Comments on: Nikon Responds. . . https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/ The latest news about the top pixel wrangling application on the planet. Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:06:05 -0600 https://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: sportshooter https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-987 sportshooter Sat, 03 Dec 2005 03:53:40 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-987 As I recall, one of the main reasons Sports Illustrated switched to all canon was the ability to get raw + jpg quickly for editing. It was a software issue that over time ended up seriously hurting thier "high profile" sports photography market. As I recall, one of the main reasons Sports Illustrated switched to all canon was the ability to get raw + jpg quickly for editing. It was a software issue that over time ended up seriously hurting thier “high profile” sports photography market.

]]>
By: V. Whittier https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-675 V. Whittier Mon, 01 Aug 2005 19:04:39 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-675 Adobe "File Browser/Bridge" needs to get a LOT better before I would consider it a "state of the art" tool for basing my workflow. I am extremely frustrated by the fact the CS2 offers MANY ways to automate, all of which (except the only semi-automatic Bridge) suffer from the same limitations that block the one thing that I seem to need to write a custom automation solution to achieve -- batch processing metadata. I finally came to the conclusion that the most acceptable (but still poor) solution was to use Bridge to create sidecar XMP files with my NEFs. To my horror I find that UNLESS I use Adobe's converter, I cannot merge my metadata into the new files I am batch creating. Adobe supports sidecars ONLY through Camera Raw! From my point of view propagation of Metadata is a CRITICAL digital workflow issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the file format used. If I embed XMP in a jpeg, tiff, or psd, I want an automated way to extract it and load it into another file. No matter WHAT RAW file editor I use. There are many aspects of this debate that are as much a product of limitiations or weaknesses in Adobe's solutions as they are Nikon's. I am very happy with my Nikon cameras, I have no problem with Capture except that it doesn't offer a rich enough metadata editing capability. I see no evidence that Nikon is attempting to replace PhotoShop with Capture. I would buy it no matter what because it will let me control my cameras from my computer. From the point of view of a hardware manufacturer, it does make sense that you would want to keep your "native" format proprietary so that it is free to be tweaked as part of the engineering equation that makes your overall product superior to your competitors (i.e. companies like Canon, NOT Adobe). This is essentially why the NEF format has changed in response to different Nikon digital camera offerings. The reason that a company offers an API in these circumstances is that it becomes burdensome to externally support all of the variations. This is very similar to Adobe's motivation for wanting a standard Raw format. However, standardization does pose a risk that camera manufacturers would be hampered in their ability to exploit the full potential enabled by technological advances. Generally, you can find generic drivers to operate your hardware for most purposes, but if you want to fully exploit all the capabilities of your specific hardware, you are better off using the drivers provided by the hardware manufacturer. What Nikon is doing here is not that abnormal and should not be taken to imply that they are trying to become the Microsoft of Digital Photography. It should be very clear by now that if THIS is the risk that concerns you, you should be aligning with ANYONE but Canon and Adobe! Adobe “File Browser/Bridge” needs to get a LOT better before I would consider it a “state of the art” tool for basing my workflow.

I am extremely frustrated by the fact the CS2 offers MANY ways to automate, all of which (except the only semi-automatic Bridge) suffer from the same limitations that block the one thing that I seem to need to write a custom automation solution to achieve — batch processing metadata. I finally came to the conclusion that the most acceptable (but still poor) solution was to use Bridge to create sidecar XMP files with my NEFs. To my horror I find that UNLESS I use Adobe’s converter, I cannot merge my metadata into the new files I am batch creating. Adobe supports sidecars ONLY through Camera Raw!

From my point of view propagation of Metadata is a CRITICAL digital workflow issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the file format used. If I embed XMP in a jpeg, tiff, or psd, I want an automated way to extract it and load it into another file. No matter WHAT RAW file editor I use.

