New editors, new noun

I'm trying to come up with a name for programs like Lightroom, Aperture, LightZone and Capture NX that use instructions to process images. We've referred to programs like Photoshop as bitmap editors, but there's no agreed name for this new field.

Peter Krogh has referred to the field as "Metadata Imaging" and this seems snappy, but calling individual programs "Metadata Image Editors" doesn't do it for me. He also tried to start a debate and wrote of "metadata-based-editing" and of programs as being SISI, short for saved-instruction-set imaging.

But what's the noun? Calling them sissies isn't macho enough and while I tend to think of them as "stored instruction set editors", I always feel happier with 3 letter acronyms too. So one I just came up with was Metadata Driven Editors - MDE's - and I rather like it despite dropping the "Imaging".

Any views on these? Any more to throw into the mix?

John

I like your entry a lot, John. It appeals to my imagination.

They are still image editors; I usually call them non-destructive image editors. In German I just contrast them to 'Pixelschieber', pixel shovers, without giving them a specific name.

Correctors would be good, since that is the underlying concept of these programs, while Photoshop et al. are compositors.

The problem I have with "non-destructive" is that I don't recall destroying any raw files with Photoshop. At Aperture's launch last year I had great fun with some Apple bods explaining that point! It's as much marketing spin as saying Photoshop isn't for photographers.

But that's a great idea, use a German name for it - Metadataangetriebtfotoprozessierungsysteme? Now isn't that catchy (hope it's vaguely German too)

John

(stopping the rant before it gathered speed)

Never used Photoshop, but have destroyed data from quite a few files with Adobe PhotoDeluxe that came bundled with my 1998 KodakDC210 software.

And was too ignorant to know that, until I got in PM conversation with Asher.

Irfanview has lost some data for me, too. But, I'm totally OT--that's jpeg--and I've never used RAW, nor do I have a RAW-capable camera.

I've just only watched from afar Dierk's accounts of it at various websites, and the accounts of others using it, posted on the web.

The way people use the English language today, and especially in webspeak, an acronym does look like a good way to go.

I liked Dierk's juxtaposition of compositors over against correctors.

If only there were a way to have less Latin-based terms.

Shutting up before I get kicked out. <she said with a scared smile>

John Beardsworth said:

It's as much marketing spin as saying Photoshop isn't for photographers.

Click to expand...

Well, PS wasn't created for photographers, and even Adobe admits that it is driven by and (still) targeted at graphic designers. Does not mean photographers aren't able to make good use of it.

Your German wasn't bad, actually a really good joke on our languages ability for composites - bringing us back to my proposal:

- Compositor for Photoshop
- Corrector for LightZone

Well, not sure about all the history here, but then the Knolls never sold it as Barneyscan for manipulating scans of photographs and never introduced tools such as dodge and burn tools whose icons don't really look like things their Dad used in his darkroom....

It may not have been designed for photographers who shoot hundred of slides and whose post processing was limited to clip tests before the lab processed the rest, but it was certainly designed for the darkroom photographer who worked on single images. The marketing spin's also convenient for those who never really got the hang of Photoshop. That sounds like an exam question, so I'll add "Discuss".

Wasn't sure if "driven" as in "gefahren" would imply not just movement but propelled or powered. I guess one could come up with a software variation of the Heaven and Hell joke here (Swiss bank manager, German engineer, Italian cook, Italian lover, English... not sure what there) - so Software Hell would have to include German compound product names.

John

Mary Bull said:

If only there were a way to have less Latin-based terms.

Click to expand...

My favourite quote: "A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details." - George Orwell (Politics and the English Language)

John

Lovely quote from a lovely author.

Here if you're interested in its context.

John

Thanks. I'm off to order the book, if it's in print.

Words

John Beardsworth said:

I'm trying to come up with a name for programs like Lightroom, Aperture, LightZone and Capture NX that use instructions to process images. We've referred to programs like Photoshop as bitmap editors, but there's no agreed name for this new field.

Any views on these? Any more to throw into the mix?

John

Click to expand...

Anything wrong with the old word? To me these programs are developers in that they develop something useful out of something that only has potential. The program that I use the most in this category is in fact called.....Raw Developer (from Iridient Digital), but ACR, Lightzone, Aperture etc all work the same magic.

Photoshop I use more as a tool to correct blemishes and to retouch. I'm happy thinking of this as a bitmap editor.

However, I suspect that the need for a name will be swamped by the increasing ambitions of these programs. As they get more sophisticated they overlap more and more. I find that many simple images are now complete coming out of my raw conversion process. In the other direction, for complex images, I take a file through Raw Developer, then Lightzone RT and then Photoshop. Even if there is a technical difference between these products and the way that they work (and I'm not sure that there is), I don't see a strong practical difference.

