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 19:18:48 -0600
- Thread-topic: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
On 7/14/07 6:20 PM, "Martin Orpen" wrote:
> 1. That Adobe (and therefore you by proxy) sell DNG by exaggerating
> and preying on the fear of losing data
They don't SELL DNG, its available at no cost.
DNG is based on TIFF (which Adobe also owns) along with PSD. So I assume you
have issues with TIFF files?
Based on your obvious prejudices towards Adobe, I assume you don't use TIFF,
or PSD, you've removed every Adobe application from all your Mac's and would
never think of using DNG. That bodes will for your archives in JPEG.
> 2. That DNG is much more useful for middle-men, stock libraries and
> end users than it is for the creators of images who may actually get
> a kick and financial benefits from reinterpreting originals as the
> technology changes
Its useful for end users based on the advantages to the format I described
earlier. There's no fee to use it, its an open documented format and no one
is putting a gun to anyone's head to use it. However, IF you find the
benefits of using it, as I do, as described, there's no harm in using it.
> We use Nikon kit on our rostrums. We've shot .NEF for years and have
> never lost an image...
Losing an image is a totally different topic. It has nothing to do with
using DNG or not. The question is, do you wish larger files, files that are
proprietary and files that require a 2nd document (sidecar files) to be
attached to the original? Lets not forget Nikon's foolish attempt to encrypt
WB a few years ago. So you're suggesting that one company, that provides an
open standard is evil but the company that went out of its way to encrypt
data in their files which belongs to the end user is good? I think you need
a serious reality check Martin.
> As I have copies of all Nikon software and a lot of third party
> software that can handle the D1 series NEFs and a lot of Macs ranging
> from OS 7 to 10.5 - I cannot really see how those NEFs are suddenly
> going to be unavailable to me in the future.
Fine, you bank on Nikon and a proprietary and encrypted format. I'm not
about to do that.
> I can see that they might be a pain to interpret by other people in
> the future but, being as they are *my* "digital negatives", I don't
> really see why I should be compelled to embrace a technology to help
> others interpret *my* work?
Of course you don't. That's pretty obvious. On the other hand, you've
provided no reason not to use DNG and if you wish, embed the NEFs in the
container or keep a separate archive of the originals (oh yes, that added
expense of storage). With that mindset, you probably don't back up your
archives let alone have multiple backups of your precious data. If you
didn't notice, storage is really cheap, losing images isn't.
Even using a DNG workflow, I have at least three copies of every DNG image
I've shot. But heck, I'm a fool and paranoid about losing my data. And I
must be a bitch for some storage company out there as you are probably going
to tell us all that archiving multiple copies of precious images is
foolhardy.
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