Apr 27, 2005
RAW storm in a teacup? Dave Coffin interviewed
If anyone understands the ins and outs of RAW, it’s Dave Coffin, he has reverse engineered the RAW formats of almost every digital camera on the market and provides his code (dcraw.c) freely for anyone to use.
Source: DPReview
He recently posted a note on his web page pointing out that the encryption of metadata (in the current Nikon vs. Adobe situation) is nothing new and that it’s fairly common for manufacturers to apply some kind of protection to their RAW formats. We decided to ask him some of the questions this information raises and also those which have been asked by our readers.
April 27th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Well, that is an interesting reading and I suggest everybody who is upset about Nikon’s encryption of the WB data (and everybody who cares about RAW files, DNG, future problems with proprietary file formats, etc ) to read it, and to also follow the link contained in it to Joel’s essay.
I would like to thank Phil from dpreview, and the folks here at PSN, for having brought this to our attention and allowed comments on it.
Now I am curious to see people’s take on this.
AJM
April 27th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
I wish question 7 were more clearly answered:
7. Do you believe manufacturers are doing this to protect their own RAW converters or simply as a method of compressing the metadata?
Encryption is not compression. XOR’ing cleartext with a key does not change the size of a file — it only makes the contents harder to read.
——
Am I missing something? It sounds, reading between the lines that he believes this is done to product the converters but that seems impossible to do. So what’s the point?
April 27th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
It should be noted that Thomas has a slightly different take on the “other” camera companies and their “encryption” as described by Dave Coffin.
From a post on the Camera Raw U to U forums, Thomas said:
“Adobe Camera Raw does not break any encryption without the permission of the camera maker.
Canon does not use any encryption in the new “.CR2″ (or the raw “.TIF”) format that I’m aware of. There is some very weak metadata encryption used in the older “.CRW” format used by some of the Canon PowerShot cameras, but that was not the reason we not able to read the auto white balance from those cameras (the actual reason was a lack of documentation, which is another issue…).”
He has also stated that aside from Phase One cameras (they also encrypt their raw files but Camera Raw doesn’t try to process them) the only “intentional encryption” of raw file data was Sony. Sony gave permission to Adobe to break the encryption in Camera Raw.
Compression is not “encryption” as it serves a useful purpose of making files smaller. Nikon’s WB encryption does NOT make the file smaller, therefore the ONLY reason to encrypt the WB data is to make it more difficult to reverse engineer and to draw a line in the sand. Other than Sony and Phase One cameras, I know of noother camera company that has done that beside Nikon.
This does NOTHING to mitigate what Nikon has done. And you really have to question Nikon’s motives. Why do this? What is it they are really trying to hide? Why the WB data, when they could have encrypted any of the other data instead or in addition to the WB data.
Nikon’s responce last Fri was kinda like trying to put a fire out with gasolene. . .it didn’t work and now they have an even bigger problem.
April 27th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
Reading the comments from TK about the former Canon files, it would seem that Adobe did hack the format and used the information in the ACR conversion.
It would be interesting to hear whether Canon provided Adobe with an authorization for doing this or not. TK writes that an authorization was provided by Sony, but doesn’t mention Canon.
If it is indeed true that Adobe used without clear Canon authorization reverse engineered data initially encrypted in the Canon RAW file, then the question becomes:
- why hammer on Nikon and decide not to provide support for a function that WAS reverse engineered when the same was done for former Canon files?
Regards,
Bernard
April 27th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
I just talked to a contact at Canon (I’m a Canon Explorer) and can confirm that Canon has never intendtionally hidden anything by encryption and has no fundimental problem with 3rd parties such as Adobe with Camera Raw and Capture One supporting all the raw files Canon cameras produce.
Again, other than Sony who encrypted the entire file and Phase One who encrypts their large format raws, no other camera maker has taken the step of INTENTIONALLY adding encryption to any metadata where no encryption existed in previous version of their raw files except for Nikon. Don’t overlook that. . .
And TK has said that Canon’s CR2 format is almost the “perfect” TIFF-EP file in the manner in which Canon writes the files. Yes, they are still undocumented, but Canon, if anything is closer to DNG already than most all the raw file formats out there.
No, do NOT be confused, Nikon and Nikon alone have drawn a line in the sand. For that they will be punished in the marketplace, at least until such time as they reverse their decision or grant Adobe permission to decrypt the WB metadata.
The Dave Coffin sotry was interesting, but don’t use it as an excuse to let Nikon off the hook.
