• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow


  • Subject: Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
  • From: Nov06 <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:05:39 +0200

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.

In Aperture you achieve the same by exporting and importing projects, projects have the format of packages and therefore appear as a single file to the user. It is not as flexible as DNGs, as you have to send the whole project (or change your project structure), but then it includes the project structure which might be useful as well.


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.

Dito, send me the project (it has jpeg previews) or just the previews.

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.

Right now Adobe has created one standard with the DNG. Apple another with their Aperture project packages. Adobe's standard is open and documented but the most important part of it, the rendering instructions, is essentially only useful when using Adobe products. Apple's standard is not an ISO standard, but the IPTC and raw data are easily accessible. It's based on a project basis, which is on the one hand much less flexible but adds other advantages and it's main part, the rendering instructions, is only useful with Aperture.


Somehow this situation sounds familiar.

(In end the looser in this standards war will have to make itself as compatible with the winning standard, but it will take a while until we are there.)

Markus

_______________________________________________
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


References: 
 >Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow (From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: About that red sweater
  • Next by Date: Re: Accurate color from the camera - who wants it!
  • Previous by thread: Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
  • Next by thread: Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread