Slashdot Mirror
Nikon Responds to Encryption Claims
ader writes "In a rare response to public complaints, Nikon has released a statement clarifying the use of encrypted white balance information in the NEF raw data from its digital cameras. They point out that this 'proprietary' format is accessible through the use of their 'proprietary' SDK, which is freely available to 'bona fide software companies' on written application. In other words: open source coders can butt out."
An OS project coder could be a bona - fide developer - nothing says Nikon wouldn't provide one to an OS project.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Why are they doing the proprietary bit in the first place? Wouldn't they want their product to be as widely useable as possible?
but, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't this originally brought up on /. because of adobe not being able to access this?
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
I guess adobe photoshop isn't nikon's choice for professional image processing then, or the license was too much for adobe to invest in.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
TIFF and JPEG are compressed image types professionals want RAW uncompressed image for maximum quality
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
This has been / is being discussed quite a lot on various Nikon-related boards. Unfortunately, Nikon is one of the least consumer-responsive companies I've ever come acrosss, to the point where even "Nikon Pros" - pros who exclusively use Nikon gear and evangelize for the company for free - are often not heard by the company leadership.
Unfortunately, this would seem to suggest that Nikon will be even less willing to listen to open source developers...unless they're loud enough to raise a stink in the mainstream media to some extent. Nikon's announcement about this issue is proof that bad publicity gets their attention...let's hope that there's enough volume to the (well reasoned, intelligent) complaints from the open source community.
I know I'd rather have some options when it comes to software. I use Nikon's commercial software, Nikon Capture, and it's very, very good...but competition is always a good thing.
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
Instead of encryption, it'd be useful to have the camera digitally sign images, so you can have traceability from an image back to the camera that made it, "proving" that no photoshop magic happened inbetween.
You take a photograph, you think its yours, taken with a camera you bought, of a subject you chose, with all permissions sorted.
However you then find there's an extra little catch.
You can only access your picture with software that your camera maker has decided to approve.
You didn't agree to any of this, it didn't warn you on the box, nobody told you that the pictures are only your subject to some extra pre-conditions and you had reasonable expectation that the camera would not raise artificial obstacles to you getting at your picture.
And this situation is somehow supposed to be acceptable?
In other words: open source coders can butt out."
In other words, "Would all the tech-saavy people in the audience please discourage everyone they know from buying our products".
We geeks may not have the sort of numbers big companies specifically target, but we do have something they dream of having on their side - Our positive word of mouth when the vast majority of friends and relatives ask us for recommendations on buying a new product; in this case, a digital camera.
Guess which product line just got added to my "Whatever you do, do NOT buy this one" list?
Thanks for the help, Nikon, but we'd rather deal with whichever of your competitors actually wants geeks on their side.
TIFF isn't necessarily compressed, but it's not as good as raw. Raw is before de-mosaicing, before white balance, etc. It is the "raw" signal returned from the CCD or CMOS. (I imagine that's not entirely true, but it's close). And because Raw is only one value per pixel instead of 3, they tend to be much smaller than 16 bit tiffs.
Why are they doing the proprietary bit in the first place? Wouldn't they want their product to be as widely useable as possible?
Widely used by photographers and graphic artists, but not widely used by Kodak and other competing camera manufacturers.
Most Nikon DSLRs will save as NEF or JPG, but the quality of the image one can produce using NEF-aware software is superior to even an uncompressed TIF because the NEF contains extensive additional data about shooting conditions (think EXIF, but better) in addition to the raw data from the CCD.
Most serious Nikon shooters I've talked with shoot using NEF (i.e., RAW), archive those, and work with their images as TIFFs after using a good NEF-aware converter like Nikon's Nikon Capture for post-processing, printing, etc.
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
"They point out that this 'proprietary' format is accessible through the use of their 'proprietary' SDK, which is freely available to 'bona fide software companies' on written application."
Pardon me, but Fuck' Em with a spoon. They shouldn't receive the support of the open source community, nor should they receive the support of the non-Nikon software community. If they like the bed they're making, then we shouldn't deny them the long-term pleasure of lying in it.
It is interesting with companies like AMD, Nvidia or HP Printers etc who have made competitive advantage out of catering (to some extent at least) to GNU/Linux/BSD and other ubergeeks. I suspect the average person who supports Free Software buys way more than the average amount of hardware and gadgets. We also read things like this and vote with our feet. At some point the balance will swing enough to make a real difference to the profit line - if we are not at that point already. The days of begging for drivers are past; the time of punishment for lazy manufacturers has begun. Seems no-one told Nikon to flee from the coming wrath..
My little Linux and tech blog
With an attitude towards the community like yours I won't consider even purchasing a Nikon camera
;-)
As if a typical open source zealot could afford a Nikon anyway.
oh... wrong Nikon, sorry.
So, somebody explain this to me. What am I missing here?
DMCA prevents the creation or distribution of a tool that defeats access control measures for the purpose of gaining unauthorized access to protected content.
Or something like that.
The white balance information is part of the image data. It's unique to each photo. It's the data that's created when the photographer takes the photo.
The person who will be gain access via a white balance plugin is the person who has the raw image data--typically the photographer, unless he gives the file to someone else.
The photographer can hardly be accused of using such a tool to gain access outside of his rights.
Further, since the tool is freely available to any "bona fide software developer" for the asking, it can hardly be described as an access control measure.
In short, it's the photographer's freakin' creation. Who the hell is Nikon or anybody else to say what he can or cannot do what he produced?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Fewer than 1/100th of slashdotters who would have gone to that link from the main article will use this one, so it's kinda pointless, but here is is anyway...
How to get a Nikon Software Developers Kit (SDK)
In other words, they are NOT doing this for their own benefit or to create lock-in or control of how images taken on their cameras may be used, but are doing it for camera owners, or so they say. Seems a bit bogus here...
A nikon owner myself. Get to make some recommendations at work about a camera, and a chance to move some dollars in a different direction. Actually think enough technical people making recommendations could make a difference.
I am a firm believer in consumer reviews. Meaning, when I am about to buy something I attempt to find people who own it, eavesdrop on people talking about the item in retail stores, read the online boards, etc.
I cannot tell you how many times I have been in Fry's Electronics (or some other store) talking to a customer about something and they left with a different (better) product than they came in for. The reason is that I don't work for Fry's and have nothing tangible to gain no matter what they buy. I simply like seeing "good tech" survive, and so I thoroughly evangelize companies that treat me well. I do the opposite for compoanies that treat me badly. I can say for sure that IWILL has lost more than 10 sales because of me. IWILL XA-100 had a 40% failure rate (at the local Fry's), and they did not step up to the plate and recall the damned things. I got stuck with one, which was traded out for two others in unopened boxes with no success.
I have a feeling Nikon is going to lose sales, because now I can use the "I" word that scares Joe Sixpack so much. "Incompatible"... I'll also use another word that is designed to scare Mr. Sixpack, "Proprietary".... I can then go on about how my Olympus takes wonderful pictures, and is "compatible" and "not proprietary" and will work with all kinds of software. Heck, I didn't install the Olympus software, and even lost the disk with the software on it and can still get my pictures. And then mention that most other vendors are open and just work, and express puzzlement at why Nikon hates it's customers...
This generally works. While I am aware that I may only stop 5 or ten sales, if 10 people did this, it would be 50 to 100 sales, etc, etc. Furthermore people buying the non-proprietary item who are happy with it, will warn their friends away from that vendor. This is viral in nature. It does work, however it is dependant on how many people take part.
This vendor screw consumer atitude really bends me out of shape...
Oh BTW, my sister in law's purchased new Ford Focus has transmission problems at 38,000 miles. It also has had the brake system recalled, twice. Currently it eats brakes every 10,000 miles. This is just the beginning of the list. Since Ford has been very little help, they are seriously considering painting the car yellow, and writing the word "lemon" on it.
I wonder what they will do with their NEF files in 20 years time when they are long obsolete and the software that converts them won't run on any modern hardware?
Why did Nikon actually go to extra effort to make their NEF output less useful?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
This isn't subject to DMCA. DMCA allows reverse engineering for interoperability. No developers, commercial or not, need Nikon's permission to reverse this legally in the US.
no, just in the USA
The toad can't burp - and for some reason can't fart either, so it swells up and eventually explodes. --Anonymous Coward
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO SUCH THING. Most of the pros you see are GIVEN Nikon equipment. That's why.
While Canon and Nikon best each other in different arenas, show me a pro who yaks loudly enough about either, and I'll show you someone who gets free equipment. Why? Because they're both very, very good- and as long as you buy the model intended for what you're trying to do (ie, you don't buy the 1DS if you're a sports or news photographer, you probably buy the 1D, because the 1DS is mainly aimed at studios).
Nikon isn't alone- Canon has a "professional" "club" which gets you expedited repairs (ie, 1-2, maybe 3-4 days instead of 3-4 weeks), loaners while stuff is getting repaired...or just if you ask for it. Want a lens that costs more than two G5's put together, like one of the big, fast prime telephotos with image stabilization like the 400/2.8 L IS? Why, just ring 'em up and say "hey, I'd like to borrow one next week". "Yes sir!"
If you think the people who talk loud enough for you to hear get service or support that even approaches what you will get as a consumer (or even a professional, just not at their level), you're absolutely, 100% fooling yourself. These companies are in it purely for the people who are highly visible, or for major corporate customers. For years, Canon and Nikon have been releasing models in time for the olymics, for example.
Oh- and while we're on the subject of customer serivce...if the Nikon camera, flash, or lens you're holding in your hand wasn't imported by Nikon into your country and sold to you by a Nikon dealer- instead of say, you buying it from a grey-market importer or buying it while on vacation...Nikon won't service it.
Let me be absolutely clear about that. Nikon won't just charge you for servicing it, they flat out will not service it period; you'll get the camera back in the mail, still broken. Worse, if you're buying a camera used, you can't call Nikon to check if the serial number is grey market or official USA import. This is why used Nikon gear is almost worthless, and new Nikon gear costs a fortune. Canon will not only service a grey-market import as long as it has an international warranty (some do, some don't)...they'll service it free as long as it's under warranty!
Last but not least, Nikon warranties are not transferrable- Canon's, and most other camera companies, are. If I turn around and sell my Nikon D2H the second I bought it, it's still sealed, warranty card not filled out- too bad. Why? Because the original sales reciept with your name and address has to be sent in to Nikon with the warranty card. God help you if it wasn't sold to you by an authorized Nikon dealer.
Please help metamoderate.
So software developers are terrified that Nikon will wield the DMCA scythe at them if they reverse engineer the white balance encryption algorithm? How would Nikon have any case when the content in question is owned by the creator, not Nikon?
To my thinking this is another clear application of interoptibility, so I don't see how the DMCA could apply especially given the ownership of the "protected content".
How would the white-balance information people's digital photos qualify as Nikon-owned property?
AFAIK, the DMCA is there to protect copyright and data colateral to taking a photo should be technically owned by the camera's operator.
Nikon can own the patents or trade secrets behind how to use the data but the actual data's ownership/copyright should clearly belong to whoever took the snaps.
This is not too many steps away from Microsoft claiming it owns all code and software written or compiled using VisualStudio tools.
At the very least, I'd need perpetual rights to compile and redistribute the code as a library. This would have to include the right to fix the code for security holes, to make it 64-bit clean, and to port the code to a big-endian or MMU-free CPU. Throw in any required patent rights as well of course.
Yet, hacking your own (and purchased) X-Box is subjected to DMCA infringment?
As much as I and other readers hate to admit it, the DMCA protects proprietary properties that is "explicitly" locked down with security. In other words, it's one thing to reverse engineer, but it's quite another to "hack" encrypted security according to DMCA.
Life is not for the lazy.
Reverse engineer the software (almost) anywhere in the world except the US, and everyone's happy. Also, place some text: "US citizens may not download", which no-one will notice. Not to mention that Nikon in this case encrypts data generated by me and the subject I take a picture of, it is my data being input through the lens. I get the data back in digital form, except I cannot access it with the tool I need to access it with. Does the DMCA allow me to reverse-engineer the encryption in order achieve interoperability? I'm told it does. So tell me, where's the problem?
FUD!
Stop spreading the FUD!