There are many aspects of this debate that are as much a product of limitiations or weaknesses in Adobe’s solutions as they are Nikon’s. I am very happy with my Nikon cameras, I have no problem with Capture except that it doesn’t offer a rich enough metadata editing capability. I see no evidence that Nikon is attempting to replace PhotoShop with Capture. I would buy it no matter what because it will let me control my cameras from my computer.

From the point of view of a hardware manufacturer, it does make sense that you would want to keep your “native” format proprietary so that it is free to be tweaked as part of the engineering equation that makes your overall product superior to your competitors (i.e. companies like Canon, NOT Adobe). This is essentially why the NEF format has changed in response to different Nikon digital camera offerings. The reason that a company offers an API in these circumstances is that it becomes burdensome to externally support all of the variations.

This is very similar to Adobe’s motivation for wanting a standard Raw format. However, standardization does pose a risk that camera manufacturers would be hampered in their ability to exploit the full potential enabled by technological advances. Generally, you can find generic drivers to operate your hardware for most purposes, but if you want to fully exploit all the capabilities of your specific hardware, you are better off using the drivers provided by the hardware manufacturer.

What Nikon is doing here is not that abnormal and should not be taken to imply that they are trying to become the Microsoft of Digital Photography. It should be very clear by now that if THIS is the risk that concerns you, you should be aligning with ANYONE but Canon and Adobe!

]]>
By: Roger, L https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-428 Roger, L Sun, 01 May 2005 21:37:28 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-428 Simple, customers's decision shape the market; hey, we are the one that make windows popular, can't denied their contribute to the computer world. (And once consumer had choose, war over) Who's looking forward for Longhorn XP? Not me~ AJM and all the valuable opinions are great, but motivation is what "WE" can do. My personal motivation is to join "No" nikon group; if I ("WE") lose, I go for Canon, simple~ (or what ever is great in the future) Trust me, the file format war will simply end. I don't give comments simply because everyone has their needs, for fun or for living. (Nikon capture is still one of the top choice of simple workflow-- even though I hate it too) Do you know nikon softwares (all), once installed, they replace the photoshop plugin with their crappy one; without mention it: personally I think this is a greater issue then this one, Nikon actually "Invade" our personal freedom!!!! Personally this war made photoshop so.... slow and bulky, I get tired of both nikon and adobe. (can anyone tell me how can I read DNG file in photoshop v7.0.1??) The worse thing I'm worry is "will nikon change their mount, so DSL only can use their DX series?" If this happened, I probabily will support the develope an digital film device that can use on tranditional cameras, If I am capable of doing so. (or the money for R&D) Simple, customers’s decision shape the market; hey, we are the one that make windows popular, can’t denied their contribute to the computer world. (And once consumer had choose, war over) Who’s looking forward for Longhorn XP? Not me~

AJM and all the valuable opinions are great, but motivation is what “WE” can do. My personal motivation is to join “No” nikon group; if I (”WE”) lose, I go for Canon, simple~ (or what ever is great in the future)

Trust me, the file format war will simply end. I don’t give comments simply because everyone has their needs, for fun or for living. (Nikon capture is still one of the top choice of simple workflow– even though I hate it too)

Do you know nikon softwares (all), once installed, they replace the photoshop plugin with their crappy one; without mention it: personally I think this is a greater issue then this one, Nikon actually “Invade” our personal freedom!!!!

Personally this war made photoshop so…. slow and bulky, I get tired of both nikon and adobe. (can anyone tell me how can I read DNG file in photoshop v7.0.1??)

