Nikon encrypts D2X white balance metadata
In a post on Adobe’s User to User Forum for Camera Raw, Thomas Knoll, chief engineer for Camera Raw and the original author of Photoshop (developed along with his brother John Knoll) has stated that Nikon has taken the unusual step of encrypting the white balance information contained in NEF files written by Nikon’s new D2X and D2Hs cameras.
Thomas says in his post: “They (Nikon) decided to ENCRYPT the white balance data inside the NEF file for these cameras. Previously, the white balance data was stored in non-encrypted format, and was readable to third party raw converters using simple reverse engineering of the file format.
While any encryption system that stores the decryption key inside a PC computer program (vs. having the user type in a decryption key) is fairly easy to crack (Bibble has already broken Nikon’s encryption algorithm for the D2X), it does raise legal obstacles. Nikon might consider breaking the white balance encryption a violation of DMCA, and sue Adobe.
(I personally think that would be a bogus interpretation of the DMCA, since I think the copyrighted information inside the NEF file belongs to the photographer, not Nikon. But Nikon apparently thinks they own the information inside the NEF).
Adobe is a large company with deep pockets (unlike Bibble), and it is unlikely we would run the legal risk of breaking the white balance encryption unless we can get some assurance from Nikon that they will not sue Adobe for doing so. Since Nikon clearly does not want third party raw converters reading their files (they would much rather sell you a copy of Nikon Capture), the likelihood of Nikon providing such an assurance to Adobe is not very high.
Adobe is still going to support the D2X in the upcoming Camera Raw 3.1 release. However, because of the white balance encryption, Camera Raw will not be able (unless Nikon backs down real soon) to read the “as shot” white balance from the camera, and users will be more likely to have to adjust the while balance manually in the Camera Raw dialog, since Camera Raw’s default white balance will not match the cameras default white balance.
This has absolutely no effect on the quality of the final result out of Camera Raw (it is just the starting point and is nearly always fine tuned in any case), and the new multiple file features of Camera Raw 3 actually make it nearly painless to perform similar adjustments on a large number of images. Beta testers of Camera Raw 3.1 are very happy with the Photoshop CS2/Bridge/Camera Raw workflow when processing D2X files, despite the white balance issue.”
Comments are on
April 17th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Interesting. Adobe ($2000m turnover) claim intellectual property rights for THEIR products; why shouldn’t a little company like Nikon enjoy the same respect?
April 17th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Adobe don’t claim any rights on the settings you apply to images created with Photoshop. Whilst file formats are often proprietary, or are open to a limit expressed by API documentation (is .psd an open format ? Could Capture Read / Write .psd ? I think so…) here .NEF is replacing film. Did Nikon own your processed film ? Seems like commercial suicide to me - they’re in danger of making their products extremely unattractive to advanced users.
April 17th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Herb,
Nikon is NO small company: http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/corporate.htm
You might also like to reflect on their Charter for Corporate Behaviour: http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/corporate_behavior.htm
1. Healthy corporate activity
The Nikon Group endeavors to obey related laws, regulations and in-house rules, which are supported by the exercise of fair and ethical business practices and by the use of good judgment, in order to gain trust from customers, shareholders, employees, business partners and society.
5. Transparent operating activities
The Nikon Group constantly strives to ensure that our operating activities are fair and transparent, and in accordance with local social norms.
April 18th, 2005 at 2:38 am
Who would you rather support Herb? A company that appears to want to lock you into using their proprietary software only, or a company that is actively helping to establish a common raw file format for everyone?
In my opinion, what Nikon are doing looks to be restrictive and petty and serves their interests only. In no way can this serve the interests of their loyal customers, when it is effectively trying to stop them from using any other raw converters but their own proprietary Nikon software.
Adobe have brought about the DNG format specification, which is open source and available for all developers to implement. And many companies have done just that by either enabling their software to recognise DNG or they have indicated they are going to support the DNG format. This is something that will benefit the consumers
and the industry as a whole - it adds choice.
Nikon have always made good cameras. And I used to be a loyal Nikonian myself until I switched a few years ago to Canon. But when news like this breaks, I am so glad that I have stopped giving Nikon my money.
And who does the raw capture data belong to anyway? It is your intelllectual property! What right does a camera company have to start encrypting the data you capture, trying to prevent you from processing the data the way you prefer?
Martin Evening
April 18th, 2005 at 5:50 am
When I first noted Thomas’ comments, I felt his was a measured response to something he regarded as somewhat pointless, the users concerned, who are in the main experienced professionals, and who wish to take advantage of Adobe Camera Raw, will indeed simply adjust their white balance for certain key environments, and apply accordingly, and will be irritated not by Adobe, but Nikon. The more vociferous will make their views known to Nikon, so to those users affected by this somewhat ill-conceived encryption, I would suggest they make their voice heard directly with Nikon. By losing the good will of the professionals and high-end users, Nikon lose an opportunity for those to influence the masses in their choice of software, hardware and possibly even the cameras themselves. Witness, admittedly some time back, the effect of David Bailey on the takeup Olympus amateur cameras.
Like Martin, I used to be a staunch supporter of Nikon, and still possess a comprehensive set of their film cameras and lenses, but to my mind they lost to Canon quite a time ago, this can only push them further back.
What they should be doing is respecting Thomas and his team’s efforts and Adobe in publishing DNG, and give them every support, neither will adversely affect their sales of Capture, if it is well-produced, accurate and fast.
Rod
April 18th, 2005 at 7:06 am
There seems to be a pretty big jump in logic here to assume that as Nikon has encrypted the white balance in the NEF files they are indirectly asserting ownership of the data within the file itself. Could it not be that the reason they have done this is just to maintain the quality of the file as it comes out of the camera direct ? Personally I can see an argument for this on Nikons part as a user who utilises a third-party piece of software that may mess up the white balance settings when opening the file would come back to Nikon complaining about colour cast or any such problems rather than the third party software producer…..
April 18th, 2005 at 8:32 am
I strongly disagree with Lobo about him saying using third party software that might mess up nikon settings. When using film you also would have your own choice off develloping, with RAW you also should have your own choice in how to convert. Next thing Nikon is planned to will probably distribute the photo’s taken by their camera’s at conditions and prices they want…
Glad that I made my choice for Canon long time ago.
regards
Omke
April 18th, 2005 at 11:09 am
Since we’re talking PRO FESSIONAL here don’t most people that bother to shoot raw also bother to make sure that they are more than “in the ballpark” with regard to exposing properly and most likely shooting a gray card as well? Does this not make the WB encryption a non-issue?
Why are we surprised by antics like this from nikon? Surely anyone that has had to deal with NPS or CPS knows which company has photographers best interests in mind- That being said nikon didn’t leave everyone high and dry when transitioning to auto-focus as, they held out until they could engineer legacy compatibility.
But being the big dog in the pro market AT THE TIME they pretty much HAD to, so take that with a grain of salt.
Lucky for them the D2X looks to be a decent camera because they mighta been down for the count.
April 18th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Nikon’s move to encrypt the white balance information in NEF files is just about as unwelcome as Adobe’s own decision to turn CS 3 into a portal for RF images.
Both ideas are antipathetic to photographers, obviously Nikon ones and equally, all those trying to make a living from RM stock or commissions.
Like others who have posted replies, I am very glad I made the switch to Canon years ago.
April 18th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
This is a real bad move on Nikon’s part. Regardless of their motivation, to throw a monkeywrench into people’s workflow only encourages them to go elsewhere for their digital hardware.
I made the transition from Leica SLRs and rangefiders as I went digital, and I am so glad that I went with Canon. (Not to mention the 1Ds Mark II rocks!)
Now if Canon wants to drive a nail into Nikon’s coffin, adopt DNG tomorrow.
Nikon is a very small company compared to Canon, and this is one example of why that is the case.
April 19th, 2005 at 4:20 am
I wonder how long Nikon Professional would last if Adobe encryped their products in such a way as to prevent Nikon files from being processed?
I used to admire the way that Ilford (unlike Kodak et. al.) published processing times for other companies film stock on their processing chemicals. That showed respect and concern for the practices of photographers.
I am in the process of wondering which way to go (Nikon/Canon) in upgrading from my dip-a toe-in-the-water D100 to a pukka pro digital camera. As digital matures my guess is that a lot of other photographers are waiting to make the same decision.
Prior to release and early reviews of D2x I was beginning to think Nikon had lost the plot. Then I began to sway back, but now… Nikon beware.
April 19th, 2005 at 4:55 am
Tell Nikon what you think
Instead of just ranting to ourselves, we should call Nikon and tell them what we think about this practice, a thousand or so messages from customers should make them think again.
I am a D70 owner, and was going to recommend one to my father who is into digital photography, and is looking to upgrade. After reading about encryption in the raw file, I am having second thoughts. (For similar reasons, I would avoid Sony digicams above the basic point & shoot level).
