Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              6       7       end
  

Archive 2005 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption

  
 
stevenrk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Molson wrote:
And I do agree, philosophically at least, with statements that have been attributed to Nikon, about photographers not needing Photoshop. 95% of the bloatware in PS is there for graphic designers and doesn't contribute one iota to my photographic endeavors. I would love to have image files that looked good right out of the camera (i.e., after RAW conversion) and didn't need to be brought into PS at all; "workflow" would no longer be an issue.

Molson that is an absolutely fair point of view. Some would disagree. But that is the point. Why doesn't Nikon just leave it to us to decide whether we need PS or just NC? If they invested in getting the NC RAW worflow up to the quality of NCs ability to produce quality images, they'd have people byuing Nikons just so they could buy NC. That's how it should work and how you get companies to race to produce better products. That seems like a better tack than making a move that will drive people away from considering or sticking with Nikon.



Apr 19, 2005 at 12:32 PM
chemprof
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


stevenrk wrote:
Molson wrote:
And I do agree, philosophically at least, with statements that have been attributed to Nikon, about photographers not needing Photoshop. 95% of the bloatware in PS is there for graphic designers and doesn't contribute one iota to my photographic endeavors. I would love to have image files that looked good right out of the camera (i.e., after RAW conversion) and didn't need to be brought into PS at all; "workflow" would no longer be an issue.

Molson that is an absolutely fair point of view. Some would disagree. But that is the point. Why doesn't Nikon just leave it
...Show more

The other possibility (GASP!) would be to POSSIBLY consider including NC at minimum with the high end cameras. Does Nikon REALLY NEED to make an additional $99 on a D2x at $5K

Gerald



Apr 19, 2005 at 12:36 PM
stevenrk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Gerald wrote:
The other possibility (GASP!) would be to POSSIBLY consider including NC at minimum with the high end cameras. Does Nikon REALLY NEED to make an additional $99 on a D2x at $5K


That would be nice and likely more profitable (what Canon seems to do even if their software isn't as good as NC -- what I've read here), unless Nikon knows something we don't about where their business plan is taking them from here in staying competive in the pro market, or not.



Apr 19, 2005 at 12:58 PM
molson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


I would happily pay $99 for a software package that met my needs, rather than pay $$$$ for graphic design software that happens to include a few things I need. I'm sure I've spent well over $1000 on Photoshop and all the upgrades over the years, and most of it just takes up space on my hard drive.

From Nikon's perspective, why would they invest R&D money in software development, which is crucial to improving the output quality of their cameras, if they have to give it away for free, or worse yet, be forced to let their competitors have it for free?

I'd like a free copy of NC4 as much as the next guy, but I'm trying to appreciate the bigger picture here. _peace_



Apr 19, 2005 at 01:54 PM
Glenn01
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


about photographers not needing Photoshop. 95% of the bloatware in PS is there for graphic designers and doesn't contribute one iota to my photographic endeavors.

Why doesn't Nikon just leave it to us to decide whether we need PS or just NC? If they invested in getting the NC RAW worflow up to the quality of NCs ability to produce quality images, they'd have people byuing Nikons just so they could buy NC. That's how it should work and how you get companies to race to produce better products. That seems like a better tack than making a move that will drive people away from considering or sticking with Nikon.

Well, I'm not sure I agree that PS doesn't contribute to photography/photographs/photographers. Much of what we do in there has a lot to do with those. I prefer stevenrk's comments on this, letting US the end user, decide what works best for us. If nothing else, a little goodwill can end up making more money than a money-grab (which this really isn't, but it can look like it, and appearances are everything in business).

I've mentioned the word monopoly, and I do think it applies because if we HAVE to use NC, then we HAVE to have NC and anything else is just extra. That perhaps that is my biggest concern, as I'm not definitely saying that I would not use NC even if ACR does become fully D2X compatible. Classic case in point (bear with me - this is a tad long, but I think applicable). I work (my 'real' job - i.e. the one that allows me to buy a D2X and then go sell my photos later ) is as an Avionics Technician (Aircraft electronics and instrumentation systems). My particular field is with certain specialized components out of the De Havilland/Bombardier Dash 8 aircraft. In the past couple of years, regulations and enforcement of those has become much more stringent with respect to what components go into the units I work on. I'm talking electronic components such as IC's, transistors, even fancy handset cords. Prior to the enhancement of the reg's, we would often find out where a manufacturer bought their IC's and whatnot that went into these units, and we'd buy direct from the mfg of those components. I'll list 2 examples: 1) a particular IC that controls whether the lamps are bright or dim (at the pilot's command) on a Caution Panel (shows if there is a failure in the aircraft somewhere). 2) Handset cords - when the Flight Attendant talks to you over the interphone, this is the cord that runs between the handset and the base unit - basically this is a fancy, 5 conductor phone cord, but nothing more than that. OK, before the reg enhancements, we'd buy these components for about $30 USD (both the IC and phone cord). The manufacturers got together and put pressure on the governments to disallow this practice, making it so that we'd have to buy from the UNIT manufacturer rather than the manufacturer of the component. In 90% of the cases, we are talking about the EXACT same component. Not even the number stamped on the component was changed. The only difference was, now that component has to be obtained from the unit manufacturer, not the component manufacturer. For the first year after that, there was a slight increase in cost, but not a huge amount. This, 2 years later now, is when the 'monopoly' has really taken hold though. By law we can ONLY put parts in from the unit manufacturer, even though they are completely identical to the component manufacturer. The prices now that there is a complete monopoly? That $30 USD phone cord? $1250.00 USD. That IC? $1495.00 USD. Imagine, a 5 conductor phone cord with a connector at one end and bare wires at the other, $1250 USD. And that is OUR cost! We have to make a profit too.

