Sure it is. In fact, its a perfect metaphor.

Fine then. What control of White balance did you have in film after the film had been exposed and before it was processed? In the years I had shot film I had never known of such magic.

I don't want Nikon, Canon or anyone else shutting me out of some of the data in my photographs.

In what sense is Nikon shutting you out of your photographs? This is just getting wilder by the hour. The raw data is not your photograph. Raw data is just that, in order for it to be a photograph it needs to be processed and you either use the camera to do that or they will allow you to do that on the computer via software. You really need to revisit what raw data is, the data has basically gone through an a/d converter but hasn't even been interpolated yet!

Lets look at a vector curve. The raw data is just numbers plots. It describes a curve but is not a curve. You need the right software to show you that curve.

More importantly, it will cost Nikon in lost customers and lost respect.

I can't deny this, it could be true, at least the respect part. The customer part I have been hearing for some time now for various reasons just like a doomsday preacher on the street corner. When did u say the end was coming?

Wrong! you need software to write that curve to a memory card in a formated manner, which is discribed by the layout of the format, You could just as easily write the raw to the memory card with no formating. Now you would have to release propritory information on the sensor in order to determine where each piece of sensor data goes.
By writing to a published format you hide the sensor details, but still allow the user to read the data.
No one is asking for the code, all we want is the layout of the formated data.
The database industry went through this BS for awhile until they relaliesed thay were better off giving people the layout.

Qranc wrote:
If you want to draw analogies, it is much closer to if PS suddenly updating their software to only allow you to save an image as a psd, and that image could only be properly printed on a new line of printers they were starting to sell.

If you want to use this analogy then we must assume PS is the camera and PSD is the raw. You can't do anything with the raw data without PS where as what Nikon has done is far more liberated with their approach. In fact the analogy would equate to Nikon camera will do all the processing for you no ifs ands or buts. Nikon is far more liberated allowing you to use the raw data with 3rd party software (with the only exception being WB) not to mention allowing for output of other files not restricted to the analogy of psd only.

They reserve the right to edit raw data in WB with their own software if you want to process on the PC as opposed to in camera. Adobe wouldn't have to change anything at all or make any sort of printer, the PSD is far more restricted as it is in respect to third party than what Nikon has done with their encryption of WB.




Apple's preview application can view PSD's, and Corel painter can modify them at whim. Animation master can also use .PSD files as textures for 3D objects, so long as they are not 16 bit. The .PSD is not as limited as one might imagine, and can be easily re-interpreted outside of Adobe apps. Painter support alone represents a huge degree of choice for the artist.

Arka C.


Edited by lordarka on Apr 21, 2005 at 08:09 AM GMT

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/213027

I'm not sure that Nikon monitors THIS forum, so to be sure, dropping them a line is a good idea. It's fine for us to discuss this among ourselves, but doesn't get the message through to those that REALLY matter - the head haunchos at Nikon.

Thanks Glenn.

It would be too bad if they didn't hear. Although you really have to start to wonder if they know exactly what they are doing and have just made a long-term business decision which includes loosing a portion of the digital market they may no longer believe they can win.

Steven

Wrong! you need software to write that curve to a memory card in a formated manner, which is discribed by the layout of the format, You could just as easily write the raw to the memory card with no formating.

Fine, I can accept that.

Nikon has already given you their answer and that is you get to edit the WB in raw only with NC and all this BS is fearmongering amongst people that feel everything should be free in a digital world, just in my own opinion that is.

Nikon still allows 3rd party raw editing and the WB can still be edited.

I have failed in drawing an adequate comparison I supose. Fair enough but my point still stands, it's not likened to film processing in terms as has been describe here. In fact, nor are any real parallels to software developers possible because what we are talking about is hardware dependant.


Edited by Qranc on Apr 21, 2005 at 01:00 AM GMT

Apple's preview application can view PSD's, and Corel painter can modify them at whim. Animation master can also use .PSD files as textures for 3D objects, so long as they are not 16 bit. The .PSD is not as limited as one might imagine, and can be easily re-interpreted outside of Adobe apps. Painter support alone represents a huge degree of choice for the artist.

At any rate still far more limited than Nikon and encrypted WB. I knew it was viewable and guessed by now that some progs would make use of it. I am sorry ... did you say Corel painter? When did Corel acquire painter? Obviously been a while since my last upgrade. I don't think I even upgraded the version I bought at any time. Interesting at any rate.



Although you really have to start to wonder if they know exactly what they are doing and have just made a long-term business decision which includes loosing a portion of the digital market they may no longer believe they can win.

Win?

After this dies down, in a few months, something else will crop up and the doom of Nikon will once again ... be preached (or is that prought? I dunno ... moose/mooses and meese) on the corner.

Qranc,

What happens when it's not just white balance. Why now? Why do you defend losing an ability that was always there (digitally), and still is with all other vendors. Nikon creates cameras. Me and most others believe the output of that device belongs to us. What's in it for you to give some of that back to Nikon. I personally think this is all a mistake and pretty quickly here we will find out that Photoshop will be able to fully and legally utilize the wb function of .nef files. At that time I wonder what people like you, who defend this type of action by nikon, will say. Also, I don't care if digital can do more than film. It's still a valid analogy. The picture wheather film or file completely belongs to the photographer to do with as they like. Digital cameras cost way more than film. If Nikon wants to be bastards, then why don't they just charge all Nikon owners the damn $99.00 for their barely working on OSX software and leave it open so we can throw the NC cd in the garbage and use photoshop anyway. That option might piss some people off but not nearly as bad as what they are doing. I'm sure there are plenty of pro's willing to pay the 99 bucks not to have to use NC 4.2 on a Mac. Even on a pc, why use two apps? When Nikon admits they were wrong, will you?

Ken

I think you are all dead wrong. If you take a good look at their record, praising them to the skies for this wonderful restriction might be the better strategy. It would seem they can't stand happy photogrphers.....

My standpoint is the analogy of film doesn't work as presented here because you owning the film didn't mean squat because you couldn't do anything with the layers on the film once exposed except process it. To me the digital equivalent of processing is interpolation either through the cameras internal engine or software. Editing raw is equivalent to being able to change the way the silver halide was broken down in each layer which of course you could never do.


pretty quickly here we will find out that Photoshop will be able to fully and legally utilize the wb function of .nef files. At that time I wonder what people like you, who defend this type of action by nikon, will say

I will say nothing. I don't really care because I have PS and have been a long time user and supporter of Adobe products.

My basic point was entirely based on the analogies and misconstrued claims to ownership are not entirely correct.

The picture wheather film or file completely belongs to the photographer to do with as they like

This is entirely my point. You are not asking of Nikon just a picture are you? If you want to use the analogy of film then they have given that to you and more with the ability to edit raw data with any software available.

I believe it's all BS. It will work out one way or another and I will continue to happily shoot and deal with it as it comes. It was never an issue in the development of film. Hey, the film was grainy or whatever you just dealt with it. Now ... we need to bring the house down over every little thing and believe that it's our right to do so.

For what it's worth, if you are that concerned about it take the route that Glenn has suggested. His has been the most rational perspective in addressing this issue that I have seen thus far from the camp that believe it is their right of ownership to raw data. I fully support his method.

I simply have said I understand why Nikon did and I also believe it is their right, not necessarily that I support it. If they lose market share over it? Once again I will have more gear available to me so either way .... I win. Seriously it would be sad but I still understand why they did it and I still believe it is more their right to do so than a photographers right to raw data.

Here is a portion of a thread from DP and it is salient to everything we have been talking about

from a guy named Dr Chung:

The more I learn about this the more it appears that this is just a big Red Herring from Adobe. From what I can tell the way in which White Balance values are stored in NEF files changed for D2X NEF files. Now, just because a file format changed doesn't mean that it is encrypted. It also appears that this change is not very obvious and has led to Adobe describing it as "encryption." Again, just because something isn't obvious does not mean that it is encrypted. Perhaps this lookup table with key is just a form of compression and compression is not encryption.

I can easily make the argument that the entire NEF file format is a form of encryption. It is something proprietary to Nikon for which there doesn't exist a published standard. All those vendors that support the NEF format (Adobe, Bibble, Capture 1, etc.) do so because they have figured out through reverse engineering how the format works. In other words, they have figured out the NEF encryption and decrypted it.

