Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Nov 23, 2006, at 8:25 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > >>Yes, lots of software supports DNG. But Adobe has no way of insuring >>they do it *well* or of forcing them to offer complete support. Anyone >>who implements DNG conversion in their software is perfectly free to >>limit or cripple it in any way they choose. (Deliberately or >>accidentally.) >> >>For example, Apple's Aperture will only convert DNG files from cameras >>for which it supports that camera's native RAW format. Apple's >>rationale is that they don't want to have people doing conversions >>from >>cameras for which Aperture has no profile. (Sounds bizarre to me: No >>conversion at all is preferable to conversion without a profile? I'm >>guessing they'll pay for dumb decisions like this when beta testing >>ends and the Aperture vs. Lightroom war starts in earnest.) > > > I've been pretty disappointed and annoyed with the Aperture team's > handling of RAW conversion services so far. While there's a lot good > in Aperture, this area I believe they have made some serious mistakes > in design. Besides, for a professional product, I want control of all > aspects of my work and don't give a hoot that they've build a profile... > > Godfrey >
Aperture is iPhoto on steroids rather than a real pro app. very nice interface, and the backend isn't quite as broken as of 1.5 (You can now reference files outside of your library) but the reliance on the OS's RAW conversion infrastructure and the iPhoto Library-based backend keep it as an essentially limited-use application. The fact that they view DNG as a container format for proprietary data rather than a generic format for RAW data just makes the situation worse. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