The worse thing I’m worry is “will nikon change their mount, so DSL only can use their DX series?” If this happened, I probabily will support the develope an digital film device that can use on tranditional cameras, If I am capable of doing so. (or the money for R&D)

]]>
By: Victor Aberdeen https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-397 Victor Aberdeen Thu, 28 Apr 2005 07:21:27 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-397 AJM, Yes you are correct the algorithm Nikon use to create the auto white balance is their IP, but the white balance is the photographers, it is part of the data belonging to the photograph. If you consider the analogy, Fuji could claim that the green emulsion layer is their IP and so all the photos taken with green in are ... - stupid yes? This is a simple line, what process is used in the camera to get the image onto the storage device is the IP of Nikon. What is on the storage device is the copyright of the photographer and any restriction, impedance or interference to hinder the photographers access to the image is an abuse of the photographers copyright. To most this will never matter, they will produce fine photographs with out ever considering this issue. But when the D3X arrives and the RAW file is locked to except to users of Nikon capture, who will be to blame, all of us for not demanding that Nikon and others open up the raw format to their customers. Nikon and others have yet to answer the question, are they in the cathedral or the bazaar? Vic REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar AJM,

Yes you are correct the algorithm Nikon use to create the auto white balance is their IP, but the white balance is the photographers, it is part of the data belonging to the photograph. If you consider the analogy, Fuji could claim that the green emulsion layer is their IP and so all the photos taken with green in are … – stupid yes?

This is a simple line, what process is used in the camera to get the image onto the storage device is the IP of Nikon. What is on the storage device is the copyright of the photographer and any restriction, impedance or interference to hinder the photographers access to the image is an abuse of the photographers copyright.

To most this will never matter, they will produce fine photographs with out ever considering this issue. But when the D3X arrives and the RAW file is locked to except to users of Nikon capture, who will be to blame, all of us for not demanding that Nikon and others open up the raw format to their customers.

Nikon and others have yet to answer the question, are they in the cathedral or the bazaar?

Vic

REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

]]>
By: AJM https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-379 AJM Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:07:54 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-379 This is quite interesting and shows why we either worry about all camera manufactures (including Nikon AND Canon) or we don't: https://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701davecoffininterview.asp I understand it is also on PSN main page, but why are comments not allowed? AJM This is quite interesting and shows why we either worry about all camera manufactures (including Nikon AND Canon) or we don’t:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701davecoffininterview.asp

I understand it is also on PSN main page, but why are comments not allowed?

AJM

]]>
By: Richard Earney https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-376 Richard Earney Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:11:13 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-376 Jack Goodman: Adobe don't really announce products (unless Thomas Knoll does!!) The concept is that Photoshop ships in May (ahem) and the update to Camera RAW 3.1 comes out about then. Apparently :-) Jack Goodman:

Adobe don’t really announce products (unless Thomas Knoll does!!) The concept is that Photoshop ships in May (ahem) and the update to Camera RAW 3.1 comes out about then.

Apparently :-)

]]>
By: AJM https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-372 AJM Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:52:59 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-372 Jack, that's all I know too. Harron, oopsss, sorry. (But as the message after yours shows, you shouldn't worry about me ruining anything :-) ) Jack,
that’s all I know too.

Harron,
oopsss, sorry.
(But as the message after yours shows, you shouldn’t worry about me ruining anything :-) )

]]>
By: J. Bokor https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-371 J. Bokor Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:58:42 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-371 You're all focusing on the wrong thing. This is simply an attempt by Nikon to create a pathway toward charging Adobe for the right to convert NEFs in Photoshop. Since Adobe will pass the cost along, Nikon really wants to charge YOU, but they knew that if they came out and said that from the start, there'd be a major revolt. So they're taking an interim step of saying to Adobe "don't worry, we're not going to charge you for the SDK or ask for a royalty on every copy of Photoshop". But Adobe, quite correctly, knows that that's the next step, so that's why they're objecting. If they wait until Nikon springs the trap, there will be too many photographer's stuck with Nikon gear and they'll have to knuckle under and pay. If Nikon gets away with it, then Canon and the rest will follow and we'll all have to pay. The solution is that Nikon shooters must say no, we're going to switch to Canon if Nikon doesn't give up this insanity. You’re all focusing on the wrong thing. This is simply an attempt by Nikon to create a pathway toward charging Adobe for the right to convert NEFs in Photoshop. Since Adobe will pass the cost along, Nikon really wants to charge YOU, but they knew that if they came out and said that from the start, there’d be a major revolt. So they’re taking an interim step of saying to Adobe “don’t worry, we’re not going to charge you for the SDK or ask for a royalty on every copy of Photoshop”. But Adobe, quite correctly, knows that that’s the next step, so that’s why they’re objecting. If they wait until Nikon springs the trap, there will be too many photographer’s stuck with Nikon gear and they’ll have to knuckle under and pay. If Nikon gets away with it, then Canon and the rest will follow and we’ll all have to pay. The solution is that Nikon shooters must say no, we’re going to switch to Canon if Nikon doesn’t give up this insanity.

