Yes. Aperture looks like an interesting application to complement Photoshop. It seems to be very fast (in the demo I saw) and has a very good tool for dealing with dust and scratches. It doesn't support layers. It's also setup to import metadata quickly and efficiently in batch. Bridge does this too but sometimes chokes. The test would be how well it handles very large files.
Alan -----Original Message----- From: Tom A. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Fri 12/2/2005 10:55 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Subject: Re: [MCN SIG: Digital Media] Uniiversal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines Not to derail the discussion too much, but has anyone looked into the recently released program of Apple called Aperture? In regards to storage and storage needs, Aperture apparently only stores XML based reference files as you edit a RAW image and saves it as such, without the need of creating a second copy. This in turn, makes versioning of images an easier task. It supports, among the standard still image formats, the following RAW based formats: CRW, NEF, TIF, CR2, OLY, DNG On Dec 1, 2005, at 12:46 PM, Newman, Alan wrote: > Roger, > > Here is the counter-argument FOR archiving RAW files of museum > objects and also layered TIF rather than PSD. > It is articulated much better than I can by Bruce Fraser, who has > published widely on Camera Raw, Photoshop and Color Management. > > In our case at the Gallery we save a pointer to the camera profile > along with the Raw file. > > Alan Newman > National Gallery of Art > > > Hi Alan, > > The argument for tossing the raw seems like keeping the print and > destroying the negative! > > It also overlooks the fact that the raw capture always contains an > unambiguous known color reference, so the point about not knowing > how to interpret it is weak. Short of reshooting (which not always > be quite as easy as this argument suggests), it's the closest thing > we have to the actual work (which may have deteriorated, or been > damaged, or stolen, or lost, or destroyed). > > A fixed rendition is a great working file, but it's been through > the distortions imposed by the display, the viewing environment, > and the predilections of the operator. It may well be the best > rendition possible today, but assuming that it's the best possible > rendition for all time is a bet I'd decline! (I've been > transitioning my main imaging display from an Artisan to an NEC > 2180WG running at 200cd/m2, and the wider gamut and higher > luminance of the new display is causing me to revisit many imaging > decisions I'd previously thought were a done deal, so this is very > much a foreground issue for me right now.) > > The current plethora of raw formats is indeed a problem, and > something like DNG is badly needed. It's true that different raw > converters will interpret the same raw differently. But that's the > point of keeping the raw-we'll have better demosaicing and > sharpening algorithms long before we'll have better sensors, let > alone better lenses. You have the color reference in the image, AND > the interpreted TIFF, as guides to interpretation in addition to > the work itself. > > Last but not least, the raw file is key to providing image > provenance. Without it, the renderd TIFF is just someone's > interpretation-a pretty picture, but with no traceable relationship > to the original work. > > Regarding layered TIFF. > > We save the layers because they let us see what has been done to > the image-again, it's a question of image provenance. > > I don't expect those layers to ever be readable outside Photoshop > unless someone makes a heroic effort to do so, but should such a > heroic effort become necessary in whatever post-apocalyptic > scenario one cares to envisage, it's more likely to be successful > if it has to deal with a documented open file format (TIFF) that% > > a) makes it easy to determine which data represents the layers and > > b) always contains a flattened composite version of the image > written in a standard way, > > than if it has to address .PSD, an undocumented proprietary file > format that doesn't necessarily contain a composite, and is > distinctly unfriendly to metadata. > > Layered TIFF with ZIP compression creates smaller files than any > other layered losslessly-compressed format. While it's unlikely > that anything other than Photoshop will read the layers, that's > true of Photoshop layer data in ANY format. But any well-behaved > TIFF consumer can read the composite layer, so it's simply untrue > to say that it's unlikely that the spec will ever be supported > outside Photoshop. It's true that some TIFF consumers haven't yet > been updated to handle ZIP compression, but that's an entirely > separate issue from layered TIFF. For the record, InDesign, > Illustrator, and Acrobat all