eronald Posted February 23, 2007 Share #1 Posted February 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is this what the future of the M line looks like ? Fujifilm FinePix IS-1, IR sensitive: Digital Photography Review By the way, here is my take on Lightroom. It's on my color blog. Edmund Ronald's Color Management News Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 23, 2007 Posted February 23, 2007 Hi eronald, Take a look here The future of the M line ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sdai Posted February 23, 2007 Share #2 Posted February 23, 2007 I agree with you on the future of DNG ... and I don't like Lightroom either. The layout of GUI is absolutely counterintuitive (to me at least). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirvine Posted February 23, 2007 Share #3 Posted February 23, 2007 From your article: "I will not be discussing color management in Lightroom here, due to a momentarily lukewarm relationship with Adobe PR who see no reason to send me a copy." Why not just install the 30 day trial? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 23, 2007 Share #4 Posted February 23, 2007 Edmund was not going to say this but will say it anyway. Andrew, Jeff and the rest of the gang do know there stuff BUT with one caveat they work for Adobe and there out to promote Adobe products. I take some of it with a grain of salt. My opinion and maybe harsh but my opinion anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted February 23, 2007 Share #5 Posted February 23, 2007 I agree with you on the future of DNG ... and I don't like Lightroom either. The layout of GUI is absolutely counterintuitive (to me at least). I do not understand what you would then call intuitive! For me Lightroom's GUI works much better than Aperture and C1 Pro. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
heninger Posted February 23, 2007 Share #6 Posted February 23, 2007 Is this what the future of the M line looks like ? Fujifilm FinePix IS-1, IR sensitive: Digital Photography Review By the way, here is my take on Lightroom. It's on my color blog. Edmund Ronald's Color Management News Edmund The future of the M line is this: Leica Camera AG - Photography - M8 You're welcome to your opinion on Lightroom, but it is in no way an admission that the DNG thing has failed. Lightroom works just fine with my M8 DNG's and for me, I think it is much better than proprietary raw formats. Just ask those people trying to get the M8 to work with Aperture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted February 23, 2007 Share #7 Posted February 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I really don't think there is a problem with any of the applications as for absolutely counterintuitive, sounds extreme. It's a damn fine application with quirks like the rest of them.... but as always many stick with the devil the know. Andrew, Jeff and the rest of the gang do know there stuff BUT with one caveat they work for Adobe and there out to promote Adobe products... Guy the result is no different to you promoting the stuff you use and consider as being excellent. It doesn't reduce their or the products credability. So some people got their nose out of joint with Adobe, I am not too keen on the fact that I pay more for it in Australia than the advertised price in US Dollars even with the conversion, but so be it, I gain elsewhere Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 23, 2007 Share #8 Posted February 23, 2007 Yes but no one is paying me to use any products or promoting any products . Big difference there. Also I said it won't be a popular opinion of mine. We have to remember they are on salary with Adobe. And i like Adobe products so please don't get me wrong there. i have and use a lot of what they produce Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted February 24, 2007 Share #9 Posted February 24, 2007 So what they are on a salary, they also have a product they seem to believe in, just as we do with our preferred options so we all place positive spins on our choices. The option is there 30 days of trials, so be it with this salt caper The future of the M line... leica will keep the m alive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwalker649 Posted February 24, 2007 Share #10 Posted February 24, 2007 Is Michael Reichmann being paid by Adobe?...he seems to like it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted February 24, 2007 Author Share #11 Posted February 24, 2007 I'm not saying DNG is bad in any way - I'm saying it was an attempt to take over the photo world, by becoming the new Jpeg, and in that it has failed. I guess they owed it to their shareholders to try. As for Lightroom, nice software, users like it, it seems. It's going to sell well. But it will sell because it works with zillions of file formats externally and not just DNG. Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 24, 2007 Share #12 Posted February 24, 2007 So what they are on a salary, they also have a product they seem to believe in, just as we do with our preferred options so we all place positive spins on our choices. The option is there 30 days of trials, so be it with this salt caper... leica will keep the m alive A lot of people like it including myself. I think you miss the the point just like a celebrity selling in a ad for a car for example does not mean they like or dislike the product they are getting paid to say they do. BTW Micheal is a reviewer like any other and is not on Adobes salary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted February 24, 2007 Share #13 Posted February 24, 2007 This is just an impression, but I suspect that Adobe doesn't actually pay its legion of advocates much or at all (except perhaps Jeff Schewe). Instead it grants the favored ones access, and they turn that access into books and videos, which do pay for their time investment -- and are very favorable to Adobe's products. Pretty cool, huh? scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted February 24, 2007 Share #14 Posted February 24, 2007 ... and some despite being paid actually believe in their product and the fees gained are a bonus in life and no I am not missing the point just consider your initial post/statement as misguiding Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ustein Posted February 24, 2007 Share #15 Posted February 24, 2007 >You're welcome to your opinion on Lightroom, but it is in no way an admission that the DNG thing has failed. Here is my take. The companies that make it hard for DNG to succeed are Nikon and Canon. Many photographers believe that they own their photos and proprietary RAW formats are a great PITA. Now let's assume I would like to create a standard RAW format. No chance whatsoever: lacking influence and R&D funds. Here Adove stood up and offered a start towards a standard. That is how all standards start first. If photographers would require the use of a standard format Nikon and Canon would follow. But as you all know this is not reality. I never felt that Adobe is imposing DNG on the rest of the world. Where are alternative proposals to solve the problem of volatile (future wise) RAW formats? I see no reason to bash Adobe for DNG. Actually just the oposite. Everyone can implement DNG, it is a standard. None of the many other RAW formats is even close to be a standard. Uwe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted February 24, 2007 Author Share #16 Posted February 24, 2007 Uwe, You are quite right. Canon and Nikon don't want a standard format, they prefer to lock photographers in to a proprietary one. On the other hand the camera companies really know a lot about what makes a photograph. Adobe has models of color and imagery that come from the print world where everything is in the end referred to paper; Canon, Nikon and Sony come from the image world where everything is referred to the original scene. These are two totally different technical perspectives. Think hard, Uwe - in the end, for the average *photographer*, which does he have an intuitive connection with - the camera in his hand, or the computer on his desk ? Would you enjoy it if Canikon licensed a single "perfect" camera design and everybody had to use it ? Microsoft has demonstrated very nicely that standardisation kills innovation ... Just because as you say anybody can implement DNG does not mean that DNG is the right model for imagery. Last, not least, why is DNG a standard ? As an engineer I consider a standard to be something which representatives of the art (engineers) at various companies have discussed, where everybody has contributed technology and requested changes, and which the whole industry has voted on. I cannot see that this has happened for DNG. DNG is working very nicely for Leica and for Leica's customers. Let's not make the mistake of saying that something that works for us must make the rest of the world happy ! Edmund >You're welcome to your opinion on Lightroom, but it is in no way an admission that the DNG thing has failed. Here is my take. The companies that make it hard for DNG to succeed are Nikon and Canon. Many photographers believe that they own their photos and proprietary RAW formats are a great PITA. Now let's assume I would like to create a standard RAW format. No chance whatsoever: lacking influence and R&D funds. Here Adove stood up and offered a start towards a standard. That is how all standards start first. If photographers would require the use of a standard format Nikon and Canon would follow. But as you all know this is not reality. I never felt that Adobe is imposing DNG on the rest of the world. Where are alternative proposals to solve the problem of volatile (future wise) RAW formats? I see no reason to bash Adobe for DNG. Actually just the oposite. Everyone can implement DNG, it is a standard. None of the many other RAW formats is even close to be a standard. Uwe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ustein Posted February 24, 2007 Share #17 Posted February 24, 2007 >Let's not make the mistake of saying that something that works for us must make the rest of the world happy ! 1. I cannot see what element makes somebody happy to use Nikon or Canon RAW. In the beginning they had no choice because there was nothing out there. The real problem is actually that the camera users will learn their real pain in 10-20 years down the road. 2. I did not say there is no need to improve DNG. >Would you enjoy it if Canikon licensed a single "perfect" camera design and everybody had to use it ? The cameras and the RAW format are not really related. I cannot see anything(!) innovative in proprietary RAW formats. Just assume in the video world you would have different standards per camera model. I just cannot see what is so wrong with DNG except: 1. If others want they can help to improve it 2. Most cameras don't support it >Just because as you say anybody can implement DNG does not mean that DNG is the right model for imagery. Right. But I know many people who implemented RAW converters that I can say a more standard RAW format is possible and DNG is not that far off. Uwe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted February 24, 2007 Share #18 Posted February 24, 2007 IMO, the only reason why the DNG format got as far as it did (getting a number of manufacturers to use it) is that it is essentially a container format, allowing manufacturers the freedom to encode their own data chunks. This is of course also its main failing, as it means that raw programs continue to have to add support camera by camera, even for DNG-supporting cameras. One day we will all look back at these days, and wonder why the manufacturers were so paranoid, preferring to use their own schemes for everything. Nikon is currently the worst offender, IMO, going as far as encrypting their white balance (unless they have stopped doing this at some point?). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted February 24, 2007 Author Share #19 Posted February 24, 2007 I don't say anything bad about DNG in my Color Blog Post about Lightroom. Except that nobody is using it to the extent that Lightroom is actually marketed as a tool for reading diverse files !!! Actually I like the idea of an open format; I just don't think that DNG really solves the issue. If we really want an open format, the engineers from the camera companies should be allowed a say too ! Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat308 Posted February 24, 2007 Share #20 Posted February 24, 2007 But it is a closed "standard". Controlled by Adobe. Any changes have to be approved by Adobe. If Adobe really cared they would place DNG with one of the international bodies and let everybody work with it. >Everyone can implement DNG, it is a standard. None of the many other RAW formats is even close to be a standard.Uwe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.