Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Prevents Photoshop Support of Nikon Camera
Will writes "PhotoshopNews.com reports that the risk of getting sued under the DMCA prevents Adobe from fully supporting the raw file format of Nikon's top professional camera Nikon D2X. The file format contains encrypted white balance information that is necessary to render the image correctly and while the encryption can and has been broken, Adobe fears getting sued under the DMCA if they decrypt the data."
Adobe is a large company with deep pockets (unlike Bibble), and it is unlikely we would run the legal risk of breaking the white balance encryption unless we can get some assurance from Nikon that they will not sue Adobe for doing so. Since Nikon clearly does not want third party raw converters reading their files (they would much rather sell you a copy of Nikon Capture), the likelihood of Nikon providing such an assurance to Adobe is not very high.
People who would be purchasing a high-end camera like the D2X and D2H would probably only be doing so to use a high-end piece of software to manipulate the 12+MP digital images.
When a potential buyer looks at Photoshop and sees that it isn't supporting the D2X/H fully because of some retarded move by Nikon to try and make money they are likely going to find another camera. People interested in the D2X/H cameras are going to be shopping around looking for the one that best fits their needs and aren't going to be impulse buying a $5000 camera.
Really dumb move Nikon.
Why is it encrypted in the first place? That doesn't sound very much like raw data to me.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
So why not license it from Nikon?
...comes around.
So I wonder if Adobe feels there's a lesson to be learned here... In other news, Dmitry chuckles softly.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Nikon, to the best of my understanding, is a camera manufacturer. I have no clue if they do stuff in the whiz-bang imaging market, like Kodak, or Agfa, but it would seem that their business model depends on selling cameras, lenses and other nice gizmos, ideally loads of them.
Assume I'm a Fotografer. Since the times of silver plates and baryt paper (which sure as hell still has it's niche, but I digress) seem somewhat outdated I like to process my digital images with what can be considered the major photo processing application; pretty much the standard in my trade.
And the good burgers from Nikon intend to prevent direct access to crucial parts of the raw data of my images?
I think I buy a Canon!
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Not like I was going to. I can't be happier with Canon's like of digital photography produts (I've been eyeballing a Rebel for months).
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
perhaps a "accidental" patch leak or something?
So I guess that rules out taking pictures of currency and then processing it. When will the maddness end?
When you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness. So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
Adobe: this is another fine mess you've gotten yourself into.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is exactly what the DMCA was intended to do. I can't remember their being much corporate oppostition to the DMCA when it was being introduced.
Stick Men
The DMCA is having very far-reaching effects, all of which I'm sure were not contemplated or foreseen by the people who drafted the DMCA.
The thing I hate about this sort of legislation, is that once it's on the books, it's very difficult to get repealed.
Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
If I recall, wasn't Adobe responsible for some DMCA silliness a while back? Seems that things have come around and bit them. Be wary of what you wish for...
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=857/byt20010816s00 03/0820_pournelle.html
:-)
They did not like it when Sklyarov did it
Slashdot Beta should die a painful death.
They went after a Russian dude who broke their encryption, and he even did it in Russia where it was entirely legal. They only threw him in the can when he entered the US.
So FUCK THEM. Karma has bitten their asses, and I don't feel sorry at all.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Surely Nikon aren't going to sue, they can't possibly expect to sell their top of the line camera if it's not fully supported by photoshop.
Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
to allow Adobe to decrypt the white balance information? This is a very high-end camera, one that many of its users will by to shoot in raw mode. If the #1 tool for post-processing (PS) isn't going to do the job, that will cut into camera sales, will it not?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I would think maybe Adobe could send an email or something to Nikon and work this out. If I were a digital camera manufacturer, I think I'd take the call if the people in charge of Photoshop wanted to talk.
Nikon is run by a bunch of idiots for letting this happen. Amazing.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
In the MPAA's Anti-DeCSS case, a very poor judge decided the specifically written exclusion of inter-operability from DMCA enforcement did not exist. Somehow, he reasoned, it created a "suicide pact" with the Constitution. Thanks, Kaplan, former employee of a firm representing the MPAA, for abusing your position, ignoring the law as written, and turn back progress once again for the sake of a corporation.
Suck IT ADoBe
Something tells me they won't be supporting the new, open, raw-replacing Digital Negative format either.
In my estimation, Adobe should be concerned. Given their history of using the DMCA to oppress others, a suit that burned them would provide delightful irony and karmic balance.
This just proves that laws like the DCMA will stifle innovation. Frankly, America has too many laws written by large special interests with $ to lobby Congress. The rest of us suffer because of their greed.
Well, unless Canon can come up with a better application than Photoshop, for high-end, professional image editing, then they're going to loose a lot of professionals who need Photoshop to get their work done.
Perhaps it is intended that company A is *SUPPOSE* to license the decryption algorithm from company B. But now suppose we push that even further and say that company A instead enter an EXCLUSIVE licensing agreement with company B such that no other company can ever LEGALLY support decryption algorithm created by company B?
In this case, let's say that Adobe has a thing out for (insert your favorite non-adobe image manipulation software company) and enters into an exclusive agreement with Nikon?
Dilbert is a reality show.
" -- Hmm... I know! Let's radically decrease the usefulness of our flagship camera by making it incompatible with the program that probably 90+% of professionals use!
-- Yes, great idea! And if they try to go around it, we'll sue them under DMCA!"
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
(I personally think that would be a bogus interpretation of the DMCA, since I think the copyrighted information inside the NEF file belongs to the photographer, not Nikon. But Nikon apparently thinks they own the information inside the NEF).
This is a little strange, isn't it? If a photographer takes a picture, it's pretty clear that the photog owns the copyright to that photo. Nikon couldn't possibly claim any rights on photos taken with their camera, least of all because it would make it impossible for professionals to use that equipment. And with $5K cameras, you're really only looking at the professional market.
So if the white balance information (the encrypted stuff) is a part of the photograph, the photographer owns the copyright on that data, too, right? That seems pretty straightforward, but I could be wrong...
Can the DMCA be applied to prevent you from decrypting something that you own the copyright on? This isn't even like owning a DVD and wanting to decrypt the data, because in that case the movie company owns the copyright.
If the DMCA can be applied that way, that's some fucked-up shit. It's just absurd.
There's a difference in principle between encryption to protect content owned by the corporation and encryption simply created to extract money from third-party vendors.
If I take a picture with a Nikon camera, I own the content. Shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it?
Furthermore, what grounds would Nikon have for suing Adobe based on Adobe's violation of encryption that is protecting my copyrighted works? IANALY, but isn't there a "standing" issue here?
With the professional imaging market essentially BEING Photoshopm I'd expect that the camera guys would be falling over themselves to have increased support from Photoshop? Sure they might gain a few $s this way selling their own cruddy software, but look at it this way:
-Photoshop pros looking for a camera - lots.
-High end Nikon owners looing for an imaging app other than Photoshop - few.
Nikon use your brain - Photoshop IS the high end imaging market. Preventing improved Photoshop support is pretty much the same as preventing more profit.
It does seam stupid that Nikon is encrypting that data. Following the links, I can't find Nikon's stated reason for doing that.
Adobe is a big player in the photo and document arena and it would be resonable to assume that Nikon's customer base is using Adobe's products. Therefore, it would kind of stupid of Nikon to piss them off.
If I were Adobe, I would contact Nikon and just ask "What's the deal? How about giving us the alogrithm." and state exactly why it's in Nikon's best interest to do just that - give the alogrithm to them.
First, Adobe has a guy arrested, and then tried under the DMCA, for having the gall to crack the PDF format, which Adobe voilated the DMCA by embedding other font vendors' information into.
Now, even though someone has broken an ineffective encryption method, they can't use the files due to the DMCA. Maybe they'll just keep buying companies until they have all the IP they need? :)
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
Nikon sells software that can manipulate those raw files for $100 on top of the cost of the camera. A quote from a CNET Nikon camera review:
"Cons: Nikon's RAW-file editing software costs extra"
So it's a way for them to lower the retail price of the camera, similar to the way rebates work.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
This is entirely appropriate. Closed formats should remain closed, because that's what their authors want. And if that means that those formats won't be supported by important tools, then those formats will not be widely adopted.
