Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on April 20, 2005, 07:48:57 am
-
First, let me start by saying that I do agree with the stupidity of Nikon move. I have called the Nikon Customer support in Tokyo this morning and have strongly, but politely, conveyed the message.
Now, having only access to the public exchanges on this topic, my feeling is that reports of this story are way overblown and one sided.
IMHO, Adobe is far from being all white here, and I for one find unacceptable to have to:
- get PS CS2 to gain D2X support in ACR,
- only get partial D2X .nef support because of a supposed fear of what I see as highly unlikely law suits. Was Bibble sued?
As a final comment, I find it a bit funny to read the wave of protest at a modest attempt by a camera company to lock us in the their system softwarewise, when Canon and Nikon have done all they could for years to make their systems completely closed hardwarewise... :-) Don't tell me "they didn't sue Sigma"... cos they didn't sue Adobe neither. Or at least not yet.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Here's my two cents about the Nikon NEF data question. I don't own Nikon equipment and am no expert in RAW converters, just a semi-retired software developer.
I don't know the details first hand but from threads here and elsewhere, it sounds as if what Nikon did was to encode WB data NOT encrypt it. There is a world of difference. Encryption is a way to disguise data. They didn't disguise it, they just laid it out differently, possibly through some simple look-up table, as others have surmised. Since RAW formats are proprietary they have a right to lay out the data in the file any way they want, for whatever design reasons are important to them. Every data file on your computer is encoded in some way or other.
From my reading my understanding is that they would prefer if software converters use the Nikon programmer interface (SDK or API or whatever they want to call it) to access the data rather than relying on the bit by bit layout in the file. This is NOT bad system design. In fact, there is a lot that's good about it. For example, in future releases of this camera or others, they would have the freedom to move the data around in the file layout any way that's convenient for them, while people writing converter software could continue to use the SDK subroutine library from Nikon, without having to change their program, thereby releasing new versions, and charging us more money.
You could make the argument that we would all be better off if all manufacturers standardized on a data retrieval interface (standard SDK) so that converters could remain more stable over time. The only thing that would change would be the underlying SDK from Nikon (or who oever). There is nothing wrong with this design strategy and from my point of view (past software developer) there is a lot going for it. Rather than castigate Nikon for doing what has been been common practice in many areas of software design, the better debate might be whether or not they should all do it this way.
-
This post may go over like a lead balloon
Only insofar as the buoyancy of its arguments.
Why should they do the R&D and then just turn it over to Adobe. That's what you all are demanding.
No, what we're all "demanding" (I could quibble about that, since I'm not really demanding anything) is that Nikon allow us to legally access our works of art, even in the USA.
The fact that dcraw and similar tools have "cracked" the file format doesn't make the authors of that software any less liable wrt. the DMCA than Adobe.
It's just that Adobe chose not to take that risk, while the others did.
-
Software is property.
No it's not. It's intelectual property. There's quite a difference. When a person buys software, that copy of it is owned by the purchaser (it's their property). But the creation of the software by the creator is protected via copyright law to ensure they can profit from it for a given amount of time. This means that even though a person owns that copy of the software, they do not have the right to distribute it.
When I shoot my camera, Canon does not own the RAW files. Canon created the means to make those RAW images and that is copyrighted to them. This means a company or person cannot build and sell a camera that makes the RAW images in the same means as the ones from Canon cameras. The RAW files themselves are nobodys property other than that of the person who made them; just as film negatives are.
Nikon has no justification for encrypting any RAW data.
-
And if Nikon encrypts enough of the NEF format, you'll HAVE to buy Capture, since you won't have the option of other apps. Doesn't that concern you?.
No not at all. Now that would really be shooting themself in the foot. I'd be up in arms too.I see the current attempt as attempting to provide value to the Nikon user that they have a choice to participate in or not. Its not blocking access at all
> What everyone calls encription is not functionally and
> practicially different from compiling.
It's very different, and after 30+ years in the software business, I think I'm qualified to judge that, having worked on compilers and encryption both. Bob, you don't seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to the technical issues of software..
Well, I was speaking in the metaphorical. The sensibility is to mask all that goes on upstream and to accept the product at face value.
-
Adobe doesn't fully support the D2X, then we will have one less way of converting the NEF, and the lost way happens to involve the most important graphics program on the planet, and one that I've spent a lot of time learning. Not a small loss.
I think at the end of the day, whether Adobe or Nikon is right or wrong, is the whole point of this debacle. This is rapidly turning into a major PR disaster for Nikon and their attempt to put their point across is only pouring oil on an already inflamed situation. Hopefully it will act as a wake up call to manufacturers that the majority of photographers actually want to see some form of open standards for RAW formats such that it is possible to make their own choice of processing software and workflow rather than have it imposed through some form of 'technical blackmail' for want of a better term.
Nikon's decision to force 3rd party developers down the SDK route is worrisome as it potentially prevents the 3rd parties leveraging any developments in interpolation technique, image processing or software development (increased speed or functionality) to provide photographers with an overall better solution. This can only hurt Nikon at the end of the day and gives the impression of a Film Camera manufacturer saying that you can only use their enlargers, paper and chemicals in the darkroom, and if you wish to use a third party enlarger you still have to use Nikon bulbs to preserve colour fidelity and quality, blah, blah.
I don't believe that Nikon necessarily have to follow the DNG standard but they do need to show that they understand photographers concerns on this issue and that they are going to provide an equitable solution for all.
-
Might there be a good market for a "Photographer's Guide to Rules of Composition of Both Kinds" with a free addendum about colonics?
-
Michael quoted Jeff Schewe yesterday (Apr 24). In my opinion, it's the most eloquent expression of what I (and many other loyal Nikon customers) feel about Nikon's recent actions. I won't repeat the whole thing here, but this one line does bear reading again:
"To do anything to the file that in any way restricts, hampers, or impairs unfettered access to the digital photographic image is unjustifiable and should be deemed a hostile act against the photographer’s interest and the best interest of the photography industry." - Jeff Schewe
Nikon has perpetuated a hostile act against their customers...and thus they should not wonder why they have been lambasted (and will continue to be, to the point of switching to other camera manufacturers) for it.
-
I think you just hit the nail on the head, Michael. And I'm a Nikon shooter (at the moment).
Like many other Nikon shooters, I'm in the market for a D2X (maybe even two), plus some new glass, including the expensive 200-400 AFS VR and some macro lenses. That is a lot of coin, and a long term revenue stream for Nikon, even beyond purchases that are planned for this year!
I've got a D100, a D70, lots of good Nikkor glass, a couple of SB-800's and more. Also have a copy of the latest Nikon Capture. And like everyone else, PS/CS is my mainstay editing application. NC is a sideline.
So now, for the first time, I'm seriously considering dumping the Nikon stuff and going with Canon 1Ds bodies, with C glass.
Nicely done Nikon. Good way to piss off a whole segment of loyal customers and lose even more market share, by encrypting the white balance in the RAW file. Will they encrypt the whole raw file next? Haven't they noticed that technology customers (and digital cameras are just another technological product these days) are extremely averse to encryption schemes and usually break them forthwith? It's a losing battle.
As Michael said, dumb company!
Now if I were Canon executive management, I would announce full and complete support for the DNG standard as a user selectable option in future versions of their flagship DSLR line. That would put the nail in Nikon's DSLR business coffin and ensure mass defection of Nikon users, like myself, over to Canon gear. Now that would be a boost to the bottem line for Canon in '05, wouldn't it?
You listening, Nikon and Canon?
-
I'd suggest that you copy the link to each of these discussions and email them to someone in the Nikon-to-you chain.
Even if it's only the company from which you purchase your gear.
Flooding a few mail boxes might stick a pin in their collective butts.
(I'm guessing that Nikon has someone monitoring these sites. Some manufacturers and dealers certainly do.)
-
Bernard, I concur with your observations, especially about Canon hardware issues. What little support Nikon still has is in part due to Canon changing their lens mounts so often and Nikon keeping their lenses compatible with their bodies over the decades.
As for "was Bibble sued", however, maybe the answer is "not yet" or maybe the answer is "why bother". Adobe is a fatter target, more worth sueing and Adobe may need to keep a low profile where anti-trust action is concerned. What conceivable benefit could there be for Adobe in not supporting D2X completely?
We'll never know what all is behind the scenes here and for sure none of us individuals or corporate entities are altogether free of sin or altogether evil. Stupid is another matter; there's little disagreement that Nikon is not being brilliant here and I'm glad you're taking advantage of living in Japan to try to get the message across to them. I hope there's some way to get to the right Nikon people to read these LL threads. That would be hard to ignore unless they're stupid and stubborn beyond plausibility.
