To whoever you are,
Since you are not responding to any points I'm bringing up, other than to pick them apart, this will be my last post here.
> The rendering tools will inevitably use differing sub-components.
> The only way to stop that s to forbid progress in rendering tools.
Once again you are trying to pass on the issue at hand. Problem is not what we want to do, but what DNG forces us to do - to ignore the contained information to assure normal processing.
And I asked, can you not find that information if the DNG? Is it not in the EXIF space for you to find? THis is an actual question.
> The DNG spec has been submitted to the ISO for consideration,
> so there is some discussion happening there, I assume.
Thank you to be so opened about the nature of that discussion. It sounds especially unusual given it comes from a person who founded the Digital Standards and Practices Committee with the American Society of Media Photographers.
I don't understand your point here. All I happen to know about this is that the DNG spec has been submitted to the black hole that is the ISO organization. That's public knowledge. If you're interested, why don't you ask the people that do know?
> I can tell you that Adobe is most interested in speaking to people who are
> at least willing to acknowledge the good work they have already done
You seem not to realize that Adobe are not the only party here to decide. Somehow I doubt that you gave here an accurate profile to Adobe, too; and that you really understand that it is not just about Adobe doing good job with their applications, but about the future of our archives, and the quality of our conversions being on par to the money invested into the lenses and cameras and studios etc, all other things being equal.
I'm acutely aware of that. It's just that Adobe is the only company that has bothered to try and create a universal raw container. I assume that you would never consider saving a file as a PSD, which is far more proprietary and undocmented than DNG.
>If only Adobe ACR/LR would be the best converter in the world, DNG might look much more attractive. But it is not.
No arguement there. "Best" is a matter of personal taste, to a large extent.
> Camera Manufacturers unwillingness to support DNG is a political issue,
> not a technical one
Please try to support your statement with some evidence.
Have you spoken to any camera manufacturers about it? I have. And I've never heard any technical barrier. If there is one, please feel free to present it. Saying they have not done it,is not the same as saying that there is a technical limitation.
> As to usable, DNGs can be read by most Adobe products, Capture 1, Bibble 5,
> Lightzone, Apple on system level, and Windows on a system level,
> and nearly all DAM products.
To read is not everything. There are at least two questions here, firstly, is the rendition in third-party raw converters based solely on DNG data fields;and secondly, how different that rendition is when compared to the rendition from the original raw data.
The only thing that I think you're saying is that you need to bypass the DNG's Adobe renedering tags for those in the EXIF that is also contained in the file. If it's something different, please correct me.
> I am curious as to who exactly "we" is.
Once again in your own words - we like people who have done their homework first.
I remember well your writing from the past, September 2005: "While DNG is not guaranteed to be around forever it has a better chance than any particular individual camera format currently available". You continue than: "As more photographers see its benefits, the number of DNG files in existence will dwarf any other single format." That is, you were acknowledging that DNG can go to oblivion yet suggesting to use it as widely as possible. Sound logic and good advice.
Hmm, I would think that a format person would understand that "going into oblivion" is pretty unlikely for an openly documented format. Adobe could go under tomorrow, and DNGs could still be opened by third parties. And I do believe that there are probably more DNGs in existence than any other single raw format.
Since you won't identify yourself, or your own financial interest, I'm out.
Peter
To whoever you are,
Since you are not responding to any points I'm bringing up, other than to pick them apart, this will be my last post here.
> The rendering tools will inevitably use differing sub-components.
> The only way to stop that s to forbid progress in rendering tools.
Once again you are trying to pass on the issue at hand. Problem is not what we want to do, but what DNG forces us to do - to ignore the contained information to assure normal processing.
And I asked, can you not find that information if the DNG? Is it not in the EXIF space for you to find? THis is an actual question.
> The DNG spec has been submitted to the ISO for consideration,
> so there is some discussion happening there, I assume.
Thank you to be so opened about the nature of that discussion. It sounds especially unusual given it comes from a person who founded the Digital Standards and Practices Committee with the American Society of Media Photographers.
I don't understand your point here. All I happen to know about this is that the DNG spec has been submitted to the black hole that is the ISO organization. That's public knowledge. If you're interested, why don't you ask the people that do know?
> I can tell you that Adobe is most interested in speaking to people who are
> at least willing to acknowledge the good work they have already done
You seem not to realize that Adobe are not the only party here to decide. Somehow I doubt that you gave here an accurate profile to Adobe, too; and that you really understand that it is not just about Adobe doing good job with their applications, but about the future of our archives, and the quality of our conversions being on par to the money invested into the lenses and cameras and studios etc, all other things being equal.
I'm acutely aware of that. It's just that Adobe is the only company that has bothered to try and create a universal raw container. I assume that you would never consider saving a file as a PSD, which is far more proprietary and undocmented than DNG.
>If only Adobe ACR/LR would be the best converter in the world, DNG might look much more attractive. But it is not.
No arguement there. "Best" is a matter of personal taste, to a large extent.
> Camera Manufacturers unwillingness to support DNG is a political issue,
> not a technical one
Please try to support your statement with some evidence.
Have you spoken to any camera manufacturers about it? I have. And I've never heard any technical barrier. If there is one, please feel free to present it. Saying they have not done it,is not the same as saying that there is a technical limitation.
> As to usable, DNGs can be read by most Adobe products, Capture 1, Bibble 5,
> Lightzone, Apple on system level, and Windows on a system level,
> and nearly all DAM products.
To read is not everything. There are at least two questions here, firstly, is the rendition in third-party raw converters based solely on DNG data fields;and secondly, how different that rendition is when compared to the rendition from the original raw data.
The only thing that I think you're saying is that you need to bypass the DNG's Adobe renedering tags for those in the EXIF that is also contained in the file. If it's something different, please correct me.
> I am curious as to who exactly "we" is.
Once again in your own words - we like people who have done their homework first.
I remember well your writing from the past, September 2005: "While DNG is not guaranteed to be around forever it has a better chance than any particular individual camera format currently available". You continue than: "As more photographers see its benefits, the number of DNG files in existence will dwarf any other single format." That is, you were acknowledging that DNG can go to oblivion yet suggesting to use it as widely as possible. Sound logic and good advice.
Hmm, I would think that a format person would understand that "going into oblivion" is pretty unlikely for an openly documented format. Adobe could go under tomorrow, and DNGs could still be opened by third parties. And I do believe that there are probably more DNGs in existence than any other single raw format.
Since you won't identify yourself, or your own financial interest, I'm out.
Peter