]]>
By: Harron https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-370 Harron Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:59:09 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-370 <i>Dave Coffin... states quite clearly that Nikon is NOT the ONLY ONE encrypting data in their RAW format. Canon, for example, does the same.</i> Shhh, AJM. You're ruining it for those of us who are hoping for a glut of Nikon DSLR gear on eBay. Dave Coffin… states quite clearly that Nikon is NOT the ONLY ONE encrypting data in their RAW format. Canon, for example, does the same.

Shhh, AJM. You’re ruining it for those of us who are hoping for a glut of Nikon DSLR gear on eBay.

]]>
By: Jack Goodman https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-369 Jack Goodman Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:15:51 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-369 Martin, Richard, AJM do any of you have any more specific information as to when Adobe will support D2X raw? Right now, all there web site says is May. Martin, Richard, AJM do any of you have any more specific information as to when Adobe will support D2X raw? Right now, all there web site says is May.

]]>
By: AJM https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-368 AJM Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:50:15 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-368 Richard, I had read that somewhere. I thought it was just a simple outline of what the exchange might have been like. I don't think Adobe and Nikon would talk to each other that way... But thanks for posting it. Jeff's comments seem to answer what I was asking. Does he know this stuff well? If so, I am partially content with that answer. Now, I just read Dave Coffin statement on https://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ and he states quite clearly that Nikon is NOT the ONLY ONE encrypting data in their RAW format. Canon, for example, does the same. If that is true, that this whole reaction to Nikon seems to be misplaced or at least reductive. If encrypting data is common, then we either boil this argument down to the slight pain of having to deal with Auto WB in a different matter for NEF files, OR we have to decry all of the camera manufacturers that encrypt data. Because as many posters said, if they already encrypt data, how far wil they go? Will they encrypt the whole image? Let's not blame only Nikon and ask the same question to Canon and others then (here is my Devil's advocate cap again) AJM Richard,
I had read that somewhere. I thought it was just a simple outline of what the exchange might have been like. I don’t think Adobe and Nikon would talk to each other that way… But thanks for posting it.
Jeff’s comments seem to answer what I was asking. Does he know this stuff well? If so, I am partially content with that answer.

Now, I just read Dave Coffin statement on
https://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/
and he states quite clearly that Nikon is NOT the ONLY ONE encrypting data in their RAW format. Canon, for example, does the same.
If that is true, that this whole reaction to Nikon seems to be misplaced or at least reductive. If encrypting data is common, then we either boil this argument down to the slight pain of having to deal with Auto WB in a different matter for NEF files, OR we have to decry all of the camera manufacturers that encrypt data. Because as many posters said, if they already encrypt data, how far wil they go? Will they encrypt the whole image? Let’s not blame only Nikon and ask the same question to Canon and others then (here is my Devil’s advocate cap again)