Nikon needs to get off their high horse and start writing files in DNG format anyway.
While I agree with your sentiment, I think it will be Nikon that loses here. Photoshop is the digital photo processing tool for professionals, bar none. On the other hand, there are many top notch digital cameras to be had. You will probably find more pros opting not to go with Nikon rather than avoiding Photoshop.
In other words, Adobe isn't likely to come out of this the loser.
Adobe should simply say "go fuck yourselves Nikon". Word will soon get around that Nikon cameras suck because they force you to use their crappy software because of proprietary formats rather than industry standard tools.
What's from keeping Adobe from sending off a simple letter and asking if they can include support? I'm sure that any digital camera maker would be overjoyed if Photoshop had native support. I can't imagine anyone saying no.
(...and before I get flamed, yes - I know that you shouldn't have to send a letter or even worry about getting in a lawsuit for doing something as obvious and simple as supporting a camera's file format. It is another good example of how busted the DCMA is.)
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
It's a shame Adobe doesn't go ahead with this ... and then get sued out of existence under the DMCA. They deserve it; they used this law on Skylovar, you seem to be quick to forget, and they lobbied hard for this law back in 2001 (about $2mil in donations to both parties). Get them sued, let justice be done.
;-)
On another note; Americans, wake up, your supposedly democratic government is selling out your freedom to the highest bidder. Either revolt (if you like the 2nd Amendment), or move to Europe
Nikon is going to take the hit for this one. Adobe is basically a monopoly when it comes to image processing. If they leave support for Nikon out of their product they won't sufffer a bit, but Nikon will.
This PR blows for Nikon, who is marketing a high-end camera to elite users. That's a fickle market of people who weigh purchasing decisions carefully. I bet Adobe and Nikkon resolve this problem within 3 weeks. Save this post so you can see if I'm right!
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
Because if they stick to their own format, there's always: Cannon, Pentax, or some other company that will use a standard format.
Could anyone explain to me why? Camera OEMs are not making money on their own raw conversion software. I would've though they would be begging Adobe to include raw conversion for their cameras.
When I was writing software OEMs would "loan" us computers, printers, anything - just to make sure that our program is compatible with their hardware. And I worked in a small company (20 people when I started, ~50 when I left).
personally thank Orrin Hatch. Thank you for blighting the world with the DMCA.
Seems like the sort of brilliant strategic move that Sony's hardware division has mastered over the last 6-8 years or so. How are those NetMDs selling, Sony?
The few professional photographers that I know (the majority of them are "high-end" shooters) tell me that, if they were ever to go digital as their primary camera, it would be from Canon.
The point seems to be moot, however, as I cannot recall ever hearing any of them say that they would abandon their medium- or large-format film-based camera for digital.
ha ha!
As a professional photographer, i frankly prefer Nikons own RAW filter, its definately better at processing RAW files than Adobes. i had never assumed that the DMCA had anything to do with the RAW processing, as most camera manufacturers have thir own proprietary RAW formats. In the print/prepress world proprietary software and hardware is the norm, not the exception. Having to spend money on an inexpensive plugin is hardly a major inconvenience. (Not to mention that i got the software bundled with my camera)
Adobe should get on the horn with Nikon's legal dept. and inform them that there will be a sticker on Adobe's packages and full disclosure on their website about Nikon support.
Truly no issue here. Let Nikon make their own Photoshop if they want, but I think this is going to be 'case closed'.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
More likely they will use the Nikon software for dealing with RAW. It is amazing. As for people interested in buying the D2X/H cameras, shopping around probably isn't an option. These are system cameras. If a photographer is at the point where they need this level of camera, they probably already have an assortment of Nikon lenses and speedlights. Buying a Canon D2s MkII, which is probably the better camera (I haven't seen much on the Nikon) isn't an option. They are in the same price range for the body, but a Nikon user would have to spend several thousand dollars more for the Canon because the accessories are not compatible.
You made your bed, now lie in it!
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Hey, then they should just do an european version with full support. And restrict import to the US, the ONLY country where DMCA is valid. Thats could be our revenge for the strong encryption ban a few years ago.
I think they are more interested in not looking like a bunch of hypocrites. Remember the Adobe eBook fiasco? If they look at this problem and say (by their actions) that the DMCA is stupidly getting in the way of getting perfectly legitimate work done and break the encryption, they loose.
I think what we're seeing here is Adobe's opening shot in what they hope will be a publicly visible dispute.
As many noted, this hurts Nikon. And hurts them plenty.
Why wouldn't Adobe simply license the technology? Why should they? Why should they pay Nikon for the ability to decrypt information that has no business being encrypted in the first place?
More to the point, Adobe is simply not going to open the floodgates here. If they pay the license fee here, they've told every camera manufacturer "hey, build in some pointless encryption and we'll pay you money!"
Adobe's putting Nikon, and by extension the industry, on notice here. They're not going to be blackmailed into licensing pointless technology for DCMA issues. They'll drop your product first. And, as Nikon is sure to learn, they've got a lot more to lose than Adobe.
Looks like Nikon gambled here that Adobe would pay up to keep support for Nikon's product. And lost.
Once you're getting into the "pro" bracket of digital photo investment, serious users are much more inclined to use secondary software solutions that work with photoshop...regardless of cost. While photoshop edits great images and most photoprinters put out some fantastic pictures, serious digital image makers regularly use printer RIPs that cost more then the actual printer.
Furthermore, several high-end photographers are extolling the virtues of stand-alone raw processors as an addition to their photoshop workflow.
I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable for Nikon to lock part of their RAW format, I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the pro photo world is far less significant then it would appear.
:::: the insomniac's digest
This would be an issue for Adobe if there existed a competing product.
What if Gimp added support for this raw format? Would it draw more people to Gimp? Photoshop seriously needs some competition.
We need as much bs like this in order to show the overlegalization scrap.
Finally it gets to the bigger corporations, who actually have major role to create this mess at the first place.
The sooner they get legally paralized the better.
When shooting in RAW format, you often (if not almost always) shoot a grey card anyway and calculate your own white balance. I do, anyway. I think I do a better job than the camera. There are tutorials to show you how to do this in the Gimp, if you're really curious.
What is encrypted is the white balance information that a chip in the camera calculated for you based on analysis of the image.
To rephrase: If I understand the article correctly, they are not talking about the image itself being encrypted, just some output (white balance in this case) from anaylis of the image by a chip in the camera. FWIW, that's part of what Canon's "digic" (can't ever get the capitalization correct) does in their cameras.
Mark
If the medium used for the artistic is subject to some IP/copyright, doesn't the artist still have some rights to be able to get to her/his content? I suppose this is the similar to saving to any proprietary format (say zip disk or fat32), but this overlaying of rights sure gets confusing. Sort of reminds me of the recent article about GPL'd fonts.
On the other hand, manufacturers of photographic film certainly keep the chemical makeup, etc of their products secret. Why shouldn't digital camera makers be able to hide the methods of RAW storage for their products? As long as the content is still available in open-ish format (tiff, jpg), the artist can work with it using third-party products.
eks
-- Mein Systemadminstrator hat einen großen schwarzen Moustache.
Back in the old days, when they weren't used to prevent competition, but to encourage sub-licensing at a reasonable rate?
Well, those days are gone, and the same's true for copyright and the DCMA.
All your profits are belong to CEOs.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Luckily Nikon provides a raw converter of their own (for a fee) with their cameras :-)
But either way, Im sure C1dSLR will only benefit from this ... Photoshop RAW is nice to have for how simple it is, but most photographers I know (including myself) use C1dSLR because of its ability to batch process raw files with multiple settings.... I hear Adobe is gonna adopt this into their next PS edition, but for flexibility, C1 is the best :-)
Nikon made the decision to encrypt the WHITE BALANCE information, not the entire RAW file. And as a side-effect, Adobe is afraid that supporting a reverse-engineered method for decrypting this would violate the DMCA. The wording and subsequent meaning of this article does not accurately portray the reality of the situation.
n cryptnef.asp
Article for reference: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05041901nikon_e
"Support Bacteria - Its the only culture some people have" - Circa 1985
Photoshop's RAW converter is considered by many in the industry to be mediocre. Nikon wants images from their flagship camera to be processed well, reflecting the quality of their product.
