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>

<p>There's another wrinkle to California sales tax. A sale is taxable only if it involves a "tangible" item. For example, I'm in Los Angeles County. If you're in Los Angeles County and I sell you an image as a JPEG file that I attach to an e-mail or make available for download, it's not taxable. If I mail you the identical file on a CD (or deliver it to you myself), I have to charge you 9% tax. In other words, data sent over the Internet (or modem) without physical media is not a "tangible" item and is not taxable. The very same data provided on physical media is "tangible" and taxable. One of these days the Legislature will stop that revenue hemorrhage, but they haven't yet done that.<br /> <br />Another wrinkle (and a bit contrary to what Albert Richardson noted). If you're in Orange County and I mail you a print or a CD, the tax is 7.5% (the statewide rate). (You would owe the 0.5% county use tax, but that's not my concern.) But if I put the CD in my car and drop it off at your house (on the way to visiting friends from my undergrad days at UCI who still live in Irvine), the tax is 8%.</p> <p>The rationale is that if I mail you the CD, I can't charge you the additional county sales tax because my business is strictly in Los Angeles County, and I have no business presence in Orange County. (I also don't charge you the 1.5% Los Angeles County sales tax because the CD is shipped outside Los Angeles County). But if I deliver the CD in my own car, that constitutes a (temporary) business presence in Orange County, which means I have to collect and pay that county's tax. It's complicated to be sure, but unlike much involving taxation there's actually some logic to the complexity.</p> <p>And of course, if I mail the CD to you in New York, there's no California sales tax at all. I have to report it to the Board of Equalization as a non-taxable sale, however. You might owe use tax in New York, and be subject to whatever punishment accrues who don't pay it, but that's none of my concern-- at least for now.</p> <p>With the increasing ubiquity of Internet sales, many states are pushing for a compact that would require sellers anywhere in the country to collect and pay sales taxes for every jurisdiction where a buyer lives. That might not be a problem for Amazon, or for any large corporation that has a full-time staff of accountants and experts to handle all the tax requirements. But it would be a serious problem for someone like me. Any out-of-state sale, even if it's the only one I ever make to someone in that state, would open a Pandora's box of registration, figuring out the laws and requirements, and filing a tax return. The choice would be to ignore the tax and risk whatever audit and punishment mechanism is in place, raise the price of a print or CD to cover the cost of compliance, or simply refuse to do business with customers in other states. There probably would be services a small vendor could sign up with to handle the tax compliance, but the cost may make doing small volumes of business impractical.</p>

<p>Mr. Cei's blog post reminds me of the reason I quit the local camera club some years ago. The judges, drawn from luminaries of the Southern California Council of Camera Clubs, seem to have a "groupthink" checklist applied uniformly and reflexively to all pictures. Any violation of the Sacred Rule of Thirds or the "law" calling for a "single center of interest at or near a crash point," or anything that was difficult for a judge to "read" immediately (through cataracts?), resulted in a low grade.<br /><br />Many if not most of the club members were primarily looking to win competitions. They quickly learned the checklist, and mastered the craft of consistently producing uniformly conforming images that got high scores. But the resulting succession of high-scoring images was soporifically boring to sit through. The pictures were pretty enough. But they lacked anything compelling, or anything that distinguished one member's work from another's. <br /><br />I quit because I was more interested in improving my photography than in learning to consistently apply a rote formula that yielded calcified high-scoring images. The emphasis on competition (and on gear) did not help me with what I was looking for.<br /><br />Mr. Cei seems to have much the same complaint. But here it's a "groupthink formula" that's apparently deemed the secret for producing saleable images. It perhaps confirms Stephen Sondheim's observation that "art isn't easy."</p>

<p>The DEP feature on the EOS 650 (the very first EOS, released in 1987) was one of the things that convinced me to go with Canon rather than Nikon back in 1989. Although it wasn't perfect, I found DEP extremely helpful in many situations. The Elan II that replaced the 650 in 1998 had the same DEP feature.</p> <p>When I went digital with a Rebel XT/350D in 2005, I was disappointed to find that DEP has been replaced with A-DEP. Although it was presumably supposed to be easier to use than the "legacy" DEP, I found it not only less useful but less accurate. I couldn't understand why they had to replace DEP with A-DEP, but I assumed that the reason had more to do with marketing than technology.</p> <p>Last year I replaced the Rebel XT/350D with an SL1. The SL1 lacks any automatic depth of field feature. I do take advantage of the ability to check focus manually by magnifying the view on the LCD, but that takes a lot more time, effort, and squinting. It's not convenient at all. Given the available processing power and the low cost of ROM, I'm again convinced that the decision to eliminate DEP/A-DEP was made by marketeers, for reasons known only to themselves. I'd guess they decided the target market would be better served by devoting the available resources for gimmicky "scene" modes and direct sharing to social media.</p>

