You two must realize how idiotic this conversation makes both of you look.
It's like someone is e-mailing me the worst parts of Usenet.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Life in the Raw
Date: Mon May 1, 2006 3:52 pm
Size: 2K
To: pentax
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds
Subject: Re: Life in the Raw
You two must realize how idiotic this conversation makes both of you look.
It's like someone is e-mailing me the worst parts of Usenet.
Glad it's not just me. This conversation seems to come up more often than
.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Life in the Raw
Date: Mon May 1, 2006 3:52 pm
Size: 2K
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On May 1, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
As long as we're being precise, I'll just clarify
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
You two must realize how idiotic this conversation makes both of you look.
It's like someone is e-mailing me the worst parts of Usenet.
My OS is better than your OS! :-P
--
Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net
Christian wrote:
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
You two must realize how idiotic this conversation makes both of you
look. It's like someone is e-mailing me the worst parts of Usenet.
My OS is better than your OS! :-P
IS NOT! :o
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream
Say hi to Bill for me while you're there.
If you can't keep up, just delete.
G
On May 2, 2006, at 5:37 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
You two must realize how idiotic this conversation makes both of
you look. It's like someone is e-mailing me the worst parts of
Usenet.
On May 2, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Say hi to Bill for me while you're there.
If you can't keep up, just delete.
You guys were arguing terminology and semantics, when BOTH of you knew
exactly what the other person meant. You were being jackasses, and
consequently you
On May 2, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
You guys were arguing terminology and semantics, when BOTH of you
knew exactly what the other person meant. You were being
jackasses, and consequently you looked like jackasses. You can see
what posts I am referring to in my message.
-Original Message-
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Life in the Raw
Date: Tue May 2, 2006 3:37 pm
Size: 731 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On May 2, 2006, at 12:20 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
You guys were arguing terminology and semantics, when BOTH of you
knew exactly
Whether such discussion is your interest or not is irrelevant, as is your
opinion of the dialogue. The dialogue is over so pursuing this as some
important controversy seems to reflect more on the person making such
assignations than it does on the participants in the dialogue.
In a message dated 5/2/2006 12:40:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Whether such discussion is your interest or not is irrelevant, as is
your opinion of the dialogue. The dialogue is over so pursuing this
as some important controversy seems to reflect more on the person
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Don Williams wrote:
Sorry, I didn't remember about Cory's disability. But every every time
I start toying with the idea of re-installing Red Hat something like this
happens to set me right. I love Microsoft -- I don't think. The server can
run Linux via a dual boot system,
On 1 May 2006 at 9:21, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I bypassed the Winders world altogether and moved exclusively to
Linux. Windows sucks so bad in ideology, performance, stability,
useability, and cost that I cannot fathom why so many people still use it.
Just about EVERYONE I know who
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: Life in the Raw
I'm sure your report is accurate, but amongst photographers you'll find
the
late Windows platforms to be both utilitarian, stable and capable of
running
the current state of the art imaging software and colour
I suspect we have returned to the which is better: hammer or
screwdriver? argument.
-Aaron
On May 1, 2006, at 9:47 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 1 May 2006 at 9:21, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I bypassed the Winders world altogether and moved exclusively to
Linux. Windows sucks so bad in
Well, XP is a fairly decent OS. Bloated as hell, mind you,but that
applies to most Linux distributiions too. It hardly ever crashes. Of
course if you do not know how to tame it Redmond keeps changing it with
those nasty automatic updates. One a couple of months ago changed the
look and feel on
On 1 May 2006 at 9:52, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
I suspect we have returned to the which is better: hammer or
screwdriver? argument.
At least we aren't talking about hockey.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 5/1/2006 7:06:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, XP is a fairly decent OS. Bloated as hell, mind you,but that
applies to most Linux distributiions too. It hardly ever crashes. Of
course if you do not know how to tame it Redmond keeps changing it with
First off, the original capture file is the source ... How could you extract
more metadata in the process of converting from PEF to DNG?
I'm referring to the closed-nature of some of the metadata in the
EXIF of the RAW file. Of course there's no more data (other than
whatever the DNG
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Don Williams wrote:
Sorry, I didn't remember about Cory's disability. But every every time
I start toying with the idea of re-installing Red Hat something like this
happens to set me right. I love Microsoft -- I don't think. The server
can
run Linux
On May 1, 2006, at 6:10 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
First off, the original capture file is the source ... How could
you extract more metadata in the process of converting from PEF
to DNG?
I'm referring to the closed-nature of some of the metadata in the
EXIF of the RAW file. Of course
On Mon, 1 May 2006, graywolf wrote:
Well, XP is a fairly decent OS. Bloated as hell, mind you,but that applies to
most Linux distributiions too. It hardly ever crashes. Of course if you do
not know how to tame it Redmond keeps changing it with those nasty automatic
updates. One a couple of
Unfortunately, given the state of colour management and image editing
software on Linux, it's simply not viable for anything beyond basic editing.