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
>The number one reason for RAW formats is that
.
>people feel more 'elite' when they used them, and
>purchase the associated large storage media, etc.
Um . . . that's bullshit. Do people who use manual exposure and manual focus do it to feel elite too? That'd make about as much sense.
Here's two big advantages to using the RAW format:
1) You don't have to deal with the camera's attempts to auto-adjust the picture to make it look better (auto-sharpening, auto-contrast, auto-white balance, etc). You have significantly more control over the way the finished picture turns out if you shoot in RAW.
2) RAW gives you a lot of extra latitude in exposure, which is particularly handy since digital sensors are less forgiving of under/over-exposure than 35mm film.
Maybe YOU should take the time to learn the benefits of RAW before throwing attitude . .
IRA
Buying a professional CD player, like say a $3000 rig, then trying to hook it up to your professional digital to analogue converter. However, nothing comes out. You call the maker and they say "Oh the data isn't raw S/PDIF, it's a special proprietary format. You'll need to buy this $200 adapter to make it work."
I mean, when you pay the kind of money a professional camera costs, it's not too much to ask that the software be included at no extra charge. It's a very reasonable expectation that it ought to work out of box with Photoshop. Further I'd say it's reasonable to expect that the format be open. After all, you are paying for the hardware to allow you to capture pictures. How you process them afterwards is your own business.
Didn't the Cold War end about 16 years ago, bub?
It also ignores the fact that the SDK generates jpeg/tif from RAW. Which wouldn't be bad except the main reason to use Adobe ACR is to use THEIR raw image processing routines. Who wants to waste time decoding the file twice?
Finally, it ignores the fact that Nikon basically wants you to spend $5000 for a camera... and then pay an additional $100 to get their software to process your images.
Stop bashing Adobe and check a few facts. Nikon doesn't want people using ANY third-party image processing software.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
A new website has launched to advocate for the public documentation of the manufacturer's raw format spec's. From the website "We want camera manufacturers to publicly document their RAW image formats -- past, present, and future. The goal of OpenRAW is to encourage image preservation and give creative choice of how images are processed to the creators of the images. To this end, we advocate open documentation of information about the how the raw data is stored and the camera settings selected by the photographer."
At present, the only documented RAW format is Adobe's Digital Negative (DNG). The current problem is that I dont think it's ever actually been implemented in an actual camera. Adobe provides a free converter, which is great, but it's not the same thing.
Personally, I'd like adobe's solution. A single format is easier for developers to work with than the ever growing list of RAW formats (even if they are open). It's this thing called standards.
What planet do you live on? EVERY working pro I know has paid for his equipment. You may get a demo of a new camera, but after the demo period is over the camera goes back and you buy your own.
Besides, if you're a top tier professional (whom you seem to be ranting about) a $5,000 camera is pocket change, and a $25,000 MF digital back is not much more so.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
A format is not "property". Does Nikon own the pictures I take with my camera? No? Then why the hell can't I read the white balance information in them?
My picture, my property. Ability to read my picture? Also belongs to me.
May not be the way it is right now, but it's the way it damn well should be.
Random and weird software I've written.
I'm not sure which definition of "pro photographers" you're using here - film only? digital only? film and digital combined? Please clarify.
Also... Nikon has the most affordable lens system? Where have you been shopping that sells Nikkor lenses for less than Canon lenses? In my experience, lenses for Nikon's autofocus mount are consistently more expensive than equivalent lenses for Canon's.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
Isn't it great that nikon SDK info is in adobe's pdf ?. pdf
http://www.nikonusa.com/kdb/sdk/nikon_SDK_request
Speaking as a photographer who uses Nikon equipment, I find this very troubling. As far as connections with Adobe go, Nikon is shooting themselves in the foot if they don't release information. Nikon's digital camera sales would plummet if RAW format usage with photoshop had some important features cut out. But that much aside, I fail to understand Nikon's reasoning behind keeping their RAW data formats a big secret. i fail to see how it benefits them. But then, I fail to see a lot of things... *sigh*
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Hmm, the D30 I had focused just fine, as did my 10D and my current 20D. None of the front/back focus problems at all, even with a 300mm f/2.8 wide open.
As for the flash, yeah, Canon's flash system wasn't the best, and now you're flaming them for improving it?
You know, it really sucks that my Sun Ultra 5 workstation won't work with my USB mouse -- damn Sun for not including USB in the system before it was widely available.
Basically, your 10D precedes the new flash metering system in the 580EX -- it's not reasonable to expect older cameras to know about and use features of newer flashes.
*somewhere in a badly-dubbed Canon underground research base*
A: Sir! The decryption process is complete! We have their top secret white balance data!
Captain: Hurry up boy, we haven't got all day!
A: The numbers are... 32, 198, 53, 52, and 3.4253E-08!
B: My God! Thats --
Captan: Yes, its as I feared, the Japanese have mastered the ultimate ancient technique Silent White Tiger Balanced Fist of Left Justified Saturation. We must memorize these numbers so we may mimic their technique and use their own weapon against them in our final battle on the next episode.
*meanwhile, in reality...*
Nikon most definitely has some juicy technology here and there that a competitor would want to know about.
Riiiight. And rather than take the camera apart and read the code straight off the ROM, they're going to stock up on AA's and take a thousand pictures and 2 thousand man-hours to figure out what that white balance data means.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Look, the DMCA prevents reverse engineering of encryption methods that are protecting copyrighted data. Thus, hacking the encryption on the firmware of the X-box is illegal (though it shouldn't be).
The white balance data in an image is copyrighted by YOU. That's right, it's your data. It comes from the environment or your settings or whatever. But the data is yours.
Nikon is trying to encrypt data that is copyright to you. The DMCA does not apply.
White balance data is essential to get correct images. All digital cameras have it, one way or the other. There is nothing special or unique about white balance data.
As I stated in another post, it would be like Nikon encrypting your JPEG files.
~X~
~X~
NEF files are not true RAW files, at least on the D70.
The NEF files use a lossy type of compression. The average user wouldn't notice it, but I'm sure some pros will. The copress the dynamic range of the CCD output from 12-bits down to about 10-bits. Their claim is "visually lossless". Sort fo like mp3's being "audio-ly lossless", only less extreme.
Another not-so-RAW feature of the NEF file is that some sort of filtering is applied to the data before it is saved. Again, the average user probably wouldn't notice it but some pros (and anyone doing astrophotography) would. With long exposures, there is a way to trick the camera into writing the data without filtering it first, but this doesn't work on normal exposures.
~X~
~X~
I would liken it more to the chemical processes used to develop the film.
Take for example the simpler black and white processing method, since I have enough experience with it to speak about it knowledgably. D76 is a well-documented (but not obvious) recipe of chemicals, but Kodak also sells it. What Nikon is doing would be analogous to Kodak saying you must use only Kodak's branded D76 with your Kodak film taken in your Kodak camera, and protecting the recipe for the D76 with some sort of crazy law (not a patent) that makes it illegal to try to reproduce that very simple chemical recipe to develop the used roll of film into useful negatives.
Computer-related laws rarely make any sense when applied to anything else.
A "process" is a patentable item. Patents expire.
A "software program" is a copyrightable item, as is an "artistic work" (read photographic image in this context). Copyright, thanks to the bizarre and troubling majority opinion in Eldred v. Ashcroft, effectively does not.
Now, the trouble with all of this is that I do not see where this is really creating much of a burden for photographers. Yes, Nikon can prevent its image capture software from being copied, but it cannot protect its encryption algorithms from duplication for any longer period than that prescribed by patent law. For a prime example of this idea in action, you may refer to the RSA encryption algorithms. Encryption algorithms are "processes" (as are chemical development processes and recipes), and as such, ineligible for copyright protection.
So, unless the international community (or the US Government, in particular) decides to accord patents the same effectively permanent protections they have granted to copyrightable works, the encryption algorithms in use in Nikon's format will eventualy be free for all to use or deconstruct (which has, in fact, already happened).
The interesting thing in this particular case is that Nikon's algorithms are being used to potentially deny the creator of an artistic work the ability to dispose of that work as he sees fit, which we can all agree is a natural right. The case hinges upon the interpretation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions, whose wording includes the phrase "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title".