Problem solved -- they're "nonlinear"

This nomenclature problem came up in video editing some time ago, and the hopelessly misleading term "nonlinear" was applied to describe the many possibilities that a fully digital workflow permitted. The term is meant to relate and distinguish this from analog editing methods which required cutting and splicing valuable strips of film.

In video, you start with multiple sequences of video, each transformed into some sort of motion jpeg so that a specific image exists for each frame (not the case in MPEG), plus audio streams. All editing, no matter how complex the overlapping of audio and video, the transitions between streams, or the editing applied to all images in a single stream, is carried out by creating a series of edit orders, keyed to the stored frames. This is finally rendered into a single output stream and possibly compressed, but the orginal material is never touched, only copied into the output. The particular step of raw to viewable development of each frame does not occur yet, but when they think of that, I believe the ability to copy a set of controls from one frame to the next will be rather important.

"Nonlinear" is pretty sexy, and we can have lots of fun explaining it to more logical, limited minds. Will it do?

scott

scott kirkpatrick said:

"Nonlinear" is pretty sexy, and we can have lots of fun explaining it to more logical, limited minds. Will it do?

Click to expand...

I have a problem with "linear" or "nonlinear" because of the mathematical implications which don't relate, or barely relate perhaps in the case of video.

Whatever term is devised, in an acronymic world we also need something that acronyms well. I would propose "meta oriented editor" or MOE. "Meta" also has undesirable cross-connations (eg metadata) but I find this less objectionable that "--linear", and I like the acronym - and in any case maybe the adjustment info (instructions) will be eventually incorporated into the metadata proper (if there is such thing officially currently).

Or we could really confuse things and call it "separated adjustment editor" or SAE.

or "Adjustment Set Separated"...

or seriously "Separated Adjustment Set Editor" - SASE

- DL

Editor implies full control.
Adjustor, maybe?
[EDIT: Sorry, Don, didn't see your post ]

Along with those lines

Don Lashier said:

I have a problem with "linear" or "nonlinear" because of the mathematical implications which don't relate, or barely relate perhaps in the case of video.

Whatever term is devised, in an acronymic world we also need something that acronyms well. I would propose "meta oriented editor" or MOE. "Meta" also has undesirable cross-connations (eg metadata) but I find this less objectionable that "--linear", and I like the acronym - and in any case maybe the adjustment info (instructions) will be eventually incorporated into the metadata proper (if there is such thing officially currently).

Or we could really confuse things and call it "separated adjustment editor" or SAE.

or "Adjustment Set Separated"...

or seriously "Separated Adjustment Set Editor" - SASE

- DL

Click to expand...

NLA for Non-Linear Adjustor?
Or
MDA for Meta Data Adjustor?
Both roll off the tongue nicely

Changed my mind

Nikolai Sklobovsky said:

NLA for Non-Linear Adjustor?
Or
MDA for Meta Data Adjustor?
Both roll off the tongue nicely

Click to expand...

And the winner is <drum roll>
NDA: Non-Destructive Adjustment

Editor and Adjustor are good, too.

I don't like the implication of Developer since LightZone for example went out to be an image editor not a RAW converter. It is also much to enveloping - or how would you categorise PictureProject, ZoomBrowser EX, or the camera algorithms producing JPEGs, TIFFs and previews?

Colin Jago said:

Even if there is a technical difference between these products and the way that they work (and I'm not sure that there is), I don't see a strong practical difference.

Click to expand...

I agree. Since PS generalized layers in more recent version, almost all my editing in PS is also non-destructive albeit still pixel oriented. I generally leave the base (C1 converted) image unaltered adding all changes as adjustment layers, so a new conversion can easily be slipped in at the bottom of the stack. The only remaining hitch is cloning (dust removal etc), but even this can be done (a bit awkardly) on layers although since the clone results are "pixelized" rather than instructions, cloning must be repeated if a new base image is slipped in.

What I find remarkable about new editors such as LZ is not so much the non-destructive nature as the new tool paradigms which are more intuitive than the classic PS methods. The other potential is the full integration of the raw converter with subsequent tools so that "raw" tweaks such as white balance could be made in a fully integrated transparent fashion.

a couple more thoughts:

One of the biggest issues I have with PS is that it's stuck in modal hell. You can't easily cross tweak interacting tools; eg levels and curves, curves and saturation, etc. This may not be easily solved depending upon how the underlying code is structured. Tools such as C1 (and I believe LZ) are semi-modal allowing simultaneous tweaks of related/interacting controls.

Another thing that needs to be done to PS to make it more "non-destructive" is to allow such things as sharpening and blurring to be put on adjustment layers. Ideally adjustment layers would also go two levels deep permitting non-destructive adjustments to be made on layer masks also (eg curve or gaussian blur applied to a layer mask).

I am far enough into PS (~15 years) that although more intuitive tools such as LZ et al are enticing, the PS model offers almost unlimited flexibility and power which I would be reluctant to relinquish, particularly if they could dump modality and allow multiple tool dialogues to be open simultaneously.

- DL

I don't really equate the term "edit" with something permanent or destructive, so I see no reason not to continue using that word.

So, why not something like "Ephemeral Image Editor" ?

I know, not quite right. A more boring alternative: "Reversible Image Editor".

BTW, I do think the work "meta" is correct. "Meta" in the context of documents or data means information about the document, which is not really what this is about.

KrisCarnmarker said:

So, why not something like "Ephemeral Image Editor" ?

Click to expand...

or ""Ephemeral Image Editor & Incremental Optimizer"

EIEIO

- DL

or ""Ephemeral Image Editor & Incremental Optimizer"

EIEIO

Click to expand...

Don, are you perchance making a pun?

Mary Bull said:

Don, are you perchance making a pun?

Click to expand...

Partially, but "incremental optimizer" has real meaning in that image adjustment is often an iterative process, done over time, of interacting adjustments. This is the value of non-destructive edits - that you can add new adjustments and re-tweak earlier adjustments, without starting from scratch each time.

- DL

I do indeed see what you mean.

And it's something extremely valuable.

Do you Dimp?

John Beardsworth said:

I'm trying to come up with a name for programs like Lightroom, Aperture, LightZone and Capture NX that use instructions to process images. We've referred to programs like Photoshop as bitmap editors, but there's no agreed name for this new field.

Peter Krogh has referred to the field as "Metadata Imaging" and this seems snappy, but calling individual programs "Metadata Image Editors" doesn't do it for me. He also tried to start a debate and wrote of "metadata-based-editing" and of programs as being SISI, short for saved-instruction-set imaging.

But what's the noun? Calling them sissies isn't macho enough and while I tend to think of them as "stored instruction set editors", I always feel happier with 3 letter acronyms too. So one I just came up with was Metadata Driven Editors - MDE's - and I rather like it despite dropping the "Imaging".

Any views on these? Any more to throw into the mix?

John

Click to expand...

I thought about your challenge a lot, John.

Finally it occured to me that just as DAM works well for Digital Asset Management, so does DIM for Digital Image Modulation.

So DIMP is the overal subject. A program would simply be a DIMP or Digital Image Modulation Program or Processor as you wish.

So do you come here often or are the two of you just dimping?

One cant say do you dam?

At least "Dimp" is a noun and a verb; very workable!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Finally it occured to me that just as DAM works well for Digital Asset Management, so does DIM for Digital Image Modulation.

Click to expand...

I like it - it coincides with a term a coined years ago for the digital darkroom - "dimroom" (since it's not lights-out dark, but usually dim).

> A program would simply be a DIMP or Digital Image Modulation Program or Processor as you wish.

And the "light edition" would be a DIMPLE

edit:

Another possibility: "CHangeable IMage Processor", or CHIMP, or simply CHI.

- DL

fwiw, 'dimpsy' is a word used in Devonshire with ref to. the time just before dusk.

The cousins of DAM, DIM & the magnificent word DIMP; to dimp and dimping all night!

Ray West said:

fwiw, 'dimpsy' is a word used in Devonshire with ref to. the time just before dusk.

Click to expand...

Asher Kelman said:

Finally it occured to me that just as DAM works well for Digital Asset Management, so does DIM for Digital Image Modulation.

Click to expand...

Dona Lashier said:

I like it - it coincides with a term a coined years ago for the digital darkroom - "dimroom" (since it's not lights-out dark, but usually dim).

Click to expand...

1. So now we have great pedigree for DIM Digital Image Modulation
Digital Image Manipulation
Digital IMagination
Digital Image Making
Digital Image Maker


2. A Lexicon DIM cousin to DAM
DIMP , to dimp, the verb how can we best dimp this, with Lightroom or with Lightzone?
DIMP , the process or software program or processor

3. Photography background, DIM is related to Dimroom, as darkroom where image processing is performed.

4. A Poetic Background, "Dimpsy", the time before dusk in Devonshire frustrating photography until the dawn of the digital age!

5. Friend of man background: The wonderful dog, the Yorkshire Dimpsy!



from http://www.dierenasielninove.be , un-credited image, permission requested


Asher

Caty Couric got dimped!


photoshopnews.com

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

DIM cousin to DAM

Click to expand...

And for the purists: "Digitally Un-Manipulated", or DUM.

- DL