As I am in the UK, I had a look on the Nikon UK website, and found contact details without to much difficulty. They publish phone & fax numbers, as well as email & snail mail addresses.
For UK customers the URL is: http://www.nikon.co.uk/contact_us/get_in_touch/
April 19th, 2005 at 4:58 am
Nikon may not be sure about Nikon Capture abilities. Otherwise, they would not need to boost it by hindering others. In the long run, users may prefer another camera maker more convinced about itself.
April 19th, 2005 at 5:00 am
Unfortunate, but lets put this in perspective:
Nikon Capture costs $100 and the updates are free. It offers more then Adobe RAW in processing flexibility.
I recall shelling out substantially more $ for the first version of Adobe RAW that was an add on for Photoshop 7, and now I understand I’ll have to upgrade to CS2 to be able to run the newer version of Adobe RAW.
Canon users prefer to use Adobe RAW which is not surprising since Canon capture is bug riden.
The cost of Nikon capture is offset by the dramatic price difference between the Dx2 and the still-not-quite-debugged D1s Mk2.
April 19th, 2005 at 5:26 am
I guess the next thing is that when I write stuff with my word processor, I don’t own the rights to the document, but Microsoft does - at least using the Nikon logic. Heck, using Nikon logic everything I produce and store with my machine is actually owned by Microsoft. Way to go Nikon.
April 19th, 2005 at 5:37 am
Hi Folks,
hey ! what´s the panic here ? This guy Thomas Knoll posts somewhere his concerns - fair enough - we´re living in a free world. But the point for him is a simple offense against Nikon for some other reason. I mean, both companies could have had a meeting or two and solved the problem in which way o-ever, but no - Mr. Knoll feels that he has to post a thread as his concerns in favour of us - the photographers! Wake up - this guy want´s to make money and will fight anything that keeps him away from this and his last concern are the photographers or some information which should belong to us or somebody else.
Unfortunately when i go thru the posts i can see a lot of people posting histerically that they want to switch to Canon or not recommend a Nikon Cam anymore and alike. That proofs only that the tactical move from Mr. Knoll perfectly worked - now he brought Nikon under pressure (which he would have never achieved with a normal discussion with them !) and they will now work on a solution for this “missunderstanding” between the two companies.
Last not least - i don´t know where it comes from that people always think Canon is any better in dealing with their customers (i used Canon as well). Believe me - they don´t ! Accept that the only choice you have is which of this money-making-machines you trust more, you get the best features from or simply you like for some unknown reason. Anything else is waisting time, nerves and money!
But - as usual - only my 2 cents !
Cheers
Virgil
April 19th, 2005 at 5:44 am
Adobe stopped publishing the PSD file format specification with Photoshop 5. All enhancements to the file format added later are not accessible by other parties and are claimed as “property of Adobe”. Only Adobe applications can load and display these layer styles and layer types.
Adobe’s PDF format has been cornered with many, many patents in order to lock other companies out from accessing or creating the latest PDF format.
If you want to use Adobe’s software development kit to develop plug-ins for Photoshop you are now required to make sure that these plug-ins do not run in non-Adobe applications.
And, finally: Nikon provides, for free, a software development kit which allows other companies to access the NEF file contents. This SDK has quicks and shortcomings for sure, but at least it’s free.
I don’t think that Adobe should throw the first stone, here. Despite the fact that I respect Thomas Knoll from his early days, before all this became just a business.
Mac
April 19th, 2005 at 5:53 am
To me that´s a tactical move from Mr. Knoll. Under the cover of “expressing his concerns in favour of us photographers” it seems that he try´s to reach another target - a) to earn money and b) to get anything out of the way which keeps him away from a). Maybe talks about information Nikon wasn´t willing to provide but Adobe would liked to have for improving their product failed. So this posting was appropriate to put Nikon under pressure and it seems to work, when i read postings where people state not to recommend Nikon Cams or to switch to Canon - congrats Mr. Knoll ! I bet they find a solution that works for both companies - nothing to be afraid about … oh btw - switching to Canon doesn´t make it any better - they follow the same principal of maximizing their profits without caring about their customers much (i come from Canon). So the only real decision that remains with the user is which evil to choose from
Cheers
Virgil
April 19th, 2005 at 5:55 am
To me that´s a tactical move from Mr. Knoll. Under the cover of “expressing his concerns in favour of us photographers” it seems that he try´s to reach another target - a) to earn money and b) to get anything out of the way which keeps him away from a). Maybe talks about information Nikon wasn´t willing to provide but Adobe would liked to have for improving their product failed. So this posting was appropriate to put Nikon under pressure and it seems to work, when i read postings where people state not to recommend Nikon Cams or to switch to Canon - congrats Mr. Knoll ! I bet they find a solution that works for both companies - nothing to be afraid about … oh btw - switching to Canon doesn´t make it any better - they follow the same principal of maximizing their profits without caring about their customers much (i come from Canon). So the only real decision that remains with the user is which evil to choose from
Cheers
Virgil
April 19th, 2005 at 6:02 am
Lets also not forget that Nikon provides a free plugin for Photoshop that will open the files with White Balance as shot, although in terms of adjustment it only allows you to select one of the preset in camera white balance settings.At least it still allows you to open the files with the right settings…..
April 19th, 2005 at 6:10 am
Make no mistake about it, Nikon has chosen to tax the type of image we users can get back out of the camera?!? In 35mm terms, it’s like taxing us to use Kodak film instead of Fujichrome. There is NO good to come of this. It locks out our choice to have Adobe or who knows else, even try to write creative new ways to use RAW data in the future.
Plain and simple. It’s a tax that is there to control a Nikon purchaser. It’s a slippery slope to allow started. Nikon users should revolt now. Do not buy Nikon pro devices until this is reversed.
April 19th, 2005 at 6:11 am
I have to agree that this is of no benifit to anybody least of all Nikon. They will experiance a loss of sales due to the fact that people can’t edit thier photos in photoshop.
On the flipside it it interesting to see Adobe complaining about being able to read other peoples formats when they sent somebody to prison for doing just that to thier ebook standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov
And to think they paid so much to get those laws in place in the first place it’s a shame that they are now figting against them.
john
April 19th, 2005 at 6:16 am
Rather than jumping all over Nikon on this, I’d rather not hold them to judgement until I hear what they have to say.
So far, we’ve only heard Adobe’s side of the story, not Nikon’s. Give that both produce software, they clearly have some property-rights issues to sort out.
April 19th, 2005 at 6:21 am
Oh, one more thing… To read these compassioned thoughts that Nikon should be allowed to add this tax on us, or that Nikon’s free tools minimize the imact of this, WAKE UP IDIOTS!!!! You’re giving future control of the image YOU shot to Kodak, and allowing Nikon to always hold that data hostage into the future. Those of us who archive RAW future needs to be concerned. Imagine if new cool RAW data tool arrives in the future, your Nikon RAW file may be unsupported because Nikon’s marketing decided to raise the price of the license to decrypt.
NIKON….KEEP RAW OPEN for all.
I’ve never thought of jumpint to the “C” word company before, but I’ve about had it with Nikon and their quest to constantly figure out ways to steal money from their supporters.
April 19th, 2005 at 6:40 am
Don’t worry
the time will soon come that any camera will send your pictures to its manufacturer to do with it as he pleases. As will be clearly desribed in the small print in the license agrement you have to sign before using the camera
April 19th, 2005 at 6:42 am
Dan everyones entitled to their oppinion and just because they do not agree with your viewpoint that doesnt make them an “idiot” as you put it. RAW is not as open as you seem to think as there is no established standard, which is why for example Adobes Camera Raw needs to be updated as new camera models are released so the example you give could apply to any make of camera brand if the producer of the “new cool RAW data tool” doesnt make it backwards compatible with older RAW formats. Personally I suggest people just calm down and stop getting so upset about a situation that isnt that clear yet.
Lobo
April 19th, 2005 at 6:42 am
ps they are all big companies, adobe, nikon, canon, etc. Trying to force you into spending all your money with them. They could have had an common bajonet for all SLR’s for decades now, for example.
If companies see benefits in blocking others out, they will, no matter their name or area
April 19th, 2005 at 6:48 am
Who needs a Nikon anyhow..?
I dropped them years ago.
Because of their changed service attitudes.
Let them eat their encrypted “Raw”…
April 19th, 2005 at 6:50 am
For a working professional, it’s not a matter of spending money on Capture. It’s the added step in the workflow that is troublesome. If I can completely process my photos from start to finish with a single piece of software, I’d much rather do that. To run a batch in Capture, then complete the process in Photoshop is unacceptable. I’ve already been thinking about jumping the Nikon ship and sailing for Canon. This will probably be the last straw.
