Add new comment

> The rendering tools will

> The rendering tools will inevitably use differing sub-components.
> The only way to stop that s to forbid progress in rendering tools.

Once again you are trying to pass on the issue at hand. Problem is not what we want to do, but what DNG forces us to do - to ignore the contained information to assure normal processing.

> The DNG spec has been submitted to the ISO for consideration,
> so there is some discussion happening there, I assume.

Thank you to be so opened about the nature of that discussion. It sounds especially unusual given it comes from a person who founded the Digital Standards and Practices Committee with the American Society of Media Photographers.

> I can tell you that Adobe is most interested in speaking to people who are
> at least willing to acknowledge the good work they have already done

You seem not to realize that Adobe are not the only party here to decide. Somehow I doubt that you gave here an accurate profile to Adobe, too; and that you really understand that it is not just about Adobe doing good job with their applications, but about the future of our archives, and the quality of our conversions being on par to the money invested into the lenses and cameras and studios etc, all other things being equal. If only Adobe ACR/LR would be the best converter in the world, DNG might look much more attractive. But it is not.

> Camera Manufacturers unwillingness to support DNG is a political issue,
> not a technical one

Please try to support your statement with some evidence.

> As to usable, DNGs can be read by most Adobe products, Capture 1, Bibble 5,
> Lightzone, Apple on system level, and Windows on a system level,
> and nearly all DAM products.

To read is not everything. There are at least two questions here, firstly, is the rendition in third-party raw converters based solely on DNG data fields; and secondly, how different that rendition is when compared to the rendition from the original raw data.

> I am curious as to who exactly "we" is.

Once again in your own words - we like people who have done their homework first.

I remember well your writing from the past, September 2005: "While DNG is not guaranteed to be around forever it has a better chance than any particular individual camera format currently available". You continue than: "As more photographers see its benefits, the number of DNG files in existence will dwarf any other single format." That is, you were acknowledging that DNG can go to oblivion yet suggesting to use it as widely as possible. Sound logic and good advice.

Iliah Borg