Hmmm ... now this is getting weird. It seems that in the future Nikon Capture is required to open and manipulate NEF files. Here is the entire article from dpreview.com:
We are surprised and disappointed to hear that Nikon is trying to lock out third party RAW converters. According to PhotoshopNews.com, Nikon has encrypted white balance information in NEF files written by the D2X and the D2HS. While the encryption can be cracked, Adobe is concerned about being sued for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Dpreview agrees with the sentiments of chief engineer and original author of Photoshop Thomas Knoll, who said "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."
Does Nikon have something against third party vendors? I believe that Capture is an excellent tool and there is propably a good reason for this change. Does anybody have any idea what is going on?
I think that if this is true, it'd be more likely that nikon would license the encryption to adobe, rather than lock out 3rd party raw converters all together.but that's my opinion, who knows what nikon is really doing.
I think both Adobe and Nikon are both badly behaved. As a photographer you should own the image files you create and have the right to do whatever you like with them. With the encrypted white balance and the DMCA, Nikon is saying that they own a little piece of your raw files and can control how you process it. They can certainly make a product that does this, but I don't think that I want to buy a product with a restriction like this.
Adobe is just as bad, they no longer document the PSD file format. You can store your images as TIF or JPG, but if you want to store an image with layers in an open format you're out of luck.
I don't think Nikon will be successful keeping aspects of the file format proprietary. Sadly, Adobe is successful keeping the file format proprietary.
jeffmock wrote:
Adobe is just as bad, they no longer document the PSD file format. You can store your images as TIF or JPG, but if you want to store an image with layers in an open format you're out of luck.
I don't think Nikon will be successful keeping aspects of the file format proprietary. Sadly, Adobe is successful keeping the file format proprietary.
jeff
But Adobe’s PSD format is still readable by some non-adobe applications, like Corel Painter; and the layers are preserved. Also, Apple’s ‘preview’ application can view .PSD files. Further, Adobe has been licensing its .PDF readers for a while now; the result of that is the near ubiquity of the format for document exchange, much to the chagrin of Microsoft.
I find it sad that, just as Nikon started to become very competitive with the release of the D2x and other cameras, they pull a stupid move like this. While the strictly legal and ethical logic behind such a decision is sound, the practical implications of restricting workflow choice are potentially quite damaging to the platform. I personally am quite happy that I can choose between C1, ACR, DPP, or BreezeBrowser to convert my RAW files; some may call it confusion, but I see it as choice. Now, in the Nikon world, you have only one option; Nikon Capture. It might be good for the company in the short term, but I cannot see how this will help them in the long run.
Not that I think Nikon`s encrypting of the WB on the new DX`s is a good thing but isn`t their NEF format proprietary to begin with? Aren`t all raw formats from each maker proprietary?
Nikon does allow for JPG`s out of the camera ,and also include basic nef conversion software, and even their Nikon Capture for a hundred bucks.
Being they own the NEF format it seems to me they have a right to regulate it as they see fit be it right or wrong.
John
Not many pros that I know of shoot in JPEG mode, so that function is of limited use, particularly for a top-end pro camera like the D2X. I wonder what would have happened had Fuji said that the only place you could get Fuji film processed was at a Fuji processing lab, and same for Kodak, etc.? Consumers need choices! Right or wrong w/Nikon protecting their NEF files, this could hurt them a lot, particularly if Canon recognizes what's going on and goes the opposite and actually helps Adobe in their ACR program. They'd win a lot of friends by simply showing some goodwill to their customers. What they *might* lose in software sales, would more than be made up for in camera sales, which is afterall, what they do.
according to dpreview, "Third party RAW converter, Bibble, has announced that it has decoded the D2X's RAW white balance parameter and will fully support it."
uccmmcpo wrote:
Not that I think Nikon`s encrypting of the WB on the new DX`s is a good thing but isn`t their NEF format proprietary to begin with? Aren`t all raw formats from each maker proprietary?