April 19th, 2005 at 7:00 am
I don’t like being forced to use software I cannot work with.
Last week I shot about 900 aerial photographs with the D2X.
I can do about 15 NEF-files per hour with Capture. How does Nikon think I can do my daily work with software like that?
Capture is slower than slow.
luckily it was just a try-out of the D2X.
I won’t buy it.
Joop
April 19th, 2005 at 7:10 am
Nikon does not fill me with confidence at present: I made the move from Canon with the launch of the original D1 at a cost of around GB£11k. I was pleased with that move at the time and added D100 boties to the bag which, despite a number of limitations, are the mainstays of my work. The last two years, however, have seen Nikon steadily overtaken in technology and almost left behind. Launching the 4mp D2h without an accompanying high-resolution option seemed bizarre to this jobbing professional and much of the product range seemed to be reacting to the market rather than driving it in the way the D1 had.
Now the D2X looked like redressing something of the situation. Unfortunately you can’t buy one in the UK - unless you are the sort of person who would place an order as soon as an untested product is announced (last September) and wait nine months (the camera is still not on the dealers’ shelves). In contrast, I could have an EOS 1D (or even 1Ds) Mark II off the shelf today.
The decision to encript the .NEF white balance data and makes another poor comparison with Canon. The latter ships raw processing software in the box with the camera and supports third parties (Capture One and others as well as Photoshop).
I don’t think Nikon is necessarily money-grabbing with this move. I just think the company lacks strategic direction in a market in which it is losing the battle to remain innovative. All the same, from my position making the expensive move back to the office equipment manufacturer is looking less and less prohibitive.
April 19th, 2005 at 7:13 am
Same is here :
“I don’t like being forced to use software I cannot work with”
Nikon stay away from this.
I will not get D2x I will go with Canon.
I like to be a free.
April 19th, 2005 at 7:32 am
i dont mind about this nikon decision
that´s why I’m very satisfied with my canon
other photographers should do the same
April 19th, 2005 at 7:45 am
.. do you think you will be ever free with Canon? Have you ever tried thier standard software? I did, and that was the reason why I started to use another software to develop their raw file. I also had a taste of the “fantastic” quality and performances of Canon’s cameras (Eos 10D) and that was the reason why I came back to Nikon.
It is really strange how many “proudly Canon” shooters are so interested in an issue that may regards only Nikonians, or do they fear that Canon can follow?
I do not think that all the reason stay with Adobe, since they are tring to make money from all the camera producers’ work, and they free up standards only when it is usefull for their income statement.
April 19th, 2005 at 8:06 am
Nikon is making a terrible decision. Allowing interoperability and full integration with downstream solutions is what winners do. Creating proprietary chunks to lock other people out of your market is what losers do. Apple COULD have been the standard, but chose to lock out key elements of their OS and hardware. Microsoft doesn’t lock people out - it competes with them, may mess with them in ways that are a bit on the anti-trust side, but nevertheless, the specs are out there and you can piggyback on their work.
The attitude shown by this statement gives me significant pause. I will not work with a system that tries to tell me what my workflow must be, and what image processing options I must use.
April 19th, 2005 at 8:10 am
This really sucks, ever since I have my D2X I’m waiting for Adobe to come with the Camera Raw upgrade to process my D2X NEF files. I haven’t even installed Nikon Capture on my Mac yet, (I’m shooting jpeg fine instead for the time being) since past experience was utterly dissapointing with Nikon software. It seems they develop their software mainly for amatures on PC’s. Hope Nikon won’t go through with their encryption plans, then I seriously regret staying with them and not switching to Canon before. They should drop their whole software department, so far it sucks what they come up with. Let them focus on digital camera development and optics. I’m waiting for an serious anwser to the 1Ds Mark II. How about a D3 full size chip camera with 22 million pixels? Please not another 3 years… And when do they finally come up with a AF-S Macro?!
Marcel
April 19th, 2005 at 8:26 am
Think Nikon main concern now is to woo back the pros. The F5 days are over, since the DSLR boom, I see a sea of white tele lens with a Canon body stuck behind it in every major event. Can we hear announcements of new DSLR like a D100 successor or a full frame DSLR, more lens with vr. Its news like this make me feel that I may have make the wrong choice to stay with Nikon.
April 19th, 2005 at 8:38 am
Nikon Capture is the worst piece of software I have ever used, it is incredibly slow and takes forever to open, edit and process NEF files. I downloaded Pixmatic’s RawShooter Essentials last week and it is an enormous improvement to my workflow. I will not buy a D2X and be chained to Nikon Capture.
April 19th, 2005 at 8:53 am
I am a long-time Canon user but the fate of Nikon is of interest to me as well. For decades Nikon and Canon have competed at all levels, each taking their turn in the sunlight as the professional must-have camera and equipment. The competition between these two firms has produced the incredible cameras we all have now.
Such intense emotion expressed in this thread could not result from the singular act of encrypting some RAW data. It does come from a period of disappointments.
Regardless of the wisdom of encrypting its RAW information, it would be shame if it meant Nikon would lose further ground to Canon. Without the competition of each company dogging the other, I think both Nikon and Canon users alike will lose.
April 19th, 2005 at 9:00 am
Sure this is unbelievable, Nikon empire comes very close to the end… Goodbye, Nikon.
April 19th, 2005 at 9:04 am
Geeze…..guess this stupid stuff helped me make up my mind to go ahead and make the switch to Canon.
April 19th, 2005 at 9:23 am
Nikon doesn’t say much, and many was waiting to see some news regarding a D100 follower.
And now they finaly open their mouth, only to annoy those that are waiting for the “D200″ - rofl that’s not the most wise dessicion I reckon.
What happend - did Bill Gates enter the company?
I was on the edge of either replacing my D70 with the 20D or buy some new optics for my Nikon - guess Nikon made the hard choice sooooo much more easy.
April 19th, 2005 at 9:29 am
geez, nobody comes to the conclusion of simply getting bibble instead of capture??? There ARE alternatives.
Quote: Microsoft doesn’t lock people out /quote
tell me your not serieus on this one, because if you believe this you probably also believe that the aliens have secretly taken over all worldleaders…
April 19th, 2005 at 9:32 am
Keep in mind that Adobe took legal action under the DMCA against Dmitry Sklyarov and Elcomsoft for reverse engineering and creating a program that removes restrictions from encrypted Acrobat files. Criminal charges were also filed in this case.
Also, the DMCA was used in order to prevent third-party toner cartridges from being distributed.
April 19th, 2005 at 10:06 am
Nikon has every right to encrypt their proprietary NEF format anyway they choose. Why should Adobe make a penny on CS without paying royalties to Nikon, Adobe didn’t make the NEF?
April 19th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Like many others, I’m in the market for a D2X (maybe even two), plus some new glass, including the expensive 200-400 AFS VR and some macro lenses. That is a lot of coin and even more so, a long term revenue stream for Nikon, even beyond these planned purchases this year.
I’ve got a D100, a D70, lots of good Nikkor glass, a couple of SB-800’s and more. Also have a copy of the latest Nikon Capture.
And like everyone else, PS/CS is my mainstay editing application. NC is a sideline.
So now I’m seriously considering dumping the Nikon stuff and going with Canon 1Ds bodies, with C glass.
Nicely done Nikon. Good way to piss off a whole segment of loyal customers and lose even more market share.
…Andrzej
April 19th, 2005 at 10:11 am
Like many others, I’m in the market for a D2X (maybe even two), plus some new glass, including the expensive 200-400 AFS VR and some macro lenses. That is a lot of coin and even more so, a long term revenue stream for Nikon, even beyond these planned purchases this year.
I’ve got a D100, a D70, lots of good Nikkor glass, a couple of SB-800’s and more. Also have a copy of the latest Nikon Capture.
And like everyone else, PS/CS is my mainstay editing application. NC is a sideline.
So now I’m seriously considering dumping the Nikon stuff and going with Canon 1Ds bodies, with C glass.
Nicely done Nikon. Good way to annoy a whole segment of loyal customers and lose even more market share.
…Andrzej
April 19th, 2005 at 10:11 am
hey guys just cool down lets wait what nikon say about this problem canon fans you talk to much…..
April 19th, 2005 at 10:15 am
those that have the D2x and D2Hs…tough luck…
those still trying to decide what DSLR to buy next will most probably choose canon, like me…
locking out the competition is not new. it’s a tried and tested strategy…for some, that is. now, the question is will it work for nikon? reading from the posts, i guess most of you already know the answer…
nikon, i know you’re reading this. it’s time to make your move…better make it good!
jojo
ps. some of the posts are quite amusing…microsoft doesn’t lock people out?!! HAHAHA! good one…
April 19th, 2005 at 10:59 am
Why doesn’t Nikon encrypt the whole file and let only a legally owned copy of Nikon capture to read it, and only for specific camera? As a crappy programmer myself, I would like to help Nikon to ‘develop’ such ‘technology’ to ’safeguard’ photographers from raw pictures being ’stolen’.
They should also prevent users from taking pictures using RAW mode at all, unless you paid them twice the camera’s price and unlock the camera with another 128,000 bit key! That will save us the hassle from using RAW at all.
April 19th, 2005 at 11:06 am
I think it would be absolutely delicious to have Adobe tied up in court over a DMCA violation.
DMCA essentially makes reverse engineering illegal and Adobe is one of the biggest supporters of DMCA.
IMO Nikon and Adobe deserve each other.
April 19th, 2005 at 11:15 am
“Why doesn’t Nikon encrypt the whole file and let only a legally owned copy of Nikon capture to read it, and only for specific camera?”
The answer, obviously, is that they don’t want to. It therefore follows that Adobe’s just posturing for our benefit here, with great success among people who really ought to know better. The “encryption” has already been “broken” and is available in open-source form, so there’s no technical reason Adobe can’t support it. If Adobe released their product supporting D2X WB, and Nikon sued them as a result, Nikon would be in the wrong. As it is, Nikon has done nothing wrong yet.
Speculation: Since Adobe is an IP-hungry, lawsuit-happy organization, Nikon wants to trade the immunity from a lawsuit over “breaking WB encryption” for immunity from one or more of Adobe’s own ridiculous patents. Since Adobe is too IP-greedy to do this, they’re taking the alternative gambit of trying to publically embarrass Nikon into folding, thereby having to make no concessions at all.
Nikon ain’t exactly “good guys”, folks, but remember that when it comes to IP, Adobe has a track record of being far worse.
April 19th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
I run Nikon Capture on a laptop PC. It works perfect for me (I shoot a D2H), so much that I do not even have photoshop installed. Seriously, if your not doing photocomps, who needs photoshop? It is bloated and too expensive. For me, Capture is a part of the Camera, and it is quite inexpensive, regularly updated, and free after you spend your first 100 bucks. How much have you spent on Photoshop over the years? Can your layered files be read in anything else? Do some research and you will see just how benevolent Adobe is. Acrobat files anyone? Postscript? PSD? Give it up. If you don’t like Nikon, buy Cannon and get to work. It’s the veiled PC vs MAC war all over again. You are going to need some kind of imaging software, Adobe has pretty much the Monolopy on your choice: Lets see what happens if someone reads and writes PSD files… For my money, I have no problem sticking with Capture: It gets better and better with each release, makes great images, and is a lot younger than Photoshop.
April 19th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
There seems to be a direct co-relation between tendancies to megalomania and fierce protectionist behaviour.
If Nikon truly thought their Capture software was as good as they say it is, they wouldn’t have to worry about entrapping their camera users. I guess that’s why they call it “capture”.
Anyway, they need (or want very badly) to make money from Capture, so they try to force people to use it. They figure their little empire will grow this way. They are definitely afraid of losing in a completely open competition.
Those of us who are not megalomaniacs (imagine, for example, being a billionaire and thinking that that’s not enough money) can’t understand such behaviour. We (I guess I’m not one either) live our lives by giving and accepting the gifts we receive. The notion of extracting our affluence from others is literally repugnant. Hence the emotional outbursts here. A professional community based in technology that is open and shared is not just an ideal, it works but, truly, no one gets materially rich this way except by accident.
Nikon management need to decide what kind of community suits them. Their success need not depend on a zero sum gain if they really don’t want it to.
April 19th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
The data (photograph) and all its pertinent files belong to the photographer. Just because it’s digital and Nikon (or any other vendor) can encumber the process, doesn’t make it right.
April 19th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Photoshop isn’t the only option for processing Nikon RAW files. ACDCee and Pixmantec Raw Shooter (the latter is free) also do so and, especially the latter, are MUCH faster than Photoshop and/or Capture One. If Nikon’s Capture One wasn’t such a productivity drain, I might not object so much. But Nikon’s decision to put roadblocks between the user and an efficient workflow in order to force people to use an inferior product makes me an unhappy Nikon (D70) owner. Great camera; lousy corporate policy with respect to software.
April 19th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Clearly we have allot of ppl on here making claims which must be a few bricks short of a load. I own a small photography business and developed my own accounting software…whoopee. However do you honestly think for one minute I am going to give all that hard work over to a company so they can stamp it as theres? Not bloody likely. Sure I may share it, but I’m not going to hand over the source so someone and decompile it and convert it into there own work. Rick where you born north of 60? Yes it is your data, and the pictures even remain yours forever for you to stick on the wall and throw darts at or whatever it is you do, however the hard work that went into creating the source in which is used to make those very nice files you shot of your lovely goat was not made by you, neither was the camera. Maybe you should copy the design of the camera and start selling it, then you could could sit at home all day and collect a paycheck for doing absolutely nothing!
Even if it is encrypted who cares. It’s one extra step to batch the White Balance setting on all your photos, I mean what kind of lazy bums are you? My lord do you have an assistant to hold your camera while you press the shutter release because it’s to heavy. Maybe I should call up there and talk to some agent who does customer care, or maybe tech. support and expect that he have all the answers….great idea retard! Hmmm makes sense to me and in return all those customers who need support aren’t going to get it because we are beating a dead dog.
I am a little upset about this, but maybe I should also be upset because Microsoft wont let me recompile Windows 2003 for resale so I can make my millions, or that Adobe would try to sue me for downloading a copy of there software which I did not pay for!
Bitch on please, maybe we can make this a chain letter to annoy the rest of the free world! April 19th, 2005 at 11:15 am good for you for spelling it out, a good read and you made it very simple for some of the above who clearly have no idea whats going on.
To TP I say keep up the good work, I want some of what your Smoking cause your really out in left field. I don’t use capture because I do not need it and because it does not suit my workflow. Further, they are not trying to force anyone into anything you retard….If half these ppl on this forum had any brains and thought they where really in a jam they would just convert there files to TIFF…..UMMMM dont see any entrappment there.
April 19th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Hm. Maybe they should ask Dmitry Skylarov for advice. Their lawyers have his address.
April 19th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
I dream of a day when I my data can be read by whatever means I choose. Raw? Fine, let me view it in whatever application I choose, Nikon. Edit my images? Let me save them in a format that can be edited by any other application. I don’t want my property stored in a patent encumbered format. Here that Adobe? I don’t trust companies that employ more attorneys than engineers.
April 19th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Um.. did anyone stop to think for one second before overreacting to this story? It is going to take Adobe just one phone call to Nikon and they will instantly get a license the format for free. Nikon has no incentive to keep this format from Adobe, and every incentive to give it freely to Adobe so it can be supported. Nikon has no incentive to give away the format specs freely, so every low-end digital camera maker can clone it and use it in work-alike cameras of dubious quality.
April 19th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
I’m no pro photographer (I ‘use’ a Minolta Z2, badly) but I do take an interest in this sort of thing.
That’s because from a computer-techie background, i’ve been watching the subtle shift in ‘Digital Rights Management’ on the PC and attached devices. It’s evident in the fact that buying music online invariably restricts what you can do with the music file.
You can’t just copy the music to another PC because the vendor restricts if/when you can do so, they can do this as the music you ‘bought’ is encrypted. The masses don’t care, if a file doesn’t play on another PC they assume the PC is at fault. The masses will care however when people start having emassed big and expensive collections, only to not be able to play then when the operating system is reinstalled.
Anyways, i’m kinda glad in a way this sort of behaviour has crossed into a more mainstream activity like photography. It will annoy a lot more people, which will hopefully draw attention to these practices. There is NO reason for Nikon to *deliberately* obfuscate your data purely for upselling you something that costs extra.
It’s kinda like caller-id on my home phone. I pay extra to get it (£1.50 a month), this is to get a service that it actually costs my phone company some money to withhold from me. It’s a product pulled out of their ass to deliberately stiff customers. But like Digital ‘Rights’ (should be ‘Restrictions’) Management, it’s presented to the customer as a benefit to them. I hate big silly companies who propogate this rubbish.
This is all a moot point in this case though. I’m sure if the encryption is as bad as these things usually are, there are a load of hackers around the world where the DMCA doesn’t apply having a look at the thing right now.
April 19th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
This article was very helpfull, I am shopping around for a new camera and now I know which brand to NOT buy.
Thank you very much.
April 19th, 2005 at 1:20 pm
To Burn the flamer: take a deep breath - it’s not worth it.
To anyone else:
Nikon have encrypted WB info for a reason other than keeping their programmers busy. Surely they thought there was something in it for them. If what others say here is true, that the decryption kit is free, I can’t follow the logic of installing an expensive lock and then spending time and energy giving out the keys free of charge.
