Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Opinion of DNG format ?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 6:18:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dear All,

I am interested in everyone's opinion of the Adobe DNG format.

Basically, I presently pretty much shoot everything in RAW (NEF) format, and
wish to keep a digital negative format of all my photos for future work.
However - I also want the capability that various album programs (PS Album,
Picasa etc...) give me for browsing and finding photos quickly - especialy
the timeline type features. The problem here is that noe of these tools suit
NEF format files.

My wife shoots JPG files, so it would be good for us both to be able to
view/locate/order prints from all formats that we use.

So - is it going to be worth converting all my NEFs to DNG files ? I presume
that at least Adobe's album products will support DNG in the near future,
and hopefully so will others.

Is there ANY quality loss in going from NEF to DNG - or any other associated
drawbacks at all ?

Adobe's selling point on DNG is that it is likley to be supported by more
vendors in the future, whereas propritary tools may ose support for various
different RAW formats as they change/evolve.

Anyone care to comment ? This is not urgent for me, but I am trying to work
out the best future workflow...

More about : opinion dng format

Anonymous
December 13, 2004 6:32:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am a believer. I switched to using it when it first came out. Where is the
downside? I put my RAW files on CDs for archiving....as DNGs they are more
likely to be usable in the future, and they take up less space. The is no
loss.


"adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:nLCdnQ0G4oogLyDcRVn-ig@giganews.com...
> Dear All,
>
> I am interested in everyone's opinion of the Adobe DNG format.
>
> Basically, I presently pretty much shoot everything in RAW (NEF) format,
and
> wish to keep a digital negative format of all my photos for future work.
> However - I also want the capability that various album programs (PS
Album,
> Picasa etc...) give me for browsing and finding photos quickly - especialy
> the timeline type features. The problem here is that noe of these tools
suit
> NEF format files.
>
> My wife shoots JPG files, so it would be good for us both to be able to
> view/locate/order prints from all formats that we use.
>
> So - is it going to be worth converting all my NEFs to DNG files ? I
presume
> that at least Adobe's album products will support DNG in the near future,
> and hopefully so will others.
>
> Is there ANY quality loss in going from NEF to DNG - or any other
associated
> drawbacks at all ?
>
> Adobe's selling point on DNG is that it is likley to be supported by more
> vendors in the future, whereas propritary tools may ose support for
various
> different RAW formats as they change/evolve.
>
> Anyone care to comment ? This is not urgent for me, but I am trying to
work
> out the best future workflow...
>
>
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 6:49:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:WBivd.2199$ag6.1492@trndny07...
>I am a believer. I switched to using it when it first came out. Where is
>the
> downside? I put my RAW files on CDs for archiving....as DNGs they are more
> likely to be usable in the future, and they take up less space. The is no
> loss.

Did you archive them on CD as RAW, as DNG or both ? (Not that the cost of
CDs/DVDs is an issue these days.....)



> "adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:nLCdnQ0G4oogLyDcRVn-ig@giganews.com...
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I am interested in everyone's opinion of the Adobe DNG format.
>>
>> Basically, I presently pretty much shoot everything in RAW (NEF) format,
> and
>> wish to keep a digital negative format of all my photos for future work.
>> However - I also want the capability that various album programs (PS
> Album,
>> Picasa etc...) give me for browsing and finding photos quickly -
>> especialy
>> the timeline type features. The problem here is that noe of these tools
> suit
>> NEF format files.
>>
>> My wife shoots JPG files, so it would be good for us both to be able to
>> view/locate/order prints from all formats that we use.
>>
>> So - is it going to be worth converting all my NEFs to DNG files ? I
> presume
>> that at least Adobe's album products will support DNG in the near future,
>> and hopefully so will others.
>>
>> Is there ANY quality loss in going from NEF to DNG - or any other
> associated
>> drawbacks at all ?
>>
>> Adobe's selling point on DNG is that it is likley to be supported by more
>> vendors in the future, whereas propritary tools may ose support for
> various
>> different RAW formats as they change/evolve.
>>
>> Anyone care to comment ? This is not urgent for me, but I am trying to
> work
>> out the best future workflow...
>>
>>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 7:15:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:49:53 -0000, adm wrote:

> "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:WBivd.2199$ag6.1492@trndny07...
>>I am a believer. I switched to using it when it first came out. Where is
>>the
>> downside? I put my RAW files on CDs for archiving....as DNGs they are more
>> likely to be usable in the future, and they take up less space. The is no
>> loss.
>
> Did you archive them on CD as RAW, as DNG or both ? (Not that the cost of
> CDs/DVDs is an issue these days.....)

I agree with Gene. I archive *both* to CD and DVD, and a second "working"
copy to an offline hard disk. Call me paranoid but I've lost images once, I
learned from it.

I have raw images in several formats, DNG makes camera differences far more
transparent. Anything that can read a TIF file can see the "big thumbnail"
in the DNG, even Windows Explorer (as long as you inform it that a DNG is to
be treated as a TIF).


--
John Bean

In a few minutes a computer can make a mistake so great that it would have
taken many men many months to equal it (Anon)
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 7:35:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 12/13/04 9:18 AM, in article nLCdnQ0G4oogLyDcRVn-ig@giganews.com, "adm"
<adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I am interested in everyone's opinion of the Adobe DNG format.
>
> Basically, I presently pretty much shoot everything in RAW (NEF) format, and
> wish to keep a digital negative format of all my photos for future work.
> However - I also want the capability that various album programs (PS Album,
> Picasa etc...) give me for browsing and finding photos quickly - especialy
> the timeline type features. The problem here is that noe of these tools suit
> NEF format files.
>
> My wife shoots JPG files, so it would be good for us both to be able to
> view/locate/order prints from all formats that we use.
>
> So - is it going to be worth converting all my NEFs to DNG files ? I presume
> that at least Adobe's album products will support DNG in the near future,
> and hopefully so will others.
>
> Is there ANY quality loss in going from NEF to DNG - or any other associated
> drawbacks at all ?
>
> Adobe's selling point on DNG is that it is likley to be supported by more
> vendors in the future, whereas propritary tools may ose support for various
> different RAW formats as they change/evolve.
>
> Anyone care to comment ? This is not urgent for me, but I am trying to work
> out the best future workflow...
>
>
All great questions, and if anyone has the answers I would sure like to
know!
IMO I applaud Adobe for doing this and I hope that DNG becomes the standard.
If the likes of Canon and Nikon would support this it would become the
standard. I fear what will happen in the future when improvements are made
in raw formats and the old formats are no longer supported. While I am not
going to convert everything to DNG I am at least going to convert my 'hero'
shots to DNG.
Chuck
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 7:35:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Wright wrote:


> IMO I applaud Adobe for doing this and I hope that DNG becomes the standard.

Yes, and the standard for images should be .PSD instead of .TIFF
If Adobe could come out with a highly compressed .PSD file, we could
do away with JPEG as well. :-)

I don't know about an image editing software company dictating the
'standard' camera companies should use. Adobe obviously has an
ulterior motive... That is to save on programming and development
costs by getting the camera companies to get in line for them.

This doesn't mean a standard wouldn't be a good idea.. But I'd rather
see the camera industry come up with one.

Pretty well all digicams today follow standards like "The design rule for
camera file system", adopted by the Japan Electronic Industry Development
Association. (JEIDA) Other than politics :-) I don't see why JEIDA, or
another universally recognized organization (Like ISO) can't come up with a
common RAW format that meets the needs of camera manufacturers.
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 7:44:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Bean" <john@waterfoot.net> wrote in message
news:1gii2jfg5zpd.dlg@waterfoot.net...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:49:53 -0000, adm wrote:
>
>> "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:WBivd.2199$ag6.1492@trndny07...
>>>I am a believer. I switched to using it when it first came out. Where is
>>>the
>>> downside? I put my RAW files on CDs for archiving....as DNGs they are
>>> more
>>> likely to be usable in the future, and they take up less space. The is
>>> no
>>> loss.
>>
>> Did you archive them on CD as RAW, as DNG or both ? (Not that the cost of
>> CDs/DVDs is an issue these days.....)
>
> I agree with Gene. I archive *both* to CD and DVD, and a second "working"
> copy to an offline hard disk. Call me paranoid but I've lost images once,
> I
> learned from it.
>
> I have raw images in several formats, DNG makes camera differences far
> more
> transparent. Anything that can read a TIF file can see the "big thumbnail"
> in the DNG, even Windows Explorer (as long as you inform it that a DNG is
> to
> be treated as a TIF).
>

Thanks John,

Just one question. How do you inform XP that a DNG file is to be treated as
a TIF ??

