| Re: Adobe Digital Negative
[ QUOTE ]
> I do too, but I doubt that most manufacturers will embrace it except perhaps for the consumer models. Taking a brief look at the specs, they already look too constraining not handling new technologies already existent like specials sensors with extended dynamic range.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've been off teaching a class and riding my bike through Colorado (the Aspens were in full color) so didn't get into this when first posted, but. . .
There is no way the proprietary raw files is anything but terrible for the industry and for photographers. There is no way that proprietary raw files will persist, long term, if the photographic industry wants to move beyond this first stage of digital photography development.
The DNG specs cover all current known camera and raw technologies and allow for future development. Thomas has taken great pains to see to that. Since Camera Raw supports over 60 cameras from over 13 manufacturers, Camera Raw and DNG already knows and supports a wide variety of raw captures. Aside from Foveon, the differences between most of the raw capture formats is small. They are generally all based on TIFF-EP, but unlike DNG, do _NOT_ aheare to any standards-even from the same camera manufacturers. Remember when DPP was announced? Canon chose to to support only the pro line cameras and now the 20D. Previous cameras were not supported. At the time there was quite an uproar. . .this is typical of the problems associated with proprietary file formats-backwards compatibility.
Right now, there are cameras sold whose file formats have been orphaned. Unless you have the software and the systems required to run it, those files are effectively lost. With the rate of advance of new cameras, does anybody honestly think the situation will get better?
Adobe has stepped in and formulated a new spec for a real good reason-nobody else out there could. Kodak could have a few years ago, but their time has passed. Adobe's goal for DNG is not to develop a source of revinue but to provide a technical direction to the development of the raw file format. That is good for photographers. That is good for the industry in general.
It would behoove all photographers to stop and consider the ramifications of the current situation. Are you garrenteed by any camera company that your raw files, in their proprietry format, will be supported on into the future? No. Do you really want to have to convert your raw files to a standard file format like tiff for the long term conservation and preservation of your images? No. Do the camera companies have any particular expertice when it comes to software and file formats? No.
Then why would photographers find any degree of comfort when dealing with undocumented and proprietary file formats forced on the industry by the camera manufactuers?
Quite honestly, Adobe has thrown photographers a life line to their own images. You should take it and tell the camera companies that sooner or later (preferably sooner) they better get off their proprietary file format bad habit and get serious about the long term viability of digital images. DNG is GOOD for photographers and it's not bad for the manufacturers. Far from it. DNG has a lot of advantages for the camera companies as well as photographers. But, it _WILL_ require change on their part-and change won't come unless we all help encourage it. Prior to DNG, we had no choice but to accept proprietary raw file formats. . .with DNG, that has now changed. There is choice and that is always beneficial to consumers.
I sincerely hope that photographers, now given a choice by DNG, will tell the camera companies to move to an open standard-to quit using undocumented and proprietary raw file formats. You, as photographers have the ability to help bring positive change in the industry. You, as photographers have a responsibility to do so.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
| 
Linear Mode
