I've stayed out of this for the most part, but there seems to be a lot of people venting about things they don't really know about. I claim to know nothing about Adobe or Nikon, and all we have to go on is some of the quotes taken from different sites on the internet.

What I do know about is software development.

Amidst some's claims that they 'own' the nef file, well fine. Without software, you can't do crap with it. The software in the camera takes care of getting the nef to the memory card. Then, somebody's software has to be able to open that file to do something with it. You may 'own' the file, have complete rights and control over it, but you're not going to do anything with it without software. Nikon has supposedly encrypted the WB data, so what? If Bibble has decrypted it, anybody can. I think the word encryption is being used a little loosely by all parties. If it was truly encrypted, eg., 64bit, no one would have 'broken' the encryption. It's not encrypted folks, it's an internal lookup table. It takes more than a simple hack to break true encryption. There are many different ways to store data in a file, and the easiest to view is 'ascii' data as opposed to binary data. Just because the WB data is not stored as ASCII, which is readily viewable by file editors does not mean it is encrypted. There's a lot more to it than that, but that would be a 'nuther whole topic.

If Nikon is making available a software development kit (SDK), then this whole conversation is moot, because that means any developer can use the SDK and have full access to the nef file.

Now, I've got to go and find whatever it is that died under my house, and THEN go take a picture or two. Good day all!

Jack

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

Well, just to be clear, I didn't write the above quote - that came from further up and I was quoting someone else.

Anyway, whatever. Nikon will do what they are going to do, and Adobe will do what they are going to do. If I find I can't edit my images, I'll go back to film. I seriously doubt it is ever going to come to that. I think I too will spend my time shooting pictures instead of wasting any more energy over this topic.

Glenn

jacko wrote:
From the viewpoint of a software developer, I retain all rights to my software. When a customer purchases my software, they get a limited license to use the software. This is fairly typical of all software. However, IMHO, I think there is a misunderstanding of what is software, and what is data... IMO, all the Nikon software contained in the camera itself is of course intellectual property of Nikon, and I fully support them wanting to protect that. However, I do believe that once the file has been stored on my memory card, it should be totally and completely mine. Just my thoughts.

Jack

Exactly.

I'd be willing to be that Nikon is gambling, hoping that Adobe will agree to some sort of licensing fee arrangement, maybe even 'just' $10 per copy (random number thrown out here) of every copy of PS sold? Maybe that's reasonable, you might think... Until, that is, Adobe decides to have a special 'Nikon' version of ACR, that you, the consumer, needs to pay an extra $10 for.

I'm all for choices here, and Nikon's goals are questionable in this respect. The 'enlarger' analogy from another forum is spot-on. Additionally, I doubt that any manufacturer's RAW converter will ever completely obviate the need for PS. So what is the point of Nikon's action?

I guess some people's fears about future software being able to read/comprehend current file formats is more reasonable than I first thought...

jmaio wrote:
I wonder what will be the situation 35 years from now when not only the software standards may be unreadable, but we'll be trying to find an appliance that can read something called a "CD-ROM" or a "DVD". Long-lasting, non-proprietary standards are really needed, or a big part of history will be lost.

There is no such thing as long-lasting standards in the tech industry. Our media and our storage methods will evolve over time. Who actually has data 'backed up' on floppies anymore?

Anyway, whatever. Nikon will do what they are going to do, and Adobe will do what they are going to do. If I find I can't edit my images, I'll go back to film. I seriously doubt it is ever going to come to that. I think I too will spend my time shooting pictures instead of wasting any more energy over this topic.

Glenn, I can understand that feeling. I share it. The concern of giving up is that whatever is being said by Nikon and Hogan about SDK and how this is all about a misunderstanding, or big bad Adobe bullying poor little Nikon, it isn't. And it is a first step along the way to something that Nikon is still not being straight about.

The reality is that the software experts -- Adobe, Phase One, earlier in the conversation even Nikon -- said this is encripted. Remember Nikon has refused to allow others to decrypt these files and has remained silent. And these aren't just rumors, they are credible named individuals making clear statements and standing by their statements.

All Nikon would have to do to end this is state clearly one of two things -- these files are not encrypted and it will not use the new law to pursue anyone. Or, these files are encrypted, but it gives other software companies the right to look at the information. It is that simple.

If they don't do that, then they are hidding something. And no one's analyis of the difference between encryption and SDK can change that.

I have owned and use Nikon equipment since the 70s. Love the equipment. Believe it made a difference in the quality of thepictures I've taken over these years. This new tact though is real. It is new. And it is wrong. And they need to stop ducking and weaving and come clean.

You have to wonder with all the commotion, and how simple it would be to end it and please your customer base by showing yourself to be responsive -- and well intentioned -- what is it that is so important for Nikon to keep secret about thier intentions that they just can't make the simple statement.

Best, Steve

Steve

Again , you are not grasping the fact that we are talking about Japan, until you factor that into this line of thought you will Never make sense of it , you are coming at it from a western mind, you might as well jump off a bridge , you will never hear what you need to hear in the way you think it whould be said or done , of that I can assure you


J

J wrote:
Again , you are not grasping the fact that we are talking about Japan, until you factor that into this line of thought you will Never make sense of it , you are coming at it from a western mind, you might as well jump off a bridge , you will never hear what you need to hear in the way you think it whould be said or done , of that I can assure you

J, actually for many years I represented a number of Japanese companies in their dealings in the US. Your shift now to the suggestion that this is something about cultural differences is not credible. Sony and Canon are also Japanese companies. Why are you so intent on defending Nikon and changing tack at each new post.

Nikon is an international company that is very sophisticated, and knows exactly what it is doing, what the likely reaction to what it is doing would be, and is clearly being advised well by its legal counsel and marketing people ("well" in the sense that they have a plan and are sticking to it, not in the sense that it is a good thing).

The decision to remain silent, continue to duck and weave, has everything to do with what they don't want us to know about their business plan and what it means for its prosumer/pro users. Not about some cultural issue. (See Nikon press release on C4 replacing all other sotware, and recent release of D50 adn D70 when they are still way behind on D2x production.)

Again, what people have been asking from the start of this thread is a simple question: Nikon, make a clear statement. They know how to do that. They have not.

Best, Steve

Steve

I am Not defending Nikon here , I am only and continue to say that You seem to have all the answers, and assign motive to things you have little information to do so with , phrases like "duck and weave" , where do you see that? Yes the silence is deafening , but it is Adobe who has done the whining here, if this were encryption then you would hear me complain a little , this is whining pure and simple , Adobe has the SDK and why should they Need anything more than that? Again , Nikon is Selling a competetive product and Adobe their competetor for Raw conversion (and a Johnny come lately as well) is Demanding that they deliver the guts of the information in the file in a way that Adobe is comfortable with , sheesh is that not Ironic to you ?

Weather you want to believe it or not Nikon is a Very conservative Japanese company and it shows all the time.

I have not shifted here , here is my first reply in this thread , all the others are on the page previous to this one

Something is fishy here from the other side as well. IF nikon really wanted to encrypt something and force adoption of NC , couldn't they do it? Seems like we are hearing only one side of the phone conversation on this issue

J

FWIW , I am out of this debate now and heading to a shoot , in less than a month we shall all see if the sky has truly fallen


J

I will say Jack is darn spot on. Some people just can't get beyond the fear of losing something. The term encryption is being used very loosely here.

What is so hard to accept that Nikon has provided an SDK! If they never intended anyone except Nikon to be able to use the data guess what ... there would be no software developer kit!

The decision to remain silent, continue to duck and weave, has everything to do with what they don't want us to know

More likely they don't want to get drawn into some stupid PR squabble they can't win in terms of public opinion as evidenced here. Even if they issued a public statement you still wouldn't believe it. Be honest to yourself, if you think this little of Nikon what in the world would make me believe you would accept anything they say publicly? I think not. If it's anything short of "we screwed up, we are sorry and we will give anyone that asks all the data and schematics they desire ...." you will have the axe out once again.

in less than a month we shall all see if the sky has truly fallen

and two months after that Nikon will have done something monumentally stupid that will without a doubt spell the end once again.

J wrote:
but it is Adobe who has done the whining here, if this were encryption then you would hear me complain a little , this is whining pure and simple , Adobe has the SDK and why should they Need anything more than that? Again , Nikon is Selling a competetive product and Adobe their competetor for Raw conversion (and a Johnny come lately as well) is Demanding that they deliver the guts of the information in the file in a way that Adobe is comfortable with , sheesh is that not Ironic to you ?

Weather you want to believe it or not Nikon is a Very conservative Japanese company and it shows all the time.

I have not shifted here , here is my first reply in this thread , all the others are on the page previous to this one

Something is fishy here from the other side as well. IF nikon really wanted to encrypt something and force adoption of NC , couldn't they do it? Seems like we are hearing only one side of the phone conversation on this issue

J, each of these points have been asked and answered numerous times by many posters, so no need to recreate the wheel. As to my having all the answers, that again is the opposite of the truth. I only know that Adobe (call it or them whatever you want, I have no loyalty to Adobe) and others asked Nikon a very simple question and Nikon has refused to answer. We will all have the answers once they do. Until they do it is fair to be much more suspisious and questioning of the company that remains silent then of the company that has made a clear statement and is standing by it.

Again, it is a very simple question: What's Nikon's answer to other software firms being able to use the information?

As to continuing to try and ascribe dark and far eastern motives to Nikon to try and explain this all away, that remains simply not credible. And why are you so resistant to saying they should just answer the question?

Best, Steven

This is a rather curious thread. I've seen no reason to doubt that Nikon is encrypting the WB info, in both the d2x and d2hs. This has been stated by folks other than Adobe, including Phase 1 and Bibble. The earlier quotes attributed to Thom Hogan appear to be correct, but he has posted subsequent to those posts, where he agrees that the WB is indeed, encrypted. I won't quote it here, but you can read it for yourself, if you wish. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=13181073

This issue bothers me, for a couple of reasons. First, because I believe the image file is mine, not Nikon's. I should be able to process the file with any software that I choose. Choice and competition is a good thing. I don't like to use Capture, even though I own a copy. I also own PS CS, but I generally use PSP to do my editing. I also use several other programs to view or edit my photos when I desire. If they can't read and properly display the image as shot, what good will they be?

Second, because I'd be willing to bet that the new cameras, like the d70s, d50 and future d100 replacement, will also have this encryption. I suspect that the coming d70 firmware update may also have this encryption. What is the point of encrypting my shot data? The white balance I choose for a shot is not IP. It's merely a setting or an action that I took when recording the photo.

The photo is my property, not Nikon's. I have a d2x on order and also plan to buy another d70 or d70s. My purchase plans are now on hold until this issue is resolved. That's a lot of money to me and I'm not going to pay that if I can't use the software of my choice to edit my images.

if I can't use the software of my choice to edit my images.


The biggest misunderstanding here, in my opinion, is that Nikon has in no way eliminated the possibility of you editing YOUR photo or YOUR image in any way.

I agree with the few that seem to understand Mr. Knoll has made a great tactical post. He even went so far as to plug the Adobe products to the point of saying this all in no way diminishes the quality of the file. In essence, the ability to edit. However the meaning of the following paragraph had been lost in the mass hysteria created by his previous paragraph which included little tidbits like "unless Nikon backs down real fast - T.Knoll".

Mr. Knoll's final say on the issue:
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.”


And I have been supporting Adobe and their great applications for a looooong time.



Edited by Qranc on Apr 21, 2005 at 07:15 PM GMT

I just saw this posted.. may shed some light on the encryption which now has been reverse enginereed..

http://news.com.com/Nikons+photo+encryption+reported+broken/2100-1030_3-5679848.html

And with that I am done.

Qranc wrote:
if I can't use the software of my choice to edit my images.


The biggest misunderstanding here, in my opinion, is that Nikon has in no way eliminated the possibility of you editing YOUR photo or YOUR image in any way.

Sure it does. I always review my images, to select the ones I want to edit. I don't use Capture to do that and I don't want to be forced to use Capture to do that. If the reviewing software can't display the photo as shot, it is worthless. That means a lot of extra fooling around that isn't necessary with current NEFs that don't have this encryption. I don't care about the subtle word games like Knoll used. If you can't see the photo as shot, without using software that decrypts the as shot WB info, what is the point of setting the WB when taking the shot? That means you have to set WB for each one in the editor later.


And I have been supporting Adobe and their great applications for a looooong time.

That's fine. I own several copies of PS, but I prefer to have choices and have several other editors as well. This isn't an Adobe issue. It's a Nikon issue. I see no valid reason for encrypting any data in my end product files.

My apologies. I am sick. I can't help myself.

I see no valid reason for encrypting any data in my end product files

raw data from a sensor is not your end product file is exactly my point. I understand you do feel it is and thats fine. Further the only benefit to viewing the raw data as is without processing is to basically cheat by editing the data before processing.

I could be wrong and I am not afraid to admit when I am. Certainly I am not in with the popular view of the times but then I think differently. If I didn't, I wouldn't have made any money.

Best of luck to all of you in your ... quest (I was gonna say axe grind but I don't want to sound snippy, been to much of that lately).

Qranc wrote:

I see no valid reason for encrypting any data in my end product files

raw data from a sensor is not your end product file is exactly my point.

Why isn't it? It's a file sitting on my CF card. The camera is done with it, completely. Whether or not it needs further editing is up to me. If it needs no further editing, it can be printed as is. So, please explain why it is not my file and/or is not my end product.

I understand you do feel it is and thats fine. Further the only benefit to viewing the raw data as is without processing is to basically cheat by editing the data before processing.

Cheating?? It's cheating to review my photos to see if they need editing?Who am I cheating by reviewing the photos that I've taken? Sorry, that makes absolutely no sense to me. I've always done this. I don't know anyone that doesn't review their files before they edit them.

Best of luck to all of you in your ... quest (I was gonna say axe grind but I don't want to sound snippy, been to much of that lately).
I have no axe to grind. I have a purchase decision to make. Until now, I've been happy with Nikon and have several thousand dollars worth of lenses, plus a lot of other related gear. I'm looking to spend another $6k on 2 more Nikon bodies, without mentioning more lenses and other gear. I will not make those purchases until this issue is resolved and I can make a determination as to whether or not that resolution will have a negative or positive impact, and to what degree that resolution will impact, on my workflow.

Qranc wrote:
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.

Not relevant: I had unrestricted access to all that the film had to offer and I could process it as I saw fit. Critically, none of the film data was encrypted or restricted. Thats the point, surely.

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 my data. If its not my photograph, what exactly was the point in my taking the shot? Put it this way, who but the photographer is entitled to use the data? Answer: no one.

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.

The data must belong to someone, and it belongs to me, the photographer. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself. The data is no more than a particular digital format in which my copyright image is stored. So, hands off my data.

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?


For you, its come already - so far as you seem willing to allow a camera manufacturer to dictate the terms and means by which you can access your own data.

so far as you seem willing to allow a camera manufacturer to dictate the terms and means by which you can access your own data

I can't speak for you but thus far Nikon has done nothing to limit my access to my data in so much that it would make any difference in the end result. Nada.

Qranc,

RAW data shouldn't belong to the photographer? ... WHAT!!!

Isn't pixel information considered raw data? Everything about the image is considered raw data. Digital cameras take pictures in black and white and interpolate the color information. Your idea of who should own the white balance data should pertain to the rest of the image. You don't mind giving that to Nikon, you have stated many times that you believe it's thiers and we are lucky to have access to it other than through NC. What is the technical difference between wb info, exposure info, or even the information recorded by the pixels. That is all raw data. You really seem bent on justifying why randomly stripping out a particular portion of that is fine. What if they left white balance alone but encrypted the color information?

The output from the camera belongs to the photographer.

I know you disagree, but your last statement is completely false. Nikon has limited your access to your data if you shoot a d2x. I mean that is what this thread is all about. It doesn't matter if you use NC anyway. The point is "if" you wanted certain data using a 3rd party solution, then you are limited. Who says one day you won't change your mind. And are things not really important if they don't affect you personally, yet!

I don't mean to pick a fight, but your arguments are quite rediculous. Even if this is a big misunderstanding and Nikon has done nothing at all and Adobe is the real source of this problem, NOBODY should advocate that camera manufactures restrict what gets recorded to our CF cards.

Thanks,

Ken

I'm new to this site. I just wanted to put in my 2 cents worth. I believe I have an objective opinion of this whole thing. I, for one, am no fan of the Adobe Corporation. I like Photoshop though. I have been a Linux user since about 1998 and have become an open source advocate. Last year, I purchased a PowerMac G5 and have become a big fan of Apple Technology. Note I said Apple Technology. I still have a few issues with the corporation.

I think in this day and age, too many corporations want to succeed, not by offering a better widget or service, but by locking the customer in. I have watched Microsoft do this to consumers.

I don't own a digital SLR camera yet, but I have been looking. The digital camera I do own shoots in jpeg or tiff format. Guess what? I can use any software product that supports these formats to get the images off the camera. This is how it should be for everything. Open formats is the only true way. The first corporation that takes this bold move and opens up their formats will be a big winner.

My big question is why isn't the RAW format an open format? 35mm film was an open format. I could buy a roll of 35mm film and use it on any 35mm camera. I could take that roll of film anywhere and have it developed. Why should RAW be any different. Until there is an open standard to RAW that can be used by any software not just Adobe Photoshop or Nikon's software, I don't think I'll be giving RAW anymore thought. I don't want to spend a minimum of $1000 on a camera only to find out I can't get the images off it using any OS platform or any software I choose.

You can still shoot jpeg or tiff. Nobody says you have to use raw.

And how much longer will jpeg be open? The world is becoming scary.

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


But Nikon must be making profits with NC... no one just "drops" a profitable product in order to save money. It doesn't make sense to me.

Come on guys this is not about Nikon or Adobe. or any other manufacturer This is about what happens when we try to reprocess our files 20 years from now when Nef is now Nef-3, 4, 5, etc, and the operating system is Mac XXIIIV, or Windows 2025.. If the formats are documented we can write new software on our existing machines for these 20 year old files that were produced by D2Xs, 20Ds, Olympus, etc. If we don't hang together and get the formats documented by ALL manufactures we are screwed in the long term. The database industry has learned this the hard way. Remember the databases from the 70s and 80s, I do. I had lots of problems converting the old data from them into the newer databases. Don't lose your property(images) due to obselence of the software and hardware platforms!!!!
Look at www.openraw.org for more info.