[More Realistic Angle]
Nikon wants to sell more copies of its Nikon Capture software, which is a superior RAW converter, hands down. $100 for a copy of NC is penuts to a pro, and the savings in their time will be significant.
Don't buy the camera that doesn't work with the industry standard photo manipulation software package.
As Adobe themselves state, they expect to have preliminary support for the D2X in May ( http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw. html )
As the article itself mentions, it's not really that big a deal. It is the white balance parameters as set on the camera when the image was shot that is encrypted. The RAW data isn't directly affected by this, and picking a white-balance preset or performing manual/auto whitebalacing on the RAW data gives you the same/similar/better results (that's partly the point of shooting RAW, no?)
What could be worse is if they encrypted the data as well. This is what SONY does on the F828 and V3, for example.
However, both are supported by Photoshop's RAW support, so I take it they simply licensed or SONY gave them a thumbs up for supporting it. No idea why they encrypt it, though.
Regardless.. that's what would have to happen with any future encrypted formats.. I doubt we've seen the last of them anyway.
If all else fails, get the dcraw utils ( http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/ ) and convert from one raw to another. That's where the SONY decryptor is also hosted.
Speaking of dcraw... has Adobe given the author credit yet ?
Why should *I* pay YOU to support YOUR format?!
YOU should be paying ME to support your format.
Adobe has the upper hand here.
Furthermore, several high-end photographers are extolling the virtues of stand-alone raw processors as an addition to their photoshop workflow.
Unfortunately, no standalone raw processors can support Nikon's encrypted format
I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable for Nikon to lock part of their RAW format, I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the pro photo world is far less significant then it would appear.
Only if what you are saying is that having only one raw converter, Nikon's, is not significant.
This is truely significant. What Nikon is saying is that Nikon owns the file and that the photographer does not.
SteveM
No. The real question is: If I already use Photoshop, why would I want Nikon Capture? After all, it only does half of what Photoshop CS can do, and won't be compatable with my clients.
Pros aren't going to be dumping Photoshop any time soon. And while there're not, there's not much of a reason to use something else. Unless, of course, the company who made your camera is trying to lock you in, in which case you might consider another brand.
Why is Nikon so hot and bothered about image editing all of a suddern anyway?
This is about getting Adobe to pay licensing fees. Making high end consumers scream at Adobe for not supporting the high end cameras their egos MADE them buy is a good way to do it.
Don;t think for a moment that Nikon will take the heat for this, Adobe will get grief for not supporting a "simple file format" and Nikon will get off with some insults on Slashdot and a fat licensing fee from Adobe.
I support software that is currently dealing with the "Users want RAW and we don't read all the RAW formats yet" battle. Trust me, the people who spend $5k on a camera never blame the hardware if they can blame software instead.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Someone care to explain WHY Nikon would get upset about a software company making their software compatible with Nikon's hardware?! Why the hell would they encrypt information like this anyways?!
Common sense is not so common.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Does Nikon feel the need to encrypt my copyrighted work, against my wishes?
What possible advantage is there in a making camera that doesn't work with the most popular photo editing software available?
What strikes me as odd is that Adobe considered breaking the encryption in the first place. Why would Adobe bother to reverse engineer Nikon's format when it is clear that Nikon doesn't want their cameras working with Adobe's software (or anyone else's, for that matter). Adobe doesn't need Nikon; Nikon needs Adobe's support! Nikon doesn't seem to realize that lack of photoshop support is going to hurt them in the long run - Photoshop is the de facto standard in the industry. Unless Nikon can offer something vastly better than Photoshop (they can't), they're only shooting themselves in the foot. Nobody's going to pay $5,000 for a camera which doesn't work with Photoshop.
If I were an Adobe exec, I'd wait until Nikon asked for photoshop support, and then charge them a hefty royalty for the priveledge.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I used to have a boss who nearly fired me when he found out I was using OpenOffice, because he insisted that anything I wrote using it would be "Open Sourced" as a result. I'd like to point out that the difference between a word processor and a text editor was over his head, and he thought I wrote my code in it as well.
I countered with "If that were true, Microsoft would own the copyright to everything you write with Word."
You could see the gears in his head seize at the thought. After close to a minute he said "But we only have on copy. We'll just pick one machine and say that's what Microsoft owns."
Yes folks, he rebutted me with software piracy.
In the end, I had to un-install OpenOffice
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Author of Photoshop Thomas Knoll, said "I think the copyrighted information inside the NEF file belongs to the photographer, not Nikon. But Nikon apparently thinks they own the information inside the NEF."
I work with real estate agents and they buy high end Nikon and Canon cameras all the time. They could care LESS that the RAW format is encrypted and they cant use it in Photoshop. All they care about, at least in our area, is that they have the absolute state of the art camera. Then they use it to take JPG pictures. Dumb, but true.
No, the people who buy the cameras will complain endlessly about the Photoshop software that can't support the files form their cameras, and conclude their camera is just too advanced for Photoshop to handle.
Remember, photographers never blame hardware when there's software to take the rap.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
I believe your question cuts to the heart of the matter.
I'm imagining Nikon makes a presentation to Adobe about their products, "we need Adobe's support" blah blah blah. And then when Nikon gets to the specifics of their high-end camera they tell Adobe, "Nikon is giving Adobe a wonderful opportunity to license our RAW technology for use in Adobe products!"
After Nikon buys Adobe people an expensive lunch, Adobe is indignant that they must license the RAW import technology. They are ADOBE SYSTEMS for gosh's sake. Adobe Engineering can hack their way into it, but Nikon's smart and is leaving the litigation door open.
Adobe then attempts to reassert their dominance by making Nikon/DMCA out to be the bad guys (which IMHO they are not.)in the press in an attempt to get industry/public opinion on their side.
I give Adobe kudos for doing whatever it takes to get a lower price/free technology. It takes real talent to make customers feel good while they take it up the a**. I'd be much better off if I could do it as well as they do.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Geeze, Did I miss the story when SONY bought Nikon? I musta slept through that one!
God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
They just didn't want to incur the costs of a lawsuit. I hardly think that's "white hat" territory.
Besides I don't really think it's fair to call Dmitry a blackhat... if that's the case, you probably think DeCSS Jon should be behind bars, non?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
This story is laughable. Turnabout is fair play. That's what you get for messing up the life of an honest programmer for over two years Adobe. I hope you lose money.
Nikon could easily cash in on this opportunity and make a photoshop plugin. That would solve everyone's bitching. (less the copyright advocates)
I checked, and the D2X is also packaged with PictureProject software, which carries the installer for the NEF plugin for Photoshop.
But this is a non-issue in more ways than one... at least for Mac users. OS X 10.4's Core Image component has a number of realtime filters that, in principle, can be integrated by developers into any application... giving every OS X application the potential for image manipulation rivaling Photoshop's capabilities.
Given how Apple has beaten Adobe in virtually every multimedia software category they have decided to compete (e.g. Final Cut Pro vs. Premiere, Shake or even Motion vs. After Effects, etc.), I wouldn't be surprised if Apple blows Photoshop out of the water with native Photoshop abilities by encouraging developers to capitalize on Core Image's potential in every imaging-related app they create.
I don't know if the D2X supports HDRI, but if it does, Photoshop doesn't anyway, not fully... You can convert images to 16-bit but you can't do a damned thing with them... You'd probably want to get Gimp or Film Gimp, and the HDRI plugin available free from Lucasfilm/ILM.
Um, why...Does Nikon feel the need to encrypt my copyrighted work, against my wishes? Technically (at least now that you know about it - was this documented somewhere, perhaps deep inside an EULA?), it's not against your wishes. You can choose not to use a Nikon digital camera.
Tag lost or not installed.
Has anybody not noticed both Adobe Photoshop CS and Nikon Capture have copy-protection features - Macromedia and pace - that intentionally cause incomapatibilities with other software?
Most pro photogs do not notice and probably do not care. Those guys are where the real money comes from.
http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/
dcraw supports more raw formats with a handy command line interface, and runs on Linux and Windows to boot.
Today, white balance. Tomorrow, EXIF. Later, the sensor pattern. Slippery slope, man.
