Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

On 2012-09-05 23:44:47 -0700, nospam said:

In article 2012090523105399505-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

That is an update page for Camera Raw and DNG Converter. There is no
ACR within the stand alone DNG Converter.

camera raw is part of dng converter, just as it is with lightroom,
however, you only get the conversion core in dng converter.

if you want to use the full control of the camera raw interface, then
at a minimum, you'll need photoshop elements which is typically $50-60
but is sometimes bundled for free (and it doesn't matter which version
it is).

You get funnier and funnier.

Having used Adobe software since Adobe PhotoDeluxe 1.0. I am currently
using CS5 & LR4. I also have several of those bundled versions of PSE.
So you don't need to educate me with regard to their distribution
practices.

Guess what, no matter how hard you try, you won't get full control of
the ACR interface as it is implemented in any version of PSE. I get to
use full control of the ACR interface with CS5 & LR4, but not PSE.
....and I have a pretty good idea of how they all work together.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:201209052359446752-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2012-09-05 23:44:47 -0700, nospam said:
In article 2012090523105399505-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

That is an update page for Camera Raw and DNG Converter. There is no
ACR within the stand alone DNG Converter.

camera raw is part of dng converter, just as it is with lightroom,
however, you only get the conversion core in dng converter.

if you want to use the full control of the camera raw interface, then
at a minimum, you'll need photoshop elements which is typically $50-60
but is sometimes bundled for free (and it doesn't matter which version
it is).

You get funnier and funnier.

Having used Adobe software since Adobe PhotoDeluxe 1.0. I am currently
using CS5 & LR4. I also have several of those bundled versions of PSE. So
you don't need to educate me with regard to their distribution practices.

Guess what, no matter how hard you try, you won't get full control of the
ACR interface as it is implemented in any version of PSE. I get to use
full control of the ACR interface with CS5 & LR4, but not PSE.
...and I have a pretty good idea of how they all work together.

Most people who only use PSE simply don't realise there is a difference in
how the full ACR works. But anybody who thinks the stand alone DNG converter
is the same as ACR is truly ignorant.

Trevor.

On 03/09/2012 20:55, -hh wrote:
On Sep 3, 1:51 pm, sid wrote:
-hh wrote:
and I don't see any of you avid ps users posting any pics
that could not be processed using gimp.

Here's a practical exercise for you then:

Source material:

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-4.jpg
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/germany/baseline-5.jpg

Fix it.

Fix what? A **** photo is always gonna be a **** photo no matter what editor
you use. Asking someone to fix a *tiny* **** jpeg is hardly a realistic
thing to do no matter the software they use.

Except that the photo pair was merely an example of *hardware*
limitations on dynamic range.

But after saving at Photoshop JPEG level 4 they are already mutilated
beyond economic repair so that the sky breaks up into striped 8x8 tile
blocks and serious artefacts are present on all edge transitions.

HDR cannot put back the information already lost by the low quality JPEG
save from Photoshop. Zoom in x4 and you will see what I mean.

PSPros "one-click fix my grotty picture" does a passable job on
baseline-4.jpg and that is all the effort these images are worth.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article , Trevor
wrote:

But anybody who thinks the stand alone DNG converter
is the same as ACR is truly ignorant.

just what do you think the dng converter uses internally?

On 2012-09-06 07:15:13 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Trevor
wrote:

But anybody who thinks the stand alone DNG converter
is the same as ACR is truly ignorant.

just what do you think the dng converter uses internally?

No matter how much you try, you are not going to process any RAW file,
be it NEF, CR2, or dng so that it can be edited in PS, PSE, PSP or any
other editor, using Adobe DNG Converter (ADNGC). Its only function is
to convert RAW files to dng RAW files. Not one function of ACR is user
accessible via ADNGC, ergo ADNGC is not by the widest stretch of the
imagination a RAW converter for RAW file adjustment prior to editing.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Charles E. Hardwidge
wrote:

ACR is a front end, API, raw conversion engine, database of profiles, and
output engine only accessible if you purchase Adobe software and
otherwise closed to third party software. A standalone convertor is a
*standalone* *convertor*. It's not installable and is self-contained and
exposes no API's which is an entirely *different* thing.

who said anything about exposing apis or writing a host?

dng converter which includes camera raw is freely downloadable, as is
the camera raw plug-in.

obviously, adobe isn't going to want you writing your own host for the
camera raw plug-in and mooch off their work. that would be very stupid
on their part.

Have you actually *read* Adobe's comments and documentation on the
Lightroom render pipeline before making claims that third party inline
integration is impossible? I have and determined third party integration
is possible. If you have read the documentation and can point out why
it's not possible go right ahead and I'll change my mind but not before.

i didn't say it was impossible. don't twist things.

what i said was it was difficult to write lightroom plug-ins and
maintain a non-destructive workflow. the same limitation applies also
applies to aperture.

My starting comments were about systems architecture and internal render
pipelines, and open standards and I think I'll just restate that and walk
away from this discussion...

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

Most people who only use PSE simply don't realise there is a difference in
how the full ACR works. But anybody who thinks the stand alone DNG
converter is the same as ACR is truly ignorant.

I think noons is coming from the perspective of a plugin writer and trying
to tug everything into that orbit just like a flea sitting on the backside
of a rhino has a different perspective of the world to a rhino.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

"Charles E. Hardwidge" wrote in message
...

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

Most people who only use PSE simply don't realise there is a difference
in how the full ACR works. But anybody who thinks the stand alone DNG
converter is the same as ACR is truly ignorant.

I think noons is coming from the perspective of a plugin writer and trying
to tug everything into that orbit just like a flea sitting on the backside
of a rhino has a different perspective of the world to a rhino.

Oops. Nospam.

Uh, mistakes happen...

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

On 2012.09.06[36] 10:15 , nospam wrote:
In article , Trevor
wrote:

But anybody who thinks the stand alone DNG converter
is the same as ACR is truly ignorant.

just what do you think the dng converter uses internally?

Not very much and certainly not ACR.
There is no need to.

DNG does (basically)
- wraps the raw as a subset of TIFF without change in the DNG wrapper
- as above, but compressed losslessly
- as either of the two above and includes an unaltered copy of the raw.
- optionally linearize the data. This does not require ACR.

It does nothing related to photo processing.

It does add some EXIF data and provide some name editing on the fly.

It does not contain, nor need ACR.

ACR can of course read DNG files.


--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 2012.09.06[36] 02:44 , nospam wrote:

dng converter which includes camera raw

DNG Converter has no need for ACR.

Though ACR can, of course, read files (.dng) created by DNG converter.


--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.