Re: [MCN SIG: Digital Media] Uniiversal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines
Exhaustive Aperture review:http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/prodtech/reviews/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001435191On Dec 2, 2005, at 12:52 PM, Mike Rippy wrote: About the creativepro article. This section below is a bit confusing. Does it overwrite the raw file or just make a jpeg? And if it overwrites? this seems to be a flaw in iPhoto, not an improvement in digital imaging created by Aperture. Photoshop already does this. I dont like it when semantics get in the way of a sale. "Let me also draw the distinction between Aperture and iPhoto. You can see a Raw image in iPhoto, but let's say you make an adjustment to the file, like changing contrast. In iPhoto, you now have an 8-bit JPEG. You've said goodbye to Raw." In the next paragraph he lets on to what is happening. "So the iPhoto choices are that you work in the world of JPEG [after converting to raw], or you go back to Raw [the still existing "master" raw file] and lose all the adjustments you've done in iPhoto. It's a binary decision." [] my commentsHe is explaining in a very cryptic way how the xml sidecars holds onto information allowing you to "version" and "edit" raw files.Also, Im not sure how much support there is for the medium format digital backs. If its suppose to be a pro tool they should have those manufacturers on board as well. When I first lookead at the software I just saw DSLR support. Has anything changed?Mike.>>> tarnauto...@speakeasy.net 12/2/2005 3:31 PM >>> CreativePro has done an interview with the product manager of Aperture. Very informative article. Can be found at:http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/23554.htmlOn Dec 2, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Mike Rippy wrote:> Im curious how fast it runs in comparison with Photoshop on the > same system. The one they suggest is pretty powerful.>> Also, isnt Adobe's XMP sidecar file similar to the XML sidecar file > Aperture is creating? I think some of wording on their advertising > implies that Aperture somehow creates a digital master file that is > different from the raw file that is downloaded.>> I do like the "versioning" function they mention. Which sounds > like more than one XML file or XML fields are created for the raw > file.>> Mike.>> >>> a-new...@nga.gov 12/2/2005 11:55 AM >>>> 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:tarnauto...@speakeasy.net]> Sent: Fri 12/2/2005 10:55 AM> To: mcn-l@mcn.edu> 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
Re: [MCN SIG: Digital Media] Uniiversal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines
CreativePro has done an interview with the product manager of Aperture. Very informative article. Can be found at: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/23554.html On Dec 2, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Mike Rippy wrote: Im curious how fast it runs in comparison with Photoshop on the same system. The one they suggest is pretty powerful. Also, isnt Adobe's XMP sidecar file similar to the XML sidecar file Aperture is creating? I think some of wording on their advertising implies that Aperture somehow creates a digital master file that is different from the raw file that is downloaded. I do like the "versioning" function they mention. Which sounds like more than one XML file or XML fields are created for the raw file. Mike. >>> a-new...@nga.gov 12/2/2005 11:55 AM >>> 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:tarnauto...@speakeasy.net] Sent: Fri 12/2/2005 10:55 AM To: mcn-l@mcn.edu 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%
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, DNGOn 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) thata) 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: mcn-l@mcn.edu Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 8:10 PM To: mcn-l@mcn.edu 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
Re: [MCN SIG: Digital Media] Uniiversal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines
At Princeton we have two delivery points: TMS and Press (Publications). TMS takes the large Jpegs and rolls away. But for press, most printers will want uncompresses RGB Tiffs. Or CMYK tifs if you're proofing in house. Dont compress a tiff - Burn 'em to DVD if you have to. I would however suggest sizing them for your intended publication - that will shrink them a bit. Raw files are great to keep - if your workflow allows for re- exporting. Can turn into a bit of a management headache though "which Tif is it" etc. I am keen on photographers or studio production managers handling the RAW file storage problems. Jeffrey Evans Digital Imaging Specialist Princeton University Art Museum 609.258.8579 On Nov 29, 2005, at 1:00 PM, Ray Shah wrote: Can someone explain to me what advantages the TIFF format has over PNG, and why that is not used instead? This would reduce file size without the need for an intermediary compression step, and as far as I'm aware maintain image fidelity as well as TIFFs, and much better than JPEG. - Ray Matt Morgan wrote: Richard Urban wrote: Matt, Generally compression