You see why I worry about the potential for a monopoly? It probably wouldn't get to that extreme obviously, but if I'm laying out $6100 Cdn for a camera, I think I should have SOME say in how I process it. Who's to say that at some point NC won't be $800 Cdn like PS CS, yet still not as fully functional. I'd be going back to film if that were the case (and to a different manufacturer to boot).

Nikon might well 'protect their rights', but at what cost?

Glenn



Apr 19, 2005 at 02:13 PM
stevenrk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


And I also was happy to pay for my copy of NC, and use NC and PS. But the point is if they make the software good enough, people will by it. The alternative big picture -- the one Nikon is following unless they get set right -- is to not invest in making the software better, but just stop us from being able to use competing products. Big picture, a very bad direction for all concerned.




Apr 19, 2005 at 02:15 PM
frizbone
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Molson,

Please explain why you support this. If I shoot a picture it's my picture. I should be able to do with it as I please. Also, If you prefer Nikon Capture that's great, but how is it a good idea to limit what you can do with the picture you just took. I don't think anyone is saying get rid of NC, but if Nikon loses too many customers based on stupid decisions like this then you will suffer too because they won't be able to afford the R&D for new products. I'm sorry if I sound harsh, but you seem to be blindly and ignorantly defending Nikons unreasonable actions. And please don't tell me how bad Adobe is, no other camera manufacturer is doing this. This has nothing to do with Adobe, it has to do with what Nikon customers can do with their images.

Ken



Apr 19, 2005 at 02:16 PM
chemprof
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Glenn01 wrote:
Well, I'm not sure I agree that PS doesn't contribute to photography/photographs/photographers. Much of what we do in there has a lot to do with those. I prefer stevenrk's comments on this, letting US the end user, decide what works best for us. If nothing else, a little goodwill can end up making more money than a money-grab (which this really isn't, but it can look like it, and appearances are everything in business).

I've mentioned the word monopoly, and I do think it applies because if we HAVE to use NC, then we HAVE to have NC and anything else
...Show more

You are correct, Glenn. It IS scary. However, Nikon is merely countering ADOBE's attempt to monopolize, NOT the other way around. Nikon is making a mistake, no doubt, but it's ADOBE that's the real problem, here, NOT Nikon. You must look at the bigger picture. Is there anyone out there that is NOT using PS at all Ask yourself this question, then rethink who has the monopoly!!!

Gerald



Apr 19, 2005 at 02:37 PM
Daschund Woof
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Molson,

As Adobe stated, they haven't been doing anything wrong. Reverse engineering is something that has been done in the past and there's no problem with that. Breaking an encription might be a problem (and that's why Adobe stated that they won't do it). They say it's possible (Bibble did it already), but they won't do it. So I don't see what they are doing wrong, as you said.

Now, as Octavio said that Nikon is not trying to be like Microsoft because they only put the encription on the White Balance, that's not true. Microsoft didn't come up one day and started shipping Windows with Explorer. They first released Explorer, than they bundled it with Windows, then they made it impossible to other vendors not to ship Windows without Explorer. Nikon might as well start with WB, then go to RGB mode, then curves, and when everybody is already used to it, they'll encrypt the whole file.

Daschund



Apr 19, 2005 at 02:55 PM
Glenn01
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Yeah, I think there are lots of people using Paint Shop Pro, etc. PS isn't exclusive, but it is the standard. However, I do think you are correct, as one fellow said, "Look who's calling the kettle black" (Adobe criticising Nikon).

NOW, I just got off the phone to the Nikon Rep for Canada (PR) and he says that yes, the WB is being encrypted, BUT there's no official/final word yet on whether separate licencing will be offered to 3rd parties such as Adobe. He suspects there will be, because he's had "quite a few" calls and whatnot from people expressing their displeasure at all this (Nikon DOES read the forums too, which they are to be commended on). He feels, as some here do, that Nikon is within their rights to protect their own software (which a NEF is), BUT also agrees with me that perception is greater than reality, and the appearances are that Nikon is being unduly protective and stingy. He suspects that there will be licencing to Adobe, but of course that was strictly his personal opinion and by no means a guarantee.