Sadly true, but it is getting better. Cinepaint works pretty well
for maintaining color-managed workflow. The lprof folks have been working
on
Here we go, it looks like the Crusades are starting again.
William Robb
Lemme see if I can stop what I started:
MacOS-X: Elegant interface, solid OS, seamless applications for
photography and many other things. High hardware cost.
Winders: Adequate interface, stability,
To convert a DNG file without the embedded original RAW format back to the
original RAW format file runs counter to the purpose of creating a standard
format that contains RAW file data. It could be done, I'm sure, if it were
deemed important ... after all, the DNG Converter had to have the
On May 1, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
To convert a DNG file without the embedded original RAW format
back to the original RAW format file runs counter to the purpose
of creating a standard format that contains RAW file data. It
could be done, I'm sure, if it were deemed
LOL ... Stopping this sort of thing is much much harder than starting
it. :-)
I do like how your summation of operating system attributes only
refers to hardware costs in one case.
I didn't know that hardware was a part of the OS. ];-)
Godfrey
On May 1, 2006, at 8:59 AM, Cory Papenfuss
On Mon, 1 May 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
LOL ... Stopping this sort of thing is much much harder than starting it. :-)
I do like how your summation of operating system attributes only refers to
hardware costs in one case.
I didn't know that hardware was a part of the OS. ];-)
Godfrey
Could we just fuck off with this shit.
No one except a few pompous assholes gives a rats ass about it.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Cory Papenfuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Life in the Raw
On Mon, 1 May
On May 1, 2006, at 10:36 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I didn't know that hardware was a part of the OS. ];-)
For MacOS it is pretty much by definition. Aside from recent
hacking endeavors WRT MacOS-X-intel on non-macs, the history has
required purchasing Macintosh hardware to run MacOS.
I
I think you're playing semantics with the definition of lossless.
Me? A semantic argument? Surely you jest... (and don't call me
Shirley... :)
If you
apply a transformation to data, the transformation is considered lossless if
none of the data is lost. A transformation from PEF to DNG
Far be it from me you to argue the issue with you, but...
XP is actually quite customizable but the learning curve is even steeper
than for Unix. I have a 1298 page book* here by my side that has most of
that information in it.
*Windows XP Inside and Out, 2nd ed; by Bott, Siechert, and
For MacOS it is pretty much by definition. Aside from recent hacking
endeavors WRT MacOS-X-intel on non-macs, the history has required
purchasing Macintosh hardware to run MacOS.
I presume you mean purchasing Apple hardware. Mac OS runs on Apple
hardware, not Macintosh hardware. Yes, it's
I like the Could we... bit best - keeps it polite, you know.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 May 2006 19:32
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Life in the Raw
Could we just fuck off with this shit.
No one except
On May 1, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
As long as we're being precise, I'll just clarify that the [Apple]
adjective was missing from my description. A Macintosh is by
definition an Apple product, but MacOSX doesn't run in an iPod or
Apple II... only on a Macintosh.
Fun
On 1/5/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
I'd rather not waste
bandwidth.
Mark!!!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/05/01 Mon PM 06:32:02 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Life in the Raw
Could we just fuck off with this shit.
No one except a few pompous assholes gives a rats ass about it.
William Robb
That's raw enough for me
Semantically:
Apple hardware is a generic term. Apple II, iPod, etc are specific products,
as is Macintosh. Apple II, iPod, Macintosh, Macintosh Plus, Power Macintosh
G5, etc are all examples of Apple products which fall under the generic term
Apple hardware. Not all Apple hardware is the
Subject: Re: Life in the Raw
On Mon, 1 May 2006, graywolf wrote:
Well, XP is a fairly decent OS. Bloated as hell, mind you,but that
applies to most Linux distributiions too. It hardly ever crashes. Of
course if you do not know how to tame it Redmond keeps changing it
with those nasty automatic
Don't hold back Bill, tell us what you really think.
LOL
Dave S
On 5/2/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could we just fuck off with this shit.
No one except a few pompous assholes gives a rats ass about it.
William Robb
I'm a little confused by these posts. I have been converting Pentax
RAW files from the D to .DNG files using Adobe Digital Negative
Converter. It works and doesn't take too long to do the job. Now
I have a storage problem -- again.
Don
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Apr 28, 2006, at 1:03 PM, Cory
Don,
The issue for Cory is that he runs a Linux system, and DNG Converter
is only available on Mac OS X and Windows.
Godfrey
On Apr 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Don Williams wrote:
I'm a little confused by these posts. I have been converting Pentax
RAW files from the D to .DNG files using Adobe
Sorry, I didn't remember about Cory's disability. But every every time
I start toying with the idea of re-installing Red Hat something like this
happens to set me right. I love Microsoft -- I don't think. The server can
run Linux via a dual boot system, but I have it running XP Pro at the
moment.
Hi!
The results of the first ever worldwide survey of raw format users goes
online this week - and the vast majority of them express deep concern about
the lack of open standards.
