• 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: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:45:17 +0100

On 15 Jul 2007, at 02:18, Andrew Rodney wrote:

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.

English is a complex language Andrew - words have more than one meaning and "selling" something doesn't mean that you necessarily expect payment in cash for it.


I'm sure you'd prefer to use the simplest meaning of the word otherwise people who are hear to sell their thoughts and experience for free might start noticing that some people aren't doing the same.

And my view of people tacitly prostituting themselves is as dim as my view of infomercials being passed off as white papers...


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.

I'd think twice if you consider my "bluntness" to be a sign of "stupidity".


I have no "obvious prejudices towards Adobe". My opinions on the issues that I've highlighted are based on both experience and reason.

Deploring Adobe's position on RF sales, UK pricing policy and marketing techniques doesn't require me to remove every product that they are associated with from my computers.

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.

Read what I've said again. You've missed the point entirely.


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.

You should decide what it is that you actually do.

I have serious doubts that your own image making accounts for a significant proportion of your income - so don't be surprised that I take your views on these issues with a large pinch of salt.

If your primary role is being a trainer and consultant then surely you should be matching the demands of creators with the solutions provided by companies like Adobe?

I don't see much "matching" going on here - you're dismissing my demands as prejudice or declaring them "hogwash" without even understanding them.

I've got no problem arguing that you're wrong - but I do find it odd that my independent views put me on a knife edge of being banned from here and yet your partisan views are wholly acceptable.

--
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
  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
      • From: Andrew Rodney <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: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
  • Previous by thread: Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
  • Next by thread: Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread