Digital BW, The Print

Find it at:

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=2609
-- 
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

BTW has anyone compared Adobe's Camera Raw Plugin with Capture One?  I would
be interested in people's thoughts, particularly anyone with a Canon 1Ds as
I am eyeing the 1Ds MK II and ditching my film....

> From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
> Organization: Persistence of Vision Image Service
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 05:38:40 -0400
> To: <digital-fineart@yahoogroups.com>, Digital B&W
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] New Adobe RAW plugin released
> 
> Find it at:
> 
> http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=2609
> -- 
> Keith
> 
>  
> Keith Krebs
> 
> "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer
> User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo
> Publications), at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
> and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
> "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together
> guys"
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
>

Steve Kale wrote:

>BTW has anyone compared Adobe's Camera Raw Plugin with Capture One?  I would
>be interested in people's thoughts, particularly anyone with a Canon 1Ds as
>I am eyeing the 1Ds MK II and ditching my film....
>
>  
>
http://www.pixelpixel.org/helpinfo/36_etc-1.stm

-- 

Hans Van Rafelghem
http://www.vanrafelghem.com/

Steve Kale wrote:

>BTW has anyone compared Adobe's Camera Raw Plugin with Capture One?  I would
>be interested in people's thoughts, particularly anyone with a Canon 1Ds as
>I am eyeing the 1Ds MK II and ditching my film....
>
>  
>
I dislike the lack of Chromatic Aberration correction in C1. Since ACR 
has that built in, and I'm using a wide range of focal lengths, the 
choice was a no-brainer for me.
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>
> BTW has anyone compared Adobe's Camera Raw Plugin with Capture
> One?  I would
> be interested in people's thoughts, particularly anyone with a
> Canon 1Ds as
> I am eyeing the 1Ds MK II and ditching my film....

Many people find the color better with C1. Additionally, C1 lets you specify
a camera profile explicitly. My experience is that ACR produces some strange
artifacts on noisy images. However, C1 is a stand-alone program, not a PS
plug-in, so I almost always prefer to use ACR, for convenience.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

> From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@...]
>
> I dislike the lack of Chromatic Aberration correction in C1. Since ACR
> has that built in, and I'm using a wide range of focal lengths, the
> choice was a no-brainer for me.

Good point. CA correction is something that really wants to be done in the
converter, before Bayer interpolation.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

OK that's interesting.  I have used C1 with a Phase One back in a fashion
studio environment.  Their backs are generally preferred over Leaf due to
their "better software".  I am sure this is a contentious issue between Leaf
and Phase One fans.  However I am surprised that ACR is as good a product.
I am not worried about C1 not being a plugin because the integration with PS
is good enough (ie open in PS after processing).  I guess I need to
understand the Chromatic Aberration issue more....(Can you shoot tethered
with ACR?)

> From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:52:55 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] New Adobe RAW plugin released
> 
>> From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@...]
>> 
>> I dislike the lack of Chromatic Aberration correction in C1. Since ACR
>> has that built in, and I'm using a wide range of focal lengths, the
>> choice was a no-brainer for me.
> 
> Good point. CA correction is something that really wants to be done in the
> converter, before Bayer interpolation.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor P.O.V. 
Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
> Find it at:
> 
> http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=2609...

Along the same lines:

Adobe is supporting a new universal raw file format called Digital 
Negative (DNG). More information here: 
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html

> Along the same lines:
>
> Adobe is supporting a new universal raw file format called Digital 
> Negative (DNG). More information here: 
> http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html

Odd that Adobe listed the alleged benefits for photographers and
hardware/software manufacturers, but failed to list the benefits for
Adobe, even though they were the only reason for creating the format:

- Adobe can shore up its flagging profit picture by concocting a
brand-new "non-proprietary" proprietary file format, knowing that in the
computer world, whoever brings something first to market becomes the de
facto owner of it, whether it is technically "open" or not.  (Notice
that the symbol for the format already carries the "TM" trademark
assertion, which is a bit strange for something that Adobe claims is
non-proprietary.)

- By developing software in secret long before Adboe releases
specifications, Adobe already has products ready for market and a huge
head start on other vendors at the time the specs are released.

- Adobe can encourage the formation of an "open" committee to nourish
the standard, of which Adobe will of course be the founding and
controlling member.

- Adobe can continue to make subtle but incompatible changes to the
standard as "enhancements," always making sure that its own software is
modified to handle them _first_, so that other vendors must constantly
scramble to accommodate the changes.  This gives Adobe ever-increasing
market share.

- Adobe can leave the simplest part of the format "non-proprietary," and
then make a large set of virtually essential enhancements proprietary
and available only in its own software or under license.  If anyone
tries to work around this, Adobe will pull a fat list of patents out of
its hat and threaten the upstart.

Where do photographers and consumers fit in here?  The answer is, they
don't.  The whole idea is to make money; that's _always_ the whole idea.
You're just exchanging one raw, proprietary format for another--that way
you can pay Adobe money as well as the manufacturer of your camera.

It amazes me that people still fall for this sort of thing in
computerland.  Perhaps if Microsoft tried it there would be enough of an
upswelling of public opinion to make them back down, but too many people
still trust vendors like Adobe.  I guess they'll learn the hard way.

And good on them.  I hope they profit well from their investment.

> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 06:18:56 +0200
> To: "teelions@..." <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: New Adobe RAW plugin released
> 
>> Along the same lines:
>> 
>> Adobe is supporting a new universal raw file format called Digital
>> Negative (DNG). More information here:
>> http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html
> 
> Odd that Adobe listed the alleged benefits for photographers and
> hardware/software manufacturers, but failed to list the benefits for
> Adobe, even though they were the only reason for creating the format:
> 
> - Adobe can shore up its flagging profit picture by concocting a
> brand-new "non-proprietary" proprietary file format, knowing that in the
> computer world, whoever brings something first to market becomes the de
> facto owner of it, whether it is technically "open" or not.  (Notice
> that the symbol for the format already carries the "TM" trademark
> assertion, which is a bit strange for something that Adobe claims is
> non-proprietary.)
> 
> - By developing software in secret long before Adboe releases
> specifications, Adobe already has products ready for market and a huge
> head start on other vendors at the time the specs are released.
> 
> - Adobe can encourage the formation of an "open" committee to nourish
> the standard, of which Adobe will of course be the founding and
> controlling member.
> 
> - Adobe can continue to make subtle but incompatible changes to the
> standard as "enhancements," always making sure that its own software is
> modified to handle them _first_, so that other vendors must constantly
> scramble to accommodate the changes.  This gives Adobe ever-increasing
> market share.
> 
> - Adobe can leave the simplest part of the format "non-proprietary," and
> then make a large set of virtually essential enhancements proprietary
> and available only in its own software or under license.  If anyone
> tries to work around this, Adobe will pull a fat list of patents out of
> its hat and threaten the upstart.
> 
> Where do photographers and consumers fit in here?  The answer is, they
> don't.  The whole idea is to make money; that's _always_ the whole idea.
> You're just exchanging one raw, proprietary format for another--that way
> you can pay Adobe money as well as the manufacturer of your camera.
> 
> It amazes me that people still fall for this sort of thing in
> computerland.  Perhaps if Microsoft tried it there would be enough of an
> upswelling of public opinion to make them back down, but too many people
> still trust vendors like Adobe.  I guess they'll learn the hard way.
>

Steve Kale wrote:

>And good on them.  I hope they profit well from their investment.
>
>  
>
Folks, there you have it.

Looks like a Presidential debate.

Pure Free Market Capitalism

vs.

Consumer Rights

Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

 

****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is \ufffd Copyright, 
Keith Krebs, 2001-2004, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the 
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and 
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the 
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you 
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please 
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original 
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under 
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in 
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright 
violation penalties.

POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }

Steve Kale wrote:

>And good on them.  I hope they profit well from their investment.
>  
>
Of course, the calling it an "open" or "non-proprietary" format is 
essentially a lie for marketing purposes.
Keith

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

A standard still might be useful in spite of the
obvious Adobe presentation. 

These kinds of standards are useful in the long run as
long as they aren't run by profiteers, that is,
typical corporations. And who can blame Adobe for
trying? I think it's actually admirable of them to be
doing what they're doing here. If they would hand it
off to a user-run association or outfit, I'd stand up
and clap.

ICC is now happy and here for everyone's benefit.
Perhaps RAW can be too, if only end-users could simply
get along, and this is such a long shot, clearly
apparent via the threads that happen on these forums..


After shaking hands our ilk might even get into the
public testing of inks, coatings, and media, and then
we could all fly to tropical conventions with the
manufacturers paying the bill... But before this could
ever happen, there would have to be a group that
agreed on an initial constitution/charter. I still
think it's possible.

Getting together is the crux of all ain't it?

Ray



=====

As a photographer and a consumer, I feel that I've really benefited
from standards like JPEG and TIFF. And even Adobe's PDF format, which
I don't believe is an open standard, has become a de facto standard
for published file exchange which pretty much guarantees that I can
view a file in the manner the author intended, no matter what computer
platform it originated on.

Whether initiated by Adobe or someone else, I personally welcome (and
would gladly pay for) a standard that will simplify cross-platform
workflow and improve the odds that my digital negative format will be
supported 10 years from now. 

Regards,
Peter.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G.
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> > Along the same lines:
> >
> > Adobe is supporting a new universal raw file format called Digital 
> > Negative (DNG). More information here: 
> > http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html
> 
> Odd that Adobe listed the alleged benefits for photographers and
> hardware/software manufacturers, but failed to list the benefits for
> Adobe, even though they were the only reason for creating the format:
> 

[snip]

> 
> Where do photographers and consumers fit in here?  The answer is, they
> don't.  The whole idea is to make money; that's _always_ the whole idea.
> You're just exchanging one raw, proprietary format for another--that way
> you can pay Adobe money as well as the manufacturer of your camera.
> 

[snip]

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>
> Where do photographers and consumers fit in here?  The answer is, they
> don't.  The whole idea is to make money; that's _always_ the whole idea.
> You're just exchanging one raw, proprietary format for another--that way
> you can pay Adobe money as well as the manufacturer of your camera.

I don't get your argument. The point of DNG isn't who owns it, but that it
would be the same for all digital cameras.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

> From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@...]
>
> Of course, the calling it an "open" or "non-proprietary" format is
> essentially a lie for marketing purposes.

But it _is_ open, in the sense that you don't have to buy Adobe software to
generate DNG files. Any camera manufacturer can put software in their
camera, based on the freely avalable DNG file format documentation, that
generates DNG files.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Steve Kale writes:

> And good on them.  I hope they profit well from their investment.

Famous last words.

Ray Swanson writes:

> A standard still might be useful in spite of the
> obvious Adobe presentation. 
>
> These kinds of standards are useful in the long run as
> long as they aren't run by profiteers, that is,
> typical corporations.

Adobe is a typical corporation.

> And who can blame Adobe for trying?

People blame Microsoft for it all the time.  Some people blame Apple as
well.

> I think it's actually admirable of them to be
> doing what they're doing here. If they would hand it
> off to a user-run association or outfit, I'd stand up
> and clap.

Don't hold your breath.

> After shaking hands our ilk might even get into the
> public testing of inks, coatings, and media, and then
> we could all fly to tropical conventions with the
> manufacturers paying the bill... But before this could
> ever happen, there would have to be a group that
> agreed on an initial constitution/charter. I still
> think it's possible.

It's also true that anything that organized costs money and time, and
nobody is likely to pay into it for nothing, nor can most people afford
to commit large amounts of time to it without pay.  That's the problem
with all open-source or open-anything efforts.

Peter writes:

> Whether initiated by Adobe or someone else, I personally welcome (and
> would gladly pay for) a standard that will simplify cross-platform
> workflow and improve the odds that my digital negative format will be
> supported 10 years from now. 

What's the maximum price you'll pay?

On 28 Sep 2004 at 6:18, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

> > Along the same lines:
> >
> > Adobe is supporting a new universal raw file format called Digital 
> > Negative (DNG). More information here: 
> > http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html
> 
> Odd that Adobe listed the alleged benefits for photographers and
> hardware/software manufacturers, but failed to list the benefits for
> Adobe, even though they were the only reason for creating the format:
> 
> - Adobe can shore up its flagging profit picture by concocting a
> brand-new "non-proprietary" proprietary file format, knowing that in the
> computer world, whoever brings something first to market becomes the de
> facto owner of it, whether it is technically "open" or not.  (Notice
> that the symbol for the format already carries the "TM" trademark
> assertion, which is a bit strange for something that Adobe claims is
> non-proprietary.)
> 
> - By developing software in secret long before Adboe releases
> specifications, Adobe already has products ready for market and a huge
> head start on other vendors at the time the specs are released.
> 

This all falls apart at a certain point, it's only improved in NEW cameras, for 
example say I buy a camera with DNG V1.03  even when DNG V1.98 comes out, 
the camera is still DNG V1.03.  

> - Adobe can encourage the formation of an "open" committee to nourish
> the standard, of which Adobe will of course be the founding and
> controlling member.
> 
> - Adobe can continue to make subtle but incompatible changes to the
> standard as "enhancements," always making sure that its own software is
> modified to handle them _first_, so that other vendors must constantly
> scramble to accommodate the changes.  This gives Adobe ever-increasing
> market share.

Not really, camera vendors can be slow to update firmware, because it's hard to 
change firmware.

> - Adobe can leave the simplest part of the format "non-proprietary," and
> then make a large set of virtually essential enhancements proprietary
> and available only in its own software or under license.  If anyone
> tries to work around this, Adobe will pull a fat list of patents out of
> its hat and threaten the upstart.
> 
> Where do photographers and consumers fit in here?  The answer is, they
> don't.  The whole idea is to make money; that's _always_ the whole idea.
> You're just exchanging one raw, proprietary format for another--that way
> you can pay Adobe money as well as the manufacturer of your camera.

Actually they do, instead of trying to support 15 different formats, there would only 
be one format, however standards are much better when developed by industry 
consortiums and then governed by a standard body like ISO.  

W

Paul D. DeRocco writes:

> I don't get your argument. The point of DNG isn't who owns it, but that it
> would be the same for all digital cameras.

You might see it that way, but that's not how Adobe sees it.  Adobe sees
it as their format that gives them a wedge in the market and a new
source of revenue.

Paul D. DeRocco writes:

> But it _is_ open, in the sense that you don't have to buy Adobe software to
> generate DNG files. Any camera manufacturer can put software in their
> camera, based on the freely avalable DNG file format documentation, that
> generates DNG files.

Can he put the trademarked DNG symbol on his software, too?

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>Paul D. DeRocco writes:
>
>  
>
>>But it _is_ open, in the sense that you don't have to buy Adobe software to
>>generate DNG files. Any camera manufacturer can put software in their
>>camera, based on the freely avalable DNG file format documentation, that
>>generates DNG files.
>>    
>>
>
>Can he put the trademarked DNG symbol on his software, too?
>
>  
>
I didn't hear anybody complain about Forgent Networks patent claims for 
using JPEG.
Sony, Macromedia and Adobe already had to pay enormous amounts of money 
for the use of JPEG.
-- 

Hans Van Rafelghem
http://www.vanrafelghem.com/

Hans Van Rafelghem writes:

> I didn't hear anybody complain about Forgent Networks patent claims for
> using JPEG.
> Sony, Macromedia and Adobe already had to pay enormous amounts of money
> for the use of JPEG.

And they did that without complaint?

Alright this is getting pathetic already.  Without the expectation of
adequate returns, direct or indirect, a for-profit company will not and
should not invest capital, monetary or human.  Do you long for some sort of
Utopia where everyone works for some mystic common good and everyone else
magically pulls their weight also?  Of course Adobe has an expectation that
setting a common standard will create a platform for opportunity.  Take some
time out, read Atlas Shrugged and get off the can.  If the standards
proposed are good they will be adopted.  If Adobe is able to exert an
influence through product leadership that means the standards get adopted
then good on them.  If the standards proposed by Adobe are of no value then
they will not be adopted by manufacturers or they will be amended until they
are.

Please - back to B&W printing...

> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:34:32 +0200
> To: Hans Van Rafelghem <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: New Adobe RAW plugin released
> 
> Hans Van Rafelghem writes:
> 
>> I didn't hear anybody complain about Forgent Networks patent claims for
>> using JPEG.
>> Sony, Macromedia and Adobe already had to pay enormous amounts of money
>> for the use of JPEG.
> 
> And they did that without complaint?
> 
>

"Open" only means they'll "share" the specs, code etc (which they have to right to protect) with other Mfg, most likely for a fee.  Open doesn't necessarily mean "free", or a lie.

John

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 3:26 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: New Adobe RAW plugin released


  Steve Kale wrote:

  >And good on them.  I hope they profit well from their investment.
  >  
  >
  Of course, the calling it an "open" or "non-proprietary" format is 
  essentially a lie for marketing purposes.
  Keith

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anthony G. Atkielski 

  Can he put the trademarked DNG symbol on his software, too?