Does anyone have a link to first hand info on this free kit that we can all peruse carefully?
April 19th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Though both sides raise some good issues, on the balance, I think the arguments against what Nikon has done are better.
Harder workflow is a big strike; and the fact that I may not be able to open and/or edit NEF files in the future because Nikon has changed the format and is no longer supporting older cameras … C’mon, we’ve got to have open standards here.
But what really offends me is the idea of not fully owning my own work. Hey, my film negs belong to me and no one else. Why should digital files be any different?
-MF
April 19th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
Mr. Burn.
You are saying that it is Nikon’s right to decide what software can read the images taken by a Nikon camera.
To use the Microsoft comparison, that would be the same as Windows refusing to play media in any software except Windows MediaPlayer.
Or to use you own example. You have to right to do whatever you want with your selfwritten acounting software. But the moment you sell a copy, you have no rights dictating what a uses can or can’t do with the acounting data he generates. If the user wants to convert the data for instance to plain text, you have no saying in that. You have no obligation to give him the tools for the job, but you can not stop him from writting his own or use a tool written by a third party.
What Nikon is effectivly doing by encrypting metadata in a raw file, is to make it illegal for the user to modify his own imagedata under the DMCA.
This also say alot about the DMCA, but that’s for another discussion.
April 19th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Since the setting of White Balance is one of the first things to be done in RAW conversion workflow - I don’t really see the ‘big whup’. . .
Nikon’s encryption seems rather pointless, since using a WhiBal or other gray reference for colour-critical work or one’s eye judgment for ‘art’ makes that camera-appointed setting completely moot.
April 19th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
Keep in mind that the problem here is NOT the fact that Nikon’s encrypting data. The problem is that (in the US) laws like the DMCA make it illegal for companies to reverse-engineer encryption for the purpose of making products interoperable. Adobe was on the other side of this same debate a few years ago, when they had some guy arrested for merely *talking* about reverse-engineering some of the encryption in their PDF file format.
Instead of saying how Nikon should do this or Adobe do that, we should instead be talking about how to keep government’s nose out of the business of passing laws that make situations like this possible in the first place.
April 19th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
The solution to the DMCA issue is to avoid reverse-engineering, by doing it legally with Nikon’s permission and licensing. Are people so anxious to find the latest hot-button flamefest that it never occurs to them that Nikon will license the format, because it’s completely useless without licensees?
April 19th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Your making reverse-engineering sound like something illegal. It is not. Infact it is one of the key elements to technological advancement. And what about the single individuals wanting to use the raw files in theyr own projects for whatever purphose. By your logic Nikon is still deciding who get’s the license and who does not and how much they have to pay for it. If Nikon dont want say Adobe reading the files, they dont get a license, money or no money.
April 19th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
I can only hope the System will be an OPEN one, otherwise Nikon AND Adobe will be the loosers
April 19th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
I am having hard time understanding the argument that because you took the picture you own the media format. The media format is Nikon’s property and the image is yours. Stop your whining and complaining because if you were so smart you would come up with the newer and better RAW. Canon and Nikon should join together and encrypt everything so Adobe can’t use their RAW formats and monopolize the market. You would still be buying their cameras and finding something else complain about. People like you are never happy. You think everyone owes you something. Try reading Spectator’s comments if you want the truth.
ARRRRRRHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://photoshopnews.com/?p=226#comment-185
April 19th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
The point here is choice, by encrypting the WB-metadata Nikon is limiting our choices to edit our own photos. I don’t care what is the best RAW-converter, thats another discussion.
In Norway (and other EU-contries I think) a new law is coming to effect soon where it is illegal to break an ecryption is files. So for me to convert my photos in a RAW-converter that has broken Nikons encryption would be illegal…
I think Nikon is making a big mistake, but I’m afraid that they won’t be alone in limiting the choices for us. Thats why I think this is an bad omen for all of us.
April 19th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
well its only $100bucks.. you spned that
much on 2 tanks of gass..
April 19th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
My E-Mail to Nikon USA:
I am a twenty five year Nikon veteran. I will be shooting digital without question with a new system by this time next year. The D2X as several of my remaining Nikon colleagues have stated is “good enough to not switch to Canon”.
However be aware that the future of RAW should be an open standard. That is what your customers demand for very good reasons. If you, Canon, or anyone else does not provide it, we are going to move to camera systems that do. You will increase interest, good will, and therefore sales and acceptance by supporting open standards like DNG (in camera). You will lose sales including mine if Nikon makes NEF a closed standard, that can not be fully and easily manipulated by third party applications now and in the future.
Please forward this to the appropriate management at Nikon, your job depends on it.
By the way Adobe practice what you preach. Although I must say there is a difference. A RAW file is my image. I don’t have to make it a .psd file if I don’t want to. But if a camera is to be considered a professional model it better be as compatible as possible with Adobe and more importantly an open standard.
April 19th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
A warning from PSN ADMIN, the use of vulgarity or personal attacks against individuals will require that PhotoshopNews delete the entire comment and ban the user from making any additional comments. We are all for free speech, however, it is up to you to choose your words wisely.
April 19th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
I have no interest in Adobe’s position, only in what Nikon is doing with my data in my camera.
The WB data is crucial information for delivering the exact picture I took. Tweaking the WB by hand will only approximate the desired result, never get it precise. This information is very much a KEY to my photo, without it I only get a poor quality version, not the original. My exact original photo is permanently locked away from me without that key. Nikon is abusing its rights as a camera manufacturer by locking away the original photo that I produce as a photographer. They have no rights to it.
On top of that, I selected the WB personally, so if anyone has copyright on it it’s me. Nikon have no business encrypting MY information, for any reason whatsoever.
This is a basic issue of property, and the freedom to access one’s property. The photograph and the white balance values are mine, exclusively and unquestionably. Denying me access to my property unless I pay an additional tax is completely unacceptable, in fact it is extortion.
In the battle with Canon, it is things like this that will cost Nikon dearly.
April 19th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
Check out this raw converter.
http://www.blacksnake.com/
April 19th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
It’s not just Nikon vs Adobe.
This affects every other RAW converter: Capture One, Silverfast AI, RawShooter and a host of others.
Many of the programs offer significant advantages over Nikon Capture. Now I ahve to go through extra steps and contortions to use them OR sacrifice color accuracy.
I don’t get my Fuji film processed by Fuji - I go where I want to. Nikon should have the same respect for my judgement.
April 19th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
I was out of line, not sure where that came from. I think that there are may good points being made here. I just hope that if all company’s do decide to hand this information to Adobe, that they dont turn into a microsoft and then start charging us all for the download to use it.
I would hope that if they do get the rights to these it won’t come down to that, but with there track record as many of you have pointed out I can’t say that I would be suprised.
Both charles and spectator made very good points it will be interesting to see how things pan out. Again I apologize for my out of line behaviour but my worst fear is a monopoly being formed in which we will all be out of luck.
April 19th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Oh all this whining. Drop 100 Bucks, buy capture, and go back to work. Tell me, why wouldn’t you want to have the software that is designed for your camera? Besides, if you know what your doing in photoshop, original white ballance is moot anyway. Last time I checked, you can read what was used in the exif info. Digital photographers like to whine instead of doing work and learning how to overcome obsticles with their tools. Have we forgotton emulsion testing and exposure-development calabrations from the old days? Learn to use your tools. Your wringing hands for nothing.
As for Adobe. Pitty the fool that thinks their your friend. They have sued Macromedia over the tabbed pallet interface. They have sued Agfa over acrobat fonts. Do a search for all the patent infringement that Adobe has been sued for. Screw Adobe. They are not yor friend. Now that they have taken over Macromedia, just wait and see what a closed minded monopoly they become. Photoshop, in the end, will be the cause of more damage to Photography as a whole than any other piece of softwear.
April 19th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
I was out of line in my first post, what I dont want to see however is Adobe getting the rights to All Nef files so they can turn around and charge us all for a NEF plugin download. We all buy the photo equipment, we all buy the software and currently that is working just fine.
But who knows if Adobe gets the rights to all NEF information for all vendors we may be in even worse trouble down the road as Vendors well likely stop spending the time making there own. I still have faith that wouldent happen, but just a thought to keep in mind.
April 19th, 2005 at 6:37 pm
To all of you arguing that this is not important since the Nikon software is only $100 so we should all just use that.
Well let me tell you I own both Nikon Capture and Photoshop CS, and I use the Adobe Camera Raw plugin far more often then the Nikon software. It handles sligthly overexposed images much better and does a better job at correcting chromatic aberration. Workflow is also much faster when using the Camera Raw plugin. And Photoshop is for better or worse the standard today when it comes to 48bit photoediting. So it makes sence that you import your raw data directly from within the same software. The D2X is a professional camera for professional users that typically process alot of images on regular basis. Workflow and speed is key while price or brand of software is not.
