projection or scanning. But the intent of offering the film seems to be for cross-processing.</p> <p>I understand that the 110 cartridge does have what amounts to a pressure plate that keeps the film flat enough for the Pocket Instamatic 60's f/2.7 lens. I remember reading that back in the day, and the results I saw from projecting the slides suggest that the film is indeed flat in the camera (i.e., no softness in the corners). Nobody seems to have an answer for why the tiny S100 sensor is so much better.</p>

<p>Post-processing pictures from my Canon S100 shirt-pocket camera somehow made me think about the Pocket Instamatic 60 camera I used as a teenager in the 1970s. <br /><br />The "60" was at the top of the line of original 110 cameras that Kodak came out with in 1972. It had a rangefinder-focused lens that photo magazine tests found to be quite sharp. The Kodacolor II negative film was really too grainy for prints larger than 5x7, but Kodachrome-X (and later Kodachrome 64) slide film could make respectable 8x10 enlargements. That was the largest print labs at the time would make from those slides.<br /><br />Scanning the slides many years later, I found that I could easily make 8x10 prints from the scans, if I did the noise/grain reduction and sharpening properly. But anything larger than that clearly lacked detail no matter how I processed the image. That's consistent with the performance of optical prints available 40 years ago, although digital imaging gives better and more reliable 8x10s. <br /><br />On the other hand, I can easily make tack-sharp 11x14 prints from the S100 (as long as I don't use a high ISO setting that requires aggressive noise reduction). I have several of them hanging on the wall. And peeping at the pixels suggests that satisfactory larger prints should be possible, although I haven't tried making them. <br /><br />The 110 film frame is 17x13mm, though a mounted slide is more like 16x12mm. A 7200dpi scan yields a 15 megapixel image. The S100's "1.7" sensor measures 7.6x5.7mm, for a 12 megapixel image. (That's only for comparison. I am aware that the megapixel count from a film scanner is not directly comparable to a digital camera.) The digital sensor has less than 20% of the area of a full 110 frame, yet its image quality is in an entirely different league.<br /><br />The question is, what makes the digital camera so much better? Is the lens that much better? Is a sensor able to record significantly more detail than Kodachrome? Or is it something else?</p>

<p>My understanding is that for still photography (Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture), CPU power and memory matter much more than the video card. Photographic applications use 2D rendering, which just about any video card can adequately provide. <br /><br />What you get as you spend more money for powerful graphics card is 3D performance for gaming. Gaming demands GPU processing power and well-tuned drivers to render textures rapidly for maximum frame rate. So unless you're also using the computer for gaming, or for 3D CAD/CAM applications, money spent on a powerful video card will be wasted. <br /><br />But as someone mentioned previously, to get a brand-name system with sufficient processing power and memory you'll probably need to buy a machine specifically built for gaming. Games are also the only common applications that need a fast multi-core processor and lots of RAM (in addition to 3D video performance), and gamers are a larger market then photographers. Even the cheapest Intel Atom processor is good enough for normal Web surfing and e-mail. You'd thus end up buying more video processing power than you need, but that's the way brand-name systems are configured.</p>

<p>Another factor is whether you use a tripod or hand-hold the camera. A hand-held shot may be sharper on ISO 400 film than on slower film because you used a faster shutter speed and avoided motion blur. Before I switched to digital (and I'm not going back-- scanning film is a pain in the bum) I used ISO 400 negative film exclusively. It provided the best balance of convenient speed and fine grain when printed as slides (a technology that no longer exists).</p>