BTW, that also works for JPEGs if you set it that way. Not the ideal file type, I know, but it can help a lot if JPEG is all you have and you need to adjust it.Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
BTW, that also works for JPEGs if you set it that way. Not the ideal file type, I know, but it can help a lot if JPEG is all you have and you need to adjust it.
Apple and Adobe have a long and interesting history. They can't live without each other and they can't quite get along either, so they usually go through ups and downs in their relationship.
It seems to be a down right now, but that'll change, as it always does. Simply because Apple can't seriously exist without but at the same time it remains THE professional platform of choice for the majority of Adobe's apps.
They both act like bullies in the playground at times. Adobe got into it with Nikon over Nikon only releasing there camera code in an sdk, To this day, most other raw converters do better with a NEF file than CS3/Lightroom. Adobe refuses to use Nikon data, "not invented here" is there motto at times.
bob
True, but I do think Nikon deserved it. They tried to bully their users into exclusivity so that they could gauge them for inferior proprietary software and when that didn't work, they tried to bully software vendors into using - and paying royalties for - the same garbage. I believe it was "only" about keeping white balance data proprietary or something along those lines. Well, if they wanted to deny Adobe what no other camera mfg did, why wouldn't Adobe ignore them?
Both Apple and Adobe have become design marketplace icons and you don't become that in a free market by playing nice, do you? It just so happens that Nikon is not as big an icon as Adobe.
Nikon got the brunt of it, but all the others do the same. Nikon rolled over and made the sdk free as I understand. Adobe was trying to force the png file on everyone at the time. No saints here.True, but I do think Nikon deserved it. They tried to bully their users into exclusivity so that they could gauge them for inferior proprietary software and when that didn't work, they tried to bully software vendors into using - and paying royalties for - the same garbage. I believe it was "only" about keeping white balance data proprietary or something along those lines. Well, if they wanted to deny Adobe what no other camera mfg did, why wouldn't Adobe ignore them?
Both Apple and Adobe have become design marketplace icons and you don't become that in a free market by playing nice, do you? It just so happens that Nikon is not as big an icon as Adobe.
Playing nice in the corporate world is rare, I agree.
Bob
Made my heart sink. I've been trying my best to make the switch to Macs to get away from the kludge that is Vista. But I also need to get access to more memory to work on these big image files. It's like they just dropped a brick on my foot. It won't kill me but it sure does make me uncomfortable. Thanks a lot Apple. Guess I don't really have a reason to buy that Mac after all.
Bruce Watson
It's not about the SDK, it is about the data. Nikon was the only mfg (aside from Sony, of course) to encrypt their white balance data or otherwise protect the file structure in an attempt to force everybody to use their SDK. That way, Nikon would control your access to your own RAW images, now or in the future. Not even Canon did that.
The other problem with that is that camera manufacturers are good at producing cameras, that's their job. Software is not and they suck at it, to put it diplomatically. They should make their data structure open and leave it to software manufacturers such as Adobe to support their cameras. They can only profit from that, because the images produced by their cameras are only going to look better that way, and by extension, so will their cameras.
Such a state of mind is no surprise with Sony, they produce consumer electronics, it is normal for them to think that way. But Nikon is a camera producer first and foremost, always was. They never tied their cameras to particular type of film or lab in the past, I see no reason why they should be doing that now.
And yes, I agree that Adobe was trying to force png on everybody. They definitely have their interest in it, just like they do with pdf. But I also think a universal, open image file standard would be beneficial for everybody, just like pdf is now.
Bruce, no reason to loose heart, Apple will eventually come around, as they always do. Sure you have a reason to buy that Mac. A huge reason - have you tried Vista yet?
i remember the hot debate on Luminous landscapes. Didn't really have a dog in the hunt, but the two sides really wailed on each other. I'm talking about devotees of Adobe and Nikon.
I believe I saw a bit of misinformation being passed around. To me it came down to two points,
Many were concerned that putting Adobe in charge with the .png approach would dumb down all the manufactures to producing an homogenized product. Probably not true, but that was a fear.
The manufactures do know there sensors very well and attempt to optimize. I know the NIK developed product, Capture NX produces wonderful output, just think U-Point is an amazing product, but the workflow is sooo badd, I only use it for special images. I am told the Canon product does the same with canon images.
Then there is the intellectual product consideration from Nikon's part. They spent $$ to development their sensors/systems/software, I suppose they would expect some return. In todays world, I think we all agree, the manufactures are more than they were in the film days. But they appear be totally unable to lock anyone out. Reverse engineering is alive and well today.
I really believe Adobe played politics with issue. Nikon didn't have a chance. But then .png isn't catching on like wildfire.
Anyway enough, this is a large Format forum.
To the original point, I think it's disingenuous for Adobe to release a less attractive version of there premier photo editing product for Mac. I am in the 3D/video world and use the entire production suite, each employee has the choice of platform, 80% choose mac. I hope this doesn't extend to the entire product line. I do have alternates.
They knew this day was coming for years and elected not to plan properly. They may be pissed about Aperture intruding on their turf.
oh well,
Bob
The problem with changing pixels globally rather than locally in a protected layer should be apparent, that is trying to adjust an entire image might in fact destroy valuable data in some portion or element of the image. In some images this may be fine but in terms of control I treat each image element/section independently.
Why would one sharpen first? What is meant by neutralization?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks