Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DMCA Prevents Photoshop Support of Nikon Camera

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the see-this-is-a-good-law dept.

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."

51 of 656 comments (clear)

  1. DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by dmolavi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder how much this will hurt Nikon. Of the professional photographers I know, they're split 50/50 between Nikon and Canon. All of them use Photoshop. None of them read /. , so I hope that Nikon makes this little crippleware feature glaringly obvious on their packaging, as I'd hate to see photographers get burned by this.

    2. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by SKPhoton · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm a Canon shooter, but for you Nikon people, here's some links to keep you updated:

      Nikon D2X white balance encryption
      Nikon saying you don't need Photoshop

    3. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by cubase_dag · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm a professional Photographer, and I recently purchased a D2H, and wheter or not nikons raw format .NEF, is fully supported, I would still Buy Nikon. Because All of my lenses are Nikon. And What This article is forgetting is that Nikon Has A plugin that does the same thing as the adobe plugin. And Its FREE.

      What a lot of people seem to forget is that ALL of the Raw formats Implemented By the camera manufacturers are Proprietary and encrypted. Canon Is no different. The only reason anybody is raising complaints is because nikon has not yet released the newest version of their Raw Format to adobe.

    4. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by doublem · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Damn, and me without Mod Points. My current employer makes digital asset management software, and we're not enthused about clients calling up and saying "Do you support RAW format?"

      A reply of "What camera are you using?" frequently gets a disdainful "You must be an idiot" style reply that can only come from the arrogant ignorant when they're wrong, but are convinced they're right. (Everyone whose ever answered a tech support line knows exactly what I mean)

      It's amazing how many people are out there using these cameras and are convinced that "Raw" is some universal standard that everyone's supporting.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    5. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by TGK · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's because it's three letters and tacked on to the end of a file. Everyone "knows" that the extension is a format.

      The only way around that would be to name the files Image001.NotAFuckingFormatRAW

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    6. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by Jurph · · Score: 5, Funny

      Most of us find it Easier to Read sentences that don't Have random Words capitalized in them. I personally Don't Give a rat's Butt, but then I'm Funny Like that.

    7. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, this looks like a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Adobe likes the DMCA and even abuses it to protect ROT-13, but suddenly it "prevents" them from serving their customers and they're up in arms.

      Of course, it really doesn't, since everyone knows the DMCA only applies to encryption intended to protect copyrighted works, and color calibration data is just information that does not represent a creative work, therefore it can't be copyrighted.

      Moreover, even if you did consider that tiny portion of a photo to be a creative work, it is a creative work in which one can assume that the person opening the file is the person who took the photo, or at least working for the same company.

      Finally, the encryption isn't being explicitly added by the content producer (the photographer), which therefore means that it falls outside the DMCA by definition.

      So... it sounds like Adobe suddenly did an about-face and decided the DMCA is evil for reasons other than saving their backsides. Either that or (more likely) they have a bone to pick with Nikon over something else and they're using this as leverage. That would be my guess....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by pijokela · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, I'm not a professional photographer but I own a Nikon Coolpics 8700 that has NEF support. I have been using a plugin for photoshop provided by Nikon and at least for this camera - that plugin is utter crap.

      It is painfully slow, even for transferring just a few images to JPG/Photoshop. It is in fact so slow that I bought a $25 shareware app that is 10 times faster and actually has a batch mode.

      So I think Nikon should stick with the Cameras and let Adobe do the NEF support.

    9. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by dillon_rinker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting. Let's see if I understand correctly:

      1. Our canned response to a a frequently asked question produced hostility in some customers.
      2. Therefore, the customers are idiots.
      3. ????
      4. Profit!

      Permit me to suggest that a better answer would be "Some camera manufacturers use a proprietary format and call it RAW. What camera are you using?"

      If you are in customer service, I guarantee you that something close to 100% of your customers are idiots. (Dilbert's law - "Everyone is stupid about something sometime.") Your goal should not be to find better customres, but to accomodate the stupidity of your customers while making them happy to give you their money. That's the theory. In practice, when the customer's stupidity makes them unhappy about reality, you find a way to present the reality in a factual, accurate way that does not reflect badly on you. I call it "honest spin." In some cases there is NO honest spin that will make the customers happy; in this situation, you either lie or fire the customer.

    10. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by monkeydo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, this looks like a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Adobe likes the DMCA and even abuses it to protect ROT-13, but suddenly it "prevents" them from serving their customers and they're up in arms.

      I don't see any evidence that Adobe is "up in arms." It seems to me that they are respecting what another company sees as that company's IP. The slashdot crowd may be up in arms, but I'm pretty sure that no one here (officially) speaks for Adobe.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    11. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hello? Tech support? Does your product support NotAFuckingFormatRAW format?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:DMCA prevents Nikon from making money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am an "intellectual property" lawyer. That being said, the lawyers working for Adobe are going to be ultraconservative in an attempt to protect Adobe's interests. Thus, my answer and Adobe's answer will differ. Mine is, of course, the correct answer.

      I can't explain it. It's not.

      Copyright does not protect "functional" aspects of a written work. For example, you cannot copyright an accounting form, even if you can show that you have discovered a totally unique method of laying out the form that makes it twice as easy to check the calculations in half the time. Similarly, the white balance information is functional. Furthermore, the white balance information is functional in a way that has nothing to do with access control. Ipso facto, the white balance information cannot be protected as part of a copyrighted work.

      Also, sec 1201(a)(3) clearly states:

      As used in this subsection -

      (A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

      (B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

      Nikon does not have a copyright in the white balance information. Nikon does not have a copyright in an image taken by the camera. Nikon does have a copyright in the firmware of the camera and in whatever software they distribute that reads this encrypted information.

      Are you accessing the firmware in the camera when you manipulate these images? No. Are you accessing the Nikon software when you manipulate these images? Presumably, no -- I assume Adobe broke this encryption without using the Nikon software --.

      Therefore, you are the copyright owner, and you implicitly grant authority to Adobe to access your Nikon-photographed image data, such that THIS IS NOT A DMCA VIOLATION as a matter of black letter statutory law.

      Thank you... thank you very much.

  2. Putting things into perspective by rsborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  3. Good Grief! by CaptainZapp · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Can someone in this fine, family type forum please assure me that I'm not in the Twilight Zone?

    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

    1. Re:Good Grief! by PPGMD · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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!

      It's not that simply for a majority of folks that are in the market for cameras like D2X. Most of them already have $10,000 or more invested into Nikon before you even factor the camera body in.

      Now they could sell all their Nikon stuff on Ebay for say $5,000, then spend another $10,000 buy the same things for Canon (even assuming that some of the older lens are available, you know the ones that we chipped to get working with the newer cameras).

      Sorry that may make sense on /., but it doesn't make sense to real photographers. A few may make that leap, but many will simply stay with their D1's (or even F5's with Provia, and Velvia), until Nikon and Adobe works things out, or someone makes a plug in that hacks it for them.

  4. The correct solution... by turgid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...is, of course, for Adobe to license the decryption algorithm from Nikon.

    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
    1. Re:The correct solution... by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Adobe asked Nikon, and Nikon said NO to a licensing deal.

      Anyways, notice how Adobe is the only one complaining. I believe it is because Nikon's competing software (and software that other 3rd parties have made) has made Adobe Photoshop less relevant. That is why CS 2 is coming out....to correct the deficiency Photoshop has with regard to digital photography.

      Other 3rd party software companies have worked around the WB data, and aren't complaining like Adobe is. There is more to the story than this.

  5. This is getting ridiculous by WD_40 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:This is getting ridiculous by drdanny_orig · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?

      How about by buying a Canon camera?
      --
      .nosig
    2. Re:This is getting ridiculous by SirGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      Bullshite. They knew exactly what the law would be used for and by whom. This law was drafted for the sole purpose of kissing the collective asses of big business.

      The thing I hate about this sort of legislation, is that once it's on the books, it's very difficult to get repealed.

      Which is why they just keep writing new laws to do the same thing as older laws ( just adding new "technologies" ) rather than changing the old laws to be more technology neutral.

      Other than calling and writing to our representatives, how else do we make our concern known?

      We can't. In general, we don't have enough clout to get the politicians to even listen to us, let alone to get them to actually hear us.

      --
      UPS Sucks
    3. Re:This is getting ridiculous by StormReaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "How about by buying a Canon camera?"

      And writing to both Canon and Nikon explaining your purchasing decision.

    4. Re:This is getting ridiculous by shotfeel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      I wouldn't let them off the hook that easily. Our legislators were told by consumer rights advocates that this was the type of thing that would happen. Of course supporters of the DMCA told the legislators that nobody would ever stoop that low.

      Guess who they beleived?

  6. Re:encrypted? by stilwebm · · Score: 5, Informative

    The term "raw" refers to the fact that the data is straight off of the camera sensor. The encrypted data contains the white balance settings that tell a program how to interperate the single color pixel information to interpolate it in to an RGB (or possibly CYMK) image.

  7. FUCK THEM by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  8. LOL by Kaa · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  9. How about a DMCA opinon, here? by MoralHazard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (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.

  10. The correct solution...but to which problem? by jkabbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe the parent poster was using a bit of sarcasm.

      When Adobe used the DCMA to go after Russian programmers (a move they rescinded and let the FBI do for them), the DCMA was a great and wonderful thing.

      Now, Adobe's learning what a poison pill the DCMA really is. Will this cut short their support for such a law, or next time make them fight such onerous challenges to reasonable copyright as set out by the founders of the United States?

      Anyway, that's what I think the poster was talking about.

      As for the last part, Nikon could sue Adobe under the DCMA, which states that you can crack encryption for personal use - but you can't tell anyone else how to do it. If Adobe releases a tool that cracks Nikon's encryption algorithm, then Nikon could go after them for some imagined damages.

      The best thing is for Nikon to realize their heads are up their asses, remove this stupid encryption algorithm, and for both sides to state publicly that the DCMA is a bad, bad, bad law and they will never give money to any politician who supports it.

      Yeah. And monkeys might fly out of my butt, too.

      --
      52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
    2. Re:The correct solution...but to which problem? by jkabbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As for the last part, Nikon could sue Adobe under the DCMA, which states that you can crack encryption for personal use - but you can't tell anyone else how to do it. If Adobe releases a tool that cracks Nikon's encryption algorithm, then Nikon could go after them for some imagined damages.

      But if the measure is not designed to protect the rights of a copyright owner, I do not believe any device designed to circumvent that measure falls under the DMCA. It is clear to me that encrypting white balance values is not designed to protect my rights as the photographer.

      But, I can see why it's scary enough for Adobe to just walk away for the moment.

  11. I'm a sys-admin for a pro lab by genner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:License by CaptainZapp · · Score: 4, Insightful
    So why not license it from Nikon?

    Because it always makes my hemerroids itch, when a manufacturer demands a toll in order for me to access my data.

    I hope this helps.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

  13. Nikon has its own RAW plugin for Photoshop by technoviper · · Score: 5, Informative

    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)

  14. Agreed... by Chordonblue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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..."
    1. Re:Agreed... by skribble · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well... This isn't quite true. Nikon does in fact have photoshop RAW plug-ins, and while they lack features of ACR they do work.

      Also, this only effect White Balance. The files can still be read just fine, you'll just have to set WB manually (or use PS's Auto WB) Which really isn't that big of deal since most photographers tweak WB anyway.

      Also Nikon Capture is ~$90 ($99 MSRP) which even has a button to open a NEF in Photoshop.

      Anyway.. now that the fact are straight... This is a boneheaded decision by Nikon, but they are famous for such things. They make fantastic products, but the management has always been retarded.

      --
      --- Nothing To See Here ---
  15. Actually... by J+Barnes · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  16. Re:Exactly... by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was growing up, I was a Nikon guy. I liked the all-mechanical purity of their high-end cameras such as the F2. There is a certain satisfaction in seeing shutters CLUNK that just doesn't exist in the fully electronic cameras Canon sold.

    But now electronics is vital, and there's little doubt that Canon has the high ground in all things electronic. Their cameras are far superior in design than Nikon's.

    However, I still think Nikon lenses are better made and smoother to use, which I appreciate. Of course this might be simply because I haven't seen Canon's more expensive lenses. My D30 has the low-end 28-135 zoom which works great for me but isn't as silkly smooth as Nikon's 17-85 offering.

    I almost switched back to Nikon with the D100 but a last minute financial crisis kept me in the Canon camp. In retrospect, that looks like the right decision in view of Canon's newer cameras, and especially now with Nikon trying to pull this on customers.

    Pity Canon still doesn't have a low-end HD camcorder to compete with the Sony FX1 and upcoming Panasonic models. That's my next planned purchase and Canon's doesn't even exist in the market ... yet.

    D

  17. Re:Isn't it in Nikon's best interests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here's what probably happened here:

    Dear Adobe,
    Please be advised that some aspects of our new RAW file format will be stored in an encrypted format. If you wish to support our new format, we are happy to license the decryption mechanism to you for $5 for every copy of Photoshop you sell or that you upgrade to allow to process our format. Please note that, under the terms of the DCMA, you are required to license our technology if you wish to support the thousands of Nikon customers in your customer base. We hope you agree that this is a small price to pay to continue to support our cameras.

    Sincerely,
    Nikon.

    Dear Nikon,
    Fuck you.

    Sincerely,
    Adobe.

  18. Two thoughts. by LaminatorX · · Score: 4, Insightful
    [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.

  19. It's just whitebalance.. for now by Animaether · · Score: 4, Informative

    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 ?

  20. This is DRM on Your Photographs by SteveM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  21. Thomas Knoll says by geneing · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."

  22. Re:License Bingo! by mpapet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  23. Re:Exactly... by SKPhoton · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, more and more people are switching over to Canon. Nikon is starting to fall behind. Though their bodies are a bit cheaper, Canon has a better line up of lenses. (I hope Nikon steps it up a bit. Competition is good for all of us.)

    Yes, Canon RAW is supported in Photoshop with the Camera RAW plugin. Photoshop CS2 is coming out very soon and should have some major improvements over PS CS.

    Very few people use GIMP professionally I've found. Photography is the sole reason I've switched back from Linux. Try as it might, digikam and GIMP just can't keep up with professional grade RAW Converters such as Capture One Pro. GIMP supports RAW with the appropriate plugin, but sorry, it's just not Photoshop.

  24. Dmitri must be enjoying the hell out of this by Glamdrlng · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  25. Here's why it's an issue by metamatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Here's why it's an issue by wandernotlost · · Score: 5, Informative
      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?

      And don't think this is some far-fetched scenario. I bought their LS-2000 film scanner a bunch of years ago, with a 50 slide batch feeder. It was an awesome piece of hardware, but the software always sucked. You couldn't use the batch feeder particularly usefully, because the software wouldn't allow you to do an autoexposure operation before each scan, the way you could when scanning negs or individual slides. (Yes, you had to expose the WHOLE set of slides at the same exposure. Mind-boggling.) I had to write a ridiculous AppleScript to simulate mouse clicks in particular locations to get it to work.

      Anyway, that's not my point. The LS-2000 was connected to the computer via SCSI. About a year or two after I bought it, Nikon came out with the newer line of scanners that used FireWire or USB instead of SCSI. Almost immediately after that, they stopped supporting SCSI scanners in the new versions of their software. And THEN they fixed the software so that you could do the autoexposure operation before each scan.

      So I got stuck with a scanner that could never perform it's main function well and that's no longer supported by their proprietary software. And now they want to tell me that they're going to encrypt the files coming out of their digital cameras? It's hard enough to get good information out of the NEF files coming out of my D70 as it is without using their slow, shoddy software. If you're not locked in by lens purchases, DON'T BUY from a company that's so hostile to its customers as this!

      I'm so fed up with Nikon I'm about ready to sell all my lenses and cameras and film scanner and move to Canon entirely. Their approach to technology is so unbelievably inept it makes me sick. 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.

  26. Re:encrypted? by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Breaking encryption is not a DMCA violation.

    Breaking encryption that controls access to a copyrighted work is what is against the DMCA.

    Unless nikon is claiming copyright protection on their white balance information, it woudln't have much of a chance of winning (and it's hardly an original or creative work)

  27. Re:why not just shoot jpeg? by rebelcool · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --

    -

  28. Doubly Agreed... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is a boneheaded decision by Nikon, but they are famous for such things. They make fantastic products, but the management has always been retarded.

    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.

  29. The Corporate View by johnos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.