Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Ciszek, Jun 5, 2013.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >
    >1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG.
    >
    >2. Keep using CS3 as before.


    FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    Olympus OM-D pictures.

    --
    Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
    pciszek at panix dot com | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
    Autoreply is disabled | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
    | --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jun 5, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <komb6q$fhd$>, Paul Ciszek
    <> wrote:

    > FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    > Olympus OM-D pictures.


    converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
    however.
     
    nospam, Jun 5, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/4/2013 11:44 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <komb6q$fhd$>, Paul Ciszek
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    >> Olympus OM-D pictures.

    >
    > converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
    > however.
    >


    Have you his images?


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 5, 2013
    #3
  4. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <51af1fff$0$10771$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >> FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    > >> Olympus OM-D pictures.

    > >
    > > converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
    > > however.

    >
    > Have you his images?


    i don't need them.

    dng does not degrade anything. converting to dng is lossless.

    in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
    guaranteed.

    it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
    original raw) degraded it.
     
    nospam, Jun 5, 2013
    #4
  5. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/5/2013 12:22 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51af1fff$0$10771$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    >>>> Olympus OM-D pictures.
    >>>
    >>> converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
    >>> however.

    >>
    >> Have you his images?

    >
    > i don't need them.
    >
    > dng does not degrade anything. converting to dng is lossless.
    >
    > in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
    > guaranteed.
    >
    > it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
    > original raw) degraded it.
    >


    Who is making this guaranty?
    Are you saying that it is not possible for a programming error, or other
    anomaly to cause a problem during conversion?

    Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
    it, without examination of the before and after images in question.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 5, 2013
    #5
  6. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <51af683a$0$10812$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>> FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    > >>>> Olympus OM-D pictures.
    > >>>
    > >>> converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
    > >>> however.
    > >>
    > >> Have you his images?

    > >
    > > i don't need them.
    > >
    > > dng does not degrade anything. converting to dng is lossless.
    > >
    > > in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
    > > guaranteed.
    > >
    > > it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
    > > original raw) degraded it.

    >
    > Who is making this guaranty?


    read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.

    here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what
    goes in is exactly what comes out.

    do you worry about losing data when compressing one or more files with
    zip? of course not, because it's lossless.

    > Are you saying that it is not possible for a programming error, or other
    > anomaly to cause a problem during conversion?


    there's also a possibility of a programming error causing a problem
    with the original raw, either in processing or the camera itself
    writing a corrupt file.

    it's even possible that a meteor could hit the house and destroy the
    only copy of the raw files while still in the camera and not yet copied
    anywhere.

    you're arguing semantics again.

    > Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
    > it, without examination of the before and after images in question.


    by understanding what dng is and what lossless means.
     
    nospam, Jun 5, 2013
    #6
  7. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/5/2013 12:45 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51af683a$0$10812$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>>> FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    >>>>>> Olympus OM-D pictures.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
    >>>>> however.
    >>>>
    >>>> Have you his images?
    >>>
    >>> i don't need them.
    >>>
    >>> dng does not degrade anything. converting to dng is lossless.
    >>>
    >>> in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
    >>> guaranteed.
    >>>
    >>> it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
    >>> original raw) degraded it.

    >>
    >> Who is making this guaranty?

    >
    > read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.
    >
    > here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what
    > goes in is exactly what comes out.
    >
    > do you worry about losing data when compressing one or more files with
    > zip? of course not, because it's lossless.
    >
    >> Are you saying that it is not possible for a programming error, or other
    >> anomaly to cause a problem during conversion?

    >
    > there's also a possibility of a programming error causing a problem
    > with the original raw, either in processing or the camera itself
    > writing a corrupt file.
    >
    > it's even possible that a meteor could hit the house and destroy the
    > only copy of the raw files while still in the camera and not yet copied
    > anywhere.
    >
    > you're arguing semantics again.


    Last time I looked I learned that words are a means of communication.
    the purpose for discussion is to exchange thoughts, which is why most of
    us use words with a clear meaning.

    >
    >> Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
    >> it, without examination of the before and after images in question.

    >
    > by understanding what dng is and what lossless means.
    >


    And without looking at the images, you somehow know that there were no
    errors in the conversion process.


