Ken Norton wrote:
> >What they do *not* say is that output from the v4.5 converter is supported
>
>> by PSE 3.0 - but are you saying that PSE 3.0 (for example) does not support
>> DNG 4.5? It's not at all that I doubt you, AG, it's simply clarification I
>> need.
>>
>
> That's exactly what I'm saying. Please, if this is wrong, tell me how to
> make it work. I have a copy of PSE 3.0
Oh, Kennie, Kennie, Kennie. Sigh. You just never heed my advice, you
headstrong boy.
When discussions about archival storage of images here have turned to
The glories of DNG, I regularly point out why it is a bad idea. It may
become a good format eventually, if Adobe's effort for ISO standards
certification succeeds and other major commercial applications and users
adopt it. But early on, it was bound to be risky. Look back at file
formats for word processing, spreadsheets and databases. As limitations
and shortcomings of early formats got in the way of application
development, formats changed.
Simple example. Ever use DBase? In addition to limitations that assured
it (and FoxBase) would fall by the wayside, it had a fatal flaw. Without
programming a separate field and lots of extra code for every
transaction, the file format provided no way to differentiate between a
field with a zero or blank value and one that had never had a value
entered. It's a natural result of development by a garage team with no
practical business data processing experience, but it is also fatal. So
MS comes along with Access, which is bloated and slow and awkward and
annoying - but - the file format and database engine support the data
meaning and integrity needs of real world applications.
So Adobe discovers that their original spec doesn't quite make it for a
universal standard. What's to do? Gotta change it. Early adopters, as
usual, pay a price.
Want to know which contemporary image formats will still be supported,
at least for reading, 100 years from now? TIFF, JPEG and PSD. Surprised
by the third one? It's all about the money. The commercial value of
images in PSD format, which extends far beyond photographic images
ismply swarfs that of other image formats. Even if you wish is granted
and Adobe is punished for is evil ways by failing, someone else will
pick up the rights to the file format and either they or licensees will
maintain ways to use it.
> and I'm pretty well hosed.
>
Oh come on! You may have to pay a few $, but not much, perhaps nothing.
And your computer will have to do a bit of work, but Hosed?
PSE 5 and 6 aren't expensive. And I'll bet there are several free apps,
IrfanView comes to mind as a likely candidate, that will batch convert
your DNGs to TIFFs, where they should stay at least for a while.
>
> Adobe is the same as Microsoft in my book of evil companies.
MS is certainly not my favorite company. But I am a pragmatist in this
area; I buy what works. And in the area directly under discussion, their
behavior is far superior to what you say about Adobe. I'm still using
Office '97, from a CD I bought really cheap on the 'Bay, but with legal
activation code. Part of some OEM overrun, I think. Anyway, MS provides
free add-ons to read newer file formats from all of its parts, Word,
Excel, PowerPoint, Access, etc. I lose any formatting options and such
that my old version doesn't support, and can't save to the new formats,
but I can work with the data and file it in the older format. There have
been two or three upgrades, some with new file formats, but I'm still in
business with my ancient version, three generations of hardware and OS
later.
> .... Even their DNG format is a closed format (licensing may be free, but it
> is NOT open)
The spec is published publicly. They are working to have it approved as
an ISO standard. That seems pretty open to me. With a published
international spec/standard, anybody can write software to use it. And
some open source folks have. I don't think there is much of significant
value yet, but still.
> designed to control the imaging world--not to improve our lives. Want proof?
>
> How about this: You want to have DNG-able RAW files of the latest/greatest
> camera? Guess what--you have to BUY the latest Adobe raw converter. This
> raw converter is "free", right?
Here I'm confused. Who ever said it was free? I certainly never thought
so. Adobe is a public company with an obligation to shareholders to try
to turn a profit. If they spend money to upgrade any of their products,
they should charge for them. Now in fact, interim updates to ACR, like
the recent one that added the E-3 and E-x20 bodies to supported cameras,
are indeed free. When there is a new full release, they charge for it.
I'm not defending the amount they charge, nor the odd way they bundle
ACR, just the idea that they are not being evil by charging for improved
versions.
So far, each full release has added functions. They mostly aren't much
use to me, as I prefer to do my editing in PS itself, but they are
slowly turning ACR into an image editor in the process of conversion.
The first versions simply converted RAW files, now it does much more,
some of it really useful, like highlight recovery and CA correction.
It sounds like your real problem is not with DNG, but with the need to
pay for a new version of ACR to support conversion of your RAW files
from a new camera to DNG.
> <snip more intemperate, but largely accurate, ranting> Personally, I have no
> desire to spend ANY money with that company and try to avoid it at all costs.
I have found in my life that anger at others only hurts me, not the
object of the anger.
> Lightroom? Please. That slug of a program has sucked us right again and
> onto another upgrade treadmill.
>
Not me. Lightroom is just not suitable for my current workflow and
editing needs, so I've stayed back on the other treadmill. :-)
> Long Live Open-Source!
>
There is a lot of great open-source stuff, but it doesn't cover
everything and in some areas falls far short of the functionality of
commercial applications. If you like open source, perhaps you should do
hundreds of hours of unpaid programming to create your own RAW to DNG
converter - then give it away free to anyone who wants it. That doesn't
sound like it fits any business model you've ever talked about.
And I think MS should be appreciated for what they did to iView, taking
it from utilitarian but sluggish and unresponsive to a much faster and
more useful program.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|