-
Why did Nikon make the D70 use CF cards, and now change the D50 to SD cards?
Mabye I missed something, but aside from the word "Nikon" how is this related?
Because the thread is entitled "Good cameras and lenses, dumb company!", and I think making two dSLR's, whose target markets cross one another, use different cards is dumb.
-
On a side point re: the D50 and SD cards, the nikon press release seems to marketing this camera very heavily to the digicam market and not to real SLR users, this might have something to do with the change . . . That said, I think that the way the 350D is marketed and designed seems to be a lot more 'serious' than the press announcement picture of the D50.
I've noticed that as well . . . lots of words like "family", and "child mode" in the promotional material. Serves to show just how rapidly the dSLR market has changed, from semi-pro equipment to family cams in about two years!
The CD -vs- CF card thing isn't a train smash, but Nikon have made things "more expensive" for existing D-series users wishing to add the D50 to their collection. One now has to factor in the purchase of new SD cards with the price of the camera.
-
Dontcha just love open source and the internet?
Heeheeheehee!
Sorry if I'm gloating, but this is making me laugh and was a great way to start the day! ;-)
-
Well, Robert, looks like you've got your SDK, at least.
Nikon's response (DPReview) (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefresponse.asp)
-
A good example? In the software world XML is taking over as an encoding standard of choice.....and there is no closing that box either (even though some vendors are trying to do so by proposing a "ludicrous" binary XML standard).
Users want interoperability.
Oh....that's too weak a statement....let me rephrase:
Users are demanding interoperability.
Nikon and others would be wise to see what is happening in the wider software technology marketplace, since they are now playing in that space.
-
jani, I thought I had seen mention of that SDK somewhere, but couldn't remember where, so often in such cases I just assume I imagined it, as I have learned not to trust my memory.
I may be a dinosaur when it comes to concepts such as open source. When I hear "open source" the first question that I ask is, "Who do I call when it breaks?" But even as I write that, I realize how stupid a statement it is. Nowadays nobody supports anything and nobody fixes anything, they just sell you a new release. In the old days, in a DEC VAX shop for example, you paid big bucks for vendor support, computers didn't crash much and bugs were fixed. Nowadays we maintain large network support departments full of guys who run around re-installing things all day long, no bugs get fixed, and no one ever quite knows what went wrong, but we have to spend money on new PC's every year or so. While at home, millions of people rely on their nephews to keep their computers running. (End of rant.)
I can't say that I disagree with your (and others) views on the ownership of your photos, and maybe that means you own the contents of the RAW files and the right to have software that can read them into perpetuity. (If you buy the Nikon raw converter, you will have that, incidentally.) I never intended to defend Nikon's business decision. Since what they are doing seems to annoy so many people, it is by almost by definition wrong. But I don't have a big problem with them trying to corner the market on D2X raw converters either. It may be a bad business decision in the current environment but that's their problem. I may not like being limited to only one NEF converter but I don't believe it's that big a deal either.
Do Canon and the other manufacturers license their RAW file knowledge or do all the converter writers have to do reverse engineering? If it's the latter, I would call that a symptom of an immature industry. Maybe it makes you feel good that you can find the RAW file layout somewhere, but in the long run, I don't see it as big a backward compatibility advantage as you do.
You, and others, stated that you wondered how you would get access to your NEF files in the year 2048 if Nikon goes out of business or chooses not to support it any longer. The same argument holds for other RAW files, doesn't it? Do you believe that Bibble or PS or whoever will still support 1Ds Mark 2 Raw files in 2048, assuming they still exist as corporate entities or weren't taken over by a corporate rival who shut them down?
What you probably will do in 2048, regardless of whether you shoot D2X or Canon, is to load up your original software CD's because no one will be suporting any of them at that time. If you want access to RAW files for the rest of your life and beyond, you are going to have to actively do something to make them accessible yourself. Being able to rely on 4 vendors today, rather than just one, may be an advantage but it will likely be a small one.
With Nikon's decision what we really lose is the ability to choose betweeen different RAW converter vendors. Yes, it's an issue. But in the long term, if we want to keep our photos (which are your property) it might be best to avoid all RAW files, and convert them all into something else, that's more universal and may not exist yet, as part of your workflow. That new Adobe standard may fit that bill. TIF and JPG files have fulfilled a functionally similar role, although they represent the output of the workflow and not the "negative".
-
So how is Nikon hurting us? Trying to develop features unique to Capture. What everyone calls encription is not functionally and practicially different from compiling.
In the end..You get the output of your input. Nikon is not withholding anything.
This is a discussion/debate which will never be agreed upon. One poll I'd like to see is how many have paid for CS in the user group. I know some have. Other justify not paying in many ways. Its too expensive, it's cool but..., Adobe makes too much money... and on and on. The only thing I hold against Adobe is this smear campaign. But they won the hearts and mind and took the focus off their new conditions of purchase.
Maybe some day you'll have someone use one of your images for personal or commercial gain without your permission. Actually I hope not.
Sorry, Bob, you're clueless and your arguments are totally beside the point. Encryption and compiling are totally different concepts. RAW files are the intellectual property of the photographer who creates them, not the camera manufacturer, and Nikon's move is a totally selfish attempt to force photographers to use their overpriced and under-featured Nikon Capture software by freezing all the third-party developers out of the market with their dumb--- WB encryption attempt. Nikon is pissing on their customers in a stupid attempt to make a few extra nickels, and I hope they get stomped for it.
And I've paid for the last 3 versions of Photoshop.
-
I'm a professional writer, and I have to say that I deeply admire Nikon's statement on the NEF encryption. It's almost pure b.s., a grade so high that it can only be exceeded by certain departments of the US government, and only then in matters of high importance, like salary increases for Congress.
Nikon never says that the NEF isn't encrypted (b.s. translation: it is) nor that they will allow Adobe access to the actual code (b.s. translation: they won't.) They suggest that they are only attempting to protect the consumer (translation: they aren't.) In fact, I would propose a rule of thumb: whenever a PR department goes through verbal acrobatics like these to assure the customer that everything is all right, it isn't. If Nikon were a pill, I'd spit it out.
One of the more unintentionally amusing comments on the situation was Phil Askey's on Digital Photography Review, who said (nervously, but earnestly, I thought) that they would have a clarifying story on the Nikon press release as soon as they figured out what it meant.
I haven't had the time, or frankly, the energy today to whip myself into a state of full hysteria, but I do find this whole thing unnecessary and annoying, especially since I'm about to (or at least, I'm trying to) pop for a couple of D2Xs.
And frankly, when you work through the whole thing, and have to decide who to blame, I blame Nikon. Not because I favor Adobe, particularly, but simply because I want to do things the way I want to do them, and it's Nikon, not Adobe, who is trying to prevent me from doing that.
Yes, Nikon has the right to do that, yes, blah-blah-blah development costs; but when you get right down to if, it Adobe doesn't fully support the D2X, then we will have one less way of converting the NEF, and the lost way happens to involve the most important graphics program on the planet, and one that I've spent a lot of time learning. Not a small loss.
JC
-
I may be a dinosaur when it comes to concepts such as open source.
Well, the concept (but not the term) open source is older than Microsoft, and as far as I can tell, almost as old as electronic computers.
So you're not being a dinosaur, you're being a ... erh ... uhm ... mammal about it.
When I hear "open source" the first question that I ask is, "Who do I call when it breaks?" But even as I write that, I realize how stupid a statement it is. Nowadays nobody supports anything and nobody fixes anything, they just sell you a new release. In the old days, in a DEC VAX shop for example, you paid big bucks for vendor support, computers didn't crash much and bugs were fixed.
Or you sent a message to techs at other places with VAXes, and asked for their help. Then those techs might have a solution for you, and perhaps they even submitted a fix for the problem to DEC.
That's how it often worked in the "old days", when you got access to the source, so you could compile it yourself.
But wait! This isn't about "open source".
We're not talking about access to the source code of Nikon's proprietary software, nor of Adobe Photoshop, or of Bibble.
We're talking about open formats.
I can't say that I disagree with your (and others) views on the ownership of your photos, and maybe that means you own the contents of the RAW files and the right to have software that can read them into perpetuity. (If you buy the Nikon raw converter, you will have that, incidentally.)
No, I won't have that, because it's highly unlikely that the computer I have today will be working in as little as five years. It's highly unlikely that the operating system I'll be using in ten years will be fully backwards compatible, which means that I'd have to use emulation software to run Nikon's converter.
Well, at least if we can count on past years' experience about backwards compatibility for newer versions of Windows.