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 5, 2013
    #7
  8. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <51af9b89$0$10792$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>> converting to dng didn't do that. what you did afterwards might have,
    > >>>>> however.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Have you his images?
    > >>>
    > >>> i don't need them.
    > >>>
    > >>> dng does not degrade anything. converting to dng is lossless.
    > >>>
    > >>> in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
    > >>> guaranteed.
    > >>>
    > >>> it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
    > >>> original raw) degraded it.
    > >>
    > >> Who is making this guaranty?

    > >
    > > read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.
    > >
    > > here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what
    > > goes in is exactly what comes out.
    > >
    > > do you worry about losing data when compressing one or more files with
    > > zip? of course not, because it's lossless.
    > >
    > >> Are you saying that it is not possible for a programming error, or other
    > >> anomaly to cause a problem during conversion?

    > >
    > > there's also a possibility of a programming error causing a problem
    > > with the original raw, either in processing or the camera itself
    > > writing a corrupt file.
    > >
    > > it's even possible that a meteor could hit the house and destroy the
    > > only copy of the raw files while still in the camera and not yet copied
    > > anywhere.
    > >
    > > you're arguing semantics again.

    >
    > Last time I looked I learned that words are a means of communication.
    > the purpose for discussion is to exchange thoughts, which is why most of
    > us use words with a clear meaning.


    the words i used have a very clear meaning.

    do you not understand what lossless means? apparently not. here's the
    definition:

    <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=define%3A+lossless>
    1. Of or relating to data compression without loss of information.

    normally lossless is used with compression. however, with dng, the raw
    data is not compressed, it's just in a different container. it's the
    *same* raw data, with additional information needed to process it
    without specifics about the camera.

    if you had any clue about this, you wouldn't be making such an utter
    fool of yourself trying to argue semantics.

    > >> Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
    > >> it, without examination of the before and after images in question.

    > >
    > > by understanding what dng is and what lossless means.

    >
    > And without looking at the images, you somehow know that there were no
    > errors in the conversion process.


    i don't need any of them.

    dng is lossless which means converting to dng does not lose data. end
    of story.
     
    nospam, Jun 5, 2013
    #8
  9. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > >> 1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG.
    > >>
    > >> 2. Keep using CS3 as before.

    > >
    > > FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    > > Olympus OM-D pictures.

    >
    > DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so
    > that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of
    > course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly
    > to .DNG.


    try explaining that to peter.
     
    nospam, Jun 5, 2013
    #9
  10. Paul Ciszek

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >> Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> 1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG.
    >>>
    >>> 2. Keep using CS3 as before.

    >>
    >> FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    >> Olympus OM-D pictures.

    >
    >DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so
    >that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of
    >course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly
    >to .DNG.


    DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the
    file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even with no
    adjustments in the DNG.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 6, 2013
    #10
  11. Paul Ciszek

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2013-06-05 17:07:18 -0700, Tony Cooper <> said:
    >
    >> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >>>> In article <>,
    >>>> Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 2. Keep using CS3 as before.
    >>>>
    >>>> FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    >>>> Olympus OM-D pictures.
    >>>
    >>> DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so
    >>> that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of
    >>> course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly
    >>> to .DNG.

    >>
    >> DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the
    >> file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even with no
    >> adjustments in the DNG.

    >
    >That is an issue with the viewer not the DNG.
    >With some cameras (particularly Nikon) not all unadjusted RAW files
    >reflect the saturation, contrast, and sharpness found in in camera
    >JPEGs. Nikon unprocessed NEFs are typically soft and somewhat
    >desaturated. When converted to DNG the same properties are there.


    I don't really consider it an "issue". I'm just stating that the
    unadjusted DNG looks a bit dark and muddy in either Bridge or
    FastStone. Since I've been using those two viewers since first
    starting to shoot RAW, I'm used to it. I know that once I open the
    file in CS that the image will be workable. I don't let what I see in
    the viewer put me off.

    It's not a complaint. It's an observation.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 6, 2013
    #11
  12. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/5/2013 4:51 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51af9b89$0$10792$-secrets.com>, PeterN




    <clarity snip>

    >>>
    >>> you're arguing semantics again.

    >>
    >> Last time I looked I learned that words are a means of communication.
    >> the purpose for discussion is to exchange thoughts, which is why most of
    >> us use words with a clear meaning.

    >
    > the words i used have a very clear meaning.
    >


    OK Take your choice. your counter a discussion by claiming I am arguing
    semantics.
    Since you use words with "a clear meaning," by implication that means,
    you were wrong.

    Which is it. were you wrong then,m or are you wrong now?

    > do you not understand what lossless means? apparently not. here's the
    > definition:
    >
    > <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=define%3A+lossless>
    > 1. Of or relating to data compression without loss of information.
    >
    > normally lossless is used with compression. however, with dng, the raw
    > data is not compressed, it's just in a different container. it's the
    > *same* raw data, with additional information needed to process it
    > without specifics about the camera.
    >
    > if you had any clue about this, you wouldn't be making such an utter
    > fool of yourself trying to argue semantics.
    >
    >>>> Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
    >>>> it, without examination of the before and after images in question.
    >>>
    >>> by understanding what dng is and what lossless means.

    >>
    >> And without looking at the images, you somehow know that there were no
    >> errors in the conversion process.

    >
    > i don't need any of them.
    >

    Perhaps you should change your nymto "clairvoyant."


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 6, 2013
    #12
  13. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/5/2013 7:22 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2013.06.05 18:50 , nospam wrote:
    >> In article <>, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> 1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 2. Keep using CS3 as before.
    >>>>
    >>>> FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    >>>> Olympus OM-D pictures.
    >>>
    >>> DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so
    >>> that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of
    >>> course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly
    >>> to .DNG.

    >>
    >> try explaining that to peter.

    >
    > You're doing fine.
    >
    >


    He is assuming that errors never occur. I do not think that is a valid
    assumption.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 6, 2013
    #13
  14. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <51b0a645$0$10802$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>> you're arguing semantics again.
    > >>
    > >> Last time I looked I learned that words are a means of communication.
    > >> the purpose for discussion is to exchange thoughts, which is why most of
    > >> us use words with a clear meaning.

    > >
    > > the words i used have a very clear meaning.

    >
    > OK Take your choice. your counter a discussion by claiming I am arguing
    > semantics.
    > Since you use words with "a clear meaning," by implication that means,
    > you were wrong.


    how in the world do you get that?

    > Which is it. were you wrong then,m or are you wrong now?


    nowhere have i contradicted myself.

    > > do you not understand what lossless means? apparently not. here's the
    > > definition:
    > >
    > > <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=define%3A+lossless>
    > > 1. Of or relating to data compression without loss of information.
    > >
    > > normally lossless is used with compression. however, with dng, the raw
    > > data is not compressed, it's just in a different container. it's the
    > > *same* raw data, with additional information needed to process it
    > > without specifics about the camera.
    > >
    > > if you had any clue about this, you wouldn't be making such an utter
    > > fool of yourself trying to argue semantics.
    > >
    > >>>> Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
    > >>>> it, without examination of the before and after images in question.
    > >>>
    > >>> by understanding what dng is and what lossless means.
    > >>
    > >> And without looking at the images, you somehow know that there were no
    > >> errors in the conversion process.

    > >
    > > i don't need any of them.
    > >

    > Perhaps you should change your nymto "clairvoyant."


    perhaps you should change your name to "illiterate".
     
    nospam, Jun 6, 2013
    #14
  15. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/6/2013 3:37 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51b0a645$0$10802$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> you're arguing semantics again.
    >>>>
    >>>> Last time I looked I learned that words are a means of communication.
    >>>> the purpose for discussion is to exchange thoughts, which is why most of
    >>>> us use words with a clear meaning.
    >>>
    >>> the words i used have a very clear meaning.

    >>
    >> OK Take your choice. your counter a discussion by claiming I am arguing
    >> semantics.
    >> Since you use words with "a clear meaning," by implication that means,
    >> you were wrong.

    >
    > how in the world do you get that?
    >
    >> Which is it. were you wrong then,m or are you wrong now?

    >
    > nowhere have i contradicted myself.
    >
    >>> do you not understand what lossless means? apparently not. here's the
    >>> definition:
    >>>
    >>> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=define%3A+lossless>
    >>> 1. Of or relating to data compression without loss of information.
    >>>
    >>> normally lossless is used with compression. however, with dng, the raw
    >>> data is not compressed, it's just in a different container. it's the
    >>> *same* raw data, with additional information needed to process it
    >>> without specifics about the camera.
    >>>
    >>> if you had any clue about this, you wouldn't be making such an utter
    >>> fool of yourself trying to argue semantics.
    >>>
    >>>>>> Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
    >>>>>> it, without examination of the before and after images in question.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> by understanding what dng is and what lossless means.
    >>>>
    >>>> And without looking at the images, you somehow know that there were no
    >>>> errors in the conversion process.
    >>>
    >>> i don't need any of them.
    >>>

    >> Perhaps you should change your nymto "clairvoyant."