And before someone replies that this just affects WB so there is no problem to keep using Camera RAW or other non Nikon software. What is to stop Nikon from encrypting the actual image data next? There is no technical reason to encrypt the WB metadata, so it is reasonable to assume they did this purly to force your software selection. The next logical step then is just that, to encrypt the image data also.
April 19th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
The change in RAW format is the only bad thing about the D2X. In all other aspects the camera is fantastic and every bit as good as you expect when you shell out this kind of money. If you take photographs you chose the equipment based on the quality of the results, afterall that is what counts. I recently got the D2X after spending a few years using the D100. The camera in combination with the Photoshop CS software has really turned around the whole idea of photography for me. The RAW converter in CS was/is so good at letting you make those fine adjustments easily before editing properly. The hassle that Nikon has introduced is in this process only. Their software supplies a plugin that Photoshop uses to see the new photographs, but it is just not as good as the original Photoshop one. Your adjustments are more limited, and your preview is thumbnail size, so it is harder to see the effect of small changes. But it works.
I have already let Nikon know how I and others feel about this. You should do the same if you have the camera. The fix could be simple if enough people voice their concerns. How hard would it be for Nikon to issue a firmware update that does not encrypt the camera data? Until they do, I am requesting to be part of the Photoshop beta test for the new plugin.
Incidentally, I have had nothing but good responses and support from Nikon as a company. One of the reasons I stick with them. Canon could take a tip or two from them in this respect. Good cameras, but their support leaves alot to be desired.
April 19th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
How’s these headings? Love to see them on PC Magazine, or CNN, or Blogs!
“Nikon closes image format. Forces users to pay tax to Nikon.”
“Nikon force users to pay in the future to view photos.”
“Nikon kidnaps users photos, holds them hostage for ransom.”
“Nikon users revolt against new tax Nikon adds to data files.”
Any encrypted D2X RAW data from the camera is a TAX on Nikon camera users, plain and simple. Raw image data I archive from a Nikon D2X should not be subject to future Nikon control. A year from now, I may be locked out of my Raw images because the author can’t negotiate payment to decrypt from Nikon. RAW image data is not Nikon’s to hold for ransom. Open it back up.
RAW should be an OPEN format. If Nikon chooses to add a new format called NIKON-RAW, fine. But let us save our RAW data for future use without the worry that it will be unreadable.
Nikon… get profit elsewhere.
April 19th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
Has anyone considered that maybe Nikon is encrypting the white balance settings, not to make it hard to read the file, but to protect their trade secret method of setting them in the first place?
Other camera manufacturers may use the white balance settings to reverse engineer the algorithms used by Nikon in the first place. E.g. you shoot an image with carefully measured characteristics, you take the unencrypted white balance settings, and continue to do this to map out what the software inside the camera is doing with the raw data off the sensor to develop its white balance settings. They then can develop an equivalent camera with maybe a “Nikon White Balance” setting to emulate Nikon’s.
I have no idea if this is the real reason, but it is a possibility. Nikon may be willing to hand out licences to everyone who asks - as long as they promise not to reverse engineer their white balance algorithms. It may not be about keeping you from getting this information, it may be about maintaining their edge in these white balance algorithms.
April 19th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
As more computery geeks know, the DMCA is fairly broad in its protection of encryption. In fact, it make no excpetions for education, fair use, or ownership. If you break somebody’s encryption, whether to backup software on a CD, transfer iTunes-purchased music to an unauthorized player, or access the white balance info in your .NEF, you’re breaking the law. That’s ALL the DMCA says. If you “circumvent” (and there are lots of ways to do that, what a wonderful word!) encryption, you’re a criminal. Hooray.
April 19th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
This is a copy of the letter I sent to Nikon today.
Dear Nikon Folks:
Nikon’s decision to encrypt the white balance information in its NEF files seems to be incredibly stupid. The only way it would not be incredibly stupid is if Nikon intends to provide companies producing RAW file converters like Adobe with permission to break that encryption or with the codes to open the encrypted files. If they did that, it would make Nikon just plain stupid instead of incredibly stupid. It would be plain stupid because, if you are going to give away the encryption keys or grant permission to break the encryption, there was no reason to put it the encryption into the NEF file in the first place.
Does Nikon really believe that I am going to start using its Capture software to process my RAW files and to do the image processing that I now do in Photoshop? Can Nikon actually think I would like to process RAW files its software, and then switch over to Photoshop to do the remaining processing of the image? If Nikon believes that photographers are going to put aside an industry standard software program for its proprietary product it needs a new policy guru, preferably one who can think logically.
Leica and Hasselblad have announced that they will support the Adobe DNG format for RAW files. Now that makes sense. I have one Leica digital camera and two Nikon digital SLRs. I convert the RAW files from all of them to Adobe DNG immediately after archiving the RAW files. Why? Because having only one RAW format in my workflow makes my life easier. Why does Nikon want to make my life more difficult?
I have been planning to purchase a Nikon D2x this spring. But I do not want a D2x with encrypted white balance information. I want a D2x that acts like I own it, not like it owns me. Maybe I’ll switch to a Leica SLR with the new digital back. Maybe I’ll change to Canon. One thing for sure - no D2x is going into my equipment locker as long as the white balance is encrypted.
Nikon, please correct your error. Don’t be stupid. Make my life simpler. That way I will keep using Nikon cameras and lenses.
With questionable loyalty,
Dick Weisgrau
April 19th, 2005 at 9:29 pm
Jeeeze,
I thought this thread was buried a couple days ago when I first posted.
I see that I may be misinformed (not having a D2X to worry about yet).
Could someone clarify; Am I not able to even process a D2x RAW file because of the encoding??
Or is it just that I can’t use one of the canned WB settings within ACR??
Or more simply, does ACR not yet support D2X Raw files?
Thanks.
April 19th, 2005 at 10:14 pm
There is so much rubbish spouted in the comments above.
One poster claims Microsoft does not lock out competitors. Erm, Ok.
Another poster appears to be claiming that Nikon are no worse than Canon - I don’t think Canon have started encrypting anything yet (I haven’t looked into this deeply enough yet, but I’ve heard from one source that the WB information is merely encoded not encrypted, so this is a whole non-issue). I really don’t see what is to be gained by encrypting just the white balance information anyway - surely if you want to lock out other people you start encrypting more than just that?
Has anyone contacted Nikon and asked them directly about the issue? Thought not.
April 20th, 2005 at 1:42 am
Glenn, if you buy a D2X you get the Nikon software with it that reads the RAW file format and allows you to convert it to other formats. The software also detects if you use Photoshop and installs the Nikon plugin to read the new RAW format in Photoshop. No-one should have any problem reading the files. The problem as I experience it is that the format has changed and you must use the Nikon plugin at the moment. The more advanced RAW file reader with Photoshop CS cannot read the new format and so you lose some of the nice little adjustments when you open a file.
If you also read some documentation you can also see how to remove the Nikon plugin from Photoshop so that you can continue using the Photoshop plugin for the older D100 NEF files. Just use the Nikon software for the new D2X NEF files.
The files are NOT unreadable at all, just the idea has been poorly implemented. As a computer engineer it bugs me that they leave the file extension of the images the same, even though they have changed the format. If they had followed though by creating a new file extension it would have at least been possible to run the Nikon plugin along side the native Photoshop one.
April 20th, 2005 at 2:46 am
Mr James Fry.
Thomas Knoll the chief engineer for Camera Raw and one of the original authors of Photoshop, say that the WB metadata in D2X raw files is encrypted. I feel pretty confident he would know the difference between encoding and encrypting data.
April 20th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Darren,
Thanks, forgive me but I’m not finished my 1st coffee and am still a little slooowwwww at present sooo, when you say
“The more advanced RAW file reader with Photoshop CS cannot read the new format and so you lose some of the nice little adjustments when you open a file.”
are you saying that Adobe Camera Raw as in CS (1 in my case) cannot display the images or allow me to use ANY of the tools to process the D2x NEF files? This would mean to me that I am currently unable to use the eyedropper on a white or gray card to establish my white point and go on from there since ACR cannot display the images
But then you go on to say:
“The files are NOT unreadable at all”
which leads me to believe that I can do as I ask above so long as I don’t bother with installing the plug in, which would make me use their tools AND would keep me from using my D100 as well.
As for keeping the same file extensions,it does seem kinda stupid…. though not unlike Canon naming theirs on the 1ds a TIF.