April 27th, 2005 at 8:50 pm
Jeff,
I am sorry but I don’t agree with you. Just because Canon already had a RAW format with encryption and Nikon came late to the encryption party, it doesn’t mean we should only bash Nikon. And Canon is still using the .crw format for some of their very popular cameras.
I also don’t understand why you keep using CAPS for the word “intentionally”. Are you implying that Canon had added encryption by “accident”? I don’t think so…
If we want to worry about encryption, we need to look at all of the camera makers who are using encryption. It’s not a matter of letting Nikon off the hook; it’s a matter of having the same standard for every company, whether you are affiliated with them or not.
And we may also want to discuss about innovation and competition in file formats. Maybe some of these companies do believe they can offer more by using a proprietary file format that they control and can change (hopefully for the better) instead of having to use a universal format (I am not advocating this. I haven’t made up my mind on this yet)
AJM
April 27th, 2005 at 8:54 pm
We should bash both, Nikon just deserves a tad more due to some intentionally stupid marketing decisions over the last few weeks. Until we get a universal RAW format out of both (and others), I agree we need to continue to bash all manufacturers.
April 27th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
I agree with Jeff. He is right on target with his criticism. I have used Nikons for 40 years. I am holding off buying a D2x because I don’t want data I create encrypted by the camera manufacturer. It’s my data pure and simple.
I know that the net effect of Nikon’s action to simply and only make the “As Shot” setting in Camera Raw ineffective. But I want the “As Shot” to work beacuse I like to be able to quickly return to “As Shot” settings. I own it the way the way I shot it, and that means “As Shot.”
Nikon has no right to deny me my right to see my images as I shot them. Isn’t that the idea of RAW format – the digital file that allows one to always return to the image as it was shot.
Furthermore, I want to use Photoshop and DNG. Nikon is making it harder for me to do that. I pay Nikon to make things easier for me, not harder. I don;t think any of us need anyone top make things harder. If Nikon insists on trying to force me to buys its software, I assure Nikon that it will instead force me to stop buying its cameras.
April 27th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
Richard,
I think you should consider the situation more carefully. The D2x doesn’t withhold anything of the image you took from you. From what I understand, the As shot WB is encrypted, but it is not so limiting as some people make it sound like. If YOU choose one of the pre-select WB, that info is stored as plain text in the EXIF of the file. So you can recover it immediately (and so could ACR, but I don’t know if they do). If instead you choose Auto WB and let the CAMERA do the calculation for you (so it is not data that you put in, really), then the EXIF will just say Auto WB, and the result of the Auto WB is indeed encrypted. But the data that YOU put in is still all there in the RAW file, YOU still have access to all of it and do whatever YOU want with it (for example, you can run a batch of Auto WB in PS!) That is indeed the beauty of RAW, and it is not affected by all of this.
I hope this put things into perspective.
I also offer you a hypothetical situation that I presented in another thread, but no one commented on it yet. I am very curious.
Suppose Nikon does not have a D2x, but a D2y, which is exactly the same camera as the D2x, same price, same features, etc. The only difference is that it does not do Auto WB when shooting in RAW. It does it for TIFF or JPG, and you can pre-select any WB you want in RAW. If you want Auto WB for RAW, you just import your images in PS and do an Auto WB there.
Would you not buy this camera because it doesn’t have Auto WB in RAW?
AJM
April 27th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
AJM,
Again, Canon went from, as TK said “some very weak metadata encryption used in the older “.CRW” format used by some of the Canon PowerShot cameras” which was not seen as an impediment to reverse engineering the cameras to the new cameras producing CR2 which are well produced first class TIFF-EP files (already VERY close to DNG files). If anything, Canon’s move is AWAY from any funny business with the raw files towards better written raw files.
In the case of Nikon, they have moved from having NO ENCRYPTION in any cameras to not only putting encyption in thier top of the line D2X but also in their newly announced D50 cameras.
So, Canon is going from loose encryption, which was no impediment to reverse engineering the files, to good TIFF-EP written CR2′s with no encryption.
Nikon on the other hand has gone from no encryption in any NEF’s to encryption in 3 cameras.
You don’t see the critical and fundimental difference?
No dooode, either you are blind, or you are simply not looking. . .
As for buying a D2y vs a D2X, I’ll take the 1Ds MII.
April 27th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
I feel a need to comment about Dave Coffin’s comments in the lead of this thread. Dave has done rather impressive work in building raw conversion software. His technical ability is beyond reproach. But I must take exception to his casual approach to legal limitations. Dave is not worried about being sued because he believes that no plaintiff will want to make a martyr of him in the public eye. He isn’t worried about the breaking the law. I won’t characterize that. Each can reflect on it in his or her way.