Do Canon and the other manufacturers license their RAW file knowledge or do all the converter writers have to do reverse engineering? If it's the latter, I would call that a symptom of an immature industry.
I'm fairly certain that dcraw reads the RAW formats by reverse engineering.
And I agree, it's a symptom of an immature industry.
Maybe it makes you feel good that you can find the RAW file layout somewhere, but in the long run, I don't see it as big a backward compatibility advantage as you do.
You, and others, stated that you wondered how you would get access to your NEF files in the year 2048 if Nikon goes out of business or chooses not to support it any longer. The same argument holds for other RAW files, doesn't it?
No, because the format doesn't suddenly cease to be known.
When a format first has been reverse-engineered, and the method for reading the format properly has been made legally public, then there is nothing that prevents me or anyone else from implementing a new converter for the old formats.
And this is where we do get back to open source; since I can get the source code for dcraw, I may not even have to implement much on my own, the code is already there.
Do you believe that Bibble or PS or whoever will still support 1Ds Mark 2 Raw files in 2048, assuming they still exist as corporate entities or weren't taken over by a corporate rival who shut them down?
I honestly don't know. I certainly don't trust Adobe, and Bibble doesn't seem to be very old as a company.
What you probably will do in 2048, regardless of whether you shoot D2X or Canon, is to load up your original software CD's because no one will be suporting any of them at that time.
Those original software CDs are probably not readable anymore, and if they are, I won't have access to a working CD reader for them.
If you think that sounds strange, where is your 8 inch floppy diskette drive? Your 5 1/4 inch floppy drive? Your Video 2000 unit? 4-track tape?
I have lots of practically inaccessible software on media that I cannot read with my current computer.
If you want access to RAW files for the rest of your life and beyond, you are going to have to actively do something to make them accessible yourself.
Well, maybe not as much as you think, but I certainly will have to leave information enough about what kind of format it is.
But in the long term, if we want to keep our photos (which are your property) it might be best to avoid all RAW files, and convert them all into something else, that's more universal and may not exist yet, as part of your workflow. That new Adobe standard may fit that bill. TIF and JPG files have fulfilled a functionally similar role, although they represent the output of the workflow and not the "negative".
The new Adobe standard - DNG - is a slightly crippled, proprietary TIFF. (TIFF = "Tagged Image File Format", not "Tagged Image Format"). The "TIFF" we usually refer to is a variant of TIFF usually known as TIFF RGB. DNG doesn't support nearly as many bits per channel as does TIFF, for instance, so if you want to have another format than RAW for your image data, perhaps saving to TIFF RGB isn't such a bad idea after all.
-
The new Adobe standard - DNG - is a slightly crippled, proprietary TIFF. (TIFF = "Tagged Image File Format", not "Tagged Image Format"). The "TIFF" we usually refer to is a variant of TIFF usually known as TIFF RGB. DNG doesn't support nearly as many bits per channel as does TIFF, for instance, so if you want to have another format than RAW for your image data, perhaps saving to TIFF RGB isn't such a bad idea after all.
That's not quite true - DNG is an extension of TIFF not a crippling of TIFF. The second paragraph of section three defines bits per sample and states that bits per sample can be anything from 1-32bits. This exceeds most RAW formats at the moment which are currently up to 16bits (eg Canon RAW format).
Calling DNG a proprietary format misses the contribution that Adobe is trying to make to the photographic community. They are offering it as a potential solution for the benefit of all and have even offered to transfer the specification to an international standards body if that will speed adoption of a common format.
There is another misconception to the DNG argument, which is that manufacturers are tied into a specification which they cannot extend or customise to their own needs. This is not true, and most manufacturers already extend both JFIF/JPEG and TIFF files with custom extensions (most of which are not documented). It is not just the RAW files which are undocumented by camera manufacturers, but all file types where they stuff in custom information which is difficult to decode without access to the original specifications.
Nikon is the current target for Photographers frustrations to a much larger problem which is that manufacturers are not supporting open formats for RAW files and/or documenting how information is currently being stored. This has been a long running issue, it's just at this point in time Nikon provided a specific opportunity for eveyone to express their point of view.
-
Hi
Colons: let's just irrigate them; hang them out to dry.
Cheers
Rob C
-
Nikon needs to learn THE cardinal rule of selling (any thing any place any time): THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT. This is true even if the customer is logically and/or legally dead wrong. In this case I favor the logic of giving the customer more choice rather than less and of the benefits to everyone for a more open situation, but my "logic" per se is not the important issue for Nikon survival. The real issue is that if (right or wrong) enough Nikon customers and potential customers get pissed enough Nikon will die. Their tombstone may read "We Were Right", but they'll be just as dead. No points for being dead right.
Kinda like a pedestrian letting himself get run over by a truck because he had the legal right of way. Yoohoo, Nikon, do you not see the truck bearing down on you?
-
Nikon has perpetuated a hostile act against their customers...and thus they should not wonder why they have been lambasted (and will continue to be, to the point of switching to other camera manufacturers) for it.
The only thing that Nikon has done is get in the line of fire at the point in time that photographers of any manufacturer have found an opportunity to vent their frustrations about the lack of open standards for the RAW format and the inherent risk this means for loosing images to an unsupported file format.
Before using this as the excuse to switch manufacturers bear in mind that no-one is guilt free when it comes to proprietary formats and hiding information in maker notes. I am not trying to absolve Nikon for their current predicement, but I don't believe that they are any better or worse than anyone else. They still make #### good cameras and long may that continue.
-
The D2X and available lenses are so great, however, that I believe Nikon will weather the storm somehow.
As a Canon groupie I sincerely hope you are right. Without Nikon, we would all lose. Nikon's good stuff is so good that it makes their stupid moves all the more painful.
Eric
-
Thom Hogan has now weighed in with a review of the D2X and he does not speak well of the encrypted White Balance.
Details on his site at:
http://www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm
When someone with the reputation of Thom chimes in with a denouncement of Nikon's actions wrt the encryption debacle, Nikon had better start listening and fix the situation fast.
-
I completely agree.
I'm another long-time Nikon user who sees Canon as a more and more attractive alternative. With these really stupid moves by Nikon, my thoughts of buying a D2X are now on hold.
Question is, how do we get the attention of the people who make the decisions at Nikon? It is in our interest to have a strong and healthy competitor to Canon, but Nikon doesn't seem to understand how to do it.
-
I am not a Nikon shooter but have respected their products for decades. I must agree that this seems like a very bone-headed move whose significance may transcend the practical inconvenience it will precipitate. It seems to me like a circle-the-wagons gesture made by a beleaguered product management trapped in a group-think maelstrom.
But look on the bright side. It might just prompt Canon to embrace the DNG format, although it's hard to predict how Japanese managers will react to competitors' maneuvers. Canon might just decide that Nikon had a good idea.
-
IMHO, Adobe is far from being all white here, and I for one find unacceptable to have to:
- get PS CS2 to gain D2X support in ACR,
- only get partial D2X .nef support because of a supposed fear of what I see as highly unlikely law suits. Was Bibble sued?
First off, you don't have to buy CS2 to get new camera support. You can convert the RAWs to DNG and then those will open in ACR 2.4.
The file browser in PS CS is nothing but bloated code. The "Bridge" is written ground up and is susposedly much quicker. That along with the additional productivity and functionality (Curves & two ACRs at a time!) improvements should make the upgrade worthwile.
Bibble hasn't been sued as far as I know but they could very well be if Nikon is so inclined. We Americans get to suffer with the absolutly poorly written abomination known as the DCMA which does nothing to protect copyrights. It instead encourages anti-competative behavior and harms fair-use rights.
As a final comment, I find it a bit funny to read the wave of protest at a modest attempt by a camera company to lock us in the their system softwarewise, when Canon and Nikon have done all they could for years to make their systems completely closed hardwarewise... :-)
Not quite the same thing. Software and Hardware are two considerably different beasts in how they're made, how they're used and how laws apply to them. Encrypting metadata in a RAW image is not modest by any means. It's saying the equivalent of, "Part of what you created as an artist does not belong to you but if you pay us $100 we'll be nice enough to let you use it."
Oh, yeah. And the DCMA would allow Nikon to sue you if you were to break the encryption or even to use software that bypasses the encryption. If you are using Bibble to process D2x files you are breaking American law. Hopefully they're not that dumb.
Why did Nikon make the D70 use CF cards, and now change the D50 to SD cards?
Mabye I missed something, but aside from the word "Nikon" how is this related?
-
On a side point re: the D50 and SD cards, the nikon press release seems to marketing this camera very heavily to the digicam market and not to real SLR users, this might have something to do with the change.
