If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"
On 6/7/2013 1:46 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-06-06 15:49:35 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2013.06.06 18:40 , Savageduck wrote: On 2013-06-06 14:46:54 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2013.06.05 22:10 , Tony Cooper wrote: On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-06-05 17:07:18 -0700, Tony Cooper said: On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote: In article , Alan Browne wrote: 1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG. 2. Keep using CS3 as before. FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my Olympus OM-D pictures. DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly to .DNG. DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even with no adjustments in the DNG. That is an issue with the viewer not the DNG. With some cameras (particularly Nikon) not all unadjusted RAW files reflect the saturation, contrast, and sharpness found in in camera JPEGs. Nikon unprocessed NEFs are typically soft and somewhat desaturated. When converted to DNG the same properties are there. I don't really consider it an "issue". I'm just stating that the unadjusted DNG looks a bit dark and muddy in either Bridge or FastStone. Since I've been using those two viewers since first starting to shoot RAW, I'm used to it. I know that once I open the file in CS that the image will be workable. I don't let what I see in the viewer put me off. It's not a complaint. It's an observation. The way you state it above, viewing it in Bridge (subject to profile settings - and also shows changes made in ACR (if any)) could confuse the issue. The way to check is to take the original raw through to ACR and see how it looks. Compare that to the original raw converted to DNG and opened for the first time in ACR. They should look identical. Just for the Hell of it, here are two unadjusted NEF/DNG comparisons. For what it is worth my feeble eyeballs cannot detect any difference between them. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_228w.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_229w.jpg Nor should one - but the point of observation should really be what shows in ACR with inputs of the NEF and the DNG from that same NEF. Well, if you insist. Here are the NEF & converted DNG, opened in ACR with zero adjustment in each. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_232w.jpg Further evidence presented to my rapidly softening brain, that the conversion from NEF to DNG is as effective as duplicating the NEF. ...with one exception. The NEF is 20.1MB and the DNG is 27.2MB. Do you use compressed RAW? -- PeterN |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"
On 2013-06-07 05:54:04 -0700, PeterN said:
On 6/7/2013 1:46 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-06-06 15:49:35 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2013.06.06 18:40 , Savageduck wrote: On 2013-06-06 14:46:54 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2013.06.05 22:10 , Tony Cooper wrote: On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-06-05 17:07:18 -0700, Tony Cooper said: On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote: In article , Alan Browne wrote: 1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG. 2. Keep using CS3 as before. FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my Olympus OM-D pictures. DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly to .DNG. DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even with no adjustments in the DNG. That is an issue with the viewer not the DNG. With some cameras (particularly Nikon) not all unadjusted RAW files reflect the saturation, contrast, and sharpness found in in camera JPEGs. Nikon unprocessed NEFs are typically soft and somewhat desaturated. When converted to DNG the same properties are there. I don't really consider it an "issue". I'm just stating that the unadjusted DNG looks a bit dark and muddy in either Bridge or FastStone. Since I've been using those two viewers since first starting to shoot RAW, I'm used to it. I know that once I open the file in CS that the image will be workable. I don't let what I see in the viewer put me off. It's not a complaint. It's an observation. The way you state it above, viewing it in Bridge (subject to profile settings - and also shows changes made in ACR (if any)) could confuse the issue. The way to check is to take the original raw through to ACR and see how it looks. Compare that to the original raw converted to DNG and opened for the first time in ACR. They should look identical. Just for the Hell of it, here are two unadjusted NEF/DNG comparisons. For what it is worth my feeble eyeballs cannot detect any difference between them. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_228w.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_229w.jpg Nor should one - but the point of observation should really be what shows in ACR with inputs of the NEF and the DNG from that same NEF. Well, if you insist. Here are the NEF & converted DNG, opened in ACR with zero adjustment in each. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_232w.jpg Further evidence presented to my rapidly softening brain, that the conversion from NEF to DNG is as effective as duplicating the NEF. ...with one exception. The NEF is 20.1MB and the DNG is 27.2MB. Do you use compressed RAW? No. That is the uncompressed, original NEF out of my D300s, along with a converted DBG. Certainly the NEFs out of your D800 are considerably fatter, -- Regards, Savageduck |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"
On 2013-06-07 07:20:25 -0700, Savageduck said:
On 2013-06-07 05:54:04 -0700, PeterN said: On 6/7/2013 1:46 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-06-06 15:49:35 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2013.06.06 18:40 , Savageduck wrote: On 2013-06-06 14:46:54 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2013.06.05 22:10 , Tony Cooper wrote: On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-06-05 17:07:18 -0700, Tony Cooper said: On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote: In article , Alan Browne wrote: 1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG. 2. Keep using CS3 as before. FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my Olympus OM-D pictures. DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly to .DNG. DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even with no adjustments in the DNG. That is an issue with the viewer not the DNG. With some cameras (particularly Nikon) not all unadjusted RAW files reflect the saturation, contrast, and sharpness found in in camera JPEGs. Nikon unprocessed NEFs are typically soft and somewhat desaturated. When converted to DNG the same properties are there. I don't really consider it an "issue". I'm just stating that the unadjusted DNG looks a bit dark and muddy in either Bridge or FastStone. Since I've been using those two viewers since first starting to shoot RAW, I'm used to it. I know that once I open the file in CS that the image will be workable. I don't let what I see in the viewer put me off. It's not a complaint. It's an observation. The way you state it above, viewing it in Bridge (subject to profile settings - and also shows changes made in ACR (if any)) could confuse the issue. The way to check is to take the original raw through to ACR and see how it looks. Compare that to the original raw converted to DNG and opened for the first time in ACR. They should look identical. Just for the Hell of it, here are two unadjusted NEF/DNG comparisons. For what it is worth my feeble eyeballs cannot detect any difference between them. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_228w.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_229w.jpg Nor should one - but the point of observation should really be what shows in ACR with inputs of the NEF and the DNG from that same NEF. Well, if you insist. Here are the NEF & converted DNG, opened in ACR with zero adjustment in each. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_232w.jpg Further evidence presented to my rapidly softening brain, that the conversion from NEF to DNG is as effective as duplicating the NEF. ...with one exception. The NEF is 20.1MB and the DNG is 27.2MB. Do you use compressed RAW? No. That is the uncompressed, original NEF out of my D300s, along with a converted DBG. Certainly the NEFs out of your D800 are considerably fatter, ....er, DNG. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"
On 6/7/2013 10:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-06-07 05:54:04 -0700, PeterN said: On 6/7/2013 1:46 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-06-06 15:49:35 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2013.06.06 18:40 , Savageduck wrote: On 2013-06-06 14:46:54 -0700, Alan Browne said: On 2013.06.05 22:10 , Tony Cooper wrote: On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 17:30:21 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-06-05 17:07:18 -0700, Tony Cooper said: On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 17:43:03 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: On 2013.06.04 23:27 , Paul Ciszek wrote: In article , Alan Browne wrote: 1. Get the free Adobe DNGConverter to convert your raw files to DNG. 2. Keep using CS3 as before. FWIW, I didn't like what DNG did to the image quality of some of my Olympus OM-D pictures. DNG converter makes no changes to the image - it just reformats it so that it can be read by any program that reads DNG. That includes PS of course as well as many other programs. A couple cameras save directly to .DNG. DNGs do look a bit dark and muddy in a viewer compared to what the file looks like after it has been opened in Photoshop...even with no adjustments in the DNG. That is an issue with the viewer not the DNG. With some cameras (particularly Nikon) not all unadjusted RAW files reflect the saturation, contrast, and sharpness found in in camera JPEGs. Nikon unprocessed NEFs are typically soft and somewhat desaturated. When converted to DNG the same properties are there. I don't really consider it an "issue". I'm just stating that the unadjusted DNG looks a bit dark and muddy in either Bridge or FastStone. Since I've been using those two viewers since first starting to shoot RAW, I'm used to it. I know that once I open the file in CS that the image will be workable. I don't let what I see in the viewer put me off. It's not a complaint. It's an observation. The way you state it above, viewing it in Bridge (subject to profile settings - and also shows changes made in ACR (if any)) could confuse the issue. The way to check is to take the original raw through to ACR and see how it looks. Compare that to the original raw converted to DNG and opened for the first time in ACR. They should look identical. Just for the Hell of it, here are two unadjusted NEF/DNG comparisons. For what it is worth my feeble eyeballs cannot detect any difference between them. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_228w.jpg https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_229w.jpg Nor should one - but the point of observation should really be what shows in ACR with inputs of the NEF and the DNG from that same NEF. Well, if you insist. Here are the NEF & converted DNG, opened in ACR with zero adjustment in each. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...nshot_232w.jpg Further evidence presented to my rapidly softening brain, that the conversion from NEF to DNG is as effective as duplicating the NEF. ...with one exception. The NEF is 20.1MB and the DNG is 27.2MB. Do you use compressed RAW? No. That is the uncompressed, original NEF out of my D300s, along with a converted DBG. Certainly the NEFs out of your D800 are considerably fatter, Yup 42.5 mb. 18.4 in crop mode. -- PeterN |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"
On 2013.06.06 21:45 , Tony Cooper wrote:
I'm not looking for a solution because I don't see it as a problem. Neither am I. Nor is there a problem. However there is (and you're not alone) confusion over what DNG does and does not do. What it does not do is change the content of the image in any way. It is just a storage format. The "way" that you handle images may give you the impression that there is a difference between raw- viewer and raw-dng-viewer - but as long as that viewer is ACR then there should be no visible difference - 'cause there is none. -- "A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe." -Pierre Berton |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"
On 2013.06.07 01:46 , Savageduck wrote:
Further evidence presented to my rapidly softening brain, that the conversion from NEF to DNG is as effective as duplicating the NEF. ...with one exception. The NEF is 20.1MB and the DNG is 27.2MB. Bizarre as my DNG's are smaller than my .ARWs by about the same relation as above. (DNG in lossless-compression mode). -- "A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe." -Pierre Berton |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"