Adobe, on the other hand, has respected the DCMA. It is not going to break into encryptions without permissions, and permission means it would not be breaking in. Adobe is respecting the law. It is a law that protects every photographer – the Copyright Law. It was not written to be selectively broken when it you disagree with it, or it to your advantage. If we subscribe that it is OK to break the law, then we weaken our own protections as photographers.
If I encrypt an image file that I have on an FTP site waiting for a client to download and use it, is it OK for another party who has access to the FTP site to break that encryption to see what I have done or model a photo on mine? Certainly it is not OK. It’s against the law. If I catch that party, it will be hearing from my lawyer.
As far as I can determine, Nikon is the only company that is preventing others from accessing its encrypted data. Nikon is the only company that has published (then withdrawn) an article explaining why its software is what you should use first, avoiding Photoshop unless you need its sophisticated tools. Nikon is the only company that offered a page of nonsense in defense of its actions that are clearly not pro-photographer. Nikon is denying me a Nikon customer access to the data I create unless I access it through a Nikon tool.
I have Olympus Canon, Minolta, Leica, and Nikon raw files on my computer. All of them give me a complete “As Shot” view of my digital images. Unless Nikon provides a D2x with the exact same capability, I will be dropping Nikon as my prime system.
April 27th, 2005 at 10:51 pm
Richard,
maybe you haven’t read my previous message, but the D2x also gives you the ” “As Shot” view of [your] digital images”.
The fact is that for RAW files there is no WB applied to the image. So what’s picked up by the sensor goes (almost) unchanged in the RAW file, and WB is NOT applied. The “As shot” image is there for you to use. The WB choice is only tagged onto the RAW file. When you open the file in NC or PS, the WB tag is used to give you a first view of the image. But it can of course be changed, because it has not been applied to the original image.
As for Auto WB, just use the PS Auto WB instead of the camera Auto WB. And you can change that too of course.’
I agree that Dave attitude toward breaking encryption seems at least risky. On the other hand, we are (almost) all of us enjoying the fruit of his labor…
AJM
April 27th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Jeff,
Canon may be using a RAW format without encryption with some of its cameras. But for others (and if we count the number sold, I would say for the majority of them) they are still using a format with encryption. They haven’t moved very far in my book. But who knows, maybe they will embrace DNG. I’ll wait on that to judge them…
The reason why encryption is present in the D50 too has probably to do with the new process they use in camera. For example the D2x, the D2Hs (which also encrypts WB I think) and the D50 all use 3D Color Matrix II metering, as opposed to 3D matrix metering in previous cameras. They changed the in camera processing of data and they added WB encryption with that. It seems to confirm they want to protect this new metering mode with the encryption. Whether it is their true motive, I don’t know.
You also told me “No dooode, either you are blind, or you are simply not looking. . .” I like to think that I am looking at all companies action, while you are half-blind to what the company you like is doing…
And finally, you said “As for buying a D2y vs a D2X, I’ll take the 1Ds MII.” Well, it’s your money, but I think you missed the point of that question.
AJM
April 27th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
AJM,
Perhaps my undestanding is flawed. I admit to knowing more about Copyright that RAW files. But, accepting that you are correct, why did Nikon need to encrypt the files? It seems pointless based upon your explanation. Am I missing something?
The purpose of encryption it to be protective. Is Nikon trying to protect me from reading my white balance files? I don’ get it? Why not make my data as easily avialble to me as can be?
I understand that I can change th WB. I do it most often. I understand what you wrote – that I have in a D2x file all the flexibility I have ever had. So, I ask, why encrypt it? Isn’t an open file structure the best thing for photographers? Is that what Nikon is doing?
I just want open file structure and the reassurance that what I shoot today will be accessible a decade from now. Maybe Nikon is not the bad guy I perceive it to be in this current matter, but I am not convinced that is true. I will wait a few more weeks before making my decision about changing systems. Maybe Nikon will offer me something more in explanation that the nonsense it published the other day.
April 27th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
Again, Canon, if they had any intention of doing encryption, which is not clear despite what Dave said, is moving AWAY from cameras with ANY encryption.
Nikon, who had NOT encrypted, now is encrypting. . .and put out a pretty poor PR spin to it’s customers to boot.
So:
Canon now not encrypting. . .
Nikon now encrypting. . .
Pretty huge difference to me. Kinda like black vs. white, or good vs. not so good (ok, I think evil).
Big difference. . .very simple to understand.
April 27th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
You may consider to add some static links on this site, Jeff … such as PS 101, RAW 101 or copyright 101 so someone can always refer to these articles before they jump in a discussion.
April 28th, 2005 at 8:26 am
Both of Richard Weisgrau’s above posts seemed to sum up the issues beautifully!
Jeff, I agree with Simon that some of these posts are real gems and keepers and it would be nice to have some static area others can come and find.
April 28th, 2005 at 8:48 am
Actually, I would summarize it as:
- Canon has stopped encrypting on some cameras (but they still use the old partially-encrypted format on some cameras)
- Nikon has started encrypting on some camera (but they don’t encrypt WB on all the camera)
Both have a history of using the file format to protect their self-interests in some way, which is not good for the future stability of digital photography. I don’t think we can place one company in the devil suit and one in the angel suit. (But we can put Nikon in the dunce cap for a while…)
Richard, you mentioned that Nikon’s actions “seem pointless” – yeah, that is exactly the problem. Nikon took a step backward, and never explained why. They did this without any explanation, which lead us all to scratch our heads and try to come up with out own theories.
April 28th, 2005 at 9:33 am
Daniel,
thanks for a good summary. You “don’t think we can place one company in the devil suit and one in the angel suit”. That is what I am trying to tell Jeff. Hopefully he will understand that better if it is not coming from me
AJM
April 28th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Richard,
if you want “the reassurance that what I shoot today will be accessible a decade from now” and you are shooting with one of these encrypted formats, you can always use ACR to convert to DNG, and hope that that will always be supported by Adobe (as I think it promised to do). Is it an extra step to your workflow? Yes, but it can be automated. And if you are worried about your ability to open RAW files in the future, just do that for all RAW files from all camera makers.
Why has Nikon done this? I don’t know. There have been many possible explanation put forth by posters on the net.
i) Nikon want to screw their customers for the heck of it. Unlikely, don’t you think?
ii) They want to sell more copies of NC. Possible. But if so they wouldn’t give away their SDK that developers can use to open NEF files in other software, would they? Also, do you think that after making you spend $5000 for a camera they need that $100 so desperately? Especially considering that upgrades have been free? (As opposed to some other software…)
iii) They want to protect some of the technology that is used to create those nef in camera. Possible, but then the encryption should have been stronger. And I am not even sure it can be done with encryption.
iv) They want to control the whole experience. Their new philosophy is that camera and software work together to produce an image (it’s a new analogy. Forget about film. Digital is a new medium). So they want other people to use their SDK so they can control that experience better. I don’t know. Maybe, and this seems to be emerging from their recent statement.
In conclusion, I would like Nikon to either actually explain what they are doing or just go back to no encryption. But I will withhold judgement on them for now and just be vigilant.
Would I tell people to drop Nikon and buy Canon for this? No, as said before, Canon is not a humanitarian society. They’ll do what they can to make money, and I am not convinced their interest are aligned with mine yet (and maybe they will never be completely, unless I buy their stock…)
So I think the best for now is to remain vigilant and see how this evolves.
AJM
April 28th, 2005 at 11:24 am
–>if you want “the reassurance that what I shoot today will be accessible a decade from now” and you are shooting with one of these encrypted formats, you can always use ACR to convert to DNG.
The data should come out of the card in DNG. There’s no reason this can’t happen and there’s no advantage to anyone, especially the photographer in having yet another proprietary flavor of RAW. The ultimate goal of many here and elsewhere is to make a stink so that all the manufacturers produce a standard format to describe the RAW data. It’s extra work to convert to DNG but thank god for Adobe for providing this today and making much faster and easier in Bridge. That doesn’t take the manufacturers off the hook.
–>i) Nikon want to screw their customers for the heck of it. Unlikely, don’t you think?
Not all that unlikely. I think they want to make as big a profit as they can and Capture is something they see as a means to this.
–>ii) They want to sell more copies of NC. Possible. But if so they wouldn’t give away their SDK that developers can use to open NEF files in other software, would they?
So why not provide an open RAW standard and not encrypt the data? What’s in it for them to do this? They certainly are not looking out for the best interest of their customers. I’ve yet to hear anyone tell me how and why proprietary RAW files are better for me, the customer.
–>iii) They want to protect some of the technology that is used to create those nef in camera.
They can do this in DNG as there are areas where secret sauce can be placed while still allowing an open format. We have this today with ICC color profiles. They are called private tags. I can build a profile using X-rite or GMB and use the profiles cross platform in any ICC aware application because there’s a standard in the format. Yet there are private tags a manufacturer can use while still allowing an open format. So with a GMB profile, I can do things in that software product I can’t do in the x-Rite software but I can use the profiles in any ICC aware application.
–>In conclusion, I would like Nikon to either actually explain what they are doing or just go back to no encryption.
What good would it do you to have the encryption?
–>would I tell people to drop Nikon and buy Canon for this? No
I may. I don’t really care what people buy. I’d hate to see someone that doesn’t understand the issues buy a camera that provides a data file that restricts them today and in the future. Lots of potential users don’t know the issues so at the very least, we need to educate them. If they decide for themselves (as you have) that this isn’t something to lose sleep over, fine. But for many, it is a very big issue and concern.
April 28th, 2005 at 11:31 am
Personally, I don’t really care why Nikon did this. I just wish they didn’t, and wish they’d stop it. I’m glad that Canon is moving in the right direction, but then again, you pay a premium to play in their sandbox (An $8,000 SLR camera? Oy.)
I think what Nikon’s foot-shooting has made clear to all of us is that until a camera company publishes their format or adopts an open standard, we have to wary of their actions and how they can impact our profession.
April 28th, 2005 at 12:25 pm
Andrew,
you say “The data should come out of the card in DNG.” But according to whom? Adobe? I understand that there are a lot of people (including you) who would like that too. But there are many that are wary of DNG too. Although it is a well documented open format, it has been proposed and designed by a company which, despite what some people may say, has almost a monopoly when it comes to professional imaging and printing. Should camera makers be dictated by a software company on what they do in their cameras? Should they change their cameras every time Adobe decides to update the DNG format? What if Adobe said “use only Adobe RGB”? Surely we would have less trouble with color profiles. But is it worth it? I am bordering on the absurd here, but the point is that a variety of formats and choices is not necessarily a bad thing.
“–>i) Nikon want to screw their customers for the heck of it. Unlikely, don’t you think?
Not all that unlikely. I think they want to make as big a profit as they can and Capture is something they see as a means to this.”
Okay, but then it is not “for the heck of it” anymore, it is to sell NC, which was the second hypothesis.
“They certainly are not looking out for the best interest of their customers.”
They will appear to look for the best interest of their customer as long as that is what brings them money. Same for Canon, same for Adobe. None of these companies are humanitarian societies. The only companies that I trust put their customers interest first are humanitarian, not-for-profit groups (say Doctor without borders?) Whenever there is profit involved, it is going to come first, especially if it is a big company. I don’t blame them for that, it is their nature. Adobe wouldn’t push for DNG if it wasn’t helpful for them, don’t you think?
“They can do this in DNG as there are areas where secret sauce can be placed while still allowing an open format.”
Does DNG really allows enough flexibility to do this? Can an open format allow a camera maker all of the flexibility they may need now or in the future? I don’t know. I don’t think they know either. But they may be wary of committing to a format that may not meet their needs in the future. And what would they do then? Go BACK to a proprietary format? Can you imagine the uproar THEN, if this is what we get for a WB encryption?
“What good would it do you to have the encryption?”
Me directly? None. Them, I don’t know. If it does them some good, it may then trickle down to me too. See points iii) and iv) in the previous message.
Anyway, I am saying that we don’t have enough info to judge this yet. nor we can be sure that Canon and/or Adobe are our saviors. The digital format is still evolving. We still don’t know what our needs are going to be in 50 years. Let’s have choices, and let the market decide. I am not comfortable having a software company decide for me.
AJM
April 28th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
–>you say “The data should come out of the card in DNG.” But according to whom? Adobe?
According to me (my preference). If not DNG, some standard RAW format. As such, this is the closest we have to such a standard. When I tell my Canon to give my a JPEG, that’s what I get. There’s no ambiguity to the format and it’s the same JPEG (as far as format) you get off a Nikon or Olympus. So while the RAW file doesn’t have to be a DNG, I want the same standard file I get and can use as if I asked for JPEG. If you know of something that’s more universal than DNG, I’ll vote for that. As such I see nothing better.
–>But there are many that are wary of DNG too.
Why? Are they concerned with TIFF or JPEG?
–>Although it is a well documented open format, it has been proposed and designed by a company which, despite what some people may say, has almost a monopoly when it comes to professional imaging and printing.
Do I care? No. Adobe owns TIFF. As such, do you know of a more universal file format that is around with the same capabilites? The alternative I should prefer is a proprietary format owned by Nikon? How is that a better option? In 15 years, I’ve yet to see a reason why I should be concerned that Adobe owns TIFF or would be the originator of DNG. Niikon (and others) have done the opposite.
I still see no advantage in a proprietary format no matter who owns it. Someone has to come up with the format and get the ball rolling. Might as well be Adobe, they have an excellent track record in the industry.
–>Should camera makers be dictated by a software company on what they do in their cameras?
No, by their customers which I think by and large support an open RAW format by an overwhelming majority.
–>What if Adobe said “use only Adobe RGB”? Surely we would have less trouble with color profiles.
You want to play the “what if” game? Adobe has no history of doing this. Using your logic, we should just not progress in any direction because “what if…” That’s not acceptable. IF Adobe does something as dumb as Nikon, it will have an even larger customer base to answer to.
–> None of these companies are humanitarian societies.
I never said they are nor should they act that way. But if any of these companies do silly things like the recent work by Nikon, they will answer to their customers. I believe in a free market and as such, I’d rather take a risk (if there is a risk which I doubt based on 15 years of history) on Adobe and not on Nikon. There are no guarantees. As such, one company has a pretty darn impressive track record and another is exhibiting severe bone headed marketing.
–>Adobe wouldn’t push for DNG if it wasn’t helpful for them, don’t you think?
It’s very helpful to me as their customer which makes it very helpful to them. It’s a win/win. When are you going to tell me how I win by Nikon or anyone else continuing with proprietary RAW formats??????
–>Does DNG really allows enough flexibility to do this?
Yes it does. There certainly isn’t anything out there that anyone has stepped up to the plate that’s better by a long shot.
–>Anyway, I am saying that we don’t have enough info to judge this yet. nor we can be sure that Canon and/or Adobe are our saviors
So we should do nothing but sit around and let the camera manufacturers continue doing what they are doing? I don’t see that as being proactive or a good idea when we do have a better mousetrap in the form of DNG. Is it pefect? I can’t answer that but would suspect it’s not perfect. It is better than any alternative and being pushed by a 900lb Gorilla that can make the format a reality and make life better for me? Yes.
–>I am not comfortable having a software company decide for me.
Then who would? The Government? Not.
April 28th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
Andrew,
Adobe has indeed a good track record, but it is not spotless. Consider for example the ACR plugin for PS 7. When I decided to try RAW, I went looking for that plugin, ready to pay the $100 for it. But, as you know, after the arrival of PS CS, the plugin for PS 7 was pulled. If I wanted it, I had to pay my $150 for an upgrade to PS CS. That was NOT a very customer friendly action, was it?
Adobe has also acted in a very Microsoftian way by buying out Macromedia. Do you think this is going to be good for consumers? Is it going to increase their choices in the marketplace? And this was just a few days ago.
Nikon has had good points. Working with the same lens mount is an important commitment. (Hey, Canon has just partially changed lens mount again, with their EF-S lenses. Try mounting that on a few years old digital body). Updates for Nikon Capture have also been free. Not a bad thing for Nikon customers.
I am not going to say that Nikon treats its customer better that Adobe of course. They are both very successful companies, and they got that way also by being careful to their customer needs. So all I am saying is cut Nikon some slack and see how this develops.
But again, I don’t think a single company should force others to use only one format, with the excuse that it is better for customers. Let’s face it, Adobe would like every camera maker to just use DNG so it doesn’t have to use resources to support various formats. Is it going to pass the savings to us? Unlikely.
As you say, let the market decide what succeeds and what does not.
Now, if you are concerned about this, you are free to discuss about it and have your opinion heard. But I wish people refrained from statements such as “Nikon apparently thinks they own the information inside the NEF” or “Nikon clearly does not want third party raw converters reading their files (they would much rather sell you a copy of Nikon Capture)” which to me amount to nothing but FUD tactics (again, Microsoft teaches well)
AJM
April 29th, 2005 at 8:37 am
–>Adobe has indeed a good track record, but it is not spotless. Consider for example the ACR plugin for PS 7. When I decided to try RAW, I went looking for that plugin, ready to pay the $100 for it. But, as you know, after the arrival of PS CS, the plugin for PS 7 was pulled. If I wanted it, I had to pay my $150 for an upgrade to PS CS. That was NOT a very customer friendly action, was it?
First, if you got your $100 worth out of the plug-in prior to it being part of Photoshop, you got what you paid for. 2nd, this has NOTHING to do with RAW formats and how evil Adobe is going to be in this respect based on the paranoid who suggest they have their own agenda.