AJM

]]>
By: Richard Earney https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-365 Richard Earney Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:16:26 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-365 AJM: Here is Thomas's oft repeated view of the Tennis Match. Presumably from this they do have access to the SDK. Adobe: Can you please document NEF format? Nikon: No, but you can use our SDK. Adobe: But the Nikon SDK does not provide what Camera Raw needs to operate, and using it would limit Camera Raw's speed, UI features, and quality of results (e.g. Camera Raw's special highlight recovery algorithms). Nikon: Then redesign Camera Raw to work within the limits of our SDK. Adobe: No, we don't want to cripple Camera Raw. Please document NEF format. Nikon: No, redesign Camera Raw to work within the limits of our SDK. etc. This was followed by Jeff Schewe's following comment: The Nikon SDK does NOT allow access to the raw file data, only the Nikon library processing of the raw data. It's slow, poorly optimized (if at all) single threaded, poorly written for Mac (notice all the Mac Nikon shooter complaining about Capture crashing) and, did I mention, denies access to the raw image data? What good is it? It isn't useful for most of the 3rd party raw processing software and it's essentially useless for Camera Raw, which needs to access the actual raw data of the file. AJM:

Here is Thomas’s oft repeated view of the Tennis Match. Presumably from this they do have access to the SDK.

Adobe: Can you please document NEF format?

Nikon: No, but you can use our SDK.

Adobe: But the Nikon SDK does not provide what Camera Raw needs to operate, and using it would limit Camera Raw’s speed, UI features, and quality of results (e.g. Camera Raw’s special highlight recovery algorithms).

Nikon: Then redesign Camera Raw to work within the limits of our SDK.

Adobe: No, we don’t want to cripple Camera Raw. Please document NEF format.

Nikon: No, redesign Camera Raw to work within the limits of our SDK.

etc.

This was followed by Jeff Schewe’s following comment:

The Nikon SDK does NOT allow access to the raw file data, only the Nikon library processing of the raw data. It’s slow, poorly optimized (if at all) single threaded, poorly written for Mac (notice all the Mac Nikon shooter complaining about Capture crashing) and, did I mention, denies access to the raw image data?

What good is it? It isn’t useful for most of the 3rd party raw processing software and it’s essentially useless for Camera Raw, which needs to access the actual raw data of the file.

]]>
By: George DeLoache https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-363 George DeLoache Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:34:17 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-363 I have, what I think is a good idea; let me know what you all think. Couldn’t one of the super geek computer programmers write a program that would convert NEFs to DNG format. DNG is Adobes RAW format and once converted it would take the whole issue out of the hands of the camera manufactures and let us return to a sane workflow, with only a short conversion process. I have, what I think is a good idea; let me know what you all think. Couldn’t one of the super geek computer programmers write a program that would convert NEFs to DNG format. DNG is Adobes RAW format and once converted it would take the whole issue out of the hands of the camera manufactures and let us return to a sane workflow, with only a short conversion process.

]]>
By: Martin Evening https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-362 Martin Evening Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:42:17 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-362 To respond to Jack's question about Camera Raw 3. Here is an extract of what Thomas Knoll wrote in the original posting he made about Camera Raw and Nikon D2X files. "...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.” To respond to Jack’s question about Camera Raw 3. Here is an extract of what Thomas Knoll wrote in the original posting he made about Camera Raw and Nikon D2X files.

“…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.”

]]>
By: Rodrigo Gómez https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-360 Rodrigo Gómez Tue, 26 Apr 2005 05:05:10 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-360 Hello there. I think the real concern here is not the white balance data. That certanly can and is modified in a picture by picture basis by almost everybody, I guess. At least I know I do, with the pictures that really matter. That of course is a matter of taste and workflow, and there will be photographers that do not modify this data and use the As-Shot parameter in ACR. The real problem, from my point of view, is not encrypting that value. The problem is that if they started with this value, what's next? They seem, for what I have read, trying everybody (software developers, end users) to use their software to open their files. Maybe they'll even charge software developers to be able to read NEF files (like MP3, and so on). I'm a software developer and really see the value in having all that info public and free. That's why I use OggVorbis instead of MP3, where I can avoid (in my own apps, to begin with). I really don't know why Nikon could be doing this. They said is to give the best possible conversion, and so on, but that's not a decision they can make. That's a decision we, photographers, do when comparing the output from ACR, CaptureOne, etc. And that needs, in my opinion, to be like that, now and in the future. Nikon business is selling lenses and cameras. They can, for sure, try to open up and start selling software if they want to, but they can't make their software the only choice. I insist, encrypting the WB maybe is not a big problem. The real problem is what they might want to encrypt later. Hello there.