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=326410
This is very interesting article.
*Without desire to
On Apr 27, 2006, at 8:30 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Shel Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO, it's an important issue, and the survey, regardless of the bias,
may/could be a starting point for deeper and more valid
discussions, as
well as a possible impetus
I just reread your comments Kevin. I can't get into all the legal fluff
you're tossing about as I've never read the agreements you've mentioned.
However, you seem to have a misunderstanding about DNG. One doesn't
convert ~from~ DNG to PEF and other raw formats. Rather, one converts ~to~
DNG
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:30:26PM +1000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
Along with this software manufactures will need to support
DNG also. But its an open standard so what is the problem? well, the license
from
Adobe stipulates..
Adobe may revoke the rights granted above to any individual or
I agree that the proprietary formats are a bad thing for the
photographer and photography in general.
I'm a big fan of DNG and convert my raw files immediately.
I'm a big fan of having an open-raw format, but I have yet to see
a way that DNG benefits me. There is no open-source converter,
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
A natural considering that the survey was conceived and written by
the folks manning the desk at OpenRaw.org. I found the survey
questions somewhat biased to a conclusion.
I agree. I did participate in the survey, but I was quite disappointed
in the leading nature of
On Apr 28, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I agree that the proprietary formats are a bad thing for the
photographer and photography in general.
I'm a big fan of DNG and convert my raw files immediately.
I'm a big fan of having an open-raw format, but I have yet to see
a way that
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: Life in the Raw
That survey was designed specifically to produce the results it got
(Note, I participated, giving answers opposed to how the questions
led). I've never seen a survey with such leading questions
On Apr 28, 2006, at 5:18 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I agree that the proprietary formats are a bad thing for the
photographer and photography in general.
I'm a big fan of DNG and convert my raw files immediately.
I'm a big fan of having an open-raw format, but I have yet to see
a way that
On Apr 28, 2006, at 7:01 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
That survey was designed specifically to produce the results it
got (Note, I participated, giving answers opposed to how the
questions led). I've never seen a survey with such leading
questions and answers. Pure propoganda from the OpenRAW
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:18:15AM -0400, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I agree that the proprietary formats are a bad thing for the
photographer and photography in general.
I'm a big fan of DNG and convert my raw files immediately.
I'm a big fan of having an open-raw format, but I have yet
On Apr 28, 2006, at 9:25 AM, John Francis wrote:
I'm a big fan of having an open-raw format, but I have yet to see
a way that DNG benefits me. There is no open-source converter . . .
Nor, apparently, is there much interest in one. I established a
sourceforge project to produce one of these
I was under the impression that the current version of dcraw had been updated
to handle DNGs. Is that not so?
Yes, it supposedly handles DNG's. I'm talking about the
conversion from a PEF *TO* a DNG. There is no utility (that I've found)
that will do it. Besides, unless there's more
On Apr 28, 2006, at 1:03 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I was under the impression that the current version of dcraw had
been updated to handle DNGs. Is that not so?
Yes, it supposedly handles DNG's. I'm talking about the conversion
from a PEF *TO* a DNG. There is no utility (that I've
That survey was designed specifically to produce the results it got
(Note, I participated, giving answers opposed to how the questions led).
I've never seen a survey with such leading questions and answers. Pure
propoganda from the OpenRAW people, again.
-Adam
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The
A natural considering that the survey was conceived and written by
the folks manning the desk at OpenRaw.org. I found the survey
questions somewhat biased to a conclusion.
Godfrey
On Apr 27, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The results of the first ever worldwide survey of raw
I have heard that there was a bias in the survey, but it still seemed like
a good idea to post the link. Perhaps some discussion will ensue here as a
result, or, when the survey results are posted later in the week, people
will be aware of it and may read comments at the OpenRaw site.
IMO, it's
I didn't mean to sound critical of your post Shel.
I agree that the proprietary formats are a bad thing for the
photographer and photography in general.
I'm a big fan of DNG and convert my raw files immediately.
There's a couple of reasons. First of all, with Adobe's clout, I
think DNG will
This one time, at band camp, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO, it's an important issue, and the survey, regardless of the bias,
may/could be a starting point for deeper and more valid discussions, as
well as a possible impetus for changes.
I agree that is is most important, the
On April 18, Thomas Knoll released a DNG SDK (Software Developer's Kit).
Being ignorant of the subtleties of such things, I cannot say for sure that
this accomplishes what you requested, but I think it does.
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/dng/dng_sdk.html
Shel
[Original Message]
I didn't see your post on the list, George, nor do I see it in the archives.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: George Sinos
I didn't mean to sound critical of your post Shel.
I agree that the proprietary formats are a bad thing for the
photographer and photography in general.
I'm a big
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: Life in the Raw
That survey was designed specifically to produce the results it got (Note,
I participated, giving answers opposed to how the questions led). I've
never seen a survey with such leading questions and answers. Pure
65 matches
Mail list logo
