Thanks Igor for bringing this issue in front; thanks Godfrey for replying (and for being in a verbose mood).
Now I know better! Bulent --------------------------------------------------------------------- http://patoloji.gen.tr http://celasun.wordpress.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bc_the_path/ http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2226822 http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/bulentcelasun 2014-12-19 4:58 GMT+02:00 Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]>: > I'm glad what I wrote was helpful for your understanding. > > A DNG file, like a TIFF file, is a container file. The DNG specification (see > http://www.adobe.com/dng if you'd like to download it for more understanding) > defines a standardized file format for storing raw image data. It can also > contain a lot of stuff that isn't understood by a raw converter. You could > encode text files, Word files, PDFs and other ancillary information into a > DNG file if you were so inclined. Simply stated, the raw converter reads what > it needs to do its job, and anything else that it was written to take > advantage of. If there's other stuff there, it just skips it. > > When you set the output revision compatibility for exporting to DNG, > Lightroom cannot know what application, or revision of a plug-in, will be > used to read the DNG file. You can output for DNG compatibility with Camera > Raw v4.6 compatibility but then open it with Camera Raw v6.2. So there's no > sensible reason for them to display a warning dialog … the DNG portion of the > file is compatible, it's the LR/Camera Raw instructions that might or might > not be, based on what you do, but it has no idea that you are going to use LR > or Camera Raw to read the file. Similarly, Camera Raw doesn't know what's in > the file except for what it needs to read if it isn't there … and what Camera > Raw needs to read was there. The additional instructions are NO-OPs to v4.x > of Camera Raw. So it just passes them by: it was written before knowing what > they were was defined. > >> (Although, I don't like the notion of synching things to the "Cloud", and >> that has been a hindering factor as well. >> But I admit, it might be my prejudice.) > > BTW, there's absolutely nothing that requires you to sync anything to the > "Cloud" (whatever you mean by that) with Photoshop CC or Lightroom purchased > on a subscription license. The software and your files are entirely resident > on your computer and its storage devices if you do not choose to use a > Cloud-based storage system. The only network interaction that the software > will do if you don't use the Cloud storage is a phone-home call back to > Adobe's license servers, periodically, to ensure that the subscription > license is still valid and to determine whether there are any software > updates that you might want to install. That has nothing to do with the > Cloud, it's just a standard network-security interaction passing the usual > kinds of authentication certificates and keys back and forth that any system > with a networked security/license requirement has been doing for the past > twenty years. Your browser probably does a couple of hundred interactions > like this every day if you visit any secure site, like any payment system, > bank website, Ebay, Paypal, etc. > > If you choose to use the Creative Cloud storage services, your data *can* be > stored on a networked Cloud volume, making it convenient to get to when > you're not at home and connected to your storage system. But that doesn't > mean anything like "synching stuff to the Cloud", it simply means that you > are using a network-accessed server as a storage repository. > > Syncing stuff to the Cloud is more akin to the kind of pervasive data > presence that DropBox does: you set it up and it created a network-shared > file space on your local storage which you've give it permission to > synchronize with the DropBox servers. Every system that you've enabled with > the DropBox software and signed into the account is then synchronized so that > the data is duplicated and in sync everywhere, making it accessible from all > the systems, all the time. > >> In the mean time, I am going >> to use PSD format to avoid incompatibility issues. > > In other words, you are going to write out fully rendered RGB files in > Photoshop's proprietary format when you export rather than writing out raw > data with processing instructions. Depending upon what you are writing out > the data for, this can be good or bad. > > I rarely write out DNG files from Lightroom … There's no need, I have the > originals and the library (that is, the raw data and the instructions) > archived and backed up all the time anyway. When I write out my image files > from LR, I'm usually either outputting them for use on the web, where you > need to output to JPEG, PNG or TIFF to be truly useful in reduced resolution > form, or outputting them for archiving finished work, where I write them in > full resolution 16bit-per-component TIFF files which nets the best, most > editable, most useful archive format of the *finished* work. Any raw output > is an image file that requires interpretation to express the adjustments. An > RGB output (JPEG, TIFF, PNG) has the adjustments 'baked into the pixel > values.' > > Woof. I'm in a verbose mood, I guess. ;-) > > Godfrey > > >> On Dec 18, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Igor PDML-StR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Wow! >> Godfrey, that's probably the most technical description that I've >> ever seen on this list (or at least outside photography per se, which by its >> nature is still less technical). >> >> Thank you, thank you, thank you! >> Not only that it helped me discerning between the two different scenarios of >> what is (experientially) breaking here, but (and that is probably more >> important) it also helped me understanding how a DNG file works. >> This understanding will be helpful in other aspects of understanding how LR >> and related programs work. >> >> Indeed, what you described coincides with my observations. I guess the >> biggest surprise that led to the situation I described was that LR did not >> warn that something might not be compatible with ACR v 4.6. (And >> subsequently, ACR did not complain that there was something that it didn't >> understand in the file.) >> I still think this is a wrong behavior on part of Adobe's software that no >> warning are issued. >> Such a warning is a typical behavior that many programs implement. (Various >> MS Office and Windows components do that. I believe even Photoshop and >> Acrobat give a compatibility warning when you are saving to a format where >> certain components are not preserved, - but maybe I am mistaken about those >> two.). >> >> I don't need to do this operation often, and hopefully, I'll be able to get >> away from CS3. (Although, I don't like the notion of synching things to the >> "Cloud", and that has been a hindering factor as well. >> But I admit, it might be my prejudice.) In the mean time, I am going >> to use PSD format to avoid incompatibility issues. >> >> >> Igor > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