I think the real concern here is not the white balance data. That certanly can and is modified in a picture by picture basis by almost everybody, I guess. At least I know I do, with the pictures that really matter. That of course is a matter of taste and workflow, and there will be photographers that do not modify this data and use the As-Shot parameter in ACR.

The real problem, from my point of view, is not encrypting that value. The problem is that if they started with this value, what’s next? They seem, for what I have read, trying everybody (software developers, end users) to use their software to open their files. Maybe they’ll even charge software developers to be able to read NEF files (like MP3, and so on). I’m a software developer and really see the value in having all that info public and free. That’s why I use OggVorbis instead of MP3, where I can avoid (in my own apps, to begin with).

I really don’t know why Nikon could be doing this. They said is to give the best possible conversion, and so on, but that’s not a decision they can make. That’s a decision we, photographers, do when comparing the output from ACR, CaptureOne, etc. And that needs, in my opinion, to be like that, now and in the future. Nikon business is selling lenses and cameras. They can, for sure, try to open up and start selling software if they want to, but they can’t make their software the only choice.

I insist, encrypting the WB maybe is not a big problem. The real problem is what they might want to encrypt later.

]]>
By: AJM https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-355 AJM Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:46:26 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-355 John, I read your message in the original thread on Nikon's WB encryption. It was well written and informative. You also say you are a software developer, so you probably understand this better than I do. Reading various posts, I had picked up the idea that Nikon would encrypt the Auto WB results so that a third party could not reverse engineer the algorithm. I guess this third party could shoot a bunch of different and controlled pictures, see what the results are and reconstruct how the algorithm works. I agree that if this is indeed possible, it could still be done by using the SDK, or by breaking the encryption, if it is so easy to break. So maybe Nikon is doing all of this just so that if you do want to work with NEF files, you have to download the SDK, and therefore agree to some legal terms. If you don't and you just break the encryption, you could get into other legal problems. Or maybe Nikon is introducing a new philosophy, one in which you don't buy just a camera and lens system, but also a computer program (or at least a way to deal with RAW files, through third-party program developed with their SDK). After all, digital is a new medium, and there is no reason the same rules should apply. Maybe the program is an extension of the camera (granted, then it should come WITH the camera, "free" or just by hiding its cost in the camera cost). From the reaction to all of this, the market is obviously not ready for such an idea, nor maybe it will ever be. But I still would like to know if people would buy a D2y, a camera exactly like the D2x, but that doesn't do Auto WB in RAW. AJM John,
I read your message in the original thread on Nikon’s WB encryption. It was well written and informative. You also say you are a software developer, so you probably understand this better than I do.
Reading various posts, I had picked up the idea that Nikon would encrypt the Auto WB results so that a third party could not reverse engineer the algorithm. I guess this third party could shoot a bunch of different and controlled pictures, see what the results are and reconstruct how the algorithm works. I agree that if this is indeed possible, it could still be done by using the SDK, or by breaking the encryption, if it is so easy to break.

So maybe Nikon is doing all of this just so that if you do want to work with NEF files, you have to download the SDK, and therefore agree to some legal terms. If you don’t and you just break the encryption, you could get into other legal problems.

Or maybe Nikon is introducing a new philosophy, one in which you don’t buy just a camera and lens system, but also a computer program (or at least a way to deal with RAW files, through third-party program developed with their SDK). After all, digital is a new medium, and there is no reason the same rules should apply. Maybe the program is an extension of the camera (granted, then it should come WITH the camera, “free” or just by hiding its cost in the camera cost). From the reaction to all of this, the market is obviously not ready for such an idea, nor maybe it will ever be.

But I still would like to know if people would buy a D2y, a camera exactly like the D2x, but that doesn’t do Auto WB in RAW.

AJM

]]>
By: Rodrigo Gómez https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-353 Rodrigo Gómez Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:05:03 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-353 Hello there. I think the real concern here is not the white balance data. That certanly can and is modified in a picture by picture basis by almost everybody, I guess. At least I know I do, with the pictures that really matter. That of course is a matter of taste and workflow, and there will be photographers that do not modify this data and use the As-Shot parameter in ACR. The real problem, from my point of view, is not encrypting that value. The problem is that if they started with this value, what's next? They seem, for what I have read, trying everybody (software developers, end users) to use their software to open their files. Maybe they'll even charge software developers to be able to read NEF files (like MP3, and so on). I'm a software developer and really see the value in having all that info public and free. That's why I use OggVorbis instead of MP3, where I can avoid (in my own apps, to begin with). I really don't know why Nikon could be doing this. They said is to give the best possible conversion, and so on, but that's not a decision they can make. That's a decision we, photographers, do when comparing the output from ACR, CaptureOne, etc. And that needs, in my opinion, to be like that, now and in the future. Nikon business is selling lenses and cameras. They can, for sure, try to open up and start selling software if they want to, but they can't make their software the only choice. I insist, encrypting the WB maybe is not a big problem. The real problem is what they might want to encrypt later. Hello there.

I think the real concern here is not the white balance data. That certanly can and is modified in a picture by picture basis by almost everybody, I guess. At least I know I do, with the pictures that really matter. That of course is a matter of taste and workflow, and there will be photographers that do not modify this data and use the As-Shot parameter in ACR.

The real problem, from my point of view, is not encrypting that value. The problem is that if they started with this value, what’s next? They seem, for what I have read, trying everybody (software developers, end users) to use their software to open their files. Maybe they’ll even charge software developers to be able to read NEF files (like MP3, and so on). I’m a software developer and really see the value in having all that info public and free. That’s why I use OggVorbis instead of MP3, where I can avoid (in my own apps, to begin with).

I really don’t know why Nikon could be doing this. They said is to give the best possible conversion, and so on, but that’s not a decision they can make. That’s a decision we, photographers, do when comparing the output from ACR, CaptureOne, etc. And that needs, in my opinion, to be like that, now and in the future. Nikon business is selling lenses and cameras. They can, for sure, try to open up and start selling software if they want to, but they can’t make their software the only choice.

I insist, encrypting the WB maybe is not a big problem. The real problem is what they might want to encrypt later.

]]>
By: John Huber https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-352 John Huber Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:53:48 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-352 AJM, I have a hard time understanding how Nikon can protect theyr WB calculating algorithm by encrypting the WB metadata in the RAW file. The result of an calculation does not show the algorithm. AJM,

I have a hard time understanding how Nikon can protect theyr WB calculating algorithm by encrypting the WB metadata in the RAW file. The result of an calculation does not show the algorithm.

]]>
By: AJM https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-351 AJM Tue, 26 Apr 2005 00:42:39 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-351 Jack, I think the keyword is "will". From what I understand ACR with support of the Rebel XT and the Nikon D2x is due soon. (If I remember all of this correctly) AJM Jack,
I think the keyword is “will”.
From what I understand ACR with support of the Rebel XT and the Nikon D2x is due soon. (If I remember all of this correctly)

AJM

]]>
By: Jack Goodman https://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/22/nikon-responds/comment-page-2/#comment-349 Jack Goodman Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:21:58 +0000 https://photoshopnews.com/?p=257#comment-349 Martin Evening, You state that CS2 will support D2X NEF's (minus the white balance function). Every time I try to open a D2X NEF in CS2 I get a message that says that CS2 does not recognize this type of file. Am I missing something/ JLG Martin Evening, You state that CS2 will support D2X NEF’s (minus the white balance function). Every time I try to open a D2X NEF in CS2 I get a message that says that CS2 does not recognize this type of file. Am I missing something/

JLG

]]>