On 6/9/2013 3:59 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: On 6/7/2013 2:14 AM, Sandman wrote: In article , wrote: I have been a Photoshop user since the very first release of the software for the PC way back in what, 1990? 1994?? 1992 was the first Windows release. Through all the years I've been a loyal Adobe customer and never really considered anything else as the Photoshop products always did well for me. Of course. Over the weekend I purchased a Nikon D3200 camera. Congratulations! This camera uses NEF-Compressed RAW format. I use Photoshop CS3 mostly out of laziness in updating. Also though there is the cost with seeming annual upgrades. CS3 did everything I need it to do so if it ain't broken don't fix it. My research and updating of CS3 let to naught as those of you in the "know" will nod your heads to. So I figured I would call Adobe and learn what the cost would be to upgrade. Imagine my surprise when I learned of Adobe's current Subscription demands to have the privilege of using their products. Say what? I can't parse "Adobe's current Subscription demands to have the privilege of using their products.". What do you mean? I understand some Harvard MBA's brilliant idea in try to develop a "locked in" customer base. What gave you that idea? Do you imagine that Adobe feels that Photoshop has lots of viable compatitors and that "locking in" the customer was the only way to ensure their brand loyalty? I mean isn't that what every business wants? A SECURE market share! I understand some Fisk Economics PhD coming up with the idea that a steady flow of cash would be far easier to manage than the normal ebb and flow of cash trending. It cuts into your sailing and golf time to actually have to MANAGE your cash flow doesn't it? Sure, subscription based income evens out the money flow. So now I am faced now with being a long time and loyal customer of yet another economic STEAMROLLER in the form of a massive corporation that begs for my hard earned $$$ without wanting to work as hard at customer SERVICE as I must in MY business. Didn't you just say that you used CS3, which worked, and you have no reason to fix what isn't broken? This locked in customer base, whether it is a 2 year cell phone CONTRACT or an ongoing subscription for the privilege of using Adobe's products is, in my humble Opinion complete and utter bull****. How do you figure it is "bull****"? This implies some devious motives on Adobes part. Could you perhaps share the line of reasoning you used to come to this conclusion? Let's try this concept: Develop a Superior Product. Sell it at a fair market price by BUILDING VALUE in your product. THEN secure your market share through EXEMPLARY customer service and support! THAT is how you build a LOYAL customer base and market share! So, uh, Adobe already has the superior product(s), they've sold it at a pretty high price and I've never had any problem with their support. Adobe, however, have had some serious problems with people pirating their software, which means loss of income, which seriously limits their capability to offer support and/or development. In short I would like all these overpaid MBA's to go a little OLD SCHOOL and learn what CUSTOMER SATISFACTION is all about and what satisfied customers mean to the health of a major company. I'm quite certain that software piracy have more serious effects on a major company than a few ****ed off customers that would rather own the software. Didn't they teach you in your MBA classes that Loyal customers grow from HAPPY and PLEASED buyers that perceive VALUE form the spending of their hard earned dollars on your products! I am a happy customer that is currently paying for the creative cloud and feel I get great value for this deal. In fact, to me the entire master collection just got a lot more affordable. Just like subscription money flow evens out their income, it also evens out my expenses. That's not good enough for the Marketing Gestapo today though. They know that the state of customer service in America today is pathetic! Oh, ok. I've only ever been in contact with Adobes European support, which has been excellent. They KNOW they cannot compete toe to toe AND **** off their clientele with crappy service! So, they figure a captive clientele is better. In what way can't Adobe compete "toe to toe"? With whom? No It's not! Now I find alternatives to Photoshop. When I leave a company with my loyalty crapped on...I will never go back. I'm quite sure that the majority of users they are losing in this switch are users who pirate the software anyway, so they aren't actually "lost". In fact, they might win some actual paying customers.. This is going to hurt Adobe badly...... Oh and the ONLY people diving feet first into this CLOUD bull**** like Adobe and every other company is touting so heavily.......is the WORST idea EVER. You might as well give your sensitive information to the Taliban! So buying products from Adobe is like giving information to terrorists? This seem like a reasonable argument to you? Farewell Adobe...... It's been nice but I'm done with y'all! I'm sure they're going to change back to the old ways, now that you're leaving We are lpoking forward to your contributions to the SI: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage I'm sorry if I sound a bit confused here, but I kind of wonder if you responded to the right post(er)? I just found it a bit odd to welcome contribution to a photo submission as a reply to my post above. Not at all! Since you own a D3s and are knowledgeable about PS, i simply thought it would be nice to have an additional contributor. It certainly doesn't cost anything, and the RULZ are frequently violated, e.e. two my submissions this month archival, not taken within the mandate time period. Although it does not appear on the RU:Z page, the furniture mandate was extended until today. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DxO says Adobe Lens profiling has "shortcomings" | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 11 | May 23rd 10 11:48 PM |
[review] "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers"by Scott Kelby | Troy Piggins[_32_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 27 | December 15th 09 06:50 PM |
[review] "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers" by Scott Kelby | Phred | Digital Photography | 4 | November 24th 09 05:02 PM |
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ | \The Great One\ | Digital Photography | 0 | July 14th 09 12:04 AM |
Adobe euphemism: "Most comprehesive = most expensive." | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 13 | July 7th 07 06:54 PM |