<p>The shame isn't that profitable corporations ask photographers for free pictures. The shame is that photographers give them free pictures.</p>

<p>Wasn't there a brouhaha a few years ago over Canon dropping support from the D30 from DPP? They ended up restoring the support in the next update. That's one of the arguments Adobe makes in support of their DNG, that converted files will continue to be readable even if the manufacturer drops "legacy" cameras from their official raw converter. Of course, those official raw converters can't read DNG....<br> <br />I tried out DPP 4. If there are any real improvements over version 3, I didn't see them. I'd need to keep both version around anyway, as I use a Powershot S100 in addition to an SL1. DPP 4 only supports the SL1.</p> <p>I find the obsolete version of Adobe Camera Raw in CS5 superior in every way to either version of DPP or DxO 8.5 (available for free download and use), even though I have to convert the SL1 files to DNG. But it's worth having other raw converters available for those (fortunately few) images that ACR doesn't process satisfactorily.</p>

<p>I just downloaded it from the Canon USA site. It accepted the serial number from my SL1 with no problem.</p> <p>It unfortunately does not support either my (admittedly archaic) 350D or my relatively recent Powershot S100. Those who have an old DSLR or a raw-capable point-and-shoot still have to suffer with DPP 3 (if they haven't got a better third-party raw converter).</p>

<p>Sarah Fox's comments make me laugh. I was also a long-time PSP user who fell for Corel's empty promises of PSP X. For me it was the promise of color management as well as 16-bit editing. I was so frustrated with what could only be called a "pre-beta" release (with documentation so incomplete that a group of loyal users effectively donated their labor to produce their own on-line reference) that I decided to make the switch to Photoshop CS2. It would be no exaggeration to say that it was Corel that sold me Photoshop!</p> <p>That said, I really would like to see PSP become a serious alternative to Photoshop. Adobe alienated many users when they went to a rental model, so there's a large market for a genuine alternative. I know Corel have been adding numerous features since PSP X, but I haven't made the effort to assess whether they're actually delivering finished software that offers 16-bit editing in wide-gamut color spaces.</p> <p>For the time being, I'm sticking with Photoshop CS5 and converting raw files from my new camera to DNG (I know that's also making a deal with the devil, but it's a less unattractive option than renting Photoshop). But for the long term, I'd really like to see Adobe have to face genuine competition after they exerted their monopoly power.</p>

<p>It's essentially meaningless because, in the United States at least, the term of copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years (and that will surely be extended in 2019, when Disney and Time-Warner buy their next copyright extension to prevent works they control created after 1923 from ever escaping into the public domain). But the year is customary, and should indicate when you took the picture.</p>

<p>I have a similar problem, although my new camera is a Canon SL1. I opted for the DNG converter route. It works fine with CS5, and adds relatively little hassle to the workflow. The converter can read directly from a memory card, and even combine files in different folders into a single directory. And DNG files are about 18% smaller than CR2, which is helpful for archiving.</p> <p>Another option is described in the Deals and Discounts forum: http://www.photo.net/deals-and-discounts-forum/00cukg Version 8.5 of DxO Optics Pro is available for free download until 31 January 2015. Since it uses plug-in "modules" for individual cameras and lenses, it can read raw files from new cameras. It's rather slow, and its native working color space is Adobe RGB, which means you're out of luck if your pictures have colors that would require ProPhoto in ACR. But it's another alternative at an irresistible price. I still prefer ACR, even if it requires the extra step of DNG conversion. But it's always good to have alternatives, as you're bound to run across images that work better with DxO (or some other raw converter) than with ACR. </p>

<p>Is the collapse of E-6 labs purely a response to the lack of demand for E-6 film, or a contributing factor to the "cratering"? It looks like the same vicious cycle of increasing processing inconvenience that accelerated the demise of Kodachrome.</p> <p>That said, I don't imagine that E-6 could ever be anything other than a specialized (and probably very costly) niche product in a digital world.</p>