Nikon has been accused, tried and found guilty by most of the community, all based on unfounded claims by Adobe. Shouldn't we be asking why Adobe is doing this? Nikon hasn't sued Adobe nor have they even threatened to sue. Nikon hasn't even confirmed that encryption exists in the file format. It is Adobe, and only Adobe, that claims that the WB is encrypted. Only Adobe has claimed that Nikon will sue them. To me this sounds like a whole lot of FUD and misdirection to get everyone up in arms against Nikon.

Think about this... Before Adobe introduced ACR they could have made the exact same claims that they are making now against Nikon. They could claim that they won't be supporting the NEF format because it contains "encryption" and they might be sued.

This is just an incredible amount of BS from Adobe and everyone has sucked it all up. If Nikon does sue someone (like Bibble) for supporting D2X NEFs, only then should we be up in arms. Why have we allowed Adobe's unfounded and baseless claims and speculation to rule the day?




AND here is the whole thread from which I took this reply by Dr Chung:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=13150343


Also here is another reply by guru Thom Hogan later in that thread

John Mason wrote:
> So, it appears to be a fact it's encrypted. It appears to be easy
> to decrypt, but legally troublesome if that's done.

Encryption is a trigger word. Sort of like "private accounts." People are using it and reading into it what they want to see. Moreover, everyone is ascribing motive (including, sorry to say, myself in one post) to Nikon. But after looking at actual technical data rather than listening to people who I now realize have self-interests, I'm not inclined to call what Nikon did "encryption." Encryption generally has a motive of making data secret to all those that don't have the decryption key. What Nikon has done is "encoded" the white balance value. I'll point out that storing the term "Daylight" is a form of encoding (or is it encryption? ;~), as what is really meant is an actual value of 5400K. What Nikon has done is put another level of indirection on the encoding, much like in programming we use pointers to memory positions rather than the actual values. Once you know what to look for, it seems pretty straightforward, and there's no hidden or private key involved as I'd say would be necessary to be called encryption.
> The real mystery to me is the why. Does the increase in revenue
> from their non-free raw converter offset the ill-will and potential
> loss of revenue from forcing photographers that perfer shooting in
> raw to their high end converter?

Well, I went back and reviewed both my correspondence with a few key people in this drama, as well as what they had written publicly. How's this for a different spin (uh, excuse me, motive)? Adobe approached Nikon asking for access to the NEF file format. Nikon said use the SDK: that's the way we intend to make the data available. Adobe balked. Nikon D2x users started asking when ACR would support the D2x. Adobe then decided to put pressure on Nikon. And that's where we stand.
--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com





J

I've read through the comments about encryption, and looked through a D2X NEF with a hex file reader. The WB isn't encrypted - it uses a lookup table type affair. Thom Hogan has reached the same conclusion - there are some interesting posts about this on the DP Review forum, where this has whipped everyone into a complete frenzy.

Seems like a lot of folks are reacting to Adobe spin doctoring - Adobe apparently don't like having to use an SDK to get to the NEF data. There can and perhaps should be a healthy discussion regarding the value of having an open standard for the NEF file - but what's going on here appears to be a public spat between 2 titans.

Robert

I gotta say I love it when I am right , and I was closer to the mark than many around here

J

This is just an incredible amount of BS from Adobe and everyone has sucked it all up. If Nikon does sue someone (like Bibble) for supporting D2X NEFs, only then should we be up in arms. Why have we allowed Adobe's unfounded and baseless claims and speculation to rule the day?

I have to question the need to insult the people who disagree with you, and I must say it puts into question where you're coming from. That said, the points you make in your post are fair ones to raise, although they have been answered by several posters here before.

The simple truth is that Nikon has taken actions that have prevented Adobe and Phase One, and others from making full use of the data in the photographs we take. And for reasons that are absolutely based on what any responsible counsel would advise. We also know that this action is new to Nikon, and is not being done by any other camera maker -- Sony did "encrypt" but also gave Adobe pernission to use the information once they unencrypted.

We also know that Nikon action does, or could, put into question ownership of some of the information in images based on recent laws dealing with encryption (other posts go into more detail on this point). For pros who spend too much of their day already fighting over rights, the last thing they need is to have to worry about this being part of the conversation with their camera maker. Nikon knows this. Yet they have still taken this action.

Nikon has been asked by numerous sources to provide clarity to what they think they are doing, why they have done this, and what their plans are. Their only response is to remain silent and try and ride it out.

Adobe has given a clear statement. All Nikon has to do is respond as clearly. Until they do, the suggestion that it's all about Adobe and not about Nikon seems a leap of faith not tied to anything real.

So rather than drawing conclusions about Nikon's virtue based on silence, shouldn't you be asking Nikon what they are up to?

stevenrk wrote:
This is just an incredible amount of BS from Adobe and everyone has sucked it all up. If Nikon does sue someone (like Bibble) for supporting D2X NEFs, only then should we be up in arms. Why have we allowed Adobe's unfounded and baseless claims and speculation to rule the day?

I have to question the need to insult the people who disagree with you, and I must say it puts into question where you're coming from. That said, the points you make in your post are fair ones to raise, although they have been answered by several posters here before.

The simple truth is that Nikon has taken actions that have prevented Adobe and Phase One, and others from making full use of the data in the photographs we take. And for reasons that are absolutely based on what any responsible counsel would advise. We also know that this action is new to Nikon, and is not being done by any other camera maker -- Sony did "encrypt" but also gave Adobe pernission to use the information once they unencrypted.

We also know that Nikon action does, or could, put into question ownership of some of the information in images based on recent laws dealing with encryption (other posts go into more detail on this point). For pros who spend too much of their day already fighting over rights, the last thing they need is to have to worry about this being part of the conversation with their camera maker. Nikon knows this. Yet they have still taken this action.

Nikon has been asked by numerous sources to provide clarity to what they think they are doing, why they have done this, and what their plans are. Their only response is to remain silent and try and ride it out.

Adobe has given a clear statement. All Nikon has to do is respond as clearly. Until they do, the suggestion that it's all about Adobe and not about Nikon seems a leap of faith not tied to anything real.

So rather than drawing conclusions about Nikon's virtue based on silence, shouldn't you be asking Nikon what they are up to?


What part of this seems obfucated to you , here again is Thom's quote and the one I think is salient here

"Well, I went back and reviewed both my correspondence with a few key people in this drama, as well as what they had written publicly. How's this for a different spin (uh, excuse me, motive)? Adobe approached Nikon asking for access to the NEF file format. Nikon said use the SDK: that's the way we intend to make the data available. Adobe balked. Nikon D2x users started asking when ACR would support the D2x. Adobe then decided to put pressure on Nikon. And that's where we stand.
--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

So rather than drawing conclusions about Nikon's virtue based on silence, shouldn't you be asking Nikon what they are up to?


What part of this seems obfucated to you , here again is Thom's quote and the one I think is salient here

"Well, I went back and reviewed both my correspondence with a few key people in this drama, as well as what they had written publicly. How's this for a different spin (uh, excuse me, motive)? Adobe approached Nikon asking for access to the NEF file format. Nikon said use the SDK: that's the way we intend to make the data available. Adobe balked. Nikon D2x users started asking when ACR would support the D2x. Adobe then decided to put pressure on Nikon. And that's where we stand.
--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

I like Thom Hogan's books on Nikon. And, to the extent it matters, agree that is where we stand. However you want to describe what Nikon has done, it has prevented Adobe and Phase One from using the data in our images to provide us with the "as shot" data. That's real. It's also clear that the only thing Adobe and Phase One have done is ask Nikon to state that it is OK to use this data -- and Nikon has not.

So Nikon is the only company here that hasn't put its cards on the table.

What is the problem with Nikon saying: use the data? The reason not to make this simple declarative sentence and end all this controversy is?

stevenrk wrote:

So rather than drawing conclusions about Nikon's virtue based on silence, shouldn't you be asking Nikon what they are up to?


What part of this seems obfucated to you , here again is Thom's quote and the one I think is salient here

"Well, I went back and reviewed both my correspondence with a few key people in this drama, as well as what they had written publicly. How's this for a different spin (uh, excuse me, motive)? Adobe approached Nikon asking for access to the NEF file format. Nikon said use the SDK: that's the way we intend to make the data available. Adobe balked. Nikon D2x users started asking when ACR would support the D2x. Adobe then decided to put pressure on Nikon. And that's where we stand.
--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

I like Thom Hogan's books on Nikon. And, to the extent it matters, agree that is where we stand. However you want to describe what Nikon has done, it has prevented Adobe and Phase One from using the data in our images to provide us with the "as shot" data. That's real. It's also clear that the only thing Adobe and Phase One have done is ask Nikon to state that it is OK to use this data -- and Nikon has not.

So Nikon is the only company here that hasn't put its cards on the table.

What is the problem with Nikon saying: use the data? The reason not to make this simple declarative sentence and end all this controversy is?


The Japaneese are a Very strange lot indeed, one would have to grasp the nuance of their ways to understand this issue fully. I will not judge their motives as I do not understand the culture well enough. I do understand it enough to tell you that it is playing a Major factor here


J

BTW can I have the *key* to your place ? Seems I need to do some work on the computer you are using , it is much better than the one I am using and I could get so much more work done if I had a faster machine

this is what Adobe is doing !

Adobe

'Please can you make our life easier and give us the nuts and bolts on Your proprietary NEF format'

Nikon

'the data is in the SDK, what part of go get it for yourself did you not understand?'


J

"Nikon. We take the world's best pictures!"

it has prevented Adobe and Phase One from using the data in our images to provide us with the "as shot" data. That's real. It's also clear that the only thing Adobe and Phase One have done is ask Nikon to state that it is OK to use this data -- and Nikon has not.

So on one hand you agree with Thom Hogan and yet you say Nikon is preventing Adobe and Phase One from using the data.

Nikon said use the SDK: that's the way we intend to make the data available

Where in there do you read that Nikon has prevented Adobe and Phase One from using the data? Sounds pretty close to an affirmative to me, if it wasn't intended to be used why would they have an SDK to begin with?

So Nikon is the only company here that hasn't put its cards on the table.

What is the problem with Nikon saying: use the data? The reason not to make this simple declarative sentence and end all this controversy is?


So once again you say you agree with Thom Hogan and once again if Nikon said use the SDK then that implies ... go ahead and use the data. The fact there is an SDK at all implies ... go ahead and use the data.

OK, enough of the "Yes it is/No it isn't"... Now everybody go take some pictures... (don't forget the flash because it's still night (unless you live in Australia/Asia)

Daschund

Or else I'll lock this and send everybody out to shoot!

Daschund

rgr that!

Nikon has been accused, tried and found guilty by most of the community, all based on unfounded claims by Adobe.

I need to read all the threads since last night because I may have missed something here in my hurry to get to work. However, I DID talk (phone) to a PR guy for Nikon Canada, and he confirmed that the WB data has been 'encrypted' (his word, and used specifically). I'm not sure Adobe is making that part up - based on what the Nikon guy told me, the encryption part is true.

As I said, I only briefly scanned the threads and will go into them in more detail over the course of the morning, but thought I'd reiterate this for now.

Glenn

And that folks is what makes horse races!

Glenn01 wrote:
Nikon has been accused, tried and found guilty by most of the community, all based on unfounded claims by Adobe.

I need to read all the threads since last night because I may have missed something here in my hurry to get to work. However, I DID talk (phone) to a PR guy for Nikon Canada, and he confirmed that the WB data has been 'encrypted' (his word, and used specifically). I'm not sure Adobe is making that part up - based on what the Nikon guy told me, the encryption part is true.

As I said, I only briefly scanned the threads and will go into them in more detail over the course of the morning, but thought I'd reiterate this for now.

Glenn

I would bet HE read it on DPreview , sheesh Glenn , how long have you been associated with Nikon? They are more fanatically secretive than the NSA could ever hope to dream. I need more than this , this is not a One sided affair with the lilly white Adobe telling the truth , whole truth and nothing but the truth...............



J