Adobe Blasts Nikon's Closed File Format 347
Joe Decker writes "Thomas Knoll, creator of Adobe Photoshop,
blasts Nikon's use of encryption to limit access to white-balance information contained in D2X RAW images files. Fearing the DMCA, Adobe won't reverse-engineer the file, slightly reducing Photoshop's support for those files.
Nikon responds. Is Adobe whining? Is Nikon shooting itself in the foot?" We've covered this previously.
Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is a solution. (Score:2, Interesting)
An unforeseen consequence of the move to digital? (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents aside, there might also be an issue reading some of these manufacturers' RAW formats in years to come if you've lost the original CD or it doesn't work on Windows ZZZZ.
Both (Score:5, Interesting)
Is Nikon shooting itself in the foot? -- Yes.
1. Adobe is whining because it doesn't really matter in the end (see #2).
2. Nikon is shooting itself in the foot because even though I'm not a professional I know enough gurus in the graphics field to know that they are insane product researchers, and won't come within 10 feet of a product that will produce less than optimal results with photoshop.
Ok, next topic. Refresh, refresh, refresh...
What will happen (Score:5, Interesting)
The best solution would be to pay camera companies to include a "Compatible with Photoshop" peelable sticker on the bottom of the camera / camera packaging. That'd probably get Nikon crawling back pretty quickly.
bona fide software developers (Score:3, Interesting)
Recent Nikon experience (Score:2, Interesting)
It was full of .NEF files (no, I haven't RTFA so I don't know if these are the files in question) so I emptied them off and she went back to taking pictures.
Thing is, the CD's she had with her that she'd got with the camera, were full of crippled software - "lite" versions you have to purchase the full version, etc.
I didn't have the time or inclination to look into it fully so maybe other Nikon owners will point out that I'm talking out my ass, which is a possibility.
Seems to me, though, that the Nikon "format" is far from user friendly, nor their software adequate or intuitively obvious to install...
Re:Hooray for the DMCA (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Sue Nikon under the DMCA! (Score:5, Interesting)
Guess that knife cuts both ways, eh?
Well, except (Score:3, Interesting)
So now they're complaining about somebody else doing the same thing. I find their whining at best, uh, whiny.
They're free, we're free (Score:5, Interesting)
We are free not to buy their products.
I run a heavy traffic photo mailing list (http://www.topica.com/lists/streetphoto) and the overwhelming response has been "Stuff Nikon".
Photogs tend to have well established workflows with a few choice tools (eg Capture One + PSCS) and do not enjoy having to use Nikon's frequently b0rked software.
There is no reason whatever to encrypt this data except to screw more $$ out of the customer.
If Nikon had a conspicuously superior product then this might conceivably make some kind of bean-counting sense but these days they don't. Canon's DP stuff is arguably superior and the only real effect of this on anyone will be to drive up Canon sales and drive down Nikon, amplifying an already-existing trend.
Thomas Knoll, who blew the whistle on this, is regarded with great affection within the DP community. Nikon is not.
If you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of Nikon flushing itself down the toilet.
Re:What will happen (Score:2, Interesting)
Nikon has well known products but so does Adobe. What if Adobe prints in a huge black font in its manual, product box or emails to customers the message that unfortuantely due to lack of cooperation from Nikon they will not provide opening and editing of Nikon RAW files. Maybe someone (or many!) avid Adobe Photoshop users will eventually want to upgrade thier digital camera, and I wonder if they would remember that Nikon RAW files don't "work" in Photoshop and choose another camera. A little far fetched but still possible.
Clearly you have never purchased a serious camera before. I'm only an amateur, but even then my last purchase racked up to about $5000.
Often pros spend $10,000 on a single lens.
Heck, the Canon 1Ds costs $12,000
Are you telling me that these serious users will ditch their whole platform, sell off their equipment at rip off prices, just because Adobe doesn't support their favourite brand's file format?
Please.. be realistic.
This won't effect me and most other Nikonians (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a D70 recently. I choose cameras by using them (and of course reading the odd review). This way i've always bought cameras that I, myself, can take great pictures with (previously, Canon A70, Olympus C-5060).
I also tried out the Canon 300D and 350D, E-300 etc. The Nikon felt best in my hand. That's the secret to a good camera/photographer relationship.
I would put up with having to install a plug-in if it meant getting better results. Perhaps Nikon's plug-in produces better results?? They did create the camera, after-all.
I think Nikon's biggest problem is they have no decent mid-range D-SLR. But then I can't imagine what you would need that the D70 can't deliver.
Use the DMCA, and hack away (Score:2, Interesting)
A photo you take, and its representation (including
whitebalance information) is *your* copyrighted work,.
As owner of the work, you can give yourself permission
to break the encryption (says so in the DMCA).
If Nikon tries to sue you in spite of this, countersue them
for theft of copyrighted material.
Alternately, if all of this is too much bother, and the whole
concept offends you, don't buy Nikon.
Re:No one is screwed.Unless they've been so all al (Score:3, Interesting)
And yes, of course the solution is "if you don't like it, don't buy it". So I won't. However, I'm feeling some pity and righteous anger on behalf of the inevitable bulk of Nikon buyers who (a) never heard of this outrage and (b) wouldn't understand until it's too late and they find out they have to buy more software for some incomprehensible computer nerd
This is a tempest in a teapot, and here's why... (Score:5, Interesting)
Shooters who are serious about RAW files don't use Photoshop as their RAW converter. Photoshop may be the number-one image editor, but when you've got 300 RAW files to process it's totally unacceptable for that task. Not only is the output merely good rather than great, Photoshop just isn't engineered for smooth high-volume workflow. If you shoot weddings, catalogs, fashion, or the like; you've got too many files to use Photoshop time-efficiently.
The kind of shooter who needs a D2x will be using something like Capture One [phaseone.com]. I once used it to convert 300 RAWs under difficult stage lights in two hours. I grouped photos under similar light, fine tuned the converter for one group, set it batch converting the group in the background while I moved on to the next group. This would have taken a loooong time in PS. Once your RAWs (NEFs ORFs CRWs, whatever) have been converted to TIFFs, THEN you move to Photoshop, if necessary.
PhaseOne has already announced that C1Pro 3.7.release.candidate supports the D2x, so I guess the SDK is available to 3rd parties. The overlap of [D2x owners} and {Adobe Camera RAW users} will be a relatively small group.
Pot. Kettle. Black. (Score:2, Interesting)
It took a combined threat from Bitstream (who successfully reverse-engineered the format), Apple and Microsoft (who teamed up to produce a serious alternative, TrueType) to force Adobe to open the file format to the public.
So I guess the same would apply here--either reverse-engineer the Nikon format (a legal course of action in the US, UK and Australia), refuse to buy their products or design and popularize with an superior alternative file format.
Re:What will happen (Score:3, Interesting)
They probably won't ditch it, but if there's a film photographer looking to make the move to digital, or someone looking to enter the field, it very well could be enough to sway their opinion away from Nikon.
I may get a DSLR sometime over summer. I was considering between the Nikon D70 and the Canon Rebel XT, but this debacle is probably enough to push me to the Canon side unless Nikon has something substantial to make up for it. (The push comes from a combination of the actual issue and a couple comparisons I've read between Nikon and Canon cameras in the area of their JPEG conversions. I've seen a few comments that the JPEGs that Canon cameras come up with are a lot nicer than Nikon's.)
Cut 'em off (Score:3, Interesting)
Adobe needs to just punish Nikon by stripping all support for Nikon raw images from Photoshop until Nikon caves. Nikon will have a hard time selling digital cameras to professional photographers if Photoshop just spits up all Nikon raw images as improperly formatted.
Illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in Scotland, preventing someone access to something they own (and you would expect that the photographer owns the data of the photograph) is viewed as theft by the law. It's why car clamping is illegal in Scotland. I'm not sure if there are any cases which provide precedence for this with regards to data, but would be interesting to see Nikon bought to court over this!
Re:Both (Score:5, Interesting)
ACR (adobe's raw converter) has always produced suboptimal results with NEF, so many don't use it. It takes quite a bit of profiling and tweaking to get an image that doesnt look flat and dull out of it - something other raw converters dont seem to have a problem with. So typically you export to TIFF in another converter, then do your photoshopping.
Most really high end camera systems use completely proprietary formats that only their own software can read. I've got a 22mp digital back here that costs 5 times what a D2X costs and it can only be handled with its own software. This has been pretty normal for years
As a professional, this is an annoyance, but at the same time, I can't say it bugs me too much. Photographers arent quite as obsessed with things like this as typical slashdotters are. Got better things to do...
It is however, a PR nightmare. Nikon's never been too good at PR. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I think theres much more going on behind the scenes between adobe and nikon than is let on.
Yes, Adobe DNG Format (Score:4, Interesting)
To combat this, Adobe has introduced a new open RAW format called DNG for digital negative [adobe.com]. They provide a free converter to convert all of the closed proprietary formats to it and are willing to work with the camera comanies to make sure that the format contains the information they need.
The RAW converter that came with $2500 Minolta SLR I bought does a terrible job. They want me to pay an extra several hundred dollars for the Pro version that does the job decently. All that just to read the damn pictures I take!
Can you imagine if you bought a film camera and got consistently crappy prints from it unless you bought a pro-upgrade lab? At least Adobe takes the time to reverse engineer these proprietary formats and even provides a free tool to convert to an open format.
Re:How ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nikon (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't confuse encryption with undocumented RAW! (Score:3, Interesting)
it's simply a tempest in a teapot,
No, Nikon are obviously market testing the we-encrypt-your-data waters and trying to set a precedent.
Future models will be much more restrictive. If there is no backlash now when do you think people should take a stand?
Kudos to Adobe on this one.
---
DRM - Democracy Restriction & Manipulation