Anyway, we also both agreed that NC does to a higher quality job on the NEF files for a conversion than does ACR (even on older files) and my feeling is that I will continue to use NC for the RAW conversion. I did ask him to pass along a couple of ideas about improvements to NC, namely that of being able to perform a batch operation on SELECTED files within a folder, rather than having to separate the files you want to work on as a batch process to another folder first.

Your point is well taken Gerald, and I guess it's an age-old problem - "avoid competition like the plague if you are in business, and encourage it like sex if you are a consumer" (or, words to that effect - I "kinda" doctored it up a bit ).

Glenn



Apr 19, 2005 at 02:56 PM
stevenrk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Glen01 wrote:
NOW, I just got off the phone to the Nikon Rep for Canada (PR) and he says that yes, the WB is being encrypted, BUT there's no official/final word yet on whether separate licencing will be offered to 3rd parties such as Adobe. He suspects there will be, because he's had "quite a few" calls and whatnot from people expressing their displeasure at all this (Nikon DOES read the forums too, which they are to be commended on). He feels, as some here do, that Nikon is within their rights to protect their own software (which a NEF is), BUT also...Show more

Good to hear we -- loyal Nikon users -- are helping them come to their senses, and that they are listening. Both good signs. Thanks for making the call and reporting back. Let us know if you hear more -- and good thoughts on improvements to NC.



Apr 19, 2005 at 03:09 PM
Glenn01
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Thanks steven. To be totally fair though, I should be making the same call to Adobe . I hadn't thought about it much before, but some folks here (molson, Gerald) have made a very valid point that it's not just Nikon that does this. However, I can only take on so much at one time .

Glenn



Apr 19, 2005 at 03:15 PM
Octavio Salles
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


I really can't believe all this hype... reminds me of the backfocus days....

I would bet all my gear that Nikon won't encrypt this thing. Now I think I understand whats going on...

Nikon will let Adobe brake the code, because PS is a very expensive program and a lot of people use (myself included), plus its very advanced, beyound the capabilites of the software dept of Nikon. But Nikon won't let the avalanche of others free RAW converters brake this WB code because by doing so Nikon encourages people to buy their $99 NC.

There are just too many free RAW converters out there and the average user gets tempted to use that instead of the $99 NC.

Just to remind you guys, Nikon is not a non-profit organization.........




Apr 19, 2005 at 03:30 PM
stevenrk
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Glen01 wrote:
Thanks steven. To be totally fair though, I should be making the same call to Adobe . I hadn't thought about it much before, but some folks here (molson, Gerald) have made a very valid point that it's not just Nikon that does this. However, I can only take on so much at one time .

Glen, absolutely, one imaging corporation at a time Let's just hope Nikon listens better than Adobe does sometimes -- and your report back gives hope that it will.

Steven



Apr 19, 2005 at 03:31 PM
Glenn01
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


I would bet all my gear that Nikon won't encrypt this thing.

I'd be careful of that one if I were you . I might just take you up on that bet, and remember, I am the one who heard it direct from Nikon

Glenn



Apr 19, 2005 at 03:38 PM
MPerdomo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Octavio Salles wrote:
I really can't believe all this hype... reminds me of the backfocus days....

I would bet all my gear that Nikon won't encrypt this thing. Now I think I understand whats going on...

Nikon will let Adobe brake the code, because PS is a very expensive program and a lot of people use (myself included), plus its very advanced, beyound the capabilites of the software dept of Nikon. But Nikon won't let the avalanche of others free RAW converters brake this WB code because by doing so Nikon encourages people to buy their $99 NC.

There are just too many free RAW
...Show more

...But if those people can do a better job than Nikon at no cost to Nikon...they could drop development, and save money.



Apr 19, 2005 at 03:38 PM
Octavio Salles
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


[quote MPerdomo]
...But if those people can do a better job than Nikon at no cost to Nikon...they could drop development, and save money.


Nikon must be making some profit over the NC, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to "pressure" that program.


Apr 19, 2005 at 04:09 PM
frizbone
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


The D2x was in development for how long. Before it was available for purchase it was announced months in advance. And during this time Nikon made no mention of their new restrictive access to .nef files that are the property of the photographers. If they had an ounce of professionalism they would have sorted this out with Adobe long before the release of this camera. As stated by Adobe engineers, this doesn't stop you from opening .nef files with ACR and manually manipulating the white balance. But this is a huge problem due to the fact we don't know what else Nikon will do to further restrict a photographers ability to manipulate their own photographs, and in such an unprofessional manner. This one little technicle obstacle won't really affect any pros, but the big thing to worry about it Nikon's behaviour in the future.

Ken
A skeptical Nikon user



Apr 19, 2005 at 04:38 PM
stevenas
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption




I suspect the smoking of crack is a little out of hand over at Nikon HQ!



Apr 19, 2005 at 06:33 PM
srogouski
Offline
• • •
[X]
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Nikon D2X white balance encryption


Wow am I glad I didn't upgrade to the pro version of Capture One.


Apr 19, 2005 at 06:35 PM
1      
2
       3              6       7       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3              6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.