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Since the times of silver plates and baryt paper (which sure as hell still has it's niche, but I digress) seem somewhat outdated I like to process my digital images with what can be considered the major photo processing application; pretty much the standard in my trade.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
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...
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
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.
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 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.
Adobe is trying to strong-arm Nikon. Nikon does license the encrypted format infomation. Adobe either doesn't like the terms or wants to try to get something for nothing and releases this story to the media saying its not their fault they can't break the law. Hoping that everyone will scream at Nikon for allowing this to happen, in turn Nikon will need to fold to save public opinion.
Lots of people have file formats that are DMCA protected, including Adobe. And I bet Adobe wants you to pay their licensing fees...
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..."
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
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! --
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.
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 ?
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?
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 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
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 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.
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 ---
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.
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
It's not about the costs of a lawsuit. Adobe has several projects that rely on the DMCA to work. Take encrypted PDFs, for example, or Adobe's encrypted ebook format. When push comes to shove Adobe is heavily invested in the idea of proprietary closed formats.
There response to Nikon's use of a closed format is typical. Like Adobe's so-called secure formats Nikon's RAW format isn't really encrypted, but is instead merely obfusticated. With a little engineering Adobe could read the information they need just fine. However, doing so would weaken the DMCA, and Adobe doesn't want to do that. So instead they are putting economic pressure on Nikon. Adobe knows that quite a few of Nikon's users are going to want to edit their photos in photoshop. Adobe is using its market position to influence Nikon to change its mind.
Eventually Nikon will probably relent and give Adobe permission to open these files. Not only would this give weight to Adobe's interpretation of the DMCA, but if Nikon only gives permission to Adobe to open these files then it would give Adobe a market advantage. After all, Photoshop would be able to get the most out of Nikon's raw format and Adobe's competitors would not.
No one really considers Dmitry a blackhat, probably not even the folks at Adobe. The difference is that Adobe feels that it should be possible to make reverse engineering formats illegal, and Dmitry got in the way.
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.
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.
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.
as a professional photographer, ive encounted maybe one or two people who shot jpeg, and thats because they did on-demand printing at events - they carried a printer with them and sold the pics they just took to attendees.
Everyone else shoots raw because you get all 12 bits of dynamic range which is necessary for quality cast corrections, you can perfect white balance later (or experiment with it), and you dont have to deal with compression and sharpening artifacts that shooting jpeg does, you can do better tonal curves... the reasons are numerous.
In sum, the only people who should ever shoot jpeg are snapshooters and professionals who must do instant turnaround.
-
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--
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.
The answer is, Adobe does not want to spend the money required when:
1. Attorneys receive and review cease and desist order
2. Attorneys respond to cease and desist order
3. Attorneys receive federal district court complaint
4. Attorneys answer federal district court complaint
5. Attorneys attend preliminary settlement conference and scheduling meeting
6. Etc.
In other words, it's easier to give a shrug and ignore a minor feature demanded by a minority of specialized customers than to pay somewhere between five and six figures to a group of attorneys to get the case to a point where a motion can be filed (the earlist thing you could possibly file to get rid of this is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, which is typically filed after the answer to the complaint).
After all, you're charging your customers thousands of dollars for the privilege of using the "premiere" graphics software in existance, not to defend their ability to use it in the most effective way possible.
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....
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
2 reasons.
One is that the camera (sometimes) has an onboard white balance sensor that detects the temperature of the light you're in. These sensors vary in quality so on some cameras they might be useless, while on others they might work really well. Some cameras do this on the chip... but if its accurate, its good to know.
The other reason is time. If your camera accurately set the white balance for you, you dont have to mess with it in photoshop, thus saving time, and assuming you dont feel like changing the white balance.
-
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.
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.