What I don't understand is why they're going through with this insanity when far behind Canon in terms of new DSLR technologies and doing so poorly in recruiting customers. Sure, they're getting sales from pros who've already got a load of Nikon glass, but people starting from scratch, or pros who have the cash to invest in new lenses and bodies, will just switch to Canon and their superior DSLR linup. Tell me again, Nikon die-hards, where's the Nikon answer to the 20D? The entry-level Rebel XT? Where's Nikon's equivalent of the full-frame 1Ds Mark 2? Oh, that's right. There isn't one. There's just a D2X with 12 million tiny little photosites jammed onto an APSC-sized Sony-made sensor. Oh, and an overweight, underperforming Kodak-made monstrosity that doesn't work well past ISO100 anyway. Ick.
I hate using ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) for processing from my D70, it makes images flat and lack saturation, so while a bonehead move its no real loss. If you cant afford $100 after getting a D2x you probably shouldnt have bought it in the first place
I can't say I have any sympathy for the company that imprisoned a programmer because he broke their encryption so the visually impaired could read their file format. Companies like Adobe are part of the reason the DMCA exists. It's nice to see them bleeding on their double-edged sword every now and again.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
Looking through this, it looks like the encrypted data consists entirely of the settings the user entered into the camera, and white-level readings from the time the image was taken. Since this combination of data comes entirely from the user and the user's operation of the camera, I am pretty sure that any copyright on this combination would belong to the user.
Apple should fight this. Not only would it be a fairly easy battle to fight, it would establish some really important precedents:
1: User has the right to his own data. Currently the DMCA does not provide an exception for the copyright owner to break someone else's encryption to retrieve his own work. A precedent like this would head off any attempts to require everyone to DRM everything to prevent any copying, even when the creator wants to.
2: Container license must be compatible with Content license. For all of Microsoft's grandstanding over their proprietary word document formats, what happens if I post a Word document on my website with a license granting anyone the right to read that document in any way they choose? Does that supercede whatever proprietary interests Microsoft has on their container? Whose responsibility is it to ensure the container and content are compatible?
Look at any sporting event and count how many pros are using off-white lenses (Canon's professional telephoto lenses are all painted off-white, supposedly because it reduces heat expansion of lens elements).
My other first post is car post.
My 300D only takes about 2 to 5 Seconds. (I don't really count.)
I can't recall missing any really important shots, but if I am expecting something excellent to come up, I always turn the Auto Power down feature off until that time is passed.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Nikon will probably sign off, but the issue still stands. Reading your data off of your hardware should not involve lawyers.
Can someone fill me in on the details of this? They didn't actually get a conviction here did they? How would that be possible? How is it possible to prosecute someone for something they did when they were in another country if what they did was legal in that country? I don't get it.
The DMCA specifically allows reerse engineering for compatibility between devices/programs.
Adobe simply can't get it to work and is calling wolf to save face.
The legal principle is that the data belongs to the user, not the camera manufacturer and the user has a right to access his own data.
auto-balance?
The parent poster seems to have confused the terms "believed" and "received substantial campaign contributions from." :)
There are many digitial cameras and basically only one photo editor....not sure why Nikon would be so foolish. The Professional AP photographers I know are not that advanced computerwise. I think they would rather just use a Canon than a Nikon if its going to make editing the images easier.
they are likely going to find another camera.
I doubt it. Many photographers are obsessed with their cameras, much worse then emacs/vi or Ford/Chevy trucks.
Expecting a Nikon user to buy a Canon is almost laughable.
I've read that Nikon actually hasn't encrypted the WB *yet*. It also seems that if Nikon wanted to force people to use thier products they would encrypt much more then WB.
It seems highly possible that this a ploy by Adobe to freak people out about propritary RAW formats so everyone will demand thier next camera be DNG compatible (DNG being Adobe's "Standard" Propritary RAW format (Think Microsoft)).
--- Nothing To See Here ---
Actually Kodak puts their electronics in both Canon and Nikon bodies.
So many people forget that Adobe is and BIG sponsor of the DMCA and as a big member of the BSA has lobbied hard for the DMCA. So I am afraid that I cannot feel sorry for Adobe in this case. They deserve what they get. They had the Russian kid arrested for doing they same thing. So Screw-em. The should just license the code from Nikon and stop whining. HEY ADOBE! You and the BSA lobbied for this crap. Live with it.
See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml
Pixmantec has announced that they have just released Version 1.1.2 of RawShooter essentials 2005. It is now available for download now their web site. This version primarily concentrates on providing support for the recently released Nikon D2x. (Emphasis added)
A great review of RawShooter Essentials is at http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_18/essay
I have been using RSE extensively for the past week and it is FAR better than the tools available in PS CS. I haven't compared it with CS 2 which was just announced and is still in beta, I saw it demo'd last week - at the same demo where I was shown RSE. I'm thrilled with RSE and have no interest in shelling out yet more big bucks for the next/latest Photoshop.
Get RawShooter Essentials from Pixmantec at:
http://www.pixmantec.com/.
jc
"I'd much rather be mistaken as a lesbian by a bigot than be mistaken as a bigot by a lesbian."
Personally, I don't want the camera manufacturer telling me what software I can use to read my photographs. Would you accept it if Nikon told you you were only allowed to get prints using Fuji labs?
I also don't want my photo library to depend on some secret file format that may end up being completely unsupported and unreadable in ten years' time. What if Linux takes over the desktop, but Nikon decide not to bother with a file format reader for Linux? What if Nikon go out of business, and Windows 2010 can't run the plugin to read your library of thousands of images?
I absolutely demand that all my photos be in an open, documented file format. And I think you're being foolhardy not to demand likewise.
Sure, you can use the RAW converter on each image as you take them, convert to a sensible format like PNG, and store that--but you're losing information by doing so, making the Nikon a much less appealing and less professional camera.
The really professional companies like Hasselblad understand this, and have committed to Adobe's open DNG raw format. I wouldn't buy any camera that pretended to be "professional" but didn't support DNG or some other open file format.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
to stop decrypting these 10's and 20's I've been trying to scan due to DCMA reasons.
It seems that camera preferences are as likely to start flame wars as the type of computer one uses. Having grown up on Canon cameras I switched to a Nikon DSLR when I wanted a serious DSLR. Rather than flame me I suggest that those who argue that this or that is better visit http://www.kenrockwell.com. In truth, I don't think either is better but that newer models benefit from those that came before them. Re RAW, it is a propriatary format and each manufacturer's RAW format differs from the others'. There are big differences in how software reads each RAW format and I can understand why each manufacturer would want their own software to read in their format. This ensures that their format is rendered precisely as the manufacturer intended. Most Nikon users I know use Nikon Capture for this rendering, convert the RAW, and then use PhotoShop to manipulate the image. I am surprised that others are surprised by this.
My next digital camera will not sport eaither the Panasonic or Nikon logo. (Panasonic because I paid over $900 for my old one and it broke at random without cause)
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the DCMA law (IANAL) can clear up something (this is not neccesarily related specifically to this case): Just what determines if something is considered encryption? I take from other posts that Adobe considers rot13 encoding to be encryption, though of course such "encryption" is easily defeated.
Is an undocumented encoding considered encryption? Is it solely the intention of the creator that determines whether something is encryption (thus they can always say yes in court, even if they did not originaly intend something like a file format to represent an encryption of the data)? The answers to these and related questions greatly determine the range of things covered by the DCMA.
Tag lost or not installed.
fuck Nikon!
DMCA didn't do anything here, adobe did. they made the choice of their own volition. DMCA didn't MAKE them do a damn thing.
Yeah, blame it on the DMCA
just cause the DMCA is BS, doesn't mean it's to blame here.
These fucknuts have it coming to them. Anyone remember the Dmitri Sklyarov case?
This is now just a case of Adobe getting a taste of their own DMCA Flag Waving medicine. May it continue to be a bitter pill to them.
If they do, then that points to an interesting hypocrisy regarding FLOSS--many free software and open source operating systems don't ship with software to do things users want to do including making and playing scrambled DVDs, making and playing MP3s, and there probably won't any free software to decrypt Nikon's white balance encryption shipped by default in free software OSes. Yet it's accepted among many reviewers (including those one would think would know better) to blame the OS and not blame various laws preventing such software from being distributed freely worldwide.