    >
    > perhaps you should change your name to "illiterate".
    >


    Your reasoning is conspicuous by its absence. All you do is deny, even
    when confronted with your own words. If said am imae was red, you would
    deny that fact by giving a sefinitin of purple.

    Byw EOD

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 6, 2013
    #15
  16. Paul Ciszek

    nospam Guest

    In article <51b0e729$0$6417$-secrets.com>, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    > >>>>> you're arguing semantics again.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Last time I looked I learned that words are a means of communication.
    > >>>> the purpose for discussion is to exchange thoughts, which is why most of
    > >>>> us use words with a clear meaning.
    > >>>
    > >>> the words i used have a very clear meaning.
    > >>
    > >> OK Take your choice. your counter a discussion by claiming I am arguing
    > >> semantics.
    > >> Since you use words with "a clear meaning," by implication that means,
    > >> you were wrong.

    > >
    > > how in the world do you get that?
    > >
    > >> Which is it. were you wrong then,m or are you wrong now?

    > >
    > > nowhere have i contradicted myself.
    > >
    > >>> do you not understand what lossless means? apparently not. here's the
    > >>> definition:
    > >>>
    > >>> <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=define%3A+lossless>
    > >>> 1. Of or relating to data compression without loss of information.
    > >>>
    > >>> normally lossless is used with compression. however, with dng, the raw
    > >>> data is not compressed, it's just in a different container. it's the
    > >>> *same* raw data, with additional information needed to process it
    > >>> without specifics about the camera.
    > >>>
    > >>> if you had any clue about this, you wouldn't be making such an utter
    > >>> fool of yourself trying to argue semantics.
    > >>>
    > >>>>>> Your conclusion may be right, but I don't understand how you can reach
    > >>>>>> it, without examination of the before and after images in question.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> by understanding what dng is and what lossless means.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> And without looking at the images, you somehow know that there were no
    > >>>> errors in the conversion process.
    > >>>
    > >>> i don't need any of them.
    > >>>
    > >> Perhaps you should change your nymto "clairvoyant."

    > >
    > > perhaps you should change your name to "illiterate".

    >
    > Your reasoning is conspicuous by its absence. All you do is deny, even
    > when confronted with your own words. If said am imae was red, you would
    > deny that fact by giving a sefinitin of purple.


    that's flat out false. stop lying.
     
    nospam, Jun 6, 2013
    #16
  17. Paul Ciszek

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:46:54 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >On 2013.06.05 22:10 , Tony Cooper wrote:
    >> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2013-06-05 17:07:18 -0700, Tony Cooper <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >>>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>>> Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> 1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> 2. Keep using CS3 as before.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my
    >>>>>> Olympus OM-D pictures.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so
    >>>>> that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of
    >>>>> course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly
    >>>>> to .DNG.
    >>>>
    >>>> DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the
    >>>> file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even with no
    >>>> adjustments in the DNG.
    >>>
    >>> That is an issue with the viewer not the DNG.
    >>> With some cameras (particularly Nikon) not all unadjusted RAW files
    >>> reflect the saturation, contrast, and sharpness found in in camera
    >>> JPEGs. Nikon unprocessed NEFs are typically soft and somewhat
    >>> desaturated. When converted to DNG the same properties are there.

    >>
    >> I don't really consider it an "issue". I'm just stating that the
    >> unadjusted DNG looks a bit dark and muddy in either Bridge or
    >> FastStone. Since I've been using those two viewers since first
    >> starting to shoot RAW, I'm used to it. I know that once I open the
    >> file in CS that the image will be workable. I don't let what I see in
    >> the viewer put me off.
    >>
    >> It's not a complaint. It's an observation.

    >
    >The way you state it above, viewing it in Bridge (subject to profile
    >settings - and also shows changes made in ACR (if any)) could confuse
    >the issue.
    >
    >The way to check is to take the original raw through to ACR and see how
    >it looks. Compare that to the original raw converted to DNG and opened
    >for the first time in ACR. They should look identical.


