TAKO. INTERNET SEIT 1996.
Olympus-OM

Re: [OM] Converters Are Us

Subject: Re: [OM] Converters Are Us
From: Bill Pearce <billpearce@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 13:32:41 -0500 (EST)
You may be missing the point a bit, or maybe it's me. First, I never ever 
replace original RAW files. If I manipulate them, I save them as something 
else. Often I save them as a PSD file. That format makes for slightly smaller 
files and allows you to go back a few steps in the future. It's not meant to be 
an alternative to RAW files. 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 1:21:06 AM 
Subject: Re: [OM] Converters Are Us 

80" Moose wrote: 
> Huh??? Just checking if I'm awake? LR will move in your images and save them 
> in its way - BUT ONLY IF YOU WANT. (Don' know nuthin' 'bout C1 AM.) 

You are correct. I have LR configured to do it that way. It does build 
all the previews and creates a folder with a database (and previews, 
etc), but leaves the raw files all tucked away safe and sound in a 
standard directory structure (mine is organized by date) 


> Confuseamoose. Are you referring to DNG, a Raw format, and/or to PSD, a 
> processed image format? C1 does both; DxO doesn't do PSD. 

Actually, both. There is no reason to convert perfectly good camera 
raw files to DNG. However, that might be a consideration for the 
Panasonic L1 files if it really is true if I can convert them to DNG 
and they magically become possible to be converted in C1 or DXO. 
Right? Isn't that the magic of DNG? 


> With DxO, yes; C1 does the whole Keyword thing. One may also import LR 
> catalogs. 

I've been working with these systems this evening. I've come to the 
conclusion that I'd rather turn Amish than have to use either DXO or 
SILKYPIX as my primary axe. Both are good as part of a software 
football team, but they aren't the quarterback. 


> Have they given any actual indication of that? Unjustified paranoia? Tina 
> isn't the only pro with a HUGE LR catalog. 

Whenever a company has labelled anything "classic", it's a sign that 
it's internally been slated for EOL (end of life). I can't think of a 
single exception. Well, other than "Classic Coke", but even that was 
intended to be replaced by "New Coke". I've been following this on the 
various pro photography fora, and these concerns are real. Luminar 
could possibly be the big winner in all this. 


> I'm wondering whether the whole thing may not be an effort to gain traction 
> in the mobile/cloud market. If they just added cloud capabilities to LR, it 
> creates no "noise", where a new version does. 

I don't disagree. But just as Coca Cola messed up with "New Coke", 
Microsoft killed off FSX for Flight, and Netflix almost died with 
Qwikster, Adobe runs the risk of jumping the shark here. 


> Later, they could just integrate the two image sources/storage platforms. 
> The only difference seems so far to be where image files reside? 

Ultimately, I think that might be where they end up with the merged 
product. How they handle image file storage is the question. It would 
be really disconcerting for Adobe to hold your entire library of 
images hostage in THEIR cloud. Adobe has adopted the SAAS business 
model, which puts us with our data at risk of portability 


> Ah well, from here, the whole editing experience seems extremely stupid. :-) 

To each his/her own. 

AG Schnozz 
-- 
_________________________________________________________________ 
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus 
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/ 
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/ 


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>