So, perhaps Adobe should use some of their millions to negotiate a license for proprietary software to link into Adobe Photoshop so Nikon camera users can decrypt the white balance encryption. Nikon gets money and Photoshop users continue to be denied software freedom. When Adobe says they want to be able to inspect and modify the software they distribute we'll have another opportunity for a schadenfreude chuckle.
Digital Citizen
I haven't seen one yet from Nikon but Canon has full frame DSLRs. With the full frame sensor there isn't that annoying multiplication factor, wysiwyg mol. The camera I'd like to get now is the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II. I could then use the lenses I have for my film camera, lenses can be more expensive than the camera body. But that's not much of a problem with the Mark II unless you have lots of fast, macro/fish eye, or super telephoto lenses.
Falcon FalconShould there be a Law?
The DMCA and encryption law wars are getting wierd. The wierdest thing is that I am on Adobe's side on this one. If Nikon is encrypting part of a user's data file, why is this any different from Microsoft encrypting parts of user's MS Office data files? This is a great way to lock users into using proprietary software to read their own data files.
Photoshop does not directly, officially support .NEF, but the PictureProject software with the D2H and most Nikon digital SLRs (including the D70, which I have), has a plugin for Photoshop that allows import of .NEF files into Photoshop, with a control panel for white balance and exposure adjustment during import. It's not as decent in terms of absolute resolution or artifact elimination compared to Nikon Capture Editor, but it's reasonable.
The best method for transferring work to Photoshop with the fewest artifacts and best absolute resolution/clarity would be to convert the image to a TIFF in Nikon Capture Editor or View Editor first.
Digital Technical Support:/ php/enduser/std_adp.php?&p_faqid=238
1-800-Nikon-UX ( 1-800-645-6689 ). Have your digital product, serial number and computer (if applicable) available. First level telephone support is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg
They also give a phone number to call to buy a copy of Nikon Capture; that number is 1-877-876-4770.
Funny enough, I'm in the market for a camera right now. I've been looking forward to the release of the D50 for a while now, and it looks like it's officially been announced (in the UK, anyway). Pity they had to go and pull a bonehead move like this; guess I'll have to drop a thousand bucks on somebody else's products.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
...why the DMCA was and continues to be a bad piece of legislation. A hasty, unenlightened answer to appease the lobbyists.
How you see the world is how the world sees you.
It's about time. Corporate lobby groups instigated the DCMA to control market factors, such as competition. It's about time stupid corporate-whore laws like this start hurting corporations that try to use them to control competition.
And they will suffer. My fist thought when I read this was I'm not buying a camera that *can't* work with Photoshop. I mean, there will be plenty of other cameras of similar specs on the market that will work with PS. All Nikon has done is put it's own product at at disadvantage.
Way to go Nikon, you did it to yourself.
This is exactly what needs to happen. Adobe et al made their legislative bed, now let them sleep in it. Perhaps in the future, they'll be fortunate enough to have some leadership that can think a little beyond the next quarter's earnings report.
Ok, ok, I do know the benefits of the RAW format and I do use it from time to time. (D70 owner) However 90% of my shots are done in jpeg high quality mode. I get a boatload more pictures and it doesn't require me to store a bunch of large pictures I have to convert anyway to get anything done.
Sure I could spend hours converting each picture I take in photoshop using a raw format that is quite a bit larger than a jpeg or I could take the picture correctly the first time and just shoot raw when I am trying to do something tricky or I'm going to blow something up really large. Most pros I know shoot jpeg, not RAW. Most ametures shoot RAW because it lets them fix their mistakes (such as white balance) relatively easily.
Are you in England? That I know of that's the only place the Canon 300D is called that, if I recall right elsewhere, as in the US, it's called the Digital Rebel.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I am a D2X owner, and use Nikon Capture because it does a better job with .NEF files than does Adobe PS CS's RAW converter.
I also used NC with my D100, even though PS CS could open those files, because the Nikon Capture program did a better job.
Where Adobe's tool is better is the chromatic abberation tool, and more easily adjusted settings. However, with CS2, those changes are easy enough with or without the conversion.
I do think Nikon is being silly, but then again, Nikon Capture *is* an ostensible Photoshop competitor, but even as such, it does have a DDE pipeline to Photoshop as it has an "Open with Photoshop" menu selection.
You're assuming the white balance information is considered "part of the photograph". However, this is just calibration information
Whether it's in the photo or not, it's still my information, not theirs. I took the picture, and it's my white balance.
Furthermore, "just calibration information" misses the point that this is crucial information for delivering the exact picture I took. Tweaking the WB by hand will only approximate the desired result, never get it precise. This information is very much a KEY to my photo, without it I only get a poor quality version.
On top of that, I selected the WB personally, so if anyone has copyright on it it's me. Nikon have no business encrypting MY information just because they want me to buy their decrypting package to reveal MY photo accurately.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Let me be about the bazillionth person to point out the Irony.
Adobe went after Sklyarov with the DMCA for removing Adobe's ebook protections.
Now they're on the other end of the stick, and have to cripple their premier application.
I wonder if they still think they did the right thing by going after Dmitry.
Someone explain to me how white balance information on a picture you took, on a camera you own, is any of Nikon's business. DMCA or otherwise.
Good one! You even suckered some moderators in with that one!
Actually, I'm just assuming that you were trolling - if you weren't, then I have to say that you're about as dumb as a rock.
Another example of free software going where proprietary software cannot, or dares not, go.
Of course supporters of the DMCA told the legislators that nobody would ever stoop that low.
Whenever someone says "sure this obvious method of exploitation exists, but nobody would ever use it!" then you know you are listening to either a moron or a liar. Who cares which one they are; you shouldn't be listening to them. Of course that can be hard when the moron/liar is waving a big sack of cash in your face.
The enemies of Democracy are
I would like to argue that the Nikon F6 is the top professional camera from Nikon, not the D2X. Perhaps the article should state "top digital professional camera" or somesuch since there is still heated debate in the professional world of digital vs. film. There are things that are easier to do with film and things that are easier to do with digital. The neat thing is that film scanners can produce great digital representations of film exposures, yet getting great film exposures from a digital file is hard. In any case, I don't really want to get into it, but point out that film cameras are still a bit more flexible and many professionals still prefer them.
(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
`(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.
To summarize: Adobe can make photoshop compatible with no fears of being sued under the DMCA. Oh, and by the way, if you RTFA, no one from Adobe OR Nikon ever mentioned the DMCA. In fact, all people have noted is that Nikon has encrypted the white balance information. The rest was speculation from the editorial staff over at PhotoShopNews.
Adobe: Heh-heh, check out this awesome petard.
Petard: *hoists*
Adobe: Ow.
[Nikon friendly angle]
Photoshop's RAW converter is considered by many in the industry to be mediocre. Nikon wants images from their flagship camera to be processed well, reflecting the quality of their product.
[More Realistic Angle]
Nikon wants to sell more copies of its Nikon Capture software, which is a superior RAW converter, hands down. $100 for a copy of NC is penuts to a pro, and the savings in their time will be significant.
[The Truth]
Nikon bundles Nikon Capture with its high end cameras, so it makes no overtly extra money from its customers.
Another example is with the current CoolPix 8800, the filter thread is 53.5 mm, which is frustratingly close to the 55 mm they could have made it, but oh no, they want to force me to buy their lame-ass filters. I can't even buy an ND8, or an ND64, or a conkin converter because of the wierd size.
I'm fed up, I'm going to get a Canon, or Sony next time. Nikon technology is great, but the company sucks, they need to get a clue.
--Mike--
But the data isn't trival in this case, and the data doesn't exist solely to keep some hardware from working.
I think you're forgetting that the third letter of DMCA stands for Copyright. Hardware has nothing to do with it, except incidentally.
Regarding "trivial data", well the data in question seems to be 3 floating point numbers, representing BlueBalance, RedBalance, and WhitePoint. (Might be different in the D2X, I took this from a D70.) Is that considered trivial or not? This kind of question has no significant purpose other than to line lawyers' pockets.