I have DNG files set to open in Photoshop CS, but still get no
thumbnails....
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 8:00:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Wright" <nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
news:BDE320D2.106B5%nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com...
> On 12/13/04 9:18 AM, in article nLCdnQ0G4oogLyDcRVn-ig@giganews.com, "adm"
> <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I am interested in everyone's opinion of the Adobe DNG format.
>>
>> Basically, I presently pretty much shoot everything in RAW (NEF) format,
>> and
>> wish to keep a digital negative format of all my photos for future work.
>> However - I also want the capability that various album programs (PS
>> Album,
>> Picasa etc...) give me for browsing and finding photos quickly -
>> especialy
>> the timeline type features. The problem here is that noe of these tools
>> suit
>> NEF format files.
>>
>> My wife shoots JPG files, so it would be good for us both to be able to
>> view/locate/order prints from all formats that we use.
>>
>> So - is it going to be worth converting all my NEFs to DNG files ? I
>> presume
>> that at least Adobe's album products will support DNG in the near future,
>> and hopefully so will others.
>>
>> Is there ANY quality loss in going from NEF to DNG - or any other
>> associated
>> drawbacks at all ?
>>
>> Adobe's selling point on DNG is that it is likley to be supported by more
>> vendors in the future, whereas propritary tools may ose support for
>> various
>> different RAW formats as they change/evolve.
>>
>> Anyone care to comment ? This is not urgent for me, but I am trying to
>> work
>> out the best future workflow...
>>
>>
> All great questions, and if anyone has the answers I would sure like to
> know!
> IMO I applaud Adobe for doing this and I hope that DNG becomes the
> standard.
> If the likes of Canon and Nikon would support this it would become the
> standard. I fear what will happen in the future when improvements are
> made
> in raw formats and the old formats are no longer supported. While I am
> not
> going to convert everything to DNG I am at least going to convert my
> 'hero'
> shots to DNG.
> Chuck

And of course........another question......

Anyone know of any album software that supports DNG yet ? Or even if Adobe
has said that PS Album will in the future ? It goes back to my wife again -
she wants to be able to see both her JPG photos, and my RAW (or DNGs if I
convert them all) pictures when se browses....
>
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 8:33:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:44:58 -0000, adm wrote:
> Just one question. How do you inform XP that a DNG file is to be treated as
> a TIF ??
>
> I have DNG files set to open in Photoshop CS, but still get no
> thumbnails....

Needs a registry entry. If you have SP2 it's fairly easy, this link
describes the change for NEF files (yes, they're TIFs too!) so change any
reference to "TIF" to "DNG". The case is not important - "nef" is the same
as "NEF". After adding the new entry it will behave exactly as it did before
but you'll get thumbnails in Explorer.

http://tinyurl.com/6cjpx

If you are uncomfortable editing the registry download the file from the
link, edit it to change all "nef" to "dng", save it then double click on it
to merge it into the registry.

--
John Bean

Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise (some
dead guy)
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 9:29:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Way cool! Worked like a charm!

"John Bean" <john@waterfoot.net> wrote in message
news:5hq2mrrlohue.dlg@waterfoot.net...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:44:58 -0000, adm wrote:
> > Just one question. How do you inform XP that a DNG file is to be treated
as
> > a TIF ??
> >
> > I have DNG files set to open in Photoshop CS, but still get no
> > thumbnails....
>
> Needs a registry entry. If you have SP2 it's fairly easy, this link
> describes the change for NEF files (yes, they're TIFs too!) so change any
> reference to "TIF" to "DNG". The case is not important - "nef" is the same
> as "NEF". After adding the new entry it will behave exactly as it did
before
> but you'll get thumbnails in Explorer.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6cjpx
>
> If you are uncomfortable editing the registry download the file from the
> link, edit it to change all "nef" to "dng", save it then double click on
it
> to merge it into the registry.
>
> --
> John Bean
>
> Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise
(some
> dead guy)
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 9:34:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I pull my files off the camera using the DNG converter. I have to test this
out but it seems that any program that sees TIFs should see these....Windows
Explorer does. I am going to put ThumbsPlus on this machine...with
ghostscript it can see EPS...and now if it can see DNG it will serve me
well.

"adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:mqadnUrw0s8sVyDcRVn-pw@giganews.com...
>
> "Wright" <nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com> wrote in message
> news:BDE320D2.106B5%nojunk_wright9@nojunk_mac.com...
> > On 12/13/04 9:18 AM, in article nLCdnQ0G4oogLyDcRVn-ig@giganews.com,
"adm"
> > <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> I am interested in everyone's opinion of the Adobe DNG format.
> >>
> >> Basically, I presently pretty much shoot everything in RAW (NEF)
format,
> >> and
> >> wish to keep a digital negative format of all my photos for future
work.
> >> However - I also want the capability that various album programs (PS
> >> Album,
> >> Picasa etc...) give me for browsing and finding photos quickly -
> >> especialy
> >> the timeline type features. The problem here is that noe of these tools
> >> suit
> >> NEF format files.
> >>
> >> My wife shoots JPG files, so it would be good for us both to be able to
> >> view/locate/order prints from all formats that we use.
> >>
> >> So - is it going to be worth converting all my NEFs to DNG files ? I
> >> presume
> >> that at least Adobe's album products will support DNG in the near
future,
> >> and hopefully so will others.
> >>
> >> Is there ANY quality loss in going from NEF to DNG - or any other
> >> associated
> >> drawbacks at all ?
> >>
> >> Adobe's selling point on DNG is that it is likley to be supported by
more
> >> vendors in the future, whereas propritary tools may ose support for
> >> various
> >> different RAW formats as they change/evolve.
> >>
> >> Anyone care to comment ? This is not urgent for me, but I am trying to
> >> work
> >> out the best future workflow...
> >>
> >>
> > All great questions, and if anyone has the answers I would sure like to
> > know!
> > IMO I applaud Adobe for doing this and I hope that DNG becomes the
> > standard.
> > If the likes of Canon and Nikon would support this it would become the
> > standard. I fear what will happen in the future when improvements are
> > made
> > in raw formats and the old formats are no longer supported. While I am
> > not
> > going to convert everything to DNG I am at least going to convert my
> > 'hero'
> > shots to DNG.
> > Chuck
>
> And of course........another question......
>
> Anyone know of any album software that supports DNG yet ? Or even if Adobe
> has said that PS Album will in the future ? It goes back to my wife
again -
> she wants to be able to see both her JPG photos, and my RAW (or DNGs if I
> convert them all) pictures when se browses....
> >
>
>
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 10:04:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I think it has a bright future. However, until cameras shoot in that format
it is not that special. Converting your current RAW format images to DNG
just doesn't make sense. It is an extra couple of steps that just isn't
worth it. Add to that that you are then locked in to using Photoshop for the
time being as most programs don't yet support DNG. I do expect all of this
to change but not until at least the middle to late 2005.

John


"adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:nLCdnQ0G4oogLyDcRVn-ig@giganews.com...
> Dear All,
>
> I am interested in everyone's opinion of the Adobe DNG format.
>
> Basically, I presently pretty much shoot everything in RAW (NEF) format,
> and wish to keep a digital negative format of all my photos for future
> work. However - I also want the capability that various album programs (PS
> Album, Picasa etc...) give me for browsing and finding photos quickly -
> especialy the timeline type features. The problem here is that noe of
> these tools suit NEF format files.
>
> My wife shoots JPG files, so it would be good for us both to be able to
> view/locate/order prints from all formats that we use.
>
> So - is it going to be worth converting all my NEFs to DNG files ? I
> presume that at least Adobe's album products will support DNG in the near
> future, and hopefully so will others.
>
> Is there ANY quality loss in going from NEF to DNG - or any other
> associated drawbacks at all ?
>
> Adobe's selling point on DNG is that it is likley to be supported by more
> vendors in the future, whereas propritary tools may ose support for
> various different RAW formats as they change/evolve.
>
> Anyone care to comment ? This is not urgent for me, but I am trying to
> work out the best future workflow...
>
>
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 10:07:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:29:16 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:

> Way cool! Worked like a charm!

That was my first reaction when I discovered it :-)

--
John Bean

Work is the curse of the drinking classes (Oscar Wilde)
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 10:17:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:34:01 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:

> I pull my files off the camera using the DNG converter. I have to test this
> out but it seems that any program that sees TIFs should see these....Windows
> Explorer does. I am going to put ThumbsPlus on this machine...with
> ghostscript it can see EPS...and now if it can see DNG it will serve me
> well.

