Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
- Subject: Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 12:43:24 -0600
- Thread-topic: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
On 7/14/07 12:26 PM, "Nov06" wrote:
> If you are talking about IPTC data, I would agree. If you are talking
> rendering instructions, I don't think it is (yet) possible to create
> a standard for rendering instructions.
Its not a standard because every converter operates differently. You can't
embed the metadata instructions from Aperture and have LR read or use them.
You can embed the metadata instructions in a DNG from LR and CR will use
them but that's because both Adobe products use the same rendering engine.
But at the very least, if I spend time in LR and produce rendering
instructions, they are embedded in the DNG. I can hand them to you and you
can view them IN the same product and see the same rendering. I don't risk
the chance of losing this set of instructions or mixing them up like I could
with sidecar files. I just don't like sidecar files.
Will the day come whereby I could place CR rendering instructions in a DNG
and Aperture would honor them? Doubt it but it might come to that. We'd have
to have some standard for rendering which I doubt we'd see. I'm not sure
it's necessary.
> I am trying to think of a situation where that would be useful.
So I send you a 100 DNG's with rendering instructions and all you want to do
is produce contact sheets. You don't have the raw processor or you don't
want to take the time to render all the images just to make a print. Or you
just want to SEE the rendering and there's a product that can access the
internal JPEG. The instructions may be ambiguous to you or some software
product but the JPEG isn't.
Note, Peter Krogh who wrote the excellent DAM Book came out for a visit a
few months ago and presented me with pretty big prints (13x19) that were
produced from Large JPEGs inside the DNG and prints made from the direct
rendering from CR. I couldn't pick which was which. Now of course, we all
know about the limitations of JPEG and these were not really big prints. But
pretty big and they looked identical. So having large JPEGs in the DNG if
desired is useful to some. Both Peter and I were not happy that LR 1.0
didn't allow creation of large JPEGs in DNG created files. That's been fixed
in 1.1.
> - Having a wrapper that compresses the file (similar to .docx etc.)
> might be a good idea, however could be implemented in the camera
> right away (now if the manufacturers could agree on a standard there).
Well the camera could just output DNG in the first place.
> - Having a wrapper for the IPTC data would certainly be welcome.
Yes.
> - Having a wrapper for a low resolution jpeg (limited usefulness)
They are not that low but yes, there is limited usefulness if you compare
that to using the full resolution data the raw data provides. Now imagine
you have multiple rendering instructions and JPEGs. Even more useful.
Again, DNG isn't prefect but it provides a heck of a lot more to some of us
than the proprietary files we get off the camera. If someone comes up with a
better solution, that's cool too. So far, no one has.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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