The second part of your sentence is much simpler to address though: the WB data is a key that I require to decode my photo accurately, and without it I get only an inferior representation (ie. with a color cast) which I have to tweak by hand with guesswork and which can never be "original quality".
So yes, the encryption exists solely to deny me access to an original work, which I happen to own.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I'm a pro and amazed at the misinformation here.
1.) BOTH companies make damn good cameras! Anyone who says one blows away the other doesn't know what they are talking about. Both systems in the hands of a capable shooter can bring awesome results.
2.) Both systems lenses are excellent in quality, of course, companies like Leica and Zeiss trump both so no point.
3.) Someone made a comment about photographers spending more money on cameras in a month than computer geeks on their rigs. I don't know a pro who buys a new cam every month. The normal ones invest just like a computer geek does in his equipment for the long term. These things cost $5000, unless you won the lottery or are incredibly in demand, you aren't buying a new one every month.
All in all, you can't go wrong with either system, people are going to nitpick like crazy on this, but on the super high end where the D2X/H are, this isn't going to be a huge issue. Just people trying to be sensationalist.
There might have been one or two Kodak camera bodies, but those use Canon Lenses too...
Kodak also makes cameras with Nikon mounts. What's the difference between the Kodak 14N Pro and the 14C Pro? The "N" has a Nikon mount whereas the "C" has a Canon mount. Otherwise they are the same.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Many also consider Sigma lenses better.
Nikon is simply trying to kill themselves.
Seems to some that that's what Kodak is doing by discontinuing their film cameras.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The Lexmark case was similar. Lexmark put encryption into their printers and ink cartridges to keep other companies from selling the high-markup cartridges to their customers. Initially they got an injunction against a company, but it was wisely overturned by the federal appeals court.
I've got a Nikon Coolscan slide scanner. It's a wonderful unit that does excellent high-quality scans.
One day I brought it into work to scan some work-related slides. Since I use Vuescan instead of the Nikon software, I just needed the drivers. The original CDs were in a box somewhere from a recent move so I figured I'd just download the drivers off their web site and I'd be good to go.
Simple, right? Nope. I visited their web site and found they don't offer drivers. What modern peripherals company does not offer drivers online? Instead I had to register, provide proof that I owned the NikonScan software, and download an upgrade to it. Half an hour later I found out the upgrade wouldn't install without the original being present. If it won't install without the original present, why did I have to provide proof that I owned the original? Furthermore, it was packaged in such a way that you couldn't extract just the drivers.
I ended up going to some third party website which required I register, give a working email address, and opt out of a ton of mailing lists. 10kB and a virus scan later, I had the drivers installed.
Clue for Nikon: If someone wants drivers for your hardware, it's reasonable to assume they have the physical hardware present, which means they probably already paid for it. You don't have to make them jump through hoops with the original bundled CDs just to download hardware drivers.
Ask the right question, get the right answer. Parent's parent hit the nail on the head here.
Now the question is, why is Adobe spinning this the way they are, if there's no problem?
I buy a high end Nikon camera and find that part of the image data of pictures I took with MY CAMERA that I BOUGHT with MY MONEY is ENCRYPTED thereby DENYING ME, THE FUCKING OWNER, full unrestricted access to MY FUCKING DATA.
As if it could get any worse some of you spineless, prostrate and spread eagle fuckers are saying "that's alright, that we can/should just find a way to deal with it somehow and that it's not that big an issue and Nikon isn't the only one doing it" etc, etc, blah, blah, blah... Subservient sheep cunt commie pinko bastards all of ya.
Well it's time to make a statement and set an example. First we shut down all Nikon sales in this country. Quarantine. Lockdown. No more Nikon product of any kind gets sold here. No more Nikon product of any kind is allowed in the country. Nothing come through customs. NOTHING. Smashed and thrown in the garbage if anybody tries. Let Nikon weave their way through the courts for five or ten years in advocation of their so called rights just to be booted to the curb permanently and just so nobody gets the wrong impression here, let me state that we have alot of in house cleaning to be done as well, starting with Microsoft.
Time to start driving some stakes through the hearts of these cocksuckers. Call it the Consumer Protection Improvement Act. Pull those containers off the ships, blow em full of holes and sink em to the seabed for reef redevelopment. Assholes. Better yet, put some laser guided munitions down the smokestacks of a couple of Nikon factories as a a statement in rejection of terms and conditions.
Rights. You wanna talk about rights? Try this one on for size. Leave the country or die and do it before we change our minds and pull that "leave the country" option off the table.
And another thing for you slashdot pussies. We couldn't get as much of one division of fighting men out of the whole lot of ya. A twat brigade with chevron adored pocket protectors is more like it. So who is going to defend the Republic? Who is going to stand up for the Constitution and the dignity of man? You lick knobs? Get back in the wagon with the women for additional nattering in discussion of your erosion of rights. God knows you won't stand up to defend them.
I for one can't wait for John Bolton to get to the UN.
If I ever buy another high-end camera, I do not want it's manufacturer locking me in to their, less than competative, software. As I see it, Nikon clearly does not care about their customers at all.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If you read the article carefully, Nikon didn't say a single word about this issue. Thomas Knoll of Adobe and Jeff Schewe, a paid Adobe Endorser and Canon! user, are on the attack.
Adobe, via Thomas Knoll, is saying he fears that DRMA might be applied if Adobe reverse engineers the Nikon raw file. Meanwhile Adobe was the company that in 2001 sued and had a student arrested after their Ebook was hacked by him and their encryption broken-talk about hypocrisy!
Interestingly, NO ONE has noticed that in order to get D2X support you have to either buy or upgrade to Adobe Photoshop CS2-a $630 or $150 proposition. The Nikon software is $99.
Adobe has reversed engineered Nikon files in the past. They don't use Nikon's SDK (available here at no charge: ) and have not used it in the past. Nikon has not sued them before-why would they even think of suing them now?
If you ask me, Adobe is trying to deflect attention away from their costly Photoshop!
I'd rather use the software designed for the file-in this case Nikon Capture....
This is what they get for having Dmitry Sklyarov arrested. They get no sympathy from me.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
Part of *that* problem, is that the brainwashed morons also have guns.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/ php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=376
Capture produces great results for those who are willing to wait up to 10x as long as they would, per picture, with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR).
Capture is deathly slow compared to solutions like Bibble or ACR. That is why professionals care--it costs them more money to use Capture because it takes a much longer time to view, convert, or edit images.
That is also why Adobe licensing Nikon's technology is not an acceptable solution. Since it would still use Nikon's code, it would still be a deathly slow workflow.
That's not as funny as these:
d =12283353
d =12283167
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?
sid=146616&ci
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?
sid=146616&ci
After all, the copyright on the pictures that they take is theirs, why shouldn't they have the right to turn off encryption in the photos if they don't want it on their content?
Or does Nikon not think that the 'right' in Copyright actually means anything? Seems to me that by forcing it to be there, Nikon is leaving even the legitimate Copyright holder, who has *NOT* signed over any of his rights, without the fundamental right he was supposed to have in the first place by _being_ the Copyright holder.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
GOod post, stupid concept. If I were an actual professional, and bought this camera, I'd be fucking PISSED at Nikon for pulling this bullshit. Raw with encrypted stuff in it is NOT RAW, but in-fact proprietary. I would hate to have to buy yet another piece of software just to get what I wanted out of the camera.
Of course, I gave up Photoshop, 'cause I got sick of having to pirate it. I don't use Windows anymore for the same reason.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
I'll tell you.
creative.com
sb extigy.. external sound card for laptops??
not available.. I emailed, they replied I could order a replacement..
WTF? I bought one at BB and maybe took it back.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
As a recent buyer of a D70 I have to say I absolutely regret my decision.
Here in NSW, Australia Nikon products are repaired by a company called Maxwell. 8 months after buying the camera I started to have what I believe was a shutter jam problem after about half an hour of moderate use. The problem would show up and occur more and more frequently until it was happening every 3rd shot. I do wildlife and particularly bird photography for fun and this made the camera unusable.
What kind of warranty support did I get? I sent the camera in 3 times. The first time they reset it and sent it back. The second time they said they couldn't find the fault, and sent it back. When I called to point out I could reproduce the problem within half an hour I got told to wait until the camera failed completely then send it in. The 3rd time I sent it in with a DVD of the problem occuring and asked to be kept informed of what happened. When I called in I was told they were waiting on parts which would be up to a couple of months to arrive.
In the end I threatened to complain to fair trading (state consumer complaints body), and finally had the retailer who were no more friendly pony up and replace my camera. It took over 3 months and lots of visits to the camera store to get the issue resolved (not to mention the time and trouble to make a DVD recording of what was happening) This is the short version of the story. I had a lot of rude and indifferent behaviour from both the retailer and repairer despite being polite at all times. I couldn't even find a customer complaints department at Nikon or Maxwell to complain to. Never again!
Only problem is I'm not so sure I like some of Canon's policies either. I just had a Canon multifunction die on me and since they consider print heads a replacement part it cost me AUD200 and took weeks to get that replaced since it had to be sent in for service. I also don't like the way Canon cripples their lower end cameras in software. So I'm not sure where I'll go for my next SLR. I'm just glad I only have 2 Nikon lenses, because I'm going to have to get rid of those on Ebay when this camera dies.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
And the copyrighted information (if any) inside Adobe e-books belongs to the author, not Adobe, but that didn't stop them from having a non-US citizen arrested for breaking their encryption.
Paybacks are a bitch.
I am sure that I won't be buying any Nikon (or any other mfr's (manufacturers')) cameras that use encyrption to stymie users who want to edit or process photos with other than that camera maker's provided tools.
I can see this as a stage or the first stage of kiosks and stores being set up to "help" users whose film/data/property are locked up in the medium or the camera or such.
When will these manufacturers EVER learn? THEY don't own the toll rights or property rights to PICTURES the camera user/owner shoots? The same goes for cell and PDA makers/sellers who wrap audio/visual content in obscure or obfuscated formats that deny the user the right to access their data on non-Mac/non-windoze machines.
Nikon, you better WAKE UP and knock this crap off. Remember the rule about how much work it takes to recover customers after losing them. If you have been applying or plan on applying this encrypted white-balance information to lower end products... shame on YOU.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Frankly, I'm not that impressed with Nikon's sub-$1000 digital cameras either. When I look at the images on dpreview and other sites, to my eyes the color fringeing is noticably worse than Canon.
... the D70 was voted Camera of the Year in absolutely tons of places, and it's truly a professional piece of equipment.
:)
Actually, no. The Nikon D70 was not just slightly but *massively* better than any Canon DSLR model up to the 20D which costs a good deal more (in other words, the 300D/Digital Rebel and the 10D), and the comparison with the 20D is really neck-and-neck (despite the 20D having a couple of largely irrelevant marketting advantages like 8MP vs 6MP which noobs think are important).
The picture has changed slightly now with the new Canon 350D that has just appeared at roughly the same price point as the D70. It looks like it gives the D70 a run for its money at first, but on closer examination it looses a lot in comparison, being effectively a cut-down 20D, and the latest AP review says the 350D has substantial image problems. Still, if one were generous, one could say that the situation is now roughly evens. (But a new Nikon is coming out shortly.)
So, no, Nikon are not "just surviving"
Btw, we have two D70's and two 20D's in our local group, so we're pretty balanced in our views.
After the Sklyarow case I have not bought one Adobe program. I would suggest other people do the same. I do not intend to forget such immoral behaviour (of course it will be hard now that theyve bough Macromedia, but ill try)...
Why would white balance information be considered so important that it needed to be encrypted? And wouldn't taking the time to do that slow down the response of the camera?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
BlackBox Voting
Don't you mean those fighting to keep democracy?
FalconShould there be a Law?
..is more than that, but as far as white balance goes, the camera (particularly a high end one like the d2x) has a sensor for detecting the color temperature, which is what white balance really is. This becomes the "As Shot" WB in the file, and the apparently encrypted info.
i always use the "as shot" as a starting point. DSLRs are typically pretty accurate. I've found on nikon cameras anyway, using Auto WB is more accurate than actually setting it on the camera (exception is in a studio setting where you need to set it on daylight for the strobes or tungsten for the hots).
So no, its not the end of the world if CR doesnt use the As Shot data. But its a hassle and will require more time to get the "right" WB set manually. And time is what photographers have very little of.
-
My only hope is that a company as large and public as Adobe can turn around Nikon's attitude by making people more aware of stupid policies like this.
And Adobe just got a lot bigger, with it's purchase of Macromedia. Now they can start their consolidation of power. I was planning on getting the new Studio MX, but now I wonder how long it will be around.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I think it's more like Nikon simply made a bad business decision by not giving the rights to Adobe to begin with. It clearly will cause a number of people to avoid the cameras altogether. Perhaps Adobe is on the attack here, but they may just be trying to draw attention to the fact you won't be able to work with the files in an attempt to force Nikon to give them up at no cost. It would be a smart move on Nikon's part at this point.
From a completely ruthless business point of view, Nikon has made a monumentally stupid decision. Really, this is one for the text books. If they don't about face immediately, they will lose the professional market entirely. Though more conservative than the typical slashdot reader, pro photographers are even more jealous of their rights. And no matter how you spin it, Nikon appears to be encrypting some of my information for the sole purpose of selling me software to decrypt it. That's extortion.
But that's not the monumentally stupid part. The once-in-a-lifetime blunder is in the numbers. In order to pull a few million in software sales, they are throwing away a billion dollars in brand value. Value that took 50 years to build. Value they will likely never be able to reclaim. That brand recognition gets them shelf space in stores, and ensures their cameras are reviewed by journalists, and gets their products support from companies like Adobe. The annual worth of those benefits is probably 10x the revenue they could hope to pull from their software. Unbelievable.
The encryption of the white balance information is really pretty trivial; many people who use Photoshop's raw converter set it manually anyway. What's scary is that if Nikon gets away with this, they might be emboldened and start encrypting more important data. I doubt they have any illusions that their own shitware could ever topple Photoshop from the image editing throne, but they might be thinking about revenue from licensing plugins.
Mail that link to Adobe! :)
Your analysis looks good. Sadly, it seems that it is not about being right and having the law on 'your side'.
Are you prepared to risk $n-million on your assertion?
That's why Adobe want to do some bargaining with Nikon first. Or maybe Adobe really do hold the keys on this one and just want to eek a little extra dough (ie get money) out of Nikon.
Either way, I still don't understand what's supposed to be so great about capitalism??!
Or Adobe could obtain a license from Nikon to support their RAW format?
We all kow photographers are born with equipment worth 15000 bucks.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The D2X is highly anticipated specifically because there is a large base of professional Nikon shooters. Canon's success does not tranlate into a "large majority".
No serious shooter gives up photoshop. They may use additional tools and different raw convertors but Gimp isn't on the map.
The Nikon professional bodies are superior to Canon's and their ergonomics are better by far. Canon's lead is in sensor design and signal processing only. They also make full frame imagers whereas Nikon does not.
As far as lens, each makes fine lenses. Canon's telephoto primes are highly regarded. Nikon makes arguably better wides. You can't judge by comparing the two lenses you've chosen.
Get the first shot right.
Its not like they can just reverse engineer it. I mean being the good law abiding folks that they are, Adobe would have to turn themselves in for a DMCA Violation. I mean they wouldn't want to exhibit a double standard or anything.
For the record this has already been reverse engineered by freeware code in dcraw (Long live Dave Coffin).
It is ironic that Adobe is now being hurt by the same DMCA they so loved when they had Sklyarov arrested in Las Vegas at a convention because he reverse engineered their e-book format.
Adobe can't fight Nikon, if they lose, they lose, and if they win, they still lose, since there will be a precedent against use of the DMCA in "protecting" a file format and it will come to bite them in the posterior when they want to initiate a DMCA lawsuit of their own down the way.
I feel bad for the consumer, but as for Adobe, it serves them right!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
If you're a professional you should know that you can get some nice digital cameras from fuji that use nikon f-mount lenses.
Doesn't the Fuji S3 use a Nikon body?
FalconShould there be a Law?
