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.

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

Glenn01 wrote:
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

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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

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.........

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

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

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 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.........



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

[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.

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

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

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

frizbone wrote:
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.
Ken

So if I steal a copy of your picture, I should be able to do with it as I please, right? Just like Adobe seems to want to do with Nikon's proprietary software code?

It's hard to explain this concept to the hobbyists who are only concerned about getting free software, and don't understand the importance of defending copyright and intellectual property rights, but it's not Nikon who are the bad guys here. Adobe's mudslinging PR antics certainly seem to be working, though.

molson wrote:
frizbone wrote:
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.
Ken

So if I steal a copy of your picture, I should be able to do with it as I please, right? Just like Adobe seems to want to do with Nikon's proprietary software code?

It's hard to explain this concept to the hobbyists who are only concerned about getting free software, and don't understand the importance of defending copyright and intellectual property rights, but it's not Nikon who are the bad guys here. Adobe's mudslinging PR antics certainly seem to be working, though.

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that.......

Photoshop is free? Last time I looked it cost many hundreds of dollars. I'm a software developer myself so I'm certainly not an advocate of undermining developers right to make a living but let's sort out the facts from the emotions here. My images are copyright to me, not Nikon. The program that I choose to purchase (neither NC or ACR are free) should be based on who can offer the best processor for the image. Right now that's NC in my opinion but those of us who remember how bad early versions of NC were in the D1 days, can appreciate that a little competition (Bibble, Qimage) is a good thing. Nikon are trying to win the race by tripping their competitors, rather than making an honest effort to stay ahead, and that's a bad thing for consumers.

molson wrote:
So if I steal a copy of your picture, I should be able to do with it as I please, right? Just like Adobe seems to want to do with Nikon's proprietary software code?

Wake up, it has nothing to do with what Adobe does with the .nef, it has everything to do with what I do with it. I took the picture using a Nikon camera. The output is mine. Nikon nor anyone else should have any say in regards to what I do with the output from the camera. Photography has worked this way for over a hundred years. Why do you want Nikon to begin the process of owning photographers images. Nikon's big mistake is that they are messing with the wrong type of consumer. Pro's will go elsewhere. If they were to do this on consumer grade equipment, it would be just as unethicle, but nobody would care until its too late. Fortunately for us there are very few people who think like Molsen.

Molsen, please explain why Nikon should control the digital output from our cameras, and do you think they should somehow try the same with film, like only allowing their equipment to work with certain films that only Nikon can process for a fee of course?

I look forward to you enlightening response.

Ken

Molsen, one more thing.

You seem to be obsessed that Adobe is somehow infringing on Nikon. This makes no sense for many reasons.

1. Nikon made a pluging specifically for Adobe Photoshop so that Nikon customers could open their .nef files in Photoshop. This plugin was free with the camera.

2. Adobe came along and created a more full featured plugin that accomplished the same thing, as have many other software makers. (This process is totally legit. Software companies make software that integrates to other software/hardware all the time. It's kind of like the "INTERNET".)

3. Nikon then decides out of the blue to encrypt one arbitrary portion of the .nef file so that Photoshop will either not be compatible or Adobe will have to brake the encryption.

4. Adobe has stated that they are not going to break that encryption.

Tell me again what Adobe has done that has you all up in a hizzy.

The only thing happening here is Nikon is screwing their customers and themselves.

Thanks again,

Ken

frizbone wrote:
4. Adobe has stated that they are not going to break that encryption.


Where did you see that Nikon is not going to break the encryption ?? The D2X is a brand new camera, I bet they will let Adobe use it... but definetly NOT free softwares out there... and I think they are right.

Octavio Salles wrote:
frizbone wrote:
4. Adobe has stated that they are not going to break that encryption.


Where did you see that Nikon is not going to break the encryption ?? The D2X is a brand new camera, I bet they will let Adobe use it... but definetly NOT free softwares out there... and I think they are right.

But just the fact they would try something like this in such a competitive market with the chance of alienating customers just blows my mind!

Someone at Nikon has some mighty big kahunas or a big pipe!

Octavio Salles wrote:
frizbone wrote:
4. Adobe has stated that they are not going to break that encryption.


Where did you see that Nikon is not going to break the encryption ?? The D2X is a brand new camera, I bet they will let Adobe use it... but definetly NOT free softwares out there... and I think they are right.

You state that you think Nikon is right for not allowing WB decrpytion to "free softwares out there". I'd be interested to know, Octavio, why you think Nikon has a right to encrypt the data you record (which, might I remind you, includes the in-camera WB data) with the camera you purchased?

As one poster in the Nikon forum said, it's like making a camera that produces film that only works in one enlarger.

molson wrote:

So if I steal a copy of your picture, I should be able to do with it as I please, right? Just like Adobe seems to want to do with Nikon's proprietary software code?

It's hard to explain this concept to the hobbyists who are only concerned about getting free software, and don't understand the importance of defending copyright and intellectual property rights, but it's not Nikon who are the bad guys here. Adobe's mudslinging PR antics certainly seem to be working, though.

There is no question, at least in my mind, of the legality and ethical soundness of Nikon's position. They obviously have a right to protect their code. That said, is it the company's best interests to exedrcise their rights in this manner? Personally, I don't think so.

This is also not about free software, or amateurs wanting it. Many amateurs pay out the nose for software, Nikon's or otherwise. Many amateurs even sell photos, and are acutely aware of their IP rights.

Nikon is in the business of selling cameras and lenses. The software may be well done, but it's slow on some platforms, and I have little doubt that other companies dedicated to making software (Adobe, and to a degree, Apple and Phase One) are able to address some of these shortfalls in creative ways. Many people have built entire workflows around these applications, and may not be interested in using NC. What Nikon may be seeking to do with this is deny photographers that choice, or at least so it seems.

Some photographers may have different emphases for their photography. NC might be necessary and sufficient, but for others, maybe not. Some people may prefer ACR as a photo-editor for considerable post capture manipulation. For those people, requiring NC not only forces the purchase of a software solution, but also complicates their workflow. Nikon is certainly entitled to do that, and I have qualms about the legality. But do you really think it helps them expand their customer base, or keep their customers happy?

Choice may not be legal in this case, but I think Nikon has done a poor job of balancing it's IP rights with its interest in keeping customers and industry partners friendly. Like any camera manufaturer, Nikon can't afford to be an island. Their expertise is in optics and bodies, not film or software. Closing the standard does little to buttress their camera business, but it may harm it by incensing enough partners and customers to look elsewhere.

I sincerely hope that Nikon limits and ultimately rejects this course of action.

Arka C.

yeah but nobody said Nikon is trying to do it except Adobe itself! That's why to me this is all a huge internet ridiculous hysteria attack.

Sounds like Adobe is feeling the pressure that a LOT of people are using NC instead of the very expensive Photoshop.

BTW, all camera manufacturers use their own RAW formats instead of an Adobe format. Is Adobe afraid? I think so!