Same clowns,different circus.
glenn
April 20th, 2005 at 10:18 am
The RAW file plugin that came with Photoshop CS, and the recent updates read the NEF files that you get with the D100 and the D70, it cannot read the D2X format and will not even open them. To open the D2X files you must first install the Nikon software that comes with the camera. This will automaticaaly install the new plugin to Photoshop - I may be mistaken, but I don’t think you even get prompted about this. After you have installed the new software the Photoshop file browser will now recognise the files and generate the thumbnails. The only controls you have in the initial dialog are file rotation, exposure compensation and white balance. The image preview is still a thumbnail. After you make the adjustments here, then you go into the image properly and can edit as normal with all Photoshop tools. It really is only that first step where you have the loss of some functions. The loss of the majority of the functions does not bother me, but I did like the Photoshop full size preview when making adjustments and the abailty to zoom in.
April 20th, 2005 at 10:19 am
My apologies to those who have already read my words over at the Adobe PS Win forum.
I do some technical (and non-technical) writing for camera companies and would like to offer some perspective.
As a Nikon DSLR and Photoshop/Camera Raw user, I am angry with Nikon for being “uncooperative.” I think they are misguided. However, I fully understand why camera makers would want to maintain control over the interpretation of RAW data. It has nothing to do with increasing corporate revenues by getting into the software business and everything to do with maintaining product differentiation in a highly competitive market that appears to be headed toward parity. Manufacturers want to avoid a situation in which pricing becomes their number one weapon in the market share wars.
It’s easy to make the sensor-film analogy, saying that camera makers need only concentrate on what happens until the light rays of the latent image strike the film/sensor plane. But digital camera design is far more complex.
Put aside RAW capture for the moment. Camera makers have long ago discovered that post-processing — specifically, the algorithms used in the digital signal processor downstream from the sensor — can have as much effect on image quality as the optics and the sensor itself. Noise, for example, assumed by many to be generated entirely by the sensor, can just as easily be caused by calculation errors at the DSP stage. Moreover, user “feel-good” factors — such as camera responsiveness, battery life, and overall ease of use — are essentially determined by the DSP. Guess what, folks? It’s all about the software.
There are many more camera manufacturers than there are sensor manufacturers, which means you very often find the same sensor in multiple camera models from multiple manufacturers. Yes, there are many areas other than sensor technology by which a camera maker can distinguish its products. One of those is software… or, more precisely, firmware. Camera makers have invested a lot of money into DSP technology, including software development. To neglect that aspect of digicam design would be tantamount to corporate suicide. The ones that have their own LSI capabilities have gone so far as to design and fabricate their own DSP chips with proprietary architectures. (Canon, with their Digic chip, comes to mind as an example.) But, here again, the hardware is not the story.
So, now, we come back to RAW capture. It really isn’t that difficult, in light of the above, to understand camera makers’ desire to maintain some control over the capture data especially after they leave the sensor. We can argue until we’re blue in the face that it’s simply wrong to go proprietary in RAW formatting, but convincing a camera maker of that, I think, is going to be a major uphill battle. They’ve invested money in the software end of things — not because they thought it would be a neat idea but rather because they saw that their very existence depended on it. Would you give it up that easily?
I don’t have any answers nor a crystal ball. As a user, I hope for a certain outcome… but I’m not holding my breath.
=-= Harron =-=
April 20th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Darren,
Thanks for taking the time to clarify that for me. I did misunderstand the full effect of this encoding.
I do EVERYTHING I possibly can in ACR to maintain the highest quality data,and streamlined efficient workflow. This severly interferes with that. I prefer the ergonomics of shooting with Nikon but use a 1ds (for the quality) which is a clunky unituitive frustrating camera to use when shooting spontaneous unscripted lifestyle imagery (and the auto focus sux as well)
I was hoping the D2x would be my camera, but not until this is resolved. Once again they’ve managed to fu&# it up and snatch defeat from the jaws of (a small) victory.
I think rather than waste energy on warning Nikon (whom has cast the first stone), just tell Canon to embrace DNG and nail nikons coffin shut.
Late to release,only a 4/3 format, unavailable, now this??
I guess they’ve been reading KODAKS playbook.
April 20th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
Harron,
You make some valid point as to the reason why Nikon may be doing this, but I have a problem grasping the logic behind it.
A RAW image as the name suggest is the raw unprocessed data straight from the sensor. That means that little or no DSP chip manipulation has been done before the data is stored. For many of us this can be a important part in choosing to shoot raw, since the internal DSP may have strong points but may just as well have flaws. With a RAW image you get to choose what software filters you apply to the image data. If Nikon forced theyr software to be used on all RAW images so that they all will get the “Nikon feeling”, to me a one of the reasons for raw is lost.
This apply to all camera manufacturers. But since Nikon has the dubious honor of beeing the first to actively hinder legaly free and unhindered access to you own raw data, they also have to take the heat.
For me it is very important that all photographers now tell Nikon that we will not tolerate this. Becouse if Nikon get’s away doing this, Canon and the rest will shortly follow.
April 20th, 2005 at 1:49 pm
John Huber,
if all you want from a RAW file is exactly the data from the sensor with nothing else done on it, then this should be of no relevance to you. You still get the RAW data. That has not changed (from what I understand reading about this)
Also, if you set a particular white balance (say “sunlight”) then it shows up in the EXIF info and you can read it. But this is just a tag, because the RAW data is still there and you can change the white balance as you want.
If you choose Auto white balance, then the in camera software does its calculations and comes up with a white balance that it thinks would be best for you to use. This choice is the only part that is encrypted. You can still open the RAW file, apply whatever white balance you want, etc. The only thing you don’t have access to is the choice that was made by the camera of what white balance would be best for you to use. But that has not changed the raw data from the sensor that you care about.
Is this a correct representation of what is going on? (Asking people who know more about this)
April 20th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
AJM,
Yes that is a correct assessement of what seems to be the current situation with the D2X raw files.
But as I stated earlier. If Nikon get’s away with encrypting the WB metadata, what is to stop them from encrypting the actuall imagedata next? It’s the next logical step when looking at this from their viewpoint.
For me atleast this is a matter of the photographer owning his images fully, and as such should be free in choosing how to use every part of his raw images.
April 20th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
John,
I suppose we can worry about Nikon encrypting the whole image data, but is that very likely? If they do, then I think they will definitely lose most users, unless other manufacturers are doing the same.
I do think that Nikon is doing this to protect some form of IP on the algorithm to create the auto WB and not just to make people pay for Nikon Capture. I think most of the money they make is on hardware (cameras and lenses… and scanners, microscopes, etc…) and not software.
I also think that this has been blown out of proportion. As someone mentioned before, I am sure Nikon will give Adobe access to the encryption with some form of legal binding. I may be wrong. Maybe Nikon does want to take on Adobe and not support the DNG, I don’t know much about the politics of all of that. But let’s face it, I don’t think Adobe is a philantropic company. They need to care about the bottom line. When open standard are good for them, they support them. When not, they don’t. Same for Nikon, same for Canon.
I think we should wait a little and see what happens. The D2X should be a great camera, you can still do whatever you want with the pics you take, so let’s just be patient (and vigilant, if you want)
AJM
April 20th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
All of this comes down to the simple need for DNG. Suppose you have a 4-year-old camera that you used to photograph the greatest project of your life. Of course, you shot RAW because the RAW format is superior to all others. You now turn on your computer and find that your camera manufacturer’s converter has not been updated to the new operating system and won’t run. Your greatest job can no longer be accessed. As operating systems change and as the world of digital capture grows, the potential for disaster increases.
You may indeed own the copyright to those files, but it could become a classic case of having no software to open them.
Currently, to open RAW files, you can use the camera manufacturer’s converter or a third-party software such as Capture One by Phase One or Adobe’s Camera Raw. From the perspective of digital photographers, the third-party manufacturers are typically the crème de la crème. Every time a new camera comes out, an engineer from the third-party manufacturer is required to reverse engineer the camera and try to adapt it to their software and then create an update for all their users. The lag time waiting for an update, however, can easily be months and now with the concept of encryption we have further exacerbated the problem. With all the new cameras coming out at such a rapid pace, you could have the latest camera, but your software of choice may not be updated.
As a photographer, you own the copyright to your work, which is granted at the moment of creation. You may own the copyright to your intellectual property, but if you can’t access the intellectual property you create, you have nothing. To me, the greatest concern for a digital photographer today is not how many times you archive, but will you be able to open your archive? Photographers are currently being held hostage because our ability to open these files is controlled by third parties. The need for DNG is imperative.
Nikon has taken one more step in the wrong direction. Personally, I used to be a Nikon shooter and like so many others I switched to Canon. This move by Nikon may actually prove to be beneficial for the industry. Why? Well if enough photographers continue to switch from Nikon to Canon, Nikon will continue to lose market share and thus eventually it won’t be a problem at all….