–>Adobe has also acted in a very Microsoftian way by buying out Macromedia.
Please, give me a break. Big companies buy other big companies all the time. Do I think it will be good for consumers? Maybe yes, maybe no. And again, this has NOTHING to do with the RAW format and doesn’t as yet at all negatively reflect on past and present actions by Adobe. Come back in a year if you find that this merger results in more global warming or impotence in teenage boys. For now, it’s a straw man argument.
–>Nikon has had good points. Working with the same lens mount is an important commitment. (Hey, Canon has just partially changed lens mount again, with their EF-S lenses.
With vast improvements in product! If the pluses of new technology are worth the changes AND customers buy the new products and are happy with the lack of non-backward compatibility, fine. Yes, Nikon has good points. I’m not about to make them this evil company as some are suggesting Adobe is. The fact remains that in the last few weeks, they have sunk to new levels in stupidity. No one put a gun to their heads.
–>So all I am saying is cut Nikon some slack and see how this develops.
Wrong! Put on more pressure until the company DOES listen to customers and fixes this mess they designed. It’s going to get ignored if we don’t complain. The squeaky wheel, remember? A good deal of Nikon customers are saying they will move to another system. If we keep this up, Nikon has two options: lose a lot of sales but not fix the issue (screw em, they deserve to see their market share fall even more) or fix the issues, make the customers happy and work on damage control. This will not happen if the stink about them stops. They will simply hope the issue will fade away.
–>But again, I don’t think a single company should force others to use only one format, with the excuse that it is better for customers.
You don’t get it do you? Sorry but do you read what’s been posted here? No company, certainly not Adobe is doing this. It’s the hundreds (maybe thousands) of photographers and other customers making the demands. That’s how a free market system works! It IS better for the customer unless after THREE attempts you will explain how it isn’t better for the customer (Please, please… how are proprietary RAW formats better for me???????????).
–>But I wish people refrained from statements such as “Nikon apparently thinks they own the information inside the NEF” or “Nikon clearly does not want third party raw converters reading their files (they would much rather sell you a copy of Nikon Capture)” which to me amount to nothing but FUD tactics (again, Microsoft teaches well)
Well why do what they do and ignore the wishes of their customers who have vocally asked for an open format (at least those who understand the issues)? I’m sure there are LOTS of Nikon users who have no idea what the pluses and minus (if any) of an open RAW format. So some of us are out there trying to educate them. When they understand the issues, I’ve yet to find anyone (other than yourself) who has a compelling reason to want to continue producing proprietary RAW data considering the alternative. So this is about education and customer demands, not Adobe forcing anything on any company.
And again, why is having 100+ Proprietary RAW good for me??????
April 29th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Andrew,
first let me say that I am enjoying this discussion. I hope you are not taking any of this personally. I enjoy sharing my views and comparing them with other people, often more informed than me on these matters.
But you are mischaracterizing some of my statements.
For example: “First, if you got your $100 worth out of the plug-in prior to it being part of Photoshop, you got what you paid for.”
But I didn’t, I coudn’t. When I looked for the plugin, it was gone because of PS CS. Now I am not saying that Adobe should update an older version (with new cameras supported, for example), but if they were truly customer friendly, why pull a product that was already there and wouldn’t have to support when the next version comes bundled with a software I may not want? The answer, I think, is that they get more money out of an upgrade to PS. Financially sound, yes. Customer friendly, no.
“Big companies buy other big companies all the time. Do I think it will be good for consumers? Maybe yes, maybe no.”
Well, I can ask you your same question. What good do you think I am going to get from having less choices for web design applications, for example?
“Come back in a year if you find that this merger results in more global warming or impotence in teenage boys.”
Tell me how Nikon’s encryption of WB is increasing global warming…
Come on, don’t give me these arguments
“And again, this has NOTHING to do with the RAW format and doesn’t as yet at all negatively reflect on past and present actions by Adobe.”
You are right, they are not directly related to the RAW argument. And I wasn’t trying to make them so. What I was trying to do is to show that Adobe does not have “an excellent track record in the industry.” It’s pretty good. But it is not excellent, and it shows that when money and user interests collide, money wins (which is fine, it is a for-profit company)
To summarize, I am not trying to single out Adobe. I am just saying that relying on a big corporation to do our interests is risky. Letting a big corporation have too much power is risky. Microsoft has often inferior products, does not care much about its customers, but they still control most of the market. It’s hard to fight them.
