Re: [MCN SIG: Digital Media] Uniiversal Photographic Digita
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% 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
Re: [MCN SIG: Digital Media] Uniiversal Photographic Digita
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 to facsimile collections imaging. While an RGB TIFF with embedded ICC profile is essentially a fixed rendition of the object,
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% 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
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 ArtHi 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
Re: [MCN SIG: Digital Media] Uniiversal Photographic Digital
Fwd: New digitization wiki launched
Subject: Re: New digitization wiki launched From: Trudy Levy t.l...@dig-mar.com To: mcn-l@mcn.edu, Visual Resources Association vr...@listserv.uark.edu The VRA list has just been talking about the need to compile a clearing house which would be a reference where one could fairly quickly identify the copyright owner.of a piece. Will Real Carnegie Museum of Art, (on VRA) list was suggesting a WIKI type format. It appears one merely needs to wish for thing these days and it will occur. Thanks Michael (from MCN list) this looks great. -- Trudy Levy Consultant for Digital Imaging Projects Image Integration 415 750 1274http://www.DIG-Mar.com Membership Chair, Visual Resources Association http://vraweb.org Images are information - Manage them On 11/30/05 4:33 PM, michael.yun...@unlv.edu michael.yun...@unlv.edu wrote: Announcing the launch of Digiwik: The Digitization Wiki (http://www.digiwik.org/) Digiwik is designed to be a repository of digitization information for use by individuals, museums, libraries, researchers, and any other entities with digitization needs. Please direct any feedback, comments, or questions to digi...@gmail.com. Thank you, Michael Yunkin Web Content/Metadata Manager ( Digiwik administrator) UNLV Libraries Las Vegas, NV --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: tr...@dig-mar.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com --B_3216280845_177580 Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable HTML HEAD TITLERe: New digitization wiki launched/TITLE /HEAD BODY FONT FACE=3DVerdanaSPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'The VRA list has just b= een talking about the need to compile a clearing house which would be a/SPA= N/FONTSPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'FONT FACE=3DArial reference where = one could fairly quickly identify the copyright owner.of a piece. nbsp;Will= nbsp;Real FONT COLOR=3D#FFCarnegie Museum of Art, /FONT(on VRA) li= st was suggesting a WIKI type format. nbsp;It appears one merely needs to w= ish for thing these days and it will occur.BR Thanks Michael (from MCN list) this looks great.BR BR /FONTFONT FACE=3DVerdana-- BR BR Trudy LevyBR Consultant for Digital Imaging Projects nbsp;BR /FONT/SPAN P ALIGN=3DCENTER SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'FONT FACE=3DGeorgiaImage Integration /FON= TFONT FACE=3DTimes New Roman415 750 1274 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;a href=3Dhttp:= //www.DIG-Mar.comhttp://www.DIG-Mar.com/aBR Membership Chair, Visual Resources Association nbsp;a href=3Dhttp://vraweb= .orghttp://vraweb.org/aBR /FONTFONT FACE=3DVerdanaImages are information - Manage them=20 /FONT/SPAN P SPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'FONT FACE=3DVerdanaBR BR BR On 11/30/05 4:33 PM, quot;michael.yun...@unlv.eduquot; lt;michael.yunkin= @unlv.edugt; wrote:BR BR /FONT/SPANBLOCKQUOTESPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'FONT FACE=3DArial= Announcing the launch of Digiwik: The Digitization Wiki (a href=3Dhttp://ww= w.digiwik.org/)http://www.digiwik.org/)/aBR /FONTFONT FACE=3DVerdanaBR /FONTFONT FACE=3DArialDigiwik is designed to be a repository of digitiz= ation information for use by individuals, museums, libraries, researchers, a= nd any other entities with digitization needs.BR /FONTFONT FACE=3DVerdanaBR /FONTFONT FACE=3DArialPlease direct any feedback, comments, or question= s to digi...@gmail.com.BR /FONTFONT FACE=3DVerdanaBR /FONTFONT FACE=3DArialThank you,BR Michael Yunkin BR Web Content/Metadata Manager (amp; Digiwik administrator)BR UNLV LibrariesBR Las Vegas, NVBR /FONTFONT FACE=3DVerdana--- BR You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: tr...@dig-mar.com BR To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12799...@listserver.am= ericaneagle.comBR /FONT/SPAN/BLOCKQUOTESPAN STYLE=3D'font-size:12.0px'FONT FACE=3DVerda= naBR /FONT/SPAN --- BR You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu BR To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com /BODY /HTML --B_3216280845_177580-- -- End of Forwarded Message
