Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

On 2012.09.06[36] 23:36 , nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
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

No.

yes. not all of it though.

Not at all. Just using a file/format reading function that is shared
amongst several programs. It is not CRaw at all which is a much more
complex beast.

Kinda like using the same can opener design for a can of apricots and a
can of meat sauce. They both use the same standard toolset (module) to
open the file but then their _purpose_ code is completely different.

Software designers do that: reuse code and modules for like functions.

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

On 2012.09.06[36] 23:36 , nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

dng converter includes camera raw, which is what it uses to do the
conversion. you don't get the control you do compared with photoshop
but the underlying code is the same.

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5388

Nothing on that page says ACR is part of DNG.

It refers to the CR page solely because the complete list of cameras is
there.

They both support the same cameras, obviously, since CR can read the
same unaltered raw files.

So they share that bit of code.

in other words, camera raw is embedded. it just doesn't have *all* of
it.

Man you really are desperate.

A file reading/decoding module or section of code is included that is
common to both (and common to LR, PS, Bridge and probably others).

IOW they use the same code to open raw files and read them. After that
their functions are completely different. The functional (what it does
for you) part of CRaw is not at all in DNGconverter.

CR is a complex beast. All that DNG shares with it is the parts that
read the raw formatted file. This is on the order of a few percent of
ACR and a larger percentage of DNG because all DNG does is take in one
file format and spit out an other format (including the option to simply
embed the raw without any change at all...)

But the functional code of ACR that makes it "ACR" (image data
manipulation / interpretation) is in no way included in DNG.

but the parts that are needed are there.

Your claim was "dng includes camera raw".

It doesn't. See above.

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

On 9/7/2012 4:26 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012.09.06[36] 23:36 , nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

dng converter includes camera raw, which is what it uses to do the
conversion. you don't get the control you do compared with photoshop
but the underlying code is the same.

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5388

Nothing on that page says ACR is part of DNG.

It refers to the CR page solely because the complete list of cameras is
there.

They both support the same cameras, obviously, since CR can read the
same unaltered raw files.

So they share that bit of code.

in other words, camera raw is embedded. it just doesn't have *all* of
it.

Man you really are desperate.

A file reading/decoding module or section of code is included that is
common to both (and common to LR, PS, Bridge and probably others).

IOW they use the same code to open raw files and read them. After that
their functions are completely different. The functional (what it does
for you) part of CRaw is not at all in DNGconverter.

CR is a complex beast. All that DNG shares with it is the parts that
read the raw formatted file. This is on the order of a few percent of
ACR and a larger percentage of DNG because all DNG does is take in one
file format and spit out an other format (including the option to simply
embed the raw without any change at all...)

But the functional code of ACR that makes it "ACR" (image data
manipulation / interpretation) is in no way included in DNG.

but the parts that are needed are there.

Your claim was "dng includes camera raw".

It doesn't. See above.


Aw! You pointed out his twisting and shifting to avoid admitting he was
wrong.
Spoilsport.

--
Peter

On 9/6/12 PDT 9:51 AM, Charles E. Hardwidge wrote:

"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...

I thought you were saying noons resembles the backside of a rhino. Thank
heavens for the clarification.

Alan Browne wrote:
hh- said:

But seriously, as I've already said, "best camera is the one you
have". *Perhaps you'll recall this crappy picture that you yourself
nevertheless chose to sha

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/10587153-lg.jpg

a) Not my camera
b) I didn't take it

I shared it for reasons not related to photography.

But it was still a 'crap' photo that was shared for a reason ...
ethically, no different than what I did.


And for that matter it is far better than the **** you posted!

Of course you ignored the samples I posted from 10 years ago.

Just as you've ignored other samples of mine.

So exactly how are we being any different? Oh, that's right: I'm the
one who actually offered up a real world example for people to
consider to work on...and showed my work.

BTW, I did locate the originals; here's a quick rework I did last
night...it isn't a final work, as I don't like at all how the texture
of the tower came out; perhaps I neglected to click on ghost
removal.

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ger...-tower_HDR.jpg



-hh

On Sep 7, 2:43*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 07/09/2012 00:08, -hh wrote:









On Sep 6, 4:10 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012.09.03[36] 20:09 , -hh wrote:
On Sep 3, 7:56 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2012.09.03 12:53 , -hh wrote:

Source material:

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

That is not "source material" that is pixilated crap. *Actually those
photos give crap a bad name.

Fix it.

No. *It's crap. *Well, not even that good.

Indeed, by today's standards, it isn't particularly noteworthy, but it
is online to serve as an example of compensating for the hardware
limitations of dynamic range. *From this perspective, it is a
perfectly fine example to work from, and its small file size means
minimal bandwidth & CPU processing time - - particularly in the
context of what PC hardware was like 7 years ago when this was first
put online.