Well behaved programs can. I use a piece of freeware called "The Rename" to
give my files names that include the date/time and the camera that created
them. It does this from the EXIF - and it automagically works for DNGs too
as soon as Windows is told they're image files. I'm afraid Thumbsplus is not
well behaved, it ignores Windows and does its own thing. Shame. I now use
the file browser in CS to do everything, it's more powerful than you
think...

--
John Bean

A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin
(H. L. Mencken)
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 10:27:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend wrote:
> Wright wrote:
>
>
>> IMO I applaud Adobe for doing this and I hope that DNG becomes the
>> standard.
>
> Yes, and the standard for images should be .PSD instead of .TIFF
> If Adobe could come out with a highly compressed .PSD file, we could
> do away with JPEG as well. :-)

Yes, and all documents should be in Wordperfect format and .. and .. :-)
Anonymous
December 13, 2004 10:57:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Bean" <john@waterfoot.net> wrote in message
news:5hq2mrrlohue.dlg@waterfoot.net...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 16:44:58 -0000, adm wrote:
>> Just one question. How do you inform XP that a DNG file is to be treated
>> as
>> a TIF ??
>>
>> I have DNG files set to open in Photoshop CS, but still get no
>> thumbnails....
>
> Needs a registry entry. If you have SP2 it's fairly easy, this link
> describes the change for NEF files (yes, they're TIFs too!) so change any
> reference to "TIF" to "DNG". The case is not important - "nef" is the same
> as "NEF". After adding the new entry it will behave exactly as it did
> before
> but you'll get thumbnails in Explorer.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6cjpx
>
> If you are uncomfortable editing the registry download the file from the
> link, edit it to change all "nef" to "dng", save it then double click on
> it
> to merge it into the registry.

Thanks a lot. That worked a treat !
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 12:23:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Bean" <john@waterfoot.net> wrote in message
news:1ammjch60f3q6.dlg@waterfoot.net...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:34:01 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:
>
> > I pull my files off the camera using the DNG converter. I have to test
this
> > out but it seems that any program that sees TIFs should see
these....Windows
> > Explorer does. I am going to put ThumbsPlus on this machine...with
> > ghostscript it can see EPS...and now if it can see DNG it will serve me
> > well.
>
> Well behaved programs can. I use a piece of freeware called "The Rename"
to
> give my files names that include the date/time and the camera that created
> them. It does this from the EXIF - and it automagically works for DNGs too
> as soon as Windows is told they're image files. I'm afraid Thumbsplus is
not
> well behaved, it ignores Windows and does its own thing. Shame. I now use
> the file browser in CS to do everything, it's more powerful than you
> think...
>
Well...I took TP off for some reason....but I don't recall why. Can you
think of any other way to thumbnail lots of EPS clip art?
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 12:28:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:tJlvd.11716$_3.130324@typhoon.sonic.net...
> I think it has a bright future. However, until cameras shoot in that
format
> it is not that special. Converting your current RAW format images to DNG
> just doesn't make sense. It is an extra couple of steps that just isn't
> worth it. Add to that that you are then locked in to using Photoshop for
the
> time being as most programs don't yet support DNG. I do expect all of this
> to change but not until at least the middle to late 2005.
>
> John
>
There is no reason that cameras could not save as DNG...and I expect that
they will. It's not even one extra step if you do it as I do....I have the
DNG converter pull the images off the chip and save to my archive. There is
a time penalty...but its just as many steps as moving them myself.

As for being locked into Photoshop. Should something better come along you
might have to keep a copy of PS around for old files. Right....like that is
going to happen anytime soon.
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 1:49:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:23:13 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:

> "John Bean" <john@waterfoot.net> wrote in message
> news:1ammjch60f3q6.dlg@waterfoot.net...
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:34:01 GMT, Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>
>>> I pull my files off the camera using the DNG converter. I have to test
> this
>>> out but it seems that any program that sees TIFs should see
> these....Windows
>>> Explorer does. I am going to put ThumbsPlus on this machine...with
>>> ghostscript it can see EPS...and now if it can see DNG it will serve me
>>> well.
>>
>> Well behaved programs can. I use a piece of freeware called "The Rename"
> to
>> give my files names that include the date/time and the camera that created
>> them. It does this from the EXIF - and it automagically works for DNGs too
>> as soon as Windows is told they're image files. I'm afraid Thumbsplus is
> not
>> well behaved, it ignores Windows and does its own thing. Shame. I now use
>> the file browser in CS to do everything, it's more powerful than you
>> think...
>>
> Well...I took TP off for some reason....but I don't recall why. Can you
> think of any other way to thumbnail lots of EPS clip art?