Is Adobe going to be like Microsoft? I hope not. But if you want to be upset at Nikon, keep an eye on other companies too (unless they are paying you)
” how are proprietary RAW formats better for me?”
).
I don’t know as much about RAW formats and DNG to answer that question exactly (if I did, I would probably be working for Adobe or some camera maker or imaging company and make much more money than I do now!
But I can give you an analogy (and use your answer…) Imagine that Canon was bound to the standard of EF lenses. Imagine EF lenses were what all of the camera makers used. Would they be free to make changes and introduce the EF-S lenses “With vast improvements in product! “, as you said? No, they would have a hard time doing so. Same thing could happen with DNG. If everybody was using that, how easy would it be for a company to introduce something innovative? If they could, how long would it take?
So maybe having a camera maker keep a proprietary RAW format would allow them to change it (for the better, one hopes) much more rapidly. And if the market welcome those changes, other camera makers would be compelled to advance too. IP is an important part of free competition. An open standard is good for some things (and I am a big fan of Linux, BSD, Darwin, etc.), but is not the answer to all our problems.
“That’s how a free market system works!”
Yes, and I already said that I want the market to decide, didn’t I?
“The squeaky wheel, remember?”
I agree, and if it sounded like I said you shouldn’t complain to them, I apologize. You are free to complain and be heard. Please read also my next statements though.
“So some of us are out there trying to educate them.”
I am all for that. I work in education!
But education is not proselytizing. Or maybe that’s too strong of a word. Let’s say that education requires one to be careful, objective, and present the complete picture. After reading Thomas original message, I thought that Nikon was the only company that encrypted the RAW file. It wasn’t until I read Dave Coffin’s comments on his webpage that I discovered it isn’t so. Now I am not attributing Thomas comments to you, but a bad job of educating was done if such a misconception was created (and I know I wasn’t the only one), don’t you think?
(And as I said in my very first message here, I thank PSN for having linked to the dpreview interview with Dave and allowed these comments)
Educating is not scaring people. Let me repeat this, saying things like “Nikon apparently thinks they own the information inside the NEF” is not educating, it is scaring people and misrepresenting the problem. Don’t you agree with me at least on this point? Or at least that what you are concerned about (proprietary formats, open standards, etc.) is what needs to be discussed and that Nikon has not claimed they own your images?
Anyway, thanks for the ongoing discussion.
AJM
April 29th, 2005 at 3:33 pm
–> how are proprietary RAW formats better for me?”
I don’t know as much about RAW formats and DNG to answer that question exactly (if I did, I would probably be working for Adobe or some camera maker or imaging
Bottom line. The options you have are to have an open standard file format that allows any number of companies and users to handle your data or you don’t. You don’t need to know squat about the internal structure of DNG just as you don’t need to know how a TIFF file is built. Neither of us does and that doesn’t matter. If you have a camera system that produces a proprietary file format, what happens if that company doesn’t support it in the future? You’re screwed. Do you really have no opinion about having an open and documented file format that describes to anyone how to handle your image data versus having the same data locked and unavaiable?
April 29th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
Andrew,
yes I have an opinion and it is partially similar to yours. For example, I prefer to use LaTeX for writing documents instead of M$ Word also for that reason (not the only reason though). LaTeX files are plain text files, so I am pretty sure that many years from now I will still be able to open them and read what I wrote.
So ideally I would like to have an open format that works great and is used by all camera makers and imaging software.
The reason why I am not sure about DNG is the same I stated before. I don’t know much about it, and I can’t predict the future. Are you completely sure that DNG allows for innovations from camera makers?
As I said before, imagine if the EF lanses were the open standard used by everybody. How long would Canon have had to work to convince everybody to switch to EF-S lenses? Right now, they don’t have to ask for permission to anyone, they just do it, and the market will decide if it works or not.
As another example, let’s go back to LaTeX. As much as I love it and I appreciate its philosophy, I do recognize its pace of innovation is glacial, or at least it looks that way comapred to other changes in the computer industry. We have been waiting for LaTeX 3 for years. Now I don’t mind at all in this case, because what I have works well.
But I seriously doubt that any company could make money in LaTeX and produce innovations.
So you see, my problem is not open and documented formats. Ideally I am for that. What I am concerned is if it is a viable model in a field that is competitive and very rapidly changing. Maybe when things get settled in a few years. Right now, I don’t know. (And right now, if you are concerned, you can still save in TIFF or convert to DNG)
Now that I answered your question, I am curious about your opinion to the other points I made in my previous post.
AJM