Take that load of crap and flush it.

"Any situation can be changed with complexity."
* * Alan Browne, 2010

I and many others were putting far better digital images online before
that date using film scans from negatives and positives, not to mention
P&S and DSLR cameras.

And so was I, so put away your penis.

Provide the original 100% crops w/o JPG artifacts. *Or the original
camera files (taken in a reasonable quality mode), or original raw files.

Sorry, but the originals are jpegs.

They may be. *But the crops you provided have already gone through an
editor. *(Or at best were saved by a POS camera with high compression).

Said "POS camera" was identified by make & model. *Do your homework
instead of "Armchair Expert" vacuous speculation.

Actually it was the POS software and clueless user that rendered the
original test images useless and over compressed. Saved with Photoshop
level 4 which very roughly is like IJG Q=70 but with more artefacts on
the edge transitions due to their quirky quantisation tables.

The stuff above isn't worth my time or anyone else's.

Translation: *Alan couldn't fix the dynamic range problem, so he
contrives other reasons to complain.

Fixing the DR was nothing - merging the images cleanly was what I didn't
care to waste another minute on. *Once I saw the editor generated
artifacts in one of the files I stopped right there. *The images are
crap - nothing more.

Actually the single button "Fix my bad P&S photo" in PSPro does almost
as good a job as real HDR on those totally mangled by JPEG compression
pathetic images.

All very nice, but it would have been better had the illustration been
provided that showed that particular problem.


You cannot make a purse out of a sow's ear.

Absolutely true. But it nevertheless was "...the camera with you..."
paradigm.


-hh

On 2012-09-07 16:57:13 -0700, -hh said:

Alan Browne wrote:
hh- said:

But seriously, as I've already said, "best camera is the one you
have". *Perhaps you'll recall this crappy picture that you yourself
nevertheless chose to sha

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/10587153-lg.jpg

a) Not my camera
b) I didn't take it

I shared it for reasons not related to photography.

But it was still a 'crap' photo that was shared for a reason ...
ethically, no different than what I did.


And for that matter it is far better than the **** you posted!

Of course you ignored the samples I posted from 10 years ago.

Just as you've ignored other samples of mine.

So exactly how are we being any different? Oh, that's right: I'm the
one who actually offered up a real world example for people to
consider to work on...and showed my work.

BTW, I did locate the originals; here's a quick rework I did last
night...it isn't a final work, as I don't like at all how the texture
of the tower came out; perhaps I neglected to click on ghost
removal.

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ger...-tower_HDR.jpg

Oh good! Just post the originals and let us have at them.

....and I think your HDR issue is an image alignment one rather than
ghost removal, which is usually used for intruder movement within the
exposure bracket group. Something like a bird flying across as you take
the shots, rather than keeping the camera in position without a tripod.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012.09.07 19:57 , -hh wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
hh- said:

But seriously, as I've already said, "best camera is the one you
have". Perhaps you'll recall this crappy picture that you yourself
nevertheless chose to sha

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/10587153-lg.jpg

a) Not my camera
b) I didn't take it

I shared it for reasons not related to photography.

But it was still a 'crap' photo that was shared for a reason ...
ethically, no different than what I did.

I never asked all and sunder to fix it. And frankly for what it is I'm
very happy with it and don't expect a single other person to care about
it any way.



And for that matter it is far better than the **** you posted!

Of course you ignored the samples I posted from 10 years ago.

Just as you've ignored other samples of mine.

So exactly how are we being any different? Oh, that's right: I'm the
one who actually offered up a real world example for people to
consider to work on...and showed my work.

Well, showing my work, correctly exposed and well rendered (despite that
"2002" limited hardware certainly came out better (I do admit the winter
scene has a strong blown out area at the bottom).

BTW, I did locate the originals; here's a quick rework I did last
night...it isn't a final work, as I don't like at all how the texture
of the tower came out; perhaps I neglected to click on ghost
removal.

http://huntzinger.com/photo/2005/ger...-tower_HDR.jpg

Didn't even look. I wonder why.

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

On 2012.09.07 20:02 , -hh wrote:

Absolutely true. But it nevertheless was "...the camera with you..."
paradigm.

No, it was the badly shot photo paradigm.


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

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:29:51 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:02:02 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:43:47 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

I received an advert via e-mail that Elements 10 is $40 off.

Code is: ELEMENTSDEAL (online or call center).

US and Canada (except Quebec for reasons that escape me).

Sorry this is so late - just opened my mail;

That's nuthin!

I got an offer for CS 6 for $300!

Here, in New Zealand, I have to pay over $1000. :-(

I thought I had found a way to get CS6 via my daughter in Switzerland.
No good, that's still going to cost me about US$1000. You guys in the
US should stop complaining about the price. :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens