6 ms·

Ugh. Another article by someone with no background in the subject he's covering. 12-megapixel lenses eh? That's a lot of pixels for a lens. Professionals call "

Ugh. Another article by someone with no background in the subject he's covering. 12-megapixel lenses eh? That's a lot of pixels for a lens. Professionals call "digital negatives" DNGs, do they? I wonder what professionals call raw... I love the social commentary and analysis in the New Yorker but they should probably steer clear of tech.

gok 10y ago
DNG is literally short for Digital Negative.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  Yes but Malik still sounds like an idiot. A DNG is a specific file format that happens to mean digital negative, but he means RAW. DNG is a proprietary raw format from Adobe. And no we don't call our RAW files "digital negatives".
  - galago 10y ago
    I own both Canon and Nikon bodies and covert everything to DNG as a permanent storage format. Some cameras (Leica!) use DNG as their native format. If he's simplifying for the masses, its a simplification, but not much different from how I actually take photos.
    - 1_2__3 10y ago
      He's not simplifying, he's trying to sound like he understands the material better than he does.
  - erichocean 10y ago
    > DNG is a proprietary raw format That's misleading. DNG is patented by Adobe, but it's also an open, specified format, i.e. it's not "proprietary" in the sense of "can only be opened/used if you pay Adobe money or use/buy their products" which is what people are generally implying when they use the term "proprietary".[0] DNG is a lot like Adobe's PDF format: owned and managed by Adobe, but with an open specification than anyone can implement/use. They even offer a free license to the DNG "patent", should that deter anyone. That said, unlike PDF, it has not (yet) become an ISO standard, although Adobe has indicated that they would like to see that happen. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative
    - 1_2__3 10y ago
      It is a particular implementation of the RAW format, and specifically listed as "open, non-free". Which I would think most people would consider proprietary. I could be wrong though. Can I write and sell software that reads and writes DNG format without having to sign an agreement or pay Adobe money?
      - erichocean 10y ago
        > Can I write and sell software that reads and writes DNG format without having to sign an agreement or pay Adobe money? I believe the answer is: yes, you can. The DNG patent license is here: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html You do not need to "sign anything" or "pay Adobe money" to make use of it. It's no different (in terms of usage) than someone open sourcing API documentation with an Apache license (or whatever).
        comex 10y ago
        Looking at the patent license, it applies "solely to permit the reading and writing of image files that comply with the DNG Specification". So if you try to create a derivative/modified format based on DNG for whatever reason, the patent license won't apply since the new format would not comply with the specification. (Though that doesn't necessarily mean there's actually a patent threat - hard to say without research what actual patents Adobe owns that apply to the specification, and when they expire or expired.) Also, the specification document itself is not under an open copyright license, so the spec for the modified format would have to be written from scratch (though it could refer to the original). Not sure if there is much reason to fork the DNG spec in practice, but still the situation is fairly different from "open sourcing API documentation with an Apache license".
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        That seems fair though. When it comes to the DNG standard, you can use all this stuff freely. When it comes to another standard, make your own. I wouldn't call it proprietary.
- foobarbecue 10y ago
  I know that, but it's just one particular brand of raw image format. arw, cr2, crw etc. are also raw formats. I don't hear photographers ever speak of "shooting digital negative" -- you say "shooting raw."
w1ntermute 10y ago
The author, Om Malik[0], is a well-known technology blogger, not a social critic. He just happened to publish this piece in the New Yorker. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om_Malik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om_Malik
- TillE 10y ago
  Yeah he's definitely not a social commentator, but there's still a big problem if you're writing about digital cameras and you don't know the difference between a lens and a sensor.
- foobarbecue 10y ago
  Interesting. I overreacted. Still, there are some telling errors in this article. I admit I didn't read the whole thing, and my quick scan happened to hit the worst parts. Still, the article misses the main question -- are large sensors still required for high quality images?
  - gfody 10y ago
    I think large sensors are the only thing required for high quality images. Capture enough light data and we can do everything in software - no lenses. Focus on this this and that, Bokeh blur algorithm #5 here and there - voila.
    - dilemma 10y ago
      Lenses are needed to capture light.
      - joe5150 10y ago
        Coming soon, Sony's 40MP pinhole camera: "Trust us, the software is there...."
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        It'll work fine; you just need long exposure times. Of course, taking pictures of something in motion will be harder.
matwood 10y ago
The article is liberal with its language, but makes good points backed up by facts. The point and shoot market was killed by the smart phone. The camera market has become the smart phone and the DSLR. DSLRs may be safe for awhile because they provide advanced features that are hard to match in a phone sized device, but as a non-professional photographer I find myself reaching for my phone more often than my DSLR. I love using my DSLR, but I hate dealing with the workflow. If I take a picture with my DSLR I have to put the SD card in my computer, load up Lightroom, edit, export, and finally upload/share the picture.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Almost all DSLRs nowadays have wireless capabilities. Transfer it to your phone and do whatever you would have done otherwise.
  - whyenot 10y ago
    Most full frame DSLRs don't have wireless.
    - ekianjo 10y ago
      Buy a sd card withwifi like the flashair and you are good to go.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      "Almost all" might have been exaggerating...but I maintain wireless DSLRs are common. At the very least, the option is available enough that anyone that cares about it can have it. Random Google Search: of Techradar's top 10 list of full-frame DSLRs, 7 have Wi-Fi. http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-full-frame-dslr-8-cameras-from-canon-nikon-and-sony-compared-1133732 http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/came...
      - whyenot 10y ago
        The cameras on the list you linked to with built in wifi are the Nikon D750, Nikon D5, Pentax K-1, Canon 6D. That's 4/10, which is better than I expected, but still pretty poor.

gok 10y ago

DNG is literally short for Digital Negative.

1_2__3 10y ago
Yes but Malik still sounds like an idiot. A DNG is a specific file format that happens to mean digital negative, but he means RAW. DNG is a proprietary raw format from Adobe. And no we don't call our RAW files "digital negatives".
- galago 10y ago
  I own both Canon and Nikon bodies and covert everything to DNG as a permanent storage format. Some cameras (Leica!) use DNG as their native format. If he's simplifying for the masses, its a simplification, but not much different from how I actually take photos.
  - 1_2__3 10y ago
    He's not simplifying, he's trying to sound like he understands the material better than he does.
- erichocean 10y ago
  > DNG is a proprietary raw format That's misleading. DNG is patented by Adobe, but it's also an open, specified format, i.e. it's not "proprietary" in the sense of "can only be opened/used if you pay Adobe money or use/buy their products" which is what people are generally implying when they use the term "proprietary".[0] DNG is a lot like Adobe's PDF format: owned and managed by Adobe, but with an open specification than anyone can implement/use. They even offer a free license to the DNG "patent", should that deter anyone. That said, unlike PDF, it has not (yet) become an ISO standard, although Adobe has indicated that they would like to see that happen. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative
  - 1_2__3 10y ago
    It is a particular implementation of the RAW format, and specifically listed as "open, non-free". Which I would think most people would consider proprietary. I could be wrong though. Can I write and sell software that reads and writes DNG format without having to sign an agreement or pay Adobe money?
    - erichocean 10y ago
      > Can I write and sell software that reads and writes DNG format without having to sign an agreement or pay Adobe money? I believe the answer is: yes, you can. The DNG patent license is here: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html You do not need to "sign anything" or "pay Adobe money" to make use of it. It's no different (in terms of usage) than someone open sourcing API documentation with an Apache license (or whatever).
      - comex 10y ago
        Looking at the patent license, it applies "solely to permit the reading and writing of image files that comply with the DNG Specification". So if you try to create a derivative/modified format based on DNG for whatever reason, the patent license won't apply since the new format would not comply with the specification. (Though that doesn't necessarily mean there's actually a patent threat - hard to say without research what actual patents Adobe owns that apply to the specification, and when they expire or expired.) Also, the specification document itself is not under an open copyright license, so the spec for the modified format would have to be written from scratch (though it could refer to the original). Not sure if there is much reason to fork the DNG spec in practice, but still the situation is fairly different from "open sourcing API documentation with an Apache license".
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        That seems fair though. When it comes to the DNG standard, you can use all this stuff freely. When it comes to another standard, make your own. I wouldn't call it proprietary.
foobarbecue 10y ago
I know that, but it's just one particular brand of raw image format. arw, cr2, crw etc. are also raw formats. I don't hear photographers ever speak of "shooting digital negative" -- you say "shooting raw."

w1ntermute 10y ago

The author, Om Malik[0], is a well-known technology blogger, not a social critic. He just happened to publish this piece in the New Yorker. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om_Malik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om_Malik

TillE 10y ago
Yeah he's definitely not a social commentator, but there's still a big problem if you're writing about digital cameras and you don't know the difference between a lens and a sensor.
foobarbecue 10y ago
Interesting. I overreacted. Still, there are some telling errors in this article. I admit I didn't read the whole thing, and my quick scan happened to hit the worst parts. Still, the article misses the main question -- are large sensors still required for high quality images?
- gfody 10y ago
  I think large sensors are the only thing required for high quality images. Capture enough light data and we can do everything in software - no lenses. Focus on this this and that, Bokeh blur algorithm #5 here and there - voila.
  - dilemma 10y ago
    Lenses are needed to capture light.
    - joe5150 10y ago
      Coming soon, Sony's 40MP pinhole camera: "Trust us, the software is there...."
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        It'll work fine; you just need long exposure times. Of course, taking pictures of something in motion will be harder.

matwood 10y ago

The article is liberal with its language, but makes good points backed up by facts. The point and shoot market was killed by the smart phone. The camera market has become the smart phone and the DSLR. DSLRs may be safe for awhile because they provide advanced features that are hard to match in a phone sized device, but as a non-professional photographer I find myself reaching for my phone more often than my DSLR. I love using my DSLR, but I hate dealing with the workflow. If I take a picture with my DSLR I have to put the SD card in my computer, load up Lightroom, edit, export, and finally upload/share the picture.

paulddraper 10y ago
Almost all DSLRs nowadays have wireless capabilities. Transfer it to your phone and do whatever you would have done otherwise.
- whyenot 10y ago
  Most full frame DSLRs don't have wireless.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    Buy a sd card withwifi like the flashair and you are good to go.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    "Almost all" might have been exaggerating...but I maintain wireless DSLRs are common. At the very least, the option is available enough that anyone that cares about it can have it. Random Google Search: of Techradar's top 10 list of full-frame DSLRs, 7 have Wi-Fi. http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/best-full-frame-dslr-8-cameras-from-canon-nikon-and-sony-compared-1133732 http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/came...
    - whyenot 10y ago
      The cameras on the list you linked to with built in wifi are the Nikon D750, Nikon D5, Pentax K-1, Canon 6D. That's 4/10, which is better than I expected, but still pretty poor.