The CS file browser can't do this? I really don't know but I'd be surprised
if it can't. The CS browser is not as bad as it seems at first sight, but
you need to let it build its caches before you use it seriously. Many people
lose patience with it by trying to use it with uncached directories of
images.

--
John Bean

Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual
way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of
complaining (Jef Raskin)
Anonymous
December 14, 2004 4:17:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> > Well...I took TP off for some reason....but I don't recall why. Can you
> > think of any other way to thumbnail lots of EPS clip art?
>
> The CS file browser can't do this? I really don't know but I'd be
surprised
> if it can't. The CS browser is not as bad as it seems at first sight, but
> you need to let it build its caches before you use it seriously. Many
people
> lose patience with it by trying to use it with uncached directories of
> images.

Well...what do you know!? It has worked with EPS and AI so far....will now
try some others. I know enough to scan folders when I have nothing better to
do...or do it in my sleep (so to speak.)
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 9:18:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
> Wright wrote:


>> IMO I applaud Adobe for doing this and I hope that DNG becomes the
>> standard.

> Yes, and the standard for images should be .PSD instead of .TIFF
> If Adobe could come out with a highly compressed .PSD file, we could
> do away with JPEG as well. :-)

> I don't know about an image editing software company dictating the
> 'standard' camera companies should use. Adobe obviously has an
> ulterior motive... That is to save on programming and development
> costs by getting the camera companies to get in line for them.

Right. The point is that the camera companies have failed to come up
with anything, so Adobe stepped up. Good for them.

> This doesn't mean a standard wouldn't be a good idea.. But I'd rather
> see the camera industry come up with one.

> Pretty well all digicams today follow standards like "The design rule for
> camera file system", adopted by the Japan Electronic Industry Development
> Association. (JEIDA) Other than politics :-) I don't see why JEIDA, or
> another universally recognized organization (Like ISO) can't come up with a
> common RAW format that meets the needs of camera manufacturers.

Why? I don't see how it would be better.

Andrew.
Anonymous
December 15, 2004 9:24:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:10s100gl469ft88@news.supernews.com...
> Jim Townsend <not@real.address> wrote:
>> Wright wrote:
>
>
>>> IMO I applaud Adobe for doing this and I hope that DNG becomes the
>>> standard.
>
>> Yes, and the standard for images should be .PSD instead of .TIFF
>> If Adobe could come out with a highly compressed .PSD file, we could
>> do away with JPEG as well. :-)
>
>> I don't know about an image editing software company dictating the
>> 'standard' camera companies should use. Adobe obviously has an
>> ulterior motive... That is to save on programming and development
>> costs by getting the camera companies to get in line for them.
>
> Right. The point is that the camera companies have failed to come up
> with anything, so Adobe stepped up. Good for them.
>
>> This doesn't mean a standard wouldn't be a good idea.. But I'd rather
>> see the camera industry come up with one.
>
>> Pretty well all digicams today follow standards like "The design rule for
>> camera file system", adopted by the Japan Electronic Industry Development
>> Association. (JEIDA) Other than politics :-) I don't see why JEIDA,
>> or
>> another universally recognized organization (Like ISO) can't come up with
>> a
>> common RAW format that meets the needs of camera manufacturers.
>
> Why? I don't see how it would be better.

To my mind, any standard set by a body of interested parties is almost
always worse than a "standard" set by a private company's market dominance.
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 1:10:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

adm <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> To my mind, any standard set by a body of interested parties is almost
> always worse than a "standard" set by a private company's market dominance.

<IRONY> Absolutely! </IRONY>

That's why the IETF Internet standards are so much worse than
the IBM PC "architecture".

Many times, standard-setting bodies are sabotaged by companies
trying to gain a competitive advantage. But good standards are
sometimes produced when companies cooperate. Think cassette tape,
audio CD, VHS recording, DVD movies.

In the case of RAW, I don't really see why digicam manufacturers
have any motivation to cooperate. RAW is just the easiest thing
for them to produce.

Adobe has a big motivation to standardize in order to reduce
future maintenance costs of RAW converters.

Consumers don't really care, unless DNG provides advantages such as
smaller size, more convenient features, or future compatibility.
Does it? I've heard DNG is smaller than Canon RAW.
!