I give Adobe and particularly Thomas a ton of credit. He continues to reverse engineer cameras to make them work with ACR. For those of you who don’t know this is not a team of engineers at Adobe. It is Thomas and Thomas alone. My own advice to Thomas and Adobe has been to drop support of camera manufacturers at some point in the future if they don’t at least begin to work towards DNG.
Best,
seth
April 20th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Because Adobe has a dismal record with the DMCA (Shame on them!!!) doesn’t mean this article doesn’t make a vaid point about encrypting white balance data. First of all worth considering is who benefits from this. Clearly, no one except Nikon does. And while there are a number of ways of going about dealing with this encryption, they all remain impractical or bothersome. From neophyte to professionnal this simply isn’t worth all the trouble.
Also those who argue that this is “no big deal” should think again. Times are changing. Look around and discover that adapting to the customer’s needs isn’t job #1 anymore. This encryption isn’t a simple annoyance or a strategic error. It’s a sign that something else’s afloat. Ignoring this is very much like agreeing with it.
On a larger scale, it can also be argued that this hinders competition. Competing companies won’t be able to adapt or conform to Nikon’s way of storing RAW pictures without battling it out in court. So they’ll make their own standard and break interoperability. Given enough time, Canon, Leica and others might integrate encryption also – even moreso if it can be passed as a “feature”. And in order to change brand you’ll have to forego all the other brands.
In the end, I believe it’s a mistake to focus on the superficial aspect of this problem. One should ask the more profond question: where is this going to lead us tomorrow? If it dies down all the better. If it doesn’t than it can’t help getting worse; picture data will be encrypted and in a not so distant future we might wake up with a “broadcast flag” for cameras and all of a sudden we can take pictures of anything we want … so long as it’s permitted by the powers that be.
April 20th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
“Keep in mind that Adobe took legal action under the DMCA against Dmitry Sklyarov and Elcomsoft for reverse engineering and creating a program that removes restrictions from encrypted Acrobat files. Criminal charges were also filed in this case.”
The ebook format was created to give authors a viable means of protecting their intellectual property rights, ie: to control distribution of their books by using a activation process for the Adobe reader client.
Hacking the encryption used for ebooks allowed people to read protected PDF files without paying for the right to do so.
In my opinion, you’re “comparing apples to oranges”.
April 20th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
Seth,
do you really believe that “This move by Nikon may actually prove to be beneficial for the industry. Why? Well if enough photographers continue to switch from Nikon to Canon, Nikon will continue to lose market share and thus eventually it won’t be a problem at all….” ?
Do you really believe that having fewer choices, less competition is going to be good for photographers? Do you think Canon would come up with better and better cameras and lenses if there was no other major player?
I am not saying that we should “protect” companies that make mistakes. Surely if their actions cause their downfall it is their fault. At the same time though, I would not be so happy about it just because I don’t have their product or use a competing product. Fair competition is good. If I had only a Nikon, I would still be happy every time Canon brings out something new, because it will stimulate Nikon to do better (or at least to lower the prices…) Same thing if I had only a Canon.
AJM
April 21st, 2005 at 2:08 am
Corporations, Nikon and Cannon and Adobe for exampe, are in business to do one thing — make money. Nikon’s decision to encrypt WB data, assuming it was a calculated one, was to make money. Either by forcing the use of Capture or protecting it’s proprietary WB algorithm — both are means to the $ame end. In one case it’s trying to align cost (s/w and WB development) with revenue. In the other it’s trying to protect investment in product differentiation. Both are valid.
Personally, I prefer open standards, and the Nikons certainly allow you to use those — JPG and TIFF are both available and natively written. I don’t personally agree with the encryption of the WB data in the RAW file, but I can’t say that I spite Nikon for doing it.
I find it rather hypocritical that Adobe is commenting on this, but if anyone should know the in’s and out’s of DCMA, it should be them.
For those who use this as a justification to move to Cannon — the D2x with $100 for Capture is still much cheaper than the top of the Canon? Have you tried Canon’s raw program? Capture is light years ahead. The biggest drawback seems to be its use on Macs and it runs slow on D2x files (fixed in next version?). It is really a great program, and I find that I can do 90% of my work on Capture alone.
You have a choice. Vote with your pocketbook or your letters to Nikon. Whining on this forum will accomplish nothing…Mike
April 21st, 2005 at 7:54 am
AJM,
I was of course being facetious. Competition is a great thing and keeps the industry healthy. My point is that my inside sources at Canon tell me that Canon is keeping a very open mind about DNG. Nikon on the other hand has to the best of my knowledge been very closed minded about DNG.
I was a 15 year plus Nikon shooter. I dumped all of my equipment and switched to Canon long ago because I saw Canon as an industry leader in terms of R&D.
I really have only one concern. I have always been and will continue to be a photographers advocate. I teach digital workflow and my biggest issue and only issue with digtial today is the long term preservation and archiving of material so that future generations can be guaranteed the ability to benefit from the art that we produce today.
I have already seen older digital cameras with files that can’t be opened by the manufacturers converter of today. This is true of both Nikon and Canon. My Canon D30 files are not compatible with the latest release of Canon’s software. I am of course not shooting with the D30 and am using a 1DS Mark 11. But, suppose my Putlizer Prize was shot on a D30.
For the benefit of the industry and all future generations we need a format that is standard and open and that standard is DNG. Canon is at least listening and Nikon is the only company I know that has been moving in the opposite direction. The latest move by Nikon is BAD for the industry and good only for Nikon.
seth
April 21st, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Sad. I haven’t been monitoring the D2x for the last few months but decided to buy one for a trip to Africa. I am tired of hauling a film and a digital around and i thought this might be the answer. Anyway I got home yesterday with my new D2x only to find I was unable to open the raw files in Photoshop. Now I read this and I am rather upset.
I am a professional and was hoping for a smooth transition from the D1x to this but?
Raw is the only way to go. Nikon Capture has always sucked. In the old days, everyone used Nikons becuse they were in tune with the pro’s needs. You could get your camera repaired (which was rarely needed) from APS in 2 days. Canon took 2 weeks back then. Now they are both slow. Nikon has underestimated the professions love and support for Photoshop. I might have to return this one.
Looks like I may be shooting film on this trip.
April 21st, 2005 at 2:23 pm
I am writing to protest in the strongest terms about the secret encryption on Nikon Camera RAW files. I will not be purchasing further Nikon cameras and will advise my fellow professionals not to do so until this issue is resolved.
I was an unfortunate purchaser of the expensive Nikon Capture 1, undoubtedly the slowest software I ever attempted to use. Only recently Nikon failed to update Nikon View for OSX 10.3 for several months, leading to many crashed systems. At the moment their message centre is broken - maybe we are all complaining! As a result of these experiences I do not trust their software, and hence feel particularly aggrieved when they secretly encrypt my photographs, in order to make us use Nikon Capture.
This mean spirited and unilateral move is bad business for a company which claims to be the “friend of the Photographer”. The bad press is just beginning …and it all seems so unnecessary.
April 21st, 2005 at 4:04 pm
As with someone else who commented here, my new D2x is mostly sitting on the counter until my software again supports the camera I hope to be using regularly. Nikon knows full well that 99.999% of all photographers use Photoshop so their decision to usurp my individual choice to make my own decisions seems a particularly imprudent business strategy. It’s definitely dreadful PR, at least at this studio… Nikon certainly has the right to make any self-inflicted dumbass wounds they wish but they will not force me to do jack squat if they expect me to continue buying their gear. Although I have been a career-long Nikon devotee, of sorts, my loyalty is now hanging by a thread.
This dilemma strikes me as being essentially similar to an absurd-to-even-consider hypothetical scenario where Nikon encodes their new F6 film camera so it will accept only Fuji film. Film shooting photographers who prefer Kodak, etc, would rightfully be outraged if such a scenario were to occur, surely to the point of switching to another brand of camera. The D2x software issue essentially seems quite similar. Nikon is attempting to take away my right to choose, a fact I resent very much after spending a small fortune on Nikon equipment over the years.
This “Fuji only” film analogy points only to my feelings that we are - or should be - free to consume materials/gear/software/cars/toasters/breakfast cereals, etc, we prefer in any manner we prefer. If I want all my images to come out of the camera bright green by using “SuperGreenio” software I should be able to do so… Nikon has no right to force me - the guy who somehow managed to become successful making only bright green pictures - to change my green pictures to “Nikon correct” colors my green mind can’t handle… This silly analogy is not that far-fetched - Nikon has told me directly I can no longer use my software of preference Case closed. This fact leaves me only at those who switched to Canon years ago…
I feel it is to lodge an official complaint after spending close to $6k on ANY item I am displeased with for any reason. (key Nikon email addresses welcomed…)
Gary Parker
April 21st, 2005 at 8:57 pm
Please note that Black & Decker™ retains copyright on the wood you saw with your newly purchased circular Black & Decker™ saw.
April 22