Home Products Download Order Contacts


Subject: Re: Photoshop CS support for new Pentax DS2

> promoting it as an open format. I read the comments of one developer who stated that Adobe was misleading the public, and that the DNG format was not a universal format as Adobe was trying to many people believe that it is.

I have heard those kinds of objections several times. But what is the compelling case in support of them? Do the critics ever say what, specifically, is not "universal" about the DNG format? Or what specifically Adobe says or does that can be accurately called "misleading"? (Do claims prove themselves simply by being stated aloud? Not bloody likely!)

> He even inferred that it was just another attempt by Adobe to corner the market.

Which market did he mean? The hugely lucrative market created as a consequence of someone's devising a free digital-negative format? Are we facing the dire and iminent threat of Adobe's becoming undeservedly wealthy by forcing us all to buy its digital-negative converter for the outrageous price of zero dollars? (What are we non-big-picture people missing, out here in the provinces?)

> Another problem is that the other developers seem to shy away from DNG because they fear that if they adopt it the way Adobe intends for it to be adopted that they are just helping Adobe and not themselves.

What specifically do they mean by "the way Adobe intends for it to be adopted"? Does anyone ever get down to cases about that?

The Orphaned File Format ogre is staring us in the face. Ok, so what alternatives are there? If there are some, are they "better"? If "yes" to that question: why are they better? If there's a good case to be made for some other approach, I'm sure willing to be persuaded. But what's the persuasive argument? Who's making it?

Sometimes I wonder if the animus directed at the DNG format (not the concept, but this specific format) doesn't arise from some critics' being just plain irritated that Adobe took action on its own -- took action without waiting for a note from its mom or for a resounding mandate from some consortium of standards-wonks in an ivory tower somewhere (and only after ten years of hand-wringing deliberations). O, how dare they not wait for permission? Shouldn't they have waited for the blessings of the Security Council and ISO certification? (Geez, they could have at least tried to get U.L.-listed or something.:-)

(Then I read Barry's reply. Ok, this point is well-taken: the whole business is under-documented. Maybe there's a very precise and detailed spec somewhere and I just haven't seen it. But the spec doc I looked over a couple of months ago looked sketchy and is arguably even a bit sloppy. A set of well documented APIs, an SDK, would surely go a long way toward dispelling the idea that the file format is "actually" a proprietary one masquerading as an open standard. And, whether it's incumbent upon Adobe itself to provide such a developer's kit is also arguable. If not Adobe -- then who would provide it? Making an SDK is plenty expensive, after all...and carefully crafted, detailed technical documentation isn't available on the cheap, either.)


View All Messages in adobe.photoshop.camera.raw

Photoshop CS support for new Pentax DS2 =>


Copyright 2006 WatermarkFactory.com. All Rights Reserved.