Thanks, Ken.
So, that's consistent with my vague recollection of someone mentioning
that fact here on the list.
But the question is, with that, does DNG converter also preserve
"makernote" field?
To answer that, you'd need to look with a software that can show you the
"raw" content of each
-
From: "Igor PDML-StR" <pdml...@komkon.org>
Subject: RE - Missing Exif data
Ken,
Yes, as I've written in response to your original message, - "Makernote"
field needs to be understood by the software that works with the image.
Typically, good software, even if it doe
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 05:03:17PM -0400, Stanley Halpin wrote:
> My reading of the Tim Grey comment and other bits and pieces is that we who
> start with DNG will forever lose the Pentax unique data because there is no
> slot in the DNG package for that.
There is a slot in the package - the
My reading of the Tim Grey comment and other bits and pieces is that we who
start with DNG will forever lose the Pentax unique data because there is no
slot in the DNG package for that.
As I write that, it seems to me that it doesn’t make sense. I would think that
any miscellaneous data would
What about when DNG *is* your original data?
On 10/4/2017 15:01, Ken Waller wrote:
Just got a Tim Grey Newsletter in which he explains that while using the Adobe
DNG converter will retain the original pixel data from the original capture,
there are some 'private' metadata from the camera that
Ken,
Yes, as I've written in response to your original message, - "Makernote"
field needs to be understood by the software that works with the image.
Typically, good software, even if it doesn't understand that field,
should leave those fields in EXIF intact, just carrying it over when
saving
Just got a Tim Grey Newsletter in which he explains that while using the
Adobe DNG converter will retain the original pixel data from the original
capture, there are some 'private' metadata from the camera that may be lost.
That data would generally relate to unique features of a specific
7 matches
Mail list logo