Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
- Subject: Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
- From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:10:58 +0100
On 12 Jul 2007, at 21:34, John Gnaegy wrote:
Apple does support DNG on the OS level, you can open a DNG file, or
any raw file for a supported camera, in Preview, view it inline in
Mail, or open it in any app that uses ImageIO to render images.
Apple doesn't support writing DNG or raw, they're treated as
unmodifiable originals. You can argue the pros and cons of that,
but the idea is to keep your raw files in their original state. A
raw file is sensor data right off the camera, a representation of
how light afftected that camera at that instant. That's never
going to change unless you have a time machine, in which case I
want to borrow it briefly. Raw processing is variable, three years
from now if the raw conversion algorithms have improved you'll be
able to open your original raw files and have them look better.
John, I really think that you ought to pay more attention to the
"white papers" that are helpfully posted to your forum!
According to the experts, "three years from now" you'll be opening up
your original raw files and finding them looking worse - or even non-
existent.
The *only* answer to this problem is the new DUPE format - Digitally
Unnecessary Proprietary Envelope.
Using the DUPE Converter will give you total piece of mind that
you'll still see a picture when you open the file in 3 years time -
rather than the blank rectangle that you'll get if you use a camera
made by untrustworthy foreign manufacturers.
And, for total DUPE security you can even save the original RAW data
along with the new RAW data in the DOPE format. Remember: twice the
file size means half the worries.
There are some people (nasty, evil, ill-mannered forum posters etc)
who dare to criticise the DUPE format and who fail to see the
benefits of it.
IGNORE them. The DUPE *is* the digital equivalent to the negative.
Individual photographers who aren't scared into using it may not
appreciate this yet... but the middle-men and royalty-free stock
libraries who really stand to benefit from the DUPE format are fully
behind this sensible initiative.
RAW data is too valuable to be left in the hands of the authors.
Why waste time and money asking them to re-interpret digital
negatives when you can do it yourself once you've convinced them that
handing over RAW data in DUPE format is a sensible thing?
--
Martin Orpen
Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden