Google| Subject | Re: post processing |
| From | Rikishi42 |
| Date | 2014-03-14 19:42 (2014-03-14 19:42) |
| Message-ID | <p4vbva-7mt.ln1@murmur.very.softly> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
On 2014-03-14, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanI didn't know that format, so I read up on it. The basic idea is very good: use a subset of a easy and well defined format such as tiff, and add some meta-data to store photo-specific image information.
In article <bv1ava-hks.ln1@murmur.very.softly>, Rikishi42 wrote:Rikishi42YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlleNige Danton
If it matters I'm shooting with a Nikon D7000 and an 18-105 lens. I shoot in RAW and jpg.
Raw developpement for Nikon is at its best with Capture NX 2 (because Nikon raws are non-standard)
Non-standard RAW's? But that implies there would be standard RAW files.Where are they defined and since when ????Sandman
Adobe is pushing for manufacturers to use DNG as a standard RAW format. They've been doing that since 2003, but few have adopted it.
Mistake: to have allowed various meta-data formats. They should have gone with one, full stop. Pick a format, help evolve it within the organisation that maintains it and keep it simple.
Any time you allow variations in a file format, different sources will produce different outputs. Not standard, not clean, not good.
Notably Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica have adopted it, but missing are the big ones; Nikon (NEF), Canon (CRW), Sony (ARW), Panasonic (RW2), Fuji (RAF) and Olympus (ORF).It "easier" (but not really) to use one's own format instead of following even a very simple and clean standard. Save's a knuckle-dragger the pain of learning to read, I guess.
(These manufacturers have used several different RAW format extensions, but I think the above are the current/common ones for each).
-- When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson
2014-03-13-
-
-