I played with an all black canon 350D a couple of days ago at my local camera store. My first impression was: Canon have just killed their 8 megapixel Powershot pro 1. Here is a similar sized camera but with a very serious low noise sensor and interchangeable lenses. An almost pocket sized backup camera for a pro, and a serious SLR for the home user, at the same price as a lower quality digicam. (I was a bit awed at the idea of hanging that thing off the end of a 70-200IS and getting the same quality pics as a 20D).
That said, I think that the way the 350D is marketed and designed seems to be a lot more 'serious' than the press anouncment picture of the D50.
-
Here's my two cents about the Nikon NEF data question. I don't own Nikon equipment and am no expert in RAW converters, just a semi-retired software developer.
I also come from the software world, both with an academic and practical background, and I'm almost a zealot when it comes to customer and comsumer rights.
I don't know the details first hand but from threads here and elsewhere, it sounds as if what Nikon did was to encode WB data NOT encrypt it. There is a world of difference. Encryption is a way to disguise data. They didn't disguise it, they just laid it out differently, possibly through some simple look-up table, as others have surmised. Since RAW formats are proprietary they have a right to lay out the data in the file any way they want, for whatever design reasons are important to them. Every data file on your computer is encoded in some way or other.
Disregarding that you're wrong on the encryption part, you're right about every data file being "encoded".
But this is not a good defense for Nikon.
The fact that the most popular document formats today are closed document formats mean that you, as an author or artist, have no or little control over your work.
This sounds a bit crass, but:
Microsoft controls your letters and books, and now Nikon wants to control your pictures.
From my reading my understanding is that they would prefer if software converters use the Nikon programmer interface (SDK or API or whatever they want to call it) to access the data rather than relying on the bit by bit layout in the file. This is NOT bad system design.
Yes, this is bad system design. It's very bad system design, because it means that when Nikon goes tits-up, their software support for the old formats is phased out, or whatever, you're stuck with a bunch of original files that you no longer can access.
Please show me the photographer who would think it was okay that all of a sudden, he couldn't review his slides or negatives anymore, because the technology to review them is legally unobtainable.
This is why enabling reverse engineering is Good, and preventing it is Bad.
In fact, there is a lot that's good about it. For example, in future releases of this camera or others, they would have the freedom to move the data around in the file layout any way that's convenient for them, while people writing converter software could continue to use the SDK subroutine library from Nikon, without having to change their program, thereby releasing new versions, and charging us more money.
But Nikon doesn't provide an "SDK subroutine library".
And even if they did, do you think that library would be usable on Windows, MacOS, Linux, Solaris or whatever in 2048?
Who's going to maintain forward compatibility forever?
You could make the argument that we would all be better off if all manufacturers standardized on a data retrieval interface (standard SDK) so that converters could remain more stable over time.
No, it would be better if all manufacturers used open or semi-open RAW formats, so that you wouldn't have to depend on the availability of an SDK or a specific library.
With semi-open, I mean formats that are easy to reverse-engineer, both technically and legally.
The only thing that would change would be the underlying SDK from Nikon (or who oever). There is nothing wrong with this design strategy and from my point of view (past software developer) there is a lot going for it. Rather than castigate Nikon for doing what has been been common practice in many areas of software design, the better debate might be whether or not they should all do it this way.
The common practice sucks asteroids through straws. It places the control over your creative works in someone else's hands. In the software industry, it's one of the major cost-increasing factors for software maintenance and replacement. It's the basis for vendor lock-in.
-
It's becoming abundantly clear that Nikon is willing to sacrifice some utility and convenience to their customers for the sake of selling more of their software. Whatever the legal ramifications of this are, it's for sure a bad move as far as good customer relations and loyalty are concerned. The Amiga computers were as popular as they were for a long time because of incredibly good and extensive third party software and peripheral support and good co-operation from Commodore to make this possible. These developers also did everything they could to get customer feedback to improve their products. Nikon makes great stuff, but they seem to have their heads far up where the sun don't shine where customer relations and feedback are concerned. This could belly-up them if they keep it up.
Commodore seems to have died for totally different reasons, mainly spending too much R&D on products that no one cared about rather than concentrating on the ones that were already working well. Being out of touch with what your customers want just isn't good business and outright pissing your customers off is exceedingly bad business. Yoohoo, Nikon. :p
-
Score one for common sense and consumer rights.
-
Well, Robert, looks like you've got your SDK, at least.
Not quite...the Nikon SDK is notoriously slow (this from developers that have been using it). 3rd Party solutions are much faster typically. And if/when Nikon stops supporting the SDK (or heaven forbid leaves the camera business)? What then with all your archived NEF's? What about other innovative ideas on how to process the raw data, for increased speed, better colour fidelity (or alternate fidelity, like a Velvia look?). Let the market decide what the customers want...and if you can't compete in an open market then maybe you have no business in that market.
Nikon makes good cameras and lenses, but my experience over the past 6 years is that their software, to be polite about it, leaves a lot to be desired. And I know whereof I speak since I write software for a living.
Nikon are still defending their right to encrypt key photographer data. I disagree with that approach. The press release from Nikon is just marketing hype. They say they are doing all this for their "customers". That's BS....their customers have spoken and universally are panning Nikon's actions. They are not listening to their customers, who want an open standard...either a fully documented NEF or DNG will be fine.
They are selling a $5K US camera body (the D2X)....and they are getting picky about a $100 piece of software (ie. Capture)? Why....that's just 2% of the cost of the D2X and no-one just buys a body, eh? I doubt that they even see the revenue for software on the bottom line, unless the plan is to make it even more proprietary and then charge $500 for Capture?
Why not open up the NEF format....it will make customers happy, will foster more innovative workflow/conversion products in the marketplace, and put Canon on the defensive for a change. Many photographers would switch back to Nikon if they were committed to an open format/standard, if their competition stayed proprietary.
Besides, the encryption has already been broken...and will continue to be so. DCMA does not apply outside of the USA, and Europe is on the verge of eliminating software patents. Why not just face reality and keep the customers happy instead? That is the key to success in the internet age.
My 2 cents worth.
-
It goes beyond marketing 101; also philosophy 101: Socrates (or maybe it was Plato, or maybe Confucius) said "Pissing off your customer base is not logical". Also Religion 101: Moses' 12th tablet (one of the two that he dropped on the way down from the mountain) said "Thou shalt not bite the hand that feeds you".
In case you forgot, the 11th tablet outlined the exact rules for avoiding sin in image processing; most digital processing is sinful. All darkroom processing is virtuous.
-
Bob continues:
> I have no problem using my NEF files now. And I never touch
> Capture. All of my work exists within some other
> converting/editing application.
And if Nikon encrypts enough of the NEF format, you'll HAVE to buy Capture, since you won't have the option of other apps. Doesn't that concern you?
> What everyone calls encription is not functionally and
> practicially different from compiling.
It's very different, and after 30+ years in the software business, I think I'm qualified to judge that, having worked on compilers and encryption both. Bob, you don't seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to the technical issues of software.
> One poll I'd like to see is how many have paid for CS in the
> user group
I have...in fact, I paid for the whole Design Collection, which is way more money than just PS/CS. And will give Adobe more money, happily, to get the benefit of the new features coming in CS2 since they will make my life easier, faster and thus are worth greenbacks to me. I have paid for Capture as well, and many other pieces of software. I think I've spent more on sw than hardware, and given how much hardware I have, that is a big chunk of money.
> Maybe some day you'll have someone use one of your images
> for personal or commercial gain without your permission.
I hope not too....but when the time comes, it should be me suing the culprits...not Nikon, because someone stole their NEF file. It's MY file...and I should be able to do as I please with it.
-
So...
What kind of target shooting?
-
Hi all
I thought that I'd posted this point yesterday, but it seems to have blown the coop. So, I shall try yet again.
We are getting all hot and bothered about the fine detail of what may or may not be right or wrong business practice and of a particular part of it that, whilst annoying many, still permits the camera to be useful. That costs you circa five thousand bucks.
Take a few steps down the ladder, to the very next rung, in fact, where you only have to spend about a grand, and tell me what you see. Unless I've missed something, the next thing you see is the D70S. And there Nikon has done it again: it had the chance, at this upgrade, to convert the D70 into something really useful and what did it do? It still forgot to build in a socket for a flashgun cable.
Years ago, in the days of traditional cameras, there was hardly a unit to be found (of any quality worth having) that did not allow you to plug in a shoulder flash unit or even a studio strobe, should you happen to have had one.
Can you be more cynical and marketing-man driven than to deny the average, non-millionaire photographer the use of such a lighting tool which, in honesty, once bought would probably last him for life and, of course, allow him much better lighting than flash-on-camera ever can?
