Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

In article ,
nospam wrote:
in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
guaranteed.

it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
original raw) degraded it.

Who is making this guaranty?

read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.

here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what
goes in is exactly what comes out.

Because Lightroom 3.6 could not import RAW files from my OM-D, and I
couldn't make it recognize the plugin that was supposed to fix this,
I downloaded the DNG converter. I converted my files, opened the DNG
file in Lightroom, and found the images had horizontal stripes.

The screwup might be in Lightroom 3.6 rather than the DNG converter;
I won't know until I get a better computer, can install a more recent
version of windows, and can finally buy Lightroom 4.0.

there's also a possibility of a programming error causing a problem
with the original raw, either in processing or the camera itself
writing a corrupt file.

My RAW files read fine in Olympus View, which can export 16 bit TIFF's,
so the problem is not with the camera.

No matter how perfect the DNG format is, it is entirely possible for
the programmer writing a converter to screw up.

--
Please reply to: |"We establish no religion in this country, we command
pciszek at panix dot com | no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever.
Autoreply is disabled | Church and state are, and must remain, separate."
| --Ronald Reagan, October 26, 1984

In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
guaranteed.

it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
original raw) degraded it.

Who is making this guaranty?

read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.

here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what
goes in is exactly what comes out.

Because Lightroom 3.6 could not import RAW files from my OM-D,

3.6 is too old for that camera. that's your problem.

upgrade to 4.x and it will work.

and I
couldn't make it recognize the plugin that was supposed to fix this,

what plugin was that?

I downloaded the DNG converter. I converted my files, opened the DNG
file in Lightroom, and found the images had horizontal stripes.

The screwup might be in Lightroom 3.6 rather than the DNG converter;
I won't know until I get a better computer, can install a more recent
version of windows, and can finally buy Lightroom 4.0.

something went wrong somewhere. that's not normal. you're using
outdated software that doesn't support your camera, so it's not
surprising you got bogus results.

there's also a possibility of a programming error causing a problem
with the original raw, either in processing or the camera itself
writing a corrupt file.

My RAW files read fine in Olympus View, which can export 16 bit TIFF's,
so the problem is not with the camera.

No matter how perfect the DNG format is, it is entirely possible for
the programmer writing a converter to screw up.

sure, but that isn't common.

it's also possible for a raw processor (no dng conversion) to screw up.

nothing is perfect.

On 2013-06-09 11:37:13 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Paul Ciszek
wrote:

in other words, it is not possible for dng to degrade an image. this is
guaranteed.

it's very possible that adjustments someone made to the dng (or
original raw) degraded it.

Who is making this guaranty?

read the spec. look up the word 'lossless'. it's how it works.

here's a hint: lossless means there is no loss. in other words, what
goes in is exactly what comes out.

Because Lightroom 3.6 could not import RAW files from my OM-D,

3.6 is too old for that camera. that's your problem.

upgrade to 4.x and it will work.

and I
couldn't make it recognize the plugin that was supposed to fix this,

what plugin was that?

Probably the latest ACR which does not run on LR3. It is well worth the
upgrade to LR4, which runs the current RAW process engine.

In article 2013060912424764440-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

and I
couldn't make it recognize the plugin that was supposed to fix this,

what plugin was that?

Probably the latest ACR which does not run on LR3.

the camera raw plugin doesn't work in any lightroom. it's built into
lightroom itself.

It is well worth the
upgrade to LR4, which runs the current RAW process engine.

yep.

On 2013-06-09 12:44:46 -0700, nospam said:

In article 2013060912424764440-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

and I
couldn't make it recognize the plugin that was supposed to fix this,

what plugin was that?

Probably the latest ACR which does not run on LR3.

the camera raw plugin doesn't work in any lightroom. it's built into
lightroom itself.

Exactly. However, LR still uses the ACR RAW process engine, and LR3.6
will not update to the latest ACR 7, 2012 process.

It is well worth the
upgrade to LR4, which runs the current RAW process engine.

yep.

In article 2013060913450038165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

and I
couldn't make it recognize the plugin that was supposed to fix this,

what plugin was that?

Probably the latest ACR which does not run on LR3.

the camera raw plugin doesn't work in any lightroom. it's built into
lightroom itself.

Exactly. However, LR still uses the ACR RAW process engine, and LR3.6
will not update to the latest ACR 7, 2012 process.

right, which is why i asked what plugin he tried.

On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 18:46:38 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2013.06.06 18:06 , Alfred Molon wrote:
: In article ,
: says...
: 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.
:
: The sad reality is that many companies think customers are idiots and
: enjoy seeing their customers suffer. That's what we call
: "Schadenfreude" here in Germany.
:
:
: I thought Shaddenfreud was the guilty pleasure at others misfortune?

I'm not sure I see a lot of difference.

Anyway, I couldn't help noticing that your spelling of the word is different
from Alfred's. Since Alfred lives in Germany and German is probably his native
language, I think I'd have foregone the temptation to contradict him - even
had I not known already that his spelling is correct. ;^)

Bob

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

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.

Ah, well then! The confusion is officially over

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.

Oh, sounds like a fun idea. Just for the fun of it, I took a picture of
the only piece of furniture we have at home that is even remotely
photogenic, and old bar stool. I've sent it in.

Now, BBQ:ing sounds interesting as well.



--
Sandman[.net]

On 6/10/2013 1:49 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

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.

Ah, well then! The confusion is officially over

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.

Oh, sounds like a fun idea. Just for the fun of it, I took a picture of
the only piece of furniture we have at home that is even remotely
photogenic, and old bar stool. I've sent it in.

Now, BBQ:ing sounds interesting as well.

I could never be a professional photographer. In Alaska I was too busy
enjoying watching the whales breech, that I almost forgot i had a camera.
With barbecue, I am just as likely to enjoy the food, and forget to
shoot, or have too much sauce to be able to shoot.

Anyway, glad you dipped your toe in. looking forward to your comments.


--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 6/10/2013 1:49 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

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.

Ah, well then! The confusion is officially over

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.

Oh, sounds like a fun idea. Just for the fun of it, I took a picture of
the only piece of furniture we have at home that is even remotely
photogenic, and old bar stool. I've sent it in.

Now, BBQ:ing sounds interesting as well.

I could never be a professional photographer. In Alaska I was too busy
enjoying watching the whales breech, that I almost forgot i had a camera.
With barbecue, I am just as likely to enjoy the food, and forget to
shoot, or have too much sauce to be able to shoot.

I know what you mean, which is part of the reason I started a thread
asking about the performance of mirrorless cameras. I am intrigued with
the idea of having a in-between camera that fits between my D3s and my
iPhone (or P&S camera before it).

Anyway, glad you dipped your toe in. looking forward to your comments.

I posted them as a reply to the Bowser thread


--
Sandman[.net]