isn't recommended for a few reasons. While Zip and LZW are fairly reliable compression algorithms, they add another layer of complexity to the file. Understood--thanks to you and to Tim Au Yeung. It's possible that the compression could make unpacking them more difficult down the line. I've heard it suggested that this is particularly true if there is some bit level corruption of the file, which could cause the compression to fail. (comments from people who get under the hood with files would be appreciated...sometimes I feel like these are digital urban legends). I'd be interested in seeing any hard data on this. If there is such a problem, it would be in the different implementations, not in the algorithm, which is mathematically perfect. Perhaps nobody has gotten the hard data you're asking for, but if not, it's probably only because other industries do not doubt the reversibility of compression in the way we do. I mean, zillions of files are compressed and uncompressed every day, and for years, almost every PC hard drive was dblspaced or drvspaced. I understand that you're talking about problems not necessarily visible to the eye, or that we just wouldn't worry about in a spreadsheet or memo, but in demonstrated practice, common forms of reversible compression are safe for files. Can I go on that? How much more convinced can we get? The other concern is over the patents held on both compression algorithms. There was a time where the patent holders were attempting to claim control over the patents, suggesting that you'd need a license to unpack your files (or least the people making the software you use would). These mostly seem to have gone away, but the patents are still out there. Generally this is why we've steered away from proprietary formats towards open standards. I'm all for open standards, especially for museums and libraries-- and ZIP is at least as open (now) as most RAW formats. In any case, there are other compression algorithms that are well-tested and more open than ZIP has been in the past. So it just seems like this is a minor issue compared to the complexity problem. Thanks, Matt Richard Urban Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign rjur...@uiuc.edu -Original Message- From: Matt Morgan [mailto:m...@concretecomputing.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:39 AM To: mcn-l@mcn.edu Subject: Re: [MCN SIG: Digital Media] Uniiversal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines Newman, Alan wrote: Curious coincidence. I just distributed this link today to my staff and I was preparing a post to MCN-L. We've adopted most of these guidelines in my division at the National Gallery. I'm curious to know which recommendations you haven't adopted ... let us know! I read through the UPDIG recommendations and found it really interesting and helpful. I thought their recommendation for RAW format was relatively unconvincing, though. Almost like they were saying "we want to recommend RAW format, but we realize you're going to convert them anyway, at least until the DNG format is widely-supported." Their best arguments for RAW applied to oddball cameras--which to me is an argument not to buy an oddball camera. Is anyone behaving differently, and storing files in RAW (but not also storing in TIFF)? I think, although I'm not sure, that the UPDIG Working Group has more faith in RAW than the museum and library worlds do. The other question I've been asking myself a lot lately, but haven't seen addressed much, is why not store files with some form of reversible compression like zip (or
[MCN SIG: Digital Media] Uniiversal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines
Hi all, Here's a belated thank you for everyone who came out to the Digital Media SIG meeting - I hope everyone's settled back into the routine again; I know it's taken me a bit of time to catch up hence the lateness of this e-mail. I'll be contacting everyone who put their name on the list back at the meeting about directions for the SIG. In the meantime, I thought I'd point you to an industry group that's publishing a best practice document relating to digital imaging. Here's the basic description of the guideline: Universal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines These 15 guidelines - along with the accompanying Best Practices documents - aim to clarify issues affecting accurate reproduction and management of digital image files. Although they largely reflect a photographer's perspective, anyone working with digital images should find them useful. The guidelines have three primary goals: . Digital images look the same as they transfer between devices, platforms and vendors. . Digital images are prepared in the correct resolution, at the correct size, for the device(s) on which they will be viewed or printed. . Digital images have metadata embedded that conforms to the IPTC standards, making the images searchable, providing usage and contact information, and stating their creators or copyright owners. And here's the link to the site: http://www.updig.org/guidelines/index.html Tim Tim Au Yeung Manager, Digital Object Repository Technology University of Calgary --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com