    I don't follow you at all. All I look at it is the DNG in the viewer.
    My NEFs are converted to DNG on download. The difference that I'm
    talking about is that the unadjusted DNG, in my viewers, looks a bit
    dark and flat. Not bad, but not good.

    When I bring that DNG into CS6, and tweak it a bit, it looks much
    better.

    The only real effect this has on me is that I don't judge if a shot is
    worth processing based just on the DNG. I know I can get more out of
    it.

    I'm not looking for a solution because I don't see it as a problem.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 7, 2013
    #17
  18. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/7/2013 1:46 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-06-06 15:49:35 -0700, Alan Browne
    > <> said:
    >
    >> On 2013.06.06 18:40 , Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-06-06 14:46:54 -0700, Alan Browne
    >>> <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2013.06.05 22:10 , Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2013-06-05 17:07:18 -0700, Tony Cooper <>
    >>>>>> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>>>>>> Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> 1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to
    >>>>>>>>>> DNG.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> 2. Keep using CS3 as before.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some
    >>>>>>>>> of my
    >>>>>>>>> Olympus OM-D pictures.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats
    >>>>>>>> it so
    >>>>>>>> that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes
    >>>>>>>> PS of
    >>>>>>>> course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save
    >>>>>>>> directly
    >>>>>>>> to .DNG.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the
    >>>>>>> file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even with no
    >>>>>>> adjustments in the DNG.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> That is an issue with the viewer not the DNG.
    >>>>>> With some cameras (particularly Nikon) not all unadjusted RAW files
    >>>>>> reflect the saturation, contrast, and sharpness found in in camera
    >>>>>> JPEGs. Nikon unprocessed NEFs are typically soft and somewhat
    >>>>>> desaturated. When converted to DNG the same properties are there.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I don't really consider it an "issue". I'm just stating that the
    >>>>> unadjusted DNG looks a bit dark and muddy in either Bridge or
    >>>>> FastStone. Since I've been using those two viewers since first
    >>>>> starting to shoot RAW, I'm used to it. I know that once I open the
    >>>>> file in CS that the image will be workable. I don't let what I see in
    >>>>> the viewer put me off.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's not a complaint. It's an observation.
    >>>>
    >>>> The way you state it above, viewing it in Bridge (subject to profile
    >>>> settings - and also shows changes made in ACR (if any)) could confuse
    >>>> the issue.
    >>>>
    >>>> The way to check is to take the original raw through to ACR and see
    >>>> how it looks. Compare that to the original raw converted to DNG and
    >>>> opened for the first time in ACR. They should look identical.
    >>>
    >>> Just for the Hell of it, here are two unadjusted NEF/DNG comparisons.
    >>> For what it is worth my feeble eyeballs cannot detect any difference
    >>> between them.
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_228w.jpg >
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_229w.jpg >

    >>
    >> Nor should one - but the point of observation should really be what
    >> shows in ACR with inputs of the NEF and the DNG from that same NEF.

    >
    > Well, if you insist. Here are the NEF & converted DNG, opened in ACR
    > with zero adjustment in each.
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_232w.jpg >
    >
    > Further evidence presented to my rapidly softening brain, that the
    > conversion from NEF to DNG is as effective as duplicating the NEF.
    > ...with one exception. The NEF is 20.1MB and the DNG is 27.2MB.


    Do you use compressed RAW?


    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 7, 2013
    #18
  19. Paul Ciszek