I find this interesting given that the Canon 1Ds Mk II (their competitor, announced two days after the D2X annoncement) is fully supported by Adobe Camera RAW. In addition, Canon have their RAW software freely downloadable. That said, the 1Ds Mk II is considerably more expensive than the Nikon, but Nikon don't offer a nice equiv. of Canon Professional Services, especially here in oz.
iPhoto (released in Jan, both the Canon 1Ds II and the Nikon D2X) were announced several months prior and the 1Ds Mk II had *shipped* well and truly before the latest version of iPhoto was announced. So when they said they had RAW support, I was excited at first but then disappointed to find out that I still don't have an easy to use library system for those 16.7 megapixel RAW images.
iPhoto 5.0 does support the D100, D2H and the D70 - the D2X NEF format isn't claimed as supported but I haven't tried it. The CR2 files that come out of the Canon don't work with iPhoto 5 - although the other Canon cameras do (1Ds, 1D Mk II, 20D, 10D, D60, 300D etc - no mention of the 350/Rebel XT).
So how many people have the D2X anyway? A friend of mine is still waiting for his D2X (*nobody* has stock) yet he's had his Canon 1Ds Mk II since December last year. Remember that the Canon announcement was after the D2X announcement. It's a pity that his glass is Nikon and he's quite attached to his D1X.
Then we need to look at things like Nikon Capture. A wonderful peice of software that it seems few people here have used because this sucker is memory hungry. I'm told that if you work with the 12.1 megapixel size D2X NEF images, you had better have 2GB RAM. Consider 4GB RAM if you're running other apps (eg Photoshop) - and good luck getting that on a tier-1 notebook computer - and yes, there is a Nikon Capture port for OS X.
In conclusion, I've often found that Canon support their professional users moreso than Nikon do and this is why many pros shoot with Canon or are turning to Canon - irrespective of their technology.
You think nikon would send armed gunmen to capture the CEO of adobe? Oh the karma! =) hahaha
... did you follow through with Fair Trading? If you did not, then you should have. Fair trading would have viewed your case favourably and most likely made Maxwell or the retailer who sold you the camera replace it.
Secondly, I find it interesting that Canon used to market their products that they have replacable print heads, and now have reversed this and count their print head as a servicable item. Epson, at least, have always stated it's a servicable item and never tried to cover this up.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Carly Fiorina, who paid herself hundreds of millions as a bonus, also said onebody has the right to work.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm sure someone else has already pointed it out, but fuck Adobe. They've flexed their IP muscle onto more than enough people, they deserve to get screwed over. (fontforge, et al)
----- obSig
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Adobe, go fuck yourself.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
The D2X is tops? Without a full frame sensor, which it doesn't have, I wouldn't call it a top professional model. A prosumer or amateur model maybe. Having said that, I admit some pros do use it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Full disclosure: I was born into a Nikon family. /., but word will spread quickly enough.
Some pro photographers read
The digital SLR market is settling into a range of price points defined at minimum by the upper end of biggish point-and-shoot cameras and at maximum by some portion of the price of a Leaf back for medium format.
I read recently two million dSLRs were sold last year. How many of those weren't EOS 300's or D70's? How many weren't D100's, D10/D20's?
Nikon needs a win. Nikon saying Who needs Photoshop? is not good for Nikon. Photoshop has such massive mindshare that it's a verb ("Can't you just photoshop out that tree branch?").
One thing that might make a company want to make something as banal as white balance data proprietary is because they're scared of the competition. Fear is like blood in the water and Canon is at least half a Moore's cycle ahead of Nikon in R&D. That's a hard gap to make up.
My faith has been seriously shaken.
pdb
Is it less morally acceptable for Nikon to lock part of the NEF format than for Adobe to lock their entire PSD format and plug-in API for PSCS?
All I can say about a Canon camera is "you better not drop it."
I've had two Canon cameras, an A1 years ago, and my current Rebel, and I've dropped both without having a problem later. The A1 I had while I was in the army. As I was in the infantry with an MOS of 11B, small arms specialist, and I took it with me almost every tyme we went into the field, that camera had a lot of hard knocks. Because I almost always had it with me I was made my units unoffical photographer and my CO would get some rolls of film for me when we went out. The camera was with me when I went to Ft Greeley, Alaska outside of Fairbanks in the middle of the state the end of November and beginning of December for three weeks. The following summer I took it to Ft Sherman in Panama again for three weeks. Not once did I have a problem with the camera. Though I don't recall how much film I had in Panama I bought 7 rolls of 36 exposure colour film and the CO gave me 4 rolls of 24 exposure b&w film and I ran out before we left. The Rebel I have now, I've had 9 years and like the A1 I take it with me almost everywhere, I used to keep it in my car just in case, and have taken it camping. With it I go through film even faster than with the A1, I've gone through 4+ 36 exposure rolls in a day. When shooting the slowest I've gone through film was when I was taking my photography classes, one maybe two rolls in a week. In part that's because I mostly use negatives personally but for class we were required to use E6 slide film and the Rebel doesn't have mid roll rewind and resume. I got a film lead retreival tool but I wasn't very good using it.
I'd say quite readily the Canon cameras I've had are/were quite rugged.
FalconShould there be a Law?
My better half was a Canon junkie and switched to Nikon because Nikon lenses are faster. The reason you see Canon at sporting events everywhere, particularly tennis, is because the top journalists are only allowed to use Canon equipment at a Canon sponsored event. In other words, Canon is Microsofting people by trying to create the perception that their competition is dying.
This is my sig.
Without capitalism you wouldn't have to worry about adobe, nikon, cameras or computers.
Or at least in the case of computers, hackers should be recognized as having a huge impact on the power of computers as well as on how fast computers spread to the general public. Steven Levy wrote a good book on this, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution.
FalconShould there be a Law?
For a while, the US Nikon site didn't have the drivers up (though they've always been available at the UK site), but they've been there for a while now. Just go ahead and download them. Registration is stupid (what good what the software do me if I didn't own the product?), but it's not much of a hassle.
or war, famine, slavery, manmade ecological disaster.
Top Trumps!!
counterexamples:
war=china
famine=north korea, africa
slavery=??
ecological disaster=chernobl
Full frame sensors may be overrated to you but I want the compleat field of view captured when I shoot. I also want a wide angle or fisheye lens to be just that not have them turned into a normal lens, and a telephoto/supertelephoto lens the same. I use an SLR because I want to capture what I see, I have a problem with a parallax view otherwise I'd use a TLR, Twin Lens Reflex. Or I could use a rangefinder but when using a telephoto or supertelephoto I want to see details in the distance. Film based SLRs give me these, and until I can afford a full frame DSLR I don't think I will get a DSLR, though I admit I may change my mind for whatever reason.
FalconShould there be a Law?
What's deliciously ironic that the law they used to step on Sklyarov is now, they say, working against them.
But it's not really working against them, it's working exactly as large corporate proprietors intended it to work--to railroad users into losing their software freedom and doing business with organizations (like Adobe) that treat users poorly.
Adobe can simply purchase a per-seat license for Nikon's decryption software which grants Adobe to link it into Photoshop but not to inspect it or modify it. Nikon and Adobe get what they want--control over the user and more money.
If Adobe bitches about not wanting to ship software under their name and brand that they don't control, we'll get another chuckle of irony out of the deal.
Meanwhile, I recommend going with another camera vendor and using the GIMP. Don't spend your money to let someone hurt you. Spend your money on GIMP and dcRAW developers who are helping you (and would probably help you more if you paid them).
Digital Citizen
http://tinyurl.com/9oong
--Mike--
Imagine yourself as a pro photographer for which time is literally money and who spends more time with Photoshop than she does actually taking pictures finding out that Photoshop is NOT going to support the camera you were thinking of buying without awkward workarounds that don't work all that well. While I'm inclined to agree with you, Adobe isn't going to get screwed over, Nikon nailed themselves. A side benefit is that Adobe just might wonder if the DMCA is a big enough pain in the ass to be worth at least not actively supporting anymore.
Tech Public Policy stuff
GIMP is 8 bits. But CinePaint (ne Film Gimp) does do 16bits. It's used by the motion picture industry to clean up individual film frames for dust, etc. They surely have Photoshop to do this but they've put time and resources into CinePaint....
I also think GIMP is planning on going 16bits