So its not only in the world of electronic wizardry that you are getting screwed - its everywhere in the camera game.
Have a nice day.
Rob C
-
> What everyone calls encription is not functionally and
> practicially different from compiling.
It's very different, and after 30+ years in the software business, I think I'm qualified to judge that, having worked on compilers and encryption both. Bob, you don't seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to the technical issues of software..
Well, I was speaking in the metaphorical. The sensibility is to mask all that goes on upstream and to accept the product at face value.
I don't think you see the fundamental difference between a compiler and encryption software (or you're simply not expressing yourself in a way that indicates such understanding).
A compiler takes human-readable instructions to the computer and compiles those instructions in a way that the computer can understand. The result may very well be human-readable, too, there is no need to hide what actually goes on.
Encryption software attempts to make it extremely hard or impossible for any unauthorized entity to get at the encrypted data. This includes computers and software, not just humans. Encrypted data is nothing to accept, even at face value, it's intentionally inaccessible.
Or, in over-simplified brevity: a compiler deals with computer programs, encryption deals with data. Your image in NEF format is not a program, it's data.
Another crucial difference between encryption and compiled code is that the encryption is a legal "no trespassing" sign. The encryption on Nikon's NEF apparently isn't too hard to crack, but that's not the point -- if a farmer puts a "no trespassing" sign on a fence, it's usually not hard to cross the fence, but as with encryption, the difficulty of crossing the fence is not the point. The point is that a legal right has been asserted, and the sheriff will arrest you for crossing the fence or breaking the encryption. Nikon is telling other companies to keep their hands off the white balance; that they have the right to translate the white balance to a usable form, and nobody else does. As the saying goes, it's their way or the highway -- and if they'd thought it out a little more, they might have figured out that unfortuntely for them, some (maybe a large number) of people are going to choose the highway.
But not me. I plan to do a lot of whining and grumbling and posting to forums, but I'm still going to buy the two D2Xs and probably the NC Photoshop plug-in to translate the NEF. Eventually, these guys are going to work something out. I suspect that it's Nikon that will fold -- unless they do something very quickly to speed processing through their hapless software.
A question to our UK friends -- does it sound as weird to you when we use a company name as a singular form ("If Nikon does...") as it does to us when you use it as a plural form "If Nikon do..." ?
JC
-
Rob C,
Correct usage demands capitals after colons in Blighty too, you know. Just not after semi-colons.
End of off-topic grammar exercises.
W
Sorry, one more off-topic about colons. I suppose it depends on which style book you're using, but coming out of the University of Iowa writer's program I'm versed in Strunk and White's Elements of Style. When used in a sentence they don't capitalize after a colon. When used to separate a title from a subtitle they do capitalize after a colon. I'm not sure how the Chicago Manual of Style treats this. Of course, I should pay attention to this more in my writing.
-
Here's another rule for the new book:
If you're going to be golden: Mean it.
-
I was out shooting this weekend. Whew this thread has grown in ways I haven't expected.
I understand the difference between a compiler and encription I assure you. I have been the founder and leader of three game companies. Two were sold and one is up and coming. What I was referring to in my statements was the desire not to provide core technique and process for others to learn from. Sure you can uncompile code, but the trouble is likely not worth it without my comments, etc. and it makes it an exercise not worth doing. Especially when dealing with 100,000++ lines of code. When we built Warbirds we owned some patents on the process of massively multiplayer network technology, especially on how we handled "time" that we weren't going to share. The core concept was how we handled packets. People could sniff our packets and eventually figure it out (maybe). We just made it difficult as this was the real intrinsic value of the enterprise. My whole point was that if I add value to the process, why should I be forced to share it? I like the statement "it's intentionally inaccessible". There are a number of ways to achieve that. All are breakable in time. Some more effective than others.
I don't want to continue this point of the conversation.
The RAW/NEF issue is the place where we have giants colliding. I don't remember when Camera Raw clashed with the camera (Canon, Nikon, et al) raw software. But I concider that point, the pivotal event that put us at this contentious point. Canon would do the same but their software, from my memory of having used it for a short time, was pretty unremarkable.
We own the photograph or image. I totally agree with that. I also recognise that there are no innocent players here. I (we?) seen to trust Adobe easier for some reason. Nikon was topdog way back when, Canon was the underdog. The rolls are reversed today, but the Nikon folks are still concidered arrogant and inconciderate of it's customer. Had Canon been further along with the capability of it's raw conversion software, they could be the bad boy here. I always seem to be on the side of the underdog. I was a Canon user (FT, FTb, F-1, F-1n, etc) for most of my photographic life. Now I'm using Nikon. I find the underdog tries harder. Nikon is not following the game plan here, I guess.
All the above is meaningless drivel when played out against todays backdrop. Nikon should give its Capture away with it's D line and charge a nominal amount for the budget line IMHO. I'd sure like to see their SDK, just what does it provide to the third party developer. If it adds special capability, it has value.
What I really care about is the result, not necessarily the process. This whole issue is not at all about NIKON from my perspective. Their PR firm really screwed the pooch. Should I say their EX PR firm.
We are much closer to the beginning than the end. This battle will play out in many ways we possibly don't see yet. I'm far more concerned about archival issues than anything else. I'm also of the opinion we don't want anyone (Adobe included) solely determining our future. I also see a replay of the way windows explorer killed all the inovative smaller companies in that market without any remorse what-so-ever.
I've been given the opportunity to express my opinions and thats all they are, opinions. Thanks to Michael for the forum to discuss and debate many viewpoints.
Right now I'm interested in evaluating "DigitalPro III Software" that I just downloaded. Looks interesting.
-
The only thing that Nikon has done is get in the line of fire at the point in time that photographers of any manufacturer have found an opportunity to vent their frustrations about the lack of open standards for the RAW format and the inherent risk this means for loosing images to an unsupported file format.
Before using this as the excuse to switch manufacturers bear in mind that no-one is guilt free when it comes to proprietary formats and hiding information in maker notes. I am not trying to absolve Nikon for their current predicement, but I don't believe that they are any better or worse than anyone else. They still make #### good cameras and long may that continue.
Yeah, I completely agree. I mean, didn't Sony do the same thing with the F828? Did they eventually relent and open their RAW files up? I don't really remember the outcome of that, but there certainly wasn't the same kind of commotion (and as far as I do remember, the entire file was encrypted, not just the bit that allows the convenience of working with the 'as shot' WB values).
I'd wager the big difference here is that virtually everyone who wanders out to buy a D2X is going to want to shoot RAW, whereas there are probably a considerable number of happy 828 owners out there who would never consider not simply installing Sony's software and using it for all their edits, let alone care about the relative merits of shooting in RAW mode vs. JPEG.
I still don't get how Nikon didn't see the ####storm coming from a mile off though..
-
We are much closer to the beginning than the end. This battle will play out in many ways we possibly don't see yet. I'm far more concerned about archival issues than anything else. I'm also of the opinion we don't want anyone (Adobe included) solely determining our future. I also see a replay of the way windows explorer killed all the inovative smaller companies in that market without any remorse what-so-ever,
The problem with that example is that internet explorer (IE) is a proprietary software aplication (and it was the inovative one at the time but came to a hault in '01). Adobe DNG is an open file format. As a programer you should know (as I'm sure you do) that those are two very different things.
I was thinking along the timeframe of the early/mid-ninetys. I was at the beginning with galactacom, mosaic, etc. Think of the innovative companies that no longer exist.
Pooff - Newsreaders-GONE, mail-GONE, multimedia-nearly GONE, etc. etc….
I am approaching the issue from a business viewpoint, not technical. Lots of ways to dominate and control a market.
Market dominance is not based upon technical prowess. It all about marketing and sales dominance. Microsoft, smothered the numerious small (and large) companies, not with leading edge applications, but by GIVING IE away. It was installed on every new PC, on every upgrade, integrated into every MS application, and no company in the land could compete as there was no way to create value for the effort. Not a monopoly, sure…
Adobe is one of the very few companies that can exert this kind of influence. I have minimal regard for MSFT’s technical prowess, smaller companies have shown them the way, to be swept under when the copy became better than the original. Adobe is different, they have provided tremendous new capabilities, at a cost, but most felt enough value was received to pay the high tariff. I feel sorry for the smaller developer, as Adobe reaches out for new markets. Issues like sharpening, file browsing, etc will be attractive targets for new features. And they can’t fight back. Have you seen the size of the Adobe war-chest. It would scare me too. Some, who have made real breakthroughs will be bought and live the good life. Most will be in the shareware markets. It’s tough out there.
Now the next market challenge is the RAW Converter. Hmmm, big companies, Nikon, Canon, etc. Let’s turn them back into metal and glass builders. Opps, they don’t want to go back….
In the beginning there was first photographic digital capture device, the scanner. Photoshop was the finest tool in the realm. The world was at peace. Color, B&W, fine grain, coarse grain, saturated color, accurate color. The world was our oyster.
Then a smart engineer began the quest for direct digital capture. Hmmm, film has some inconveniences, chemicals (uck), gotta wait, customer calling gotta get busy, late nights, fixer stains, dim orangish lighting. Back hurts from standing over trays. It can all change; chimping can become a national sport.
First cameras were hmmmm, EXPENSIVE, wow. Jpegs were good for a web site, you betcha. Internet revolution, just the thing.
2.5 megapixels, now were talking, 4, 6 wow we can really use this thing. Photoshop got better, now I can really do some art.
Problem, CPU in the camera is “puny”. In camera Jpegs Ok, tiff too. Can do better. Ok, let’s output RAW, let the desktop CPU handle processing. Camera guys all think the desktop is just an external processing part of the camera. Photoshop is coming on strong. Capability not even dreamed of a few years earlier.
My camera, I want to do the R&D to make my customer happy. Many camera companies competing make for good advancement in the art.
Adobe, hmmmm new market, Camera Raw it is. Hardware guys are saying, we want control of camera output. I never intended to turn it over to a software company.
The battle lines are drawn…..
It’s all where you are sitting that determines the viewpoint. Nikon is catching the heat, don’t you know the folks at Canon, Olympus, Minolta are smiling at the pain Nikon is receiving trying to protect its product and technology. But they secretly hope Nikon somehow wins as they are all on the same side in the end.
-
Are there now 3 threads about this issue?? In any case I fully concur about the rudeness and gross stupidity of Nikon with this encryptation move and the additional stupidity and insult to our intellegence with their claim that with NC you no longer need PS. I have a D2X on order and it will probably arrive today and for my situation the benefits of the camera still outweigh the downside of this encryptation and likely poor Photoshop support. However, I strongly urge everyone that can, to boycott Nikon.
I also would like to know if it's possible to try to communicate with someone at Nikon. They should see these threads here to get a feel for just how badly they're pissing off their customers and potential new customers. Nikon is well on the way to becoming not just an "also ran" competitor for Canon, but toward becoming history altogether if they stay this stupid for much longer.
-
As more and more info comes in related to the two threads on this issue, several things are becoming apparent. The D2X is such a hot camera that it may be worth it to suffer with any billgatesing proprietary dumbness that Nikon imposes on us. It looks like Nikon Capture is a basically very good product and may indeed be the best way to convert Nikon raw files. Between Nikon Capture, new features in PS CS2, and whatever degree of D2X support we end up with in Photoshop, it's obvious that a totally satisfactory work flow will be possible.
HOWEVER, what's become most obvious is that just about everybody is seriously pissed off about having Nikon try to force us into choosing only their converter. No matter how good it is this sucks and can only hurt Nikon, maybe hurt them very badly if they don't get their head out of where the sun don't shine pretty soon.
-
Why did Nikon make the D70 use CF cards, and now change the D50 to SD cards?
I'm sure space will be given as a reason, but it just gives hassles to D70 owners who might be looking at the D50 as a 2nd camera, back-up, or spouse's camera. Instead of being able to share cards they will now need two sets. So unnecessary.
-
...I don't know the details first hand but from threads here and elsewhere, it sounds as if what Nikon did was to encode WB data NOT encrypt it. There is a world of difference. Encryption is a way to disguise data. They didn't disguise it, they just laid it out differently, possibly through some simple look-up table, as others have surmised. ...
I am not an expert either, but based on what I read and if my understanding of English is not failing me,
that's not simply laid out differently, the WB data ARE ENCRYPTED:
see e.g. Thomas Knoll reply on DPRforum < here (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=13149891)> and < here (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=13150486)>.
-
I am not an expert either, but based on what I read and if my understanding of English is not failing me,
that's not simply laid out differently, the WB data ARE ENCRYPTED:
see e.g. Thomas Knoll reply on DPRforum < here > and < here >.
You may be right and I may have been too quick on the draw. I saw something on Rob Galbraith's forum about there being a "key" that is embedded in the file that is used to read the WB data. If it actually is a "key" in the data encryption sense of the word, and not something else (such as a lookup index) which someone who is not technically inclined is mis-identifying as a "key", then it is a bizarre design decision indeed. After all, why just "encrypt" that one piece of data, then provide the unlocking key for everyone to read? Anyway, I'll bow out and let Nikon, Adobe and Bibble sort it out. They're big boys, they don't need my help. It wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last that a big corporation makes a dumb move. Happens all the time.
I saw on DPReview (IIRC) something about the writer of dcraw saying that it really is encryption, albeit very simple encryption (evidently he broke it; you can find the routine in his source code).
The problem here is not in breaking the encryption, but in being sued for doing so; for example, if I had copyrighted text data, which I encrypted by Z>A, A>B, B>C, etc., and you broke the "encryption," I could sue you for it. Where this gets muddy (to me) is that I own the copyrights on my NEFs (I don't have any D2x NEFs yet, but wish I did), so I'm not sure how that works out with the DMCA and encryption in the legal field.
-
Until/If Nikon get their heads out of their collective butts, I would like to see the following:
Someone (probably annonymous) write an open source D2X NEF postprocessor, that decrypts the white balance info and rewrite the decrypted data back into the NEF in some common EXIF or IETF field. Say in D70/D100 standard WB format.
Then post the source everywhere...again, annonymously, preferably in a country that does not care about the DCMA regulations (eg. not the USA).
It' wouldn't be a big change to the workflow....you just run the utility to zap the WB info once on all NEFs after you download them to your workstation, thereafter your PS/CS workflow would run unmodified, using as-shot WB info.
The beauty of this is that it would let all 3rd party software process the NEF, not kill Nikon's software (Capture in particular) and would avoid the threat of Adobe (and others) being sued.
How much you want to bet this will happen rather quickly, as the D2X gains traction? ;-)
Now if Bibble could surreptitionsly forward/post the D2X encryption specs, this would happen even faster. ;-)
-
This post may go over like a lead balloon
Software is property. Time and dollars are spent in the development of the software. What right do people have to copy, use or alter the property of others and claim it as their own.
Music, video, other software is used without payment, without any sense of theft. If everyone paid, the price would be lower for sure. More companies would prosper, more dollars available to continue on. The fact is, that today the only companies that prosper are the biggies that have critical mass and can charge enough to offset the theft. Its absolutely killing the small developer who are creating much of the innovation. The irony is, the guys that are creating the hacks are the very talent pool that the large companies will ultimately squash when they get their dream off the ground.
The biggest and most prosperious are the biggest offenders. Microsoft and Adobe are the strongest of the crowd. Tom Knoll is brilliant guy, but the marketing and operating team are not so warm and friendly and are willing to SQUASH anyone in their way. These guys play hardball. If they don't get their way, they will do anything to make a point. And they can afford to do so.
There is a battle brewing and its a battle of the giants. Electronics vs. software. Big software (verses small) is winning. We will all loose unless better rules exist. The hysteria against Nikon is fabricated. Nikon gives its customers a free plugin to keep one in the photoshop domain entirely if one wants to. If they want to add additional capability in their raw converter, that's their right to do so and the customer gets a benefit. Why should they do the R&D and then just turn it over to Adobe. That's what you all are demanding.
I was on the bottom floor of the internet being one of the guys that got Concentric Network off the ground. I have benefited from the sweeping change that we all are now so comfortable in using in our daily lives.
Canon was once my camera of choice. I was a devotee for nearly 30+ years but after spending mega dollars in the FD lens line in the late 80's, they dumped me for the EOS mount, obsoleting multiple bodies and virtually every L lens in the line. I said this is progress, OK. Autofocus wasn't an issue for me so I soldered along and slowly added an EOS body and a few lenses where AF made sense. I bought in to Canon digital up to the 10D. Then they started futzing with the mount, killing value again, I said enough. Dumped Canon and went Nikon as they have been more backwards compatable where the majority of my investment lie. The D2x was a godsent to me and I couldn't be happier.
If someone copied your tiff files and claimed them as their own you'd be up in arms. OK let crop your file a little differently, maybe more saturation or use PS to alter it a little. Its now mine. Ha you say and I agree. My talent, my work, my inspiration. Photography is fortunate that its darn hard to reverse engineer the (data) pixels when its output to a print. Maybe some day scanners will challenge that assumption.
Someone is copying my .exe files every day and not paying. It makes it tough to prosper. I absolutely admire Adobe, I just see them for what they are "self serving". You all are their willing soldiers.
-
Bob said:
"Software is property"
Yup...it is. But the data is MINE! The NEFs are MINE, not Nikons or Canons (or pick your favourite vendor). The image is MINE, digital or otherwise. Just like music software is property (eg. iTunes is Apples software). The music itself is owned by the copyright holder....the artist, or label or some such. But I can buy the right to use that music, and when I do, I will use it any way I please, so long as I don't give it to anyone else.
Would you buy a camera where the image data was owned by the manufacturer and they "licensed" it's use to you? Not on your life.
We are not talking about the software.....Nikon is welcome to own Capture and View, and license it's use. They cannot have my image though. Those are mine. And the white balance setting is mine too, since I chose it (either manually or not).
Word is owned by Microsoft, but the document I produce with it, I own. And the pressure is on MS to open up the document specification (with the advent of Open Office which has a well documented format spec).
If Nikon has a good raw converter, I will buy it (and have in fact, since I do own a legal copy of Capture). But I also want the ability to use MY data any way I please, and that includes using 3rd party tools to process the raw data, including white balance.
We are not talking about the software, but the RAW file format.
And all the customers I have talked to about this say they want an open standard for RAW files (DNG is a good start). Or at least documented proprietary formats.
Given how many 3rd party converters are already out there, Pandora's box is wide open...and there is little to no competitive value left in hiding small bits of your format (like encrypting WB), since all the competition already knows what your format does and is. And retention of backwards compatibility will prevent too massive a change, so you can't regain a proprietary advantage.
Compete on the strength of your Raw Converter software...it's features, it's flexibility, it's speed (or lack thereof). No problem.
But competing by trying to lock your customers into a proprietary format is a going out of business strategy. We won't accept it: we'll either break it (that took a few weeks only) or we'll switch to a manufacturer that cares about what we, the customers, want. It's a no-win for the manufacturer.
Maybe 20 years ago...but not in the internet age.
-
Robert said:
" Nowadays nobody supports anything and nobody fixes anything, they just sell you a new release."
That is not entirely true. Sure, there is crap, unsupported software out there (both commercial and open source). And there is some very good software out there as well, fully supported (again both commercial and open source).
The best support I have EVER received has been for free, open source software. In many more than on occasion too. So if my experience is any indicator, open source actually has better support, on average, than commercial code.
But you're missing the point of "open". With open source and even open standards (or at least documented proprietary ones), you have options, especially farther into the future. You can modify or support the software yourself, because you have the code or the spec. If you can't or don't want to do that, you can pay someone else to do it for you, again because you have the source colde or at least the spec for your data, and you can do this almost indefinitely into the future, especially when you consider that you can have a custom converter built to get you to DNG V666 in 2666. ;-)
With proprietary, closed solutions, if the vendor goes tits up, you typically don't have these options. In large software systems, escrow agreements are common (where the source is deposited with a 4rd party escrow agent) and you can get what you need in the event of a corporate failure. But you don't have that option for retail-level consumer software.
'nuf said.
-
So, do you think there's a new opening at Nikon right now for a good marketing person? Do you think someone lost their pinkie or had to fall on their sword over this debacle??
Doesn't look like it as Nikon's latest press on the subject basically states that this is all a misunderstaning and misinformation.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203...nefresponse.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042203nikonnefresponse.asp)
Also Religion 101: Moses' 12th tablet (one of the two that he dropped on the way down from the mountain) said "Thou shalt not bite the hand that feeds you".
I remember that story. It was in the book of "Brook" where the History of the World (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082517/) is discussed.
You don't own the software when you buy CS or almost any other software I can think of.
As I stated, you do not own the software as a whole but the physical copy of that software. You are free to use it apropriately but not free to distribute it, which includes installing it on multiple computers unless the creator specifies otherwise.
And since I'm thinking about it, I'll jabber some more on it.
Agian, software is not the property of the software creator. We are not renting or leasing the software in any way. We pay $X for it and we own that copy and can use that software within the confines of the law. Software is intelectual property.
Lets relate it to a camera (although thigs are slightly different, the jist of what I am going to say remains the same). When you buy a camera you own that camera but the camera maker owns the copyrights on the design of that camera. You cannot make an exact duplicate of the camera and distribute it as that is a violation of copyright law and a violation of the camera makers intelectual rights. But you can reverse engineer some elements of that camera and make your own camera design based off of that.
Copyright law protects that camera design as a whole. It protects software as a whole. It prevents others from profiting from your hard work. It does not prevent people from owning what they purchase and it does not prevent people from owning what they make with that camera and/or software.
The NEF is copyrighted in the same way. It's protected as a whole.. Individual components of that NEF are not copyrightable and this includes the custom WB metadata tag. The WB tag is created by you and is part of your copyrighted work. You do not own the copyright to the tag (it can't be copyrighted) but it is part of your work as a whole. In this regard, it could be argued that Nikon is infringing upon your copyrights since they are effectivbely preventing you from utilizing your work fully unless you use their software. This most definatly infringes upon fair use rights.
Unfortunatly since the DCMA is so poorly written, cracking the encryption of the encrypted WB tag (which is part of Nikons copyrighted work NEF - not a copyrighted item itself) can be considered an circumvention of Nikon's copyrights (which really it isn't since only the WB tag is effected) and Nikon could by all rights sue the creator of DCraw and anyone else who does into want to be locked into Nikon's software. One (of many) similar situation to this is the Lexar case regarding printer cartridges where Lexar used the DCMA to try and lock out competition and screw over consumers.
I would suggest reading more on copyrights at the US Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/) for anyone who wants to understand more on intelectual propery applies (in America).
Disclaimer: I make no claims at being a lawyer or a copyright expert. The subject of copyrights and the DCMA are subjects I have been following closely and I have put alot of research time into since they are subjects that directly effect me in more than just the photography I make. I am simply passing along the knowledge of the subject that I have gained. If someone with more actual knowledge (not talking out their back end) in the area wants to correct me or add to this with substantiated information I welcome it.
-
Rob C,
Correct usage demands capitals after colons in Blighty too, you know. Just not after semi-colons.
End of off-topic grammar exercises.
W
-
Hmm, sales & marketing 101 - don't antagonize your potential and existing customers! Let's see now, unnecessary encryption and just plain stupid marketing material all in one week. I'm sure that only a very few people are ACTUALLY affected by this (heck, I can always set white balance in the raw convertor later - it's not exactly brain surgery or the end of the world, even if you are setting white balance for a shooting session) but the bad press has got to hurt sales & Nikon's reputation at some point.
So, do you think there's a new opening at Nikon right now for a good marketing person? Do you think someone lost their pinkie or had to fall on their sword over this debacle??
-
it [sic] Adobe doesn't fully support the D2X, then we will have one less way of converting the NEF, and the lost way happens to involve the most important graphics program on the planet, and one that I've spent a lot of time learning. Not a small loss.
I don't have one of these cameras to test such things out with, but what's wrong with Nikon's own PS plugin?
-
We are much closer to the beginning than the end. This battle will play out in many ways we possibly don't see yet. I'm far more concerned about archival issues than anything else. I'm also of the opinion we don't want anyone (Adobe included) solely determining our future. I also see a replay of the way windows explorer killed all the inovative smaller companies in that market without any remorse what-so-ever.
The problem with that example is that internet explorer (IE) is a proprietary software aplication (and it was the inovative one at the time but came to a hault in '01). Adobe DNG is an open file format. As a programer you should know (as I'm sure you do) that those are two very different things.
IE has become the mainstay for the internet with ~96% useage in the market. The problem with that is that it's controlled fully my MS and never updated or advanced (why would they, there is no real competition-till now (http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/)). The advancements in way we interact with the net and web-design has litteraly been held back due to it's domanance. Since DNG is an open and backwards compatable standard, that kind of lock-in is not possable.
What is needed is for an independant non-profit organization to maintain standards for digital imaging. Sort of like the ISO but more specialized. Kind of like how the interet has the W3C (http://www.w3.org/) which sets markup language standards. This will give a central place for inovation and full easily-accessed public documentation. Companies can pettition for improvements wich can be implemented in updates to the standard(s) and programers can plan ahead for future updates and advancements.
-
Yeah, it's all part of the same problem, big corporations seal themselves off from being communicated with by their customers. I wonder if Nikon decision makers are even aware yet of how badly they're alienating a lot of us. I also wonder how you can get feedback about possible product improvement to them. I'm sure that giving us a more versatile bracketing implementation for the D2X would be a fairly simple firmware modification, but will we ever see it? Do they care? I can't believe they really don't care, but they seem to think that they don't need to hear from their customers directly to know what we might find most useful and desirable. BAD BAD BAD. They should be spending the money they're wasting with their software billgatesing effort and spending it on opening more effective communication channels to their customers.
-
Might there be a good market for a "Photographer's Guide to Rules of Composition of Both Kinds" with a free addendum about colonics?
Good idea. And maybe we could combine both kinds of composition into some useful rules like "Always place a colon one third of the way through a sentence."
-
All the above is meaningless drivel when played out against todays backdrop. Nikon should give its Capture away with it's D line and charge a nominal amount for the budget line IMHO.
Amen.
-
Everyone should wander over to dpreview and check out the interview with Dave Coffin:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701...ininterview.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701davecoffininterview.asp)
It seems that Canon also applies a type of encryption to color balance on some of their cameras. And Phase One encrypts their entire RAW file. Also Sony.
Makes you wonder why Adobe didn't throw their arms up in the air about those cameras. Hmm...
This is from Dave Coffin's site:
A note about metadata encryption:
A firestorm of controversy recently erupted when Thomas Knoll of Adobe accused Nikon of encrypting the white balance data in the D2X and D2Hs cameras, thus preventing Adobe from fully supporting these cameras.
I cracked this encryption on April 15, and updated dcraw.c and parse.c on April 17. So "dcraw -w" now works correctly with all Nikon cameras.
This is not a new problem. Phase One, Sony, Foveon, and Canon all apply some form of encryption to their raw files. Dcraw decodes them all -- you can easily find decryption code by searching for the ^ operator.
Compression is not encryption. Phase One and Sony do encryption only. Kodak does compression only. Canon, Nikon, and Foveon compress the image data and encrypt some of the metadata.
-
The best action is to write to Nikon. To be honest, I don't think ACR is all that hot. It's sub-par in terms of workflow and the interface isn't so hot either. Kodak's Photodesk is a good example of what a manufacturer can do.
I think the whole idea of ACR-Rules is wrong. The new ACR will be very nice, I'm sure. But they'll still have side-cart files, etc. Kodak is a good example of what a company can do with software if they put their mind to it. In the last two years Photodesk has turned into a fine program. In December of 04 they recompiled both the Mac and PC version, which resulted in huge speed increases all around. The idea of manufacturer-based RAW converters isn't wrong or bad. It just needs to be implemented correctly, and with a lot of user input. If Nikon does this (and perhaps follows Kodak's examples) things will be okay.
I
-
I am not an expert either, but based on what I read and if my understanding of English is not failing me,
that's not simply laid out differently, the WB data ARE ENCRYPTED:
see e.g. Thomas Knoll reply on DPRforum < here > and < here >.
You may be right and I may have been too quick on the draw. I saw something on Rob Galbraith's forum about there being a "key" that is embedded in the file that is used to read the WB data. If it actually is a "key" in the data encryption sense of the word, and not something else (such as a lookup index) which someone who is not technically inclined is mis-identifying as a "key", then it is a bizarre design decision indeed. After all, why just "encrypt" that one piece of data, then provide the unlocking key for everyone to read? Anyway, I'll bow out and let Nikon, Adobe and Bibble sort it out. They're big boys, they don't need my help. It wouldn't be the first time and it won't be the last that a big corporation makes a dumb move. Happens all the time.
-
Just after I posted my prior thoughts, I checked the Nikonians discussions, finding to my delight, that this has already been done! Read on....
"A Massachusetts programmer says he has broken a proprietary encryption code that has effectively forced some Nikon digital camera owners to use the company’s own software.
Because Nikon scrambled a portion of the file, legal worries have kept third-party developers like Adobe Systems from supporting Nikon’s uncompressed 'raw' photos in their software. Nikon sells its Nikon Capture utility for $100.
'It’s an open format now,' said programmer Dave Coffin, who posted the decryption code on his Web site this week. 'I broke that encryption–I reverse-engineered it.'"
More at this link:
http://news.com.com/Nikons+....48.html (http://news.com.com/Nikons+photo+encryption+reported+broken/2100-1030_3-5679848.html)
Dave Coffin is the author of the DCRaw program, an open source raw converter. Source code can be found here:
http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/index.html (http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/index.html)
Take that Nikon (and everyone else who dares try to screw with their customers!)! This is the era of the internet, where information and data formats want to be free....nay, demand to be free! You are fighting a losing battle...and may lose the war (and your market share) by warring with your customers.
Now stop this silliness and support an open format like DNG or open up the specs for your own RAW formats. The market demands it. If your software can't compete in a competitive market, then this silly proprietary behaviour ain't gonna cure the problem.
The customers have spoken! Stick to creating better cameras and lenses, which is what you are good at.
<wide grins>
-
Software is property.
No it's not. It's intelectual property. There's quite a difference. When a person buys software, that copy of it is owned by the purchaser (it's their property).
You don't own the software when you buy CS or almost any other software I can think of. You acquire a "right to use" license. This is where the conditions on use come in. How many installations / copies etc. in use. How many can run at once. Including the now common network search to insure a copy is not being run on an other "puter.
I have no problem using my NEF files now. And I never touch Capture. All of my work exists within some other converting/editing application.
So how is Nikon hurting us? Trying to develop features unique to Capture. What everyone calls encription is not functionally and practicially different from compiling.
In the end..You get the output of your input. Nikon is not withholding anything.
This is a discussion/debate which will never be agreed upon. One poll I'd like to see is how many have paid for CS in the user group. I know some have. Other justify not paying in many ways. Its too expensive, it's cool but..., Adobe makes too much money... and on and on. The only thing I hold against Adobe is this smear campaign. But they won the hearts and mind and took the focus off their new conditions of purchase.
Maybe some day you'll have someone use one of your images for personal or commercial gain without your permission. Actually I hope not.
-
Sorry, Bob, you're clueless and
Cheap shot...
You don't know me and I don't know you. Please keep the discussion on a civil level.
-
> What everyone calls encription is not functionally and
> practicially different from compiling.
It's very different, and after 30+ years in the software business, I think I'm qualified to judge that, having worked on compilers and encryption both. Bob, you don't seem to know what you are talking about when it comes to the technical issues of software..
Well, I was speaking in the metaphorical. The sensibility is to mask all that goes on upstream and to accept the product at face value.
I don't think you see the fundamental difference between a compiler and encryption software (or you're simply not expressing yourself in a way that indicates such understanding).
A compiler takes human-readable instructions to the computer and compiles those instructions in a way that the computer can understand. The result may very well be human-readable, too, there is no need to hide what actually goes on.
Encryption software attempts to make it extremely hard or impossible for any unauthorized entity to get at the encrypted data. This includes computers and software, not just humans. Encrypted data is nothing to accept, even at face value, it's intentionally inaccessible.
Or, in over-simplified brevity: a compiler deals with computer programs, encryption deals with data. Your image in NEF format is not a program, it's data.
Of course, in some instances, the encryption is a product of ineptitude, and is easy to break, q.v. DeCSS, and apparently also the NEF format. But that does not affect the legal issue at hand; Nikon has intentionally placed a constraint on the practical use of photographers' works of art, and the use of "circumvention devices" to get at your own data is practically necessary if you don't want to use software provided by Nikon. Mind you, this is currently only an issue in nations with the DMCA or similar legislation.
-
Hi JC
Nikon as plural or singular? It's not complicated from a UK point of view: Nikon is a company - 'a' company - a form of collective plural, so you would use the singular.
In a way, and a propos of nothing much, it reminds me of the hoary old one about the glass being half-full or half-empty: if you are in the process of filling it, then when you reach the mid-point it becomes half-full; if you are emptying it, then it becomes half-empty. Ain't a lot more to it.
Something which seems odd to my U.K. eyes is the transatlantic thing with colons: you seem to use a capital straight after them unlike the custom in G.B. but then, we are a people divided by a common language, no? But don't let it bug you - we find so many of our own countrymen completely beyond understanding on any level.
Ciao - Rob C
-
I still don't get how Nikon didn't see the ####storm coming from a mile off though..
Yeah, the more I have my face right close into this mess (with a crappy raw converter that won't even install on my Mac systems), it seems totally inconceivable that a company that makes such great lenses and cameras can also be so stupid as to release their first really innovative new camera in years along with an unfinished beta raw converter that they're trying to shove down everyone's throat while extorting $100 for it.
An all around amazing degree of Nikon myopia and Shit_Storm weather prediction dysfunctionality. The D2X and available lenses are so great, however, that I believe Nikon will weather the storm somehow.