eat ZIP-compressed TIFF, with or > without layers. QuarkXPress currently has difficulty with ZIP > compression but handles layered TIFF with no problem. But > presumably for such uses, you'd be creating a flattened downsampled > iteration from the master file anyway? > > Bruce > > > > > ---------- > From: Roger Howard > Reply To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [MCN SIG: Digital Media] Uniiversal > Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines > > A few thoughts on this thread: > > RAW files - there really needs to be a business case to support > this, so everyone should start with that - not whether it's better > in some respects. While I would certainly support maintaining some > flavor of RAW (leaning towards DNG) in some cases, I'm not sure how > well it really applies to facsimile collections imaging. While an > RGB TIFF with embedded ICC profile is essentially a fixed rendition > of the object, providing a useful and maintainable image, a RAW > file requires interpretation which can substantially affect the > colorimetric and other qualities of the image. Yes, we can store a > RAW/DNG with a sidecar or other method of storing the RAW > processing settings, but in that case there's very little to be > gained by having the RAW since you're tying it's future use to a > specific development process anyway. > > RAWs are excellent when you *want* the ability to re-interpret the > image; events images, portraits, etc. For collections imaging, I > really fail to see the benefit at all, at least as we do our > collections imaging here. If we wanted to re-interpret the image, > we'd then likely have to haul out the object for comparison to the > image again, at which point we'd be more inclined to just re-shoot > - afterall, if the RAW processor is better at that point, so (in > all likelihood) will our cameras be. I fail to see how we're likely > to make a BETTER rendition of an object in the future, from the > same RAW file, without having to pull the object back out; and > since there is still no standard at all between RAW processing > software for how to recording the processing settings (Adobe uses > their own XMP schema, CRS; C1 uses plists; Apple will use something > else; and so on) and even if there were these settings would be > interpreted different. Frankly, to me, storing a RAW file for > collections imaging would be like storing a TIFF without an ICC > profile - you'll have little idea how to accurately interpret that > image in the future without comparing it with the object itself. > > That said, if there is a case for RAW in your environment, then I'd > advocate for DNG ideally, and if it fits your workflow today then > you might as well adopt it right away. If you need to hedge, you > can embed the original RAW file within the DNG itself, just in case. > > Regarding compression and other advanced TIFF features: > > Adobe's layered TIFF implementation in Photoshop is ugly last time > I looked at it, and I would not recommend it as it's unlikely to be > supported anywhere. You might as well use PSD for in-production > files (and if you must have layered storage, just ZIP compress your > PSD). I have at times uses layered TIFF from Photoshop personally, > but find it's performance (read/write) is awful and in talking with > vendors and other imaging geeks think it's highly unlikely that > particular spec will ever be supported outside of Photoshop, while > PSD at least has baseline support pretty widely. The only benefit > for me of layered TIFF is being able to easily write/read metadata > from TIFFs using standard tools. > > Regarding compression - I see little or no reason to avoid LZW or > ZIP compression in single-layer TIFFs these days. There are no > patent issues I'm aware of, which seemed to be the most significant > argument against TIFF. Most TIFF libraries support RLE, LZW, and > ZIP these days. The main difference is that LZW is terrible for > 16bit per channel data, and ZIP is somewhat slower and more memory > intensive than LZW with only marginal gains for most 8bit per > channel images. So I tend to recomment TIFF/ZIP for 16/bpc and TIFF/ > LZW for 8/bpc. And of course uncompressed for anyone who has > storage capacity to waste and can't stand the thought of even > lossless compression. > > I don't advocate lossy compression for any master files, so JPEG is > generally out except for access files. I'm quite unimpressed by > JPEG2000 today except for niche apps, but this could change. > > Best, > > Roger Howard > Digital Media Specialist > The Getty > > --- > You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: > [email protected] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn- > [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email protected]
--- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email protected]