Nikon does allow for JPG`s out of the camera ,and also include basic nef conversion software, and even their Nikon Capture for a hundred bucks.
Being they own the NEF format it seems to me they have a right to regulate it as they see fit be it right or wrong.
John
As I said earlier, the legal and ethical reasoning is sound, but the practical implications, and the attitude it represents, are somewhat troubling.
lordarka wrote:
As I said earlier, the legal and ethical reasoning is sound, but the practical implications, and the attitude it represents, are somewhat troubling.
Arka C.
As Nikon owner, owning a D2h, D100 and bunches of Nikkors, as well as a 1972 F and 1981 FM, i wholeheartedly agree Arka. Very troubling. And think of it this way-- Nikon is just the FIRST
If they get away with this, who's to say Canon, Kodak, K-Minolta, et.al won't follow suit as well.....
Things could get ugly... and i'm wondering if this isn;t the type of thing that might knock Adobe and specifically Photoshop (as well as Nikon and others who follow) off their high horses. Could it spell the end of PS CS as the leading image editor? It's entirely possible.....
For shame Nikon... This is so troubling that I contacted our corporate legal counsel to investigate any options that photographers could utilize against Nikon. I should know more tomorrow.
The time has come for all photographers to think of a class action lawsuit against the camera manufacturers to force them to publish the layout of their formats, prevent encryption. The data belongs to the photographer NOT! the manufacture. They can produce the layout any way they want BUT the layout must be public.
One way to start is to let your dealer that you will be buying no more cameras until the situition is corrected. Our cameras are good enough now to last us a year or so, let see if the manufacturers can last as long as we can with no sales.
Paul Gardner wrote:
The time has come for all photographers to think of a class action lawsuit against the camera manufacturers to force them to publish the layout of their formats, prevent encryption. The data belongs to the photographer NOT! the manufacture. They can produce the layout any way they want BUT the layout must be public.
One way to start is to let your dealer that you will be buying no more cameras until the situition is corrected. Our cameras are good enough now to last us a year or so, let see if the manufacturers can last as long as we can with no sales....Show more →
If you shoot film, does the formulation of the film grain belong to the photographer?
Granted the formulation of the emulsion does not. It is akin to how the bayer pattern is arranged and then interpolated. But the processing is universal and the film is mine once I purchased it. The same can be said for processing the RAW file, I don't have a known acceptable way to process the exposed film so to speak!! This harkens back to the days of Kodachrome, it lasted a long time but look where it is today...nuff said
Bingo!
Thats a good analogy Gerald.
Just because someone buys a Nikon product , it doesn`t necessarily entitle them to Nikon handing over propietary encryption codes to any Tom, Dick, and Harry third party software providers.
As long as Nikon provides the user with a method to convert NEF`s , thats all they are required to do.*Proprietary* means just that.
What about Sigma now ? They been doing this for years haven`t they?
John
So you "buy" microsoft windows and you think it's yours.... I don't like it either, but I can see their point from an angle that hasn't been mentioned yet. If a competitor were to take a D2X, take a few thousand pictures (maybe fewer) one could analyze the "as shot" WB to reverse engineer how the camera is doing its magic.....
I can't imagine anyone is this shortsighted. The far reaching implications of Nikons actions are significant! For a commercial studio we rely on numerous methods and workflows that work for us NOT NIKON to process the working RAW files. Lets just say in three years you need to recover a few files out of your archive of digital negatives, we'll call these negative files or NEFs for short ;-) But guess what Nikon stopped producing Capture and now has Capture Pro but it doesn't support version 1.1 NEF files. So you go back to your archives to retrieve a copy of Capture 4.2.1 that does read them. So you go install it on Windows Longhorn 2008 and guess what it only supports 64 bit applications so now you're running around trying to find a version of Windows XP to install but guess what Microsoft doesn't offer activation for XP because they discontinued support for it when it was EOLd a year ago. Come'on people wake up this is not a matter of what rights Nikon has or doesn't have to produce a proprietary file format...