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think I see troll tracks trampling on band width again...

>I didn't hear anybody complain about Forgent Networks patent claims for 
>using JPEG.
>Sony, Macromedia and Adobe already had to pay enormous amounts of money 
>for the use of JPEG.
-- 

>Hans Van Rafelghem

Sony, Macromedia, and Adobe PAID? don't you really mean that we, the consumer are about to get "operating cost" increases again (perhaps miniscule . . . but $0.02 times a few hundred thousand is a lot of pennies). Please Hans . . . they haven't really paid a cent, and like all businesses, the cost will be passed downwards . . . that means YOU and ME.

Paul Aparycki



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I  must agree with this. The way we make our living, the imaging industry,
has moved quantum leaps ahead because innovative thinkers have the rightful
expectation of rewards for their efforts. Adobe continues to produce fine
software, without which I could not make a living. Historically, their
innovations have benefited the industry as a whole, to wit: their leadership
in pdf workflow, the universal acceptance of Adobe 1991 RGB as a standard
color space, etc., etc. Yes, their software commands a premium price ...
because it is good. IMHO, if you can't recoup the cost of software with
hours billed in the first week to ten days of use, you need to seek another
line of work. If you are a hobbyist, it's your decision to spend the money
at market rates. And yes, back to BW printing ( a pursuit that would not
exist without innovative entrepreneurs moving their goods and services to
the marketplace). Developers  build their products and they take their
chances. Welcome to the world of business. Have a nice day.
Kindest regards,
Joe


  Alright this is getting pathetic already.  Without the expectation of
  adequate returns, direct or indirect, a for-profit company will not and
  should not invest capital, monetary or human.  Do you long for some sort
of
  Utopia where everyone works for some mystic common good and everyone else
  magically pulls their weight also?  Of course Adobe has an expectation
that
  setting a common standard will create a platform for opportunity.  Take
some
  time out, read Atlas Shrugged and get off the can.  If the standards
  proposed are good they will be adopted.  If Adobe is able to exert an
  influence through product leadership that means the standards get adopted
  then good on them.  If the standards proposed by Adobe are of no value
then
  they will not be adopted by manufacturers or they will be amended until
they
  are.

  Please - back to B&W printing...



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>
> Can he put the trademarked DNG symbol on his software, too?

I don't know, but as far as I can see from reading what's available from
Adobe, you can certainly support DNG, and advertise the fact, without paying
them a dime. Remember, DNG is just an extension to TIFF. As I recall, TIFF
was also an open standard pioneered by Adobe, so I have no reason to believe
that DNG won't remain as open as TIFF.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

I remember Aldus (later purchased by Adobe), developing and publicly 
publishing the specification for TIFF way back in the late 80's. It was 
a big deal back then for developers building imaging applications in 
the early days of desktop publishing as before that, to avoid licensing 
fees or litigation everyone was developing their own file format.

When photoshop first came out everyone in the digital pre-press 
industry bought a copy just to use it as a file format converter 
because it supported so many formats.

To all who have been following this thread, think what you will about 
Adobe but I have been as connected as anyone in the industry to Adobe 
since the early days of Desktop publishing, knowing and meeting with 
developers, product managers, system architects, upper management, and 
certainly sales and marketing. As well, I have know and worked with 
similiar resources at Kodak, Scitex, Creo, Agfa, Dalim, Xerox etc. And 
bashing Adobe for being proprietary, opportunistic, corporate and 
selfish is terribly far off the mark, I have to ask, compared to what? 
Maybe compared to open source. And if that is how you feel then you 
should be using open source image editors and file formats.

Of all the companies I have dealt with I have never encountered a more 
open, hard working, honest, ambitious, tenacious, disciplined, 
client-focused company.

They have done more to service and support photographers and graphic 
artists than any company in the industry. Adobe has certainly earned 
their success.

It would really make some sense for someone to actually READ the DNG 
spec and understand the nature of the TIFF formats that underly it and 
how those standards are maintained and supported before making 
assumptions about how it is all an evil plot to take over the world.

So basically Paul, I agree with you!

James Haney

On Sep 29, 2004, at 7:46 PM, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
>>
>
> As I recall, TIFF
> was also an open standard pioneered by Adobe, so I have no reason to 
> believe
> that DNG won't remain as open as TIFF.