Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Luis, I would tend to agree with you that Nikon has been somewhat unfairly targeted for not revealing everything about the software running in the background, they have spent a lot of money coming up with ways to make their images better. I think part of the anger was that Nikon charges their customers for access and that the customers could not access the RAW data effectively any other way. With the sharing with Adobe some of that anger has been tempered. I for one would not purchase a camera that made me spend more money on software to fully utilise that camera; the RAW converter should be included in the price of the camera. I understand the arguments that not everyone shoots RAW so the cost should be borne by the users, but it just doesn't wash when there is no other lossless format available in camera. Again, RAW files are the negative and if there is a proprietary program required to properly utilise the files then I don't especially want to play. I understand that Canon has not supported some of their original RAW files so early users who were casual about saving software are screwed, on this I might have faulty memory. Don't get me wrong, this is a real problem for the small format shooter with huge files of negatives and slides. You can buy scanners and enlargers today, and the programs to run them will work with the next generation of OS in most cases but I don't think that ten years out scanners especially will be very common or available. It will probably take twenty years for enough enlargers to be thrown out for them to become scarce. Don don.dory@gmail.com On 9/17/06, Luis Miguel Casta?eda <lmc@interlink.es> wrote: > > > On 17/09/2006, at 14:47, Don Dory wrote: > > > Adobe is the 800 kilo gorilla and if enough organisations would > > quit trying > > to reinvent the wheel and work within the open standard then their > > development costs would go down and we all would have a file system > > that is > > portable. > > True, someone had to start with the first step and they were the > right ones to do it, just missed an open discussion with many voices. > Perhaps it will happen for the next revision. > > > As to Adobe, so far they have been wonderful in dealing with old > > files in > > the context of their upgrades. $150 every two years or so is not > > such a bad > > price to pay for the improved tools that show up with every upgrade. > > yeah, they're fair enough in that way, among others, but it's not bad > to count with the rest if you want to reinforce your positions. As I > said before I wasn't charging against Adobe that I know since their > very initial releases or making an apology of propietary formats, > more likely I was understanding Nikon's posture. > > > > Saludos > ----------------------------------------- > http://imaginarymagnitude.net/blog/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >