Nikon and Photoshop

"Hecate" wrote in message

Everyone knows I’m a Canon user and I don’t engage in "my camera’s better than yours" arguments. But I’m really glad I’m a Canon user. Why? Because Nikon, on the D2Hs and the D2X (and the forthcoming D50) have encrypted the data on their RAW files, including the white balance. OK, lots of manufacturers encrypt commercially sensitive data which shows how they achieve results to keep ahead of their competitors. But none of them, now except Nikon, have refused to allow Adobe to access the encrypted data for the camera RAW system in Photoshop.

This means that the only way to be able to access all the available data is by using Nikon’s own (that you have to buy) software. And that getting all your data is dependent on Nikon allowing you to freely do so. And that anything that Adobe can produce for the ACR in Photoshop is partly guesswork. So, your images, taken on your camera, are now dependent on what Nikon allows you to do with them (anyone for "you want the RAW white balance for an image, that’ll $1 per image please. Thank you for your custom and have a nice day now"?)
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hi there.

I have already heard this elsewhere.

I am not a fan of any of the manufacturers, even though I do have to buy their Cameras.

I think my many years working for a Multi Mega Million turnover Group has soured my attitude to large companies just a little.

Even I, can not believe that Nikon would be stupid enough to actually try this. Someone in one of their "Detached from Reality" departments has probably thought up this Profit Creating scheme, and thinks he is going to get to be Vice President or whatever.

If they actually do try, the only certainty is that their Sales figures for Top End Cameras are going to go into Free Fall. Until of course, some hacker breaks their code, and offers the "Crack" to his friends for

i dont think this will come into reality later,
but anyway it is not important at all, at the acr
you can adjust the white balance perfectly and easily,
actually the auto mode of the acr does the same as the camera, and what it counts it is your view with the dropper

"Hecate" escribi

Roy wrote:

If they actually do try, the only certainty is that their Sales figures for Top End Cameras are going to go into Free Fall. Until of course, some hacker breaks their code, and offers the "Crack" to his friends for £1 a time.

The encryption has already been cracked, it’s not so difficult. Packages like Bibble offer D2X conversion WITH white balance ‘as shot’ settings. The reason that Adobe didn’t do this so far, is fear for litigation. Interestingly, Adobe was one of the companies fighting hard for the ‘anti encryption crack law’, known as DMCA. I don’t want to defend Nikon, but it seems to me that Adobe now gets a taste of their own medicine…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Hecate" wrote in message

Everyone knows I’m a Canon user and I don’t engage in "my camera’s better than yours" arguments. But I’m really glad I’m a Canon user. Why? Because Nikon, on the D2Hs and the D2X (and the forthcoming D50) have encrypted the data on their RAW files, including the white balance. OK, lots of manufacturers encrypt commercially sensitive data which shows how they achieve results to keep ahead of their competitors. But none of them, now except Nikon, have refused to allow Adobe to access the encrypted data for the camera RAW system in Photoshop.

This means that the only way to be able to access all the available data is by using Nikon’s own (that you have to buy) software. And that getting all your data is dependent on Nikon allowing you to freely do so. And that anything that Adobe can produce for the ACR in Photoshop is partly guesswork. So, your images, taken on your camera, are now dependent on what Nikon allows you to do with them (anyone for "you want the RAW white balance for an image, that’ll $1 per image please. Thank you for your custom and have a nice day now"?)

I’ve argued somewhere previously that I don’t believe Nikon have any right to encrypt what is really the photographer’s data. Certainly, the WB recorded against any individual shot cannot possibly belong to Nikon – the photographer pressed the button, so she or he owns all the data, including the RAW bytes AND the EXIF data. Nobody will argue that rarely do manufacturers offer the optimum software for processing RAW, and I include in this my beloved Canon. Nikon are making a huge mistake by attempting to force their user base into using their own software. I would run a mile, and trade the bloody thing in tomorrow if I was a Nikon person and having to work under those constraints.

One more nail in the coffin lid for any hopes that Nikon may have continued to hold to break properly into the professional photography market. It can be no coincidence that I see a higher and higher proportion of Canons at pro venues and in pro hands against a lower and lower proportion of Nikons.

Hannah.

On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:44:05 +0200, "RBB"
wrote:

i dont think this will come into reality later,
but anyway it is not important at all, at the acr
you can adjust the white balance perfectly and easily,
actually the auto mode of the acr does the same as the camera, and what it counts it is your view with the dropper

Actually that’s the point. You *can’t* adjust it correctly with ACR as Adobe will tell you they are using pure guesswork for the data values for these cameras.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 6 May 2005 20:59:13 +0100, "Hannah"
wrote:

I’ve argued somewhere previously that I don’t believe Nikon have any right to encrypt what is really the photographer’s data. Certainly, the WB recorded against any individual shot cannot possibly belong to Nikon – the photographer pressed the button, so she or he owns all the data, including the RAW bytes AND the EXIF data. Nobody will argue that rarely do manufacturers offer the optimum software for processing RAW, and I include in this my beloved Canon. Nikon are making a huge mistake by attempting to force their user base into using their own software. I would run a mile, and trade the bloody thing in tomorrow if I was a Nikon person and having to work under those constraints.

Yes. I have no problems with protection of intellectual/commercial property, but the image is the commercial/intellectual property of the photographer.

One more nail in the coffin lid for any hopes that Nikon may have continued to hold to break properly into the professional photography market. It can be no coincidence that I see a higher and higher proportion of Canons at pro venues and in pro hands against a lower and lower proportion of Nikons.

Me too. A long time ago, say 20 years, you used to see more Nikon than anything. Then you started seeing more and more Canons with white and/or red stripe lenses. Now, if you look at a sporting event, it’s hard to pick out a camera which hasn’t got a white lens attached. I don’t even buy lenses without a red stripe any more (well, except for the 100mm macro and the 50mm f1.4) and you even see that most nature photographers are carrying white lenses (and that used to be a 100% Nikon area).

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:44:05 +0200, "RBB"
wrote:

i dont think this will come into reality later,
but anyway it is not important at all, at the acr
you can adjust the white balance perfectly and easily,
actually the auto mode of the acr does the same as the camera, and what it counts it is your view with the dropper

Actually that’s the point. You *can’t* adjust it correctly with ACR as Adobe will tell you they are using pure guesswork for the data values for these cameras.

Of course you can adjust it correctly, you just can’t trust ACR to do it automatically for you based on *camera data*. However, just as Photoshop has an ‘auto color’ function, ACR can use that technique for its guesswork. And of course, you still have the ‘white balance tool’ (eyedropper) to do it yourself.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sat, 7 May 2005 12:43:12 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 6 May 2005 10:44:05 +0200, "RBB"
wrote:

i dont think this will come into reality later,
but anyway it is not important at all, at the acr
you can adjust the white balance perfectly and easily,
actually the auto mode of the acr does the same as the camera, and what it counts it is your view with the dropper

Actually that’s the point. You *can’t* adjust it correctly with ACR as Adobe will tell you they are using pure guesswork for the data values for these cameras.

Of course you can adjust it correctly, you just can’t trust ACR to do it automatically for you based on *camera data*. However, just as Photoshop has an ‘auto color’ function, ACR can use that technique for its guesswork. And of course, you still have the ‘white balance tool’ (eyedropper) to do it yourself.

You can get a value based on what PS is telling you, but you don’t have all the information available to get a value based on the *correct* info. That’s the difference.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

Actually that’s the point. You *can’t* adjust it correctly with ACR as Adobe will tell you they are using pure guesswork for the data values for these cameras.

Of course you can adjust it correctly, you just can’t trust ACR to do it automatically for you based on *camera data*. However, just as Photoshop has an ‘auto color’ function, ACR can use that technique for its guesswork. And of course, you still have the ‘white balance tool’ (eyedropper) to do it yourself.

You can get a value based on what PS is telling you, but you don’t have all the information available to get a value based on the *correct* info. That’s the difference.

That’s purely academic. What is the ‘correct’ info anyway? If you shoot a sunset scene with your camera set on ‘auto white balance’, the ‘as shot’ value from the camera is certainly not the ‘correct’ value either. Adobe’s guesswork may actually give you a better starting value. I don’t want to defend Nikon (no reason, I’m a Canon user), and I do think it’s a stupid move from Nikon, but the *practical* problems caused by this move are minimal, if existing at all IMHO.

It also seems to me that especially CANON users are the ones who are the most upset about it. I wonder why… 😉

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sun, 8 May 2005 01:56:28 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

Actually that’s the point. You *can’t* adjust it correctly with ACR as Adobe will tell you they are using pure guesswork for the data values for these cameras.

Of course you can adjust it correctly, you just can’t trust ACR to do it automatically for you based on *camera data*. However, just as Photoshop has an ‘auto color’ function, ACR can use that technique for its guesswork. And of course, you still have the ‘white balance tool’ (eyedropper) to do it yourself.

You can get a value based on what PS is telling you, but you don’t have all the information available to get a value based on the *correct* info. That’s the difference.

That’s purely academic. What is the ‘correct’ info anyway? If you shoot a sunset scene with your camera set on ‘auto white balance’, the ‘as shot’ value from the camera is certainly not the ‘correct’ value either. Adobe’s guesswork may actually give you a better starting value. I don’t want to defend Nikon (no reason, I’m a Canon user), and I do think it’s a stupid move from Nikon, but the *practical* problems caused by this move are minimal, if existing at all IMHO.

It also seems to me that especially CANON users are the ones who are the most upset about it. I wonder why… 😉

LOL! You got me there! I think it’s because we’re afraid that Canon will follow Nikon’s lead. Whilst I agree it might be academic, it’s the principle of locking away a users info that’s the problem here.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

You can get a value based on what PS is telling you, but you don’t have all the information available to get a value based on the *correct* info. That’s the difference.

That’s purely academic. What is the ‘correct’ info anyway? If you shoot a sunset scene with your camera set on ‘auto white balance’, the ‘as shot’ value from the camera is certainly not the ‘correct’ value either. Adobe’s guesswork may actually give you a better starting value. I don’t want to defend Nikon (no reason, I’m a Canon user), and I do think it’s a stupid move from Nikon, but the *practical* problems caused by this move are minimal, if existing at all IMHO.

It also seems to me that especially CANON users are the ones who are the most upset about it. I wonder why… 😉

LOL! You got me there! I think it’s because we’re afraid that Canon will follow Nikon’s lead. Whilst I agree it might be academic, it’s the principle of locking away a users info that’s the problem here.

I just talked to Nikon, and what they said makes sense. They say it’s not a matter of trying to lock the data to others. If they wanted to do that, it would have been much more effective to encrypt the whole file and not just the WB data. They say that it’s an efficiency isssue. The WB data are in the EXIF headers, but a header can only contain so many characters (256 characters per field?). The WB data for the D2X was getting too large to fit into the field, and that’s why it’s stored in a compressed format. They also say that any software developer can get the SDK to decrypt the information. Why some developers prefer to make a fuss instead of asking for that SDK may be politics.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

snip & quote
"They also say that any software developer can get the SDK to decrypt the information. Why some developers prefer to make a fuss instead of asking for that SDK may be politics."

At last, sounds like some common sense coming into the "discussion" here and elsewhere.

Has me in mind of storms and tea-cups and maybe self serving interests. I get a thrill when I find that my Nikons still actually manage to take a photograph much against the odds.
Perhaps the switch to digital has left some needing to replace the hypo with hype.

Brian
(the other one)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 16:33:02 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

You can get a value based on what PS is telling you, but you don’t have all the information available to get a value based on the *correct* info. That’s the difference.

That’s purely academic. What is the ‘correct’ info anyway? If you shoot a sunset scene with your camera set on ‘auto white balance’, the ‘as shot’ value from the camera is certainly not the ‘correct’ value either. Adobe’s guesswork may actually give you a better starting value. I don’t want to defend Nikon (no reason, I’m a Canon user), and I do think it’s a stupid move from Nikon, but the *practical* problems caused by this move are minimal, if existing at all IMHO.

It also seems to me that especially CANON users are the ones who are the most upset about it. I wonder why… 😉

LOL! You got me there! I think it’s because we’re afraid that Canon will follow Nikon’s lead. Whilst I agree it might be academic, it’s the principle of locking away a users info that’s the problem here.

I just talked to Nikon, and what they said makes sense. They say it’s not a matter of trying to lock the data to others. If they wanted to do that, it would have been much more effective to encrypt the whole file and not just the WB data. They say that it’s an efficiency isssue. The WB data are in the EXIF headers, but a header can only contain so many characters (256 characters per field?). The WB data for the D2X was getting too large to fit into the field, and that’s why it’s stored in a compressed format. They also say that any software developer can get the SDK to decrypt the information. Why some developers prefer to make a fuss instead of asking for that SDK may be politics.

They lied. That’s exactly what they said about disallowing Adobe from anything except the SDK. The SDK doesn’t allow Adobe to decrypt the data.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On 12 May 2005 11:10:02 -0700, "mono" wrote:

snip & quote
"They also say that any software developer can get the SDK to decrypt the information. Why some developers prefer to make a fuss instead of asking for that SDK may be politics."
At last, sounds like some common sense coming into the "discussion" here and elsewhere.

Actually, it sounds like they’re lying. You can’t access the data with the SDK.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On 12 May 2005 11:10:02 -0700, "mono" wrote:

snip & quote
"They also say that any software developer can get the SDK to decrypt the information. Why some developers prefer to make a fuss instead of asking for that SDK may be politics."
At last, sounds like some common sense coming into the "discussion" here and elsewhere.

Actually, it sounds like they’re lying. You can’t access the data with the SDK.

Is that so? Nikon gave out an official statement some time ago. I won’t post the whole statement, but this is the part about the SDK:

"Nikon’s preservation of its unique technology in the NEF file is employed as an action that protects the uniqueness of the file. At the same time, Nikon makes available a software developer kit (SDK) that, when implemented appropriately, enables a wide range of NEF performance, including white balance, for Nikon photographers and their productive use of the NEF file."

Here’s the whole statement:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-6466 -7776

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Fri, 13 May 2005 12:48:24 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On 12 May 2005 11:10:02 -0700, "mono" wrote:

snip & quote
"They also say that any software developer can get the SDK to decrypt the information. Why some developers prefer to make a fuss instead of asking for that SDK may be politics."
At last, sounds like some common sense coming into the "discussion" here and elsewhere.

Actually, it sounds like they’re lying. You can’t access the data with the SDK.

Is that so? Nikon gave out an official statement some time ago. I won’t post the whole statement, but this is the part about the SDK:
"Nikon’s preservation of its unique technology in the NEF file is employed as an action that protects the uniqueness of the file. At the same time, Nikon makes available a software developer kit (SDK) that, when implemented appropriately, enables a wide range of NEF performance, including white balance, for Nikon photographers and their productive use of the NEF file."

Here’s the whole statement:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-6466 -7776

The important sentence is this (from your selection above):

Nikon makes available a software developer kit (SDK) that, when implemented appropriately, enables a wide range of NEF performance, including white balance, for Nikon photographers and their productive use of the NEF file."

I.e you can use the file. Nowhere does it say that the encrypted info is released to the developer. And the reason they don’t say that is because it isn’t. Lying by omission is still lying.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

The important sentence is this (from your selection above):
Nikon makes available a software developer kit (SDK) that, when implemented appropriately, enables a wide range of NEF performance, including white balance, for Nikon photographers and their productive use of the NEF file."

I.e you can use the file. Nowhere does it say that the encrypted info is released to the developer. And the reason they don’t say that is because it isn’t. Lying by omission is still lying.

So what does ‘including white balance’ means if it doesn’t mean including white balance?

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sat, 14 May 2005 01:07:34 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

The important sentence is this (from your selection above):
Nikon makes available a software developer kit (SDK) that, when implemented appropriately, enables a wide range of NEF performance, including white balance, for Nikon photographers and their productive use of the NEF file."

I.e you can use the file. Nowhere does it say that the encrypted info is released to the developer. And the reason they don’t say that is because it isn’t. Lying by omission is still lying.

So what does ‘including white balance’ means if it doesn’t mean including white balance?

What it doesn’t mean is that you can decrypt the WB from the file and get at the data. Who knows what Nikon means? Weasel words as usual from them.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

So what does ‘including white balance’ means if it doesn’t mean including white balance?

What it doesn’t mean is that you can decrypt the WB from the file and get at the data. Who knows what Nikon means? Weasel words as usual from them.

I’d be interested to know how you can be so sure. Are you a software developer who applied for the SDK? Do you work at Adobe?

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:18:47 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

So what does ‘including white balance’ means if it doesn’t mean including white balance?

What it doesn’t mean is that you can decrypt the WB from the file and get at the data. Who knows what Nikon means? Weasel words as usual from them.

I’d be interested to know how you can be so sure. Are you a software developer who applied for the SDK? Do you work at Adobe?

News reports. In the New York Times (David Pogue’s column). On the net – Google for Nikon RAW encryption. The latest issue of PC Pro in the UK which devotes a whole page to how Nikon are preventing you from fully accessing your images.

Thomas Knoll, one of the originators of Photoshop as well as the creator of the program’s RAW format support, has publicly described D2X WB data as being encrypted inside the NEF file.

Because it’s encrypted, says Knoll, Adobe isn’t prepared to accept the legal risk of decrypting this data within the Camera Raw plug-in for Photoshop CS2 (though D2X NEF files will still be supported in Camera Raw 3.1 for CS2, which is to be released in May 2005, shortly after CS2 itself is widely available).

I hope that’s Adobe enough for you.

Then there’s this link:

http://digitalcameras.engadget.com/entry/1234000877041132

The Dave Coffin interview here:

http://radar.oreilly.com/marc/

The if you look here:

http://digitalcameras.engadget.com/entry/1234000480042494/

You’ll see an article headlined: "Nikon and Adobe in talks to resolve RAW encryption issue" which, of course, wouldn’t be needed if there wasn’t a problem.

If that’s not enough I can get you pages more.

Hope that helps…

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…