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/7/2013 10:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2013-06-07 05:54:04 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 6/7/2013 1:46 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-06-06 15:49:35 -0700, Alan Browne
    >>> <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2013.06.06 18:40 , Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>> On 2013-06-06 14:46:54 -0700, Alan Browne
    >>>>> <> said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 2013.06.05 22:10 , Tony Cooper wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0700, Savageduck
    >>>>>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> On 2013-06-05 17:07:18 -0700, Tony Cooper <>
    >>>>>>>> said:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> In article <>,
    >>>>>>>>>>> Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw
    >>>>>>>>>>>> files to
    >>>>>>>>>>>> DNG.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Keep using CS3 as before.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some
    >>>>>>>>>>> of my
    >>>>>>>>>>> Olympus OM-D pictures.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats
    >>>>>>>>>> it so
    >>>>>>>>>> that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes
    >>>>>>>>>> PS of
    >>>>>>>>>> course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save
    >>>>>>>>>> directly
    >>>>>>>>>> to .DNG.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the
    >>>>>>>>> file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even
    >>>>>>>>> with no
    >>>>>>>>> adjustments in the DNG.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> That is an issue with the viewer not the DNG.
    >>>>>>>> With some cameras (particularly Nikon) not all unadjusted RAW files
    >>>>>>>> reflect the saturation, contrast, and sharpness found in in camera
    >>>>>>>> JPEGs. Nikon unprocessed NEFs are typically soft and somewhat
    >>>>>>>> desaturated. When converted to DNG the same properties are there.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I don't really consider it an "issue". I'm just stating that the
    >>>>>>> unadjusted DNG looks a bit dark and muddy in either Bridge or
    >>>>>>> FastStone. Since I've been using those two viewers since first
    >>>>>>> starting to shoot RAW, I'm used to it. I know that once I open the
    >>>>>>> file in CS that the image will be workable. I don't let what I
    >>>>>>> see in
    >>>>>>> the viewer put me off.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It's not a complaint. It's an observation.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The way you state it above, viewing it in Bridge (subject to profile
    >>>>>> settings - and also shows changes made in ACR (if any)) could confuse
    >>>>>> the issue.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The way to check is to take the original raw through to ACR and see
    >>>>>> how it looks. Compare that to the original raw converted to DNG and
    >>>>>> opened for the first time in ACR. They should look identical.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Just for the Hell of it, here are two unadjusted NEF/DNG comparisons.
    >>>>> For what it is worth my feeble eyeballs cannot detect any difference
    >>>>> between them.
    >>>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_228w.jpg >
    >>>>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_229w.jpg >
    >>>>
    >>>> Nor should one - but the point of observation should really be what
    >>>> shows in ACR with inputs of the NEF and the DNG from that same NEF.
    >>>
    >>> Well, if you insist. Here are the NEF & converted DNG, opened in ACR
    >>> with zero adjustment in each.
    >>> < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_232w.jpg >
    >>>
    >>> Further evidence presented to my rapidly softening brain, that the
    >>> conversion from NEF to DNG is as effective as duplicating the NEF.
    >>> ...with one exception. The NEF is 20.1MB and the DNG is 27.2MB.

    >>
    >> Do you use compressed RAW?

    >
    > No. That is the uncompressed, original NEF out of my D300s, along with a
    > converted DBG. Certainly the NEFs out of your D800 are considerably fatter,
    >


    Yup 42.5 mb. 18.4 in crop mode.



    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Jun 7, 2013
    #19
  20. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <050620131245237174%>,
    nospam <> wrote:
    >> > in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
    >> > guaranteed.
    >> >
    >> > it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
    >> > original raw) degraded it.

    >>
    >> Who is making this guaranty?

    >
    >read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.
    >
    >here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what
    >goes in is exactly what comes out.


    Because Lightroom 3.6 could not import RAW files from my OM-D, and I
    couldn't make it recognize the plugin that was supposed to fix this,
    I downloaded the DNG converter. I converted my files, opened the DNG
    file in Lightroom, and found the images had horizontal stripes.

    The screwup might be in Lightroom 3.6 rather than the DNG converter;
    I won't know until I get a better computer, can install a more recent
    version of windows, and can finally buy Lightroom 4.0.

    >there's also a possibility of a programming error causing a problem
    >with the original raw, either in processing or the camera itself
    >writing a corrupt file.


    My RAW files read fine in Olympus View, which can export 16 bit TIFF's,
    so the problem is not with the camera.

    No matter how perfect the DNG format is, it is entirely possible for
    the programmer writing a converter to screw up.

    --
    Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
    pciszek at panix dot com | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
    Autoreply is disabled | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
    | --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jun 9, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. nospam

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    nospam, Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    171
    nospam
    Jun 4, 2013
  2. nospam

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    nospam, Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    200
    luxitman
    Jul 3, 2013
  3. philo 

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    philo , Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    256
    nospam
    Jun 5, 2013
  4. nospam

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    nospam, Jun 4, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    266
    PeterN
    Jun 7, 2013
  5. PeterN

    Re: Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

    PeterN, Jun 5, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    185
    PeterN
    Jun 5, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page