Now, the clear intention of the DMCA was to block circumvention of a mechanism used to prevent unauthorized copies of a protected work, not to allow companies to arbitrarily deny a creator the ability to dispose of his own work as he sees fit--but the text of the law was written in such a fashion as to seeming allow such an action, unless you make an argument based upon subsection 1201.a.3:
Now we need to ascertain the meaning of "copyright owner" in this subsection. The copyright owner of the encryption software, or the copyright owner of the image so encrypted? Which "work" is pre-eminent? Arguments could be either way, although I believe that the copyright of the creator of the image is clearly superior.
Then of course, we need to examine the effect of 1201.a.3.b on existing patent law. How can the DMCA be effective if the "technological measure" relys upon the "application of...a process or a treatment" which has clearly fallen into the public domain? Curiouser and curiouser...
I am a Nikon user. Professionally, I have used nothing but Nikon cameras. I may not continue to do so as a result of Nikon's actions described here.
Yes, the photographer will retain the right to use equipment other than Nikon's. However, the selection of Nikon equipment by a photographer does not give Nippon Kogaku the right to deny me the ability to dispose of my images created with their equipment as I see fit.
There's no way 80 percent of pro photographers use Nikon. With the current dismal crop of D2s they've released, photographers are dropping Nikon and moving to Canon as fast as they can afford it. I work for a major newspaper chain, and every paper is looking to find a way to switch to Canon. Why? The newer Nikon cameras have a reddish cast, and lots of noise in the shadow areas. If you want quality, use Canon, or better yet, stay with film.
Nikon is increasingly lagging behind Canon in terms of innovation. Just look at their respective current DSLR offerings, and Canon's stuff is better by any technical definition. Nikon's newest DSLR offerings are marginal improvements and little evidence of real innovation.
I see this as a clear indication that Nikon is top-heavy and full of staunch conservative bureaucrats unable to move with the times. Management sits in a high castle out of touch. The badly translated but clearly terse verbiage used in this press release further demonstrates Nikon management's mode of thinking sounding similar to what IBM's board was capable of in the 1970s.
The very notion of "bona fide" software developers is pretty ugly and necessarily implies that some software developers aren't good enough to be working with Nikon. While I'm not particularly worried about open source in this regard - although unlikely, Nikon could just make binary libraries and not share their proprietary algorithms.
No, my concern is that "non bona fide" developers likely include independent raw CCD photo processing software vendors like those making Bibble, Pixmantec Raw Shooter Essentials, D1SLR and other similar software packages. These applications are designed to decode the raw CCD data from digital cameras using algorithms and color science developed by their respective vendors independently of Nikon. With varied results, but in many cases producing better or at least equal results to Nikon's very expensive Nikon Capture software which is particularly awful in terms of workflow and cost.
Nikon Capture feels similar to Sony's proprietary software in terms of stability and design clarity. These japanese giants produce an incredibly poor grade of consumer software, light years behind the technical quality of their hardware and so obviously I'm interested in having 3rd party software support for their very good hardware.
The "official" Nikon mesage is that these measures exist to protect the quality of the decoded images. That's very nice of them. But the pictures belongs to the photographers and photographers should be free to choose the software they wish to use for processing those images even if that means the colors are decoded differently from what Nikon's own best lab technicians have come up with.
Just as an example, CaptureOne is one Nikon compatible application - it does a superior job of handling moire CCD color noise on Nikon D1x, far surpassing Nikon Capture. Bibble handles colors on Nikon D1 subjectively better than Nikon Capture. Locking out these competing products is simply an awful measure that will not benefit consumers at all.
There can be only one explanation for Nikon's decision, and that is to produce more orders for Nikon Capture and license revenues from libraries included in commercial products from vendors choosing to use Nikon's official way of doing things. That's purely selfish of Nikonand serves consumers interest in no way!
I don't know how those libraries work, but from this press release I'd at least assume that they essentially output RGB data processed the Nikon Way, so you'd have pretty much the same result as using Nikon Capture, even if the library is embedded in a different program. That just means you won't be getting a second opinion and photographers using Nikon hardware won't be enjoying much creative freedom.
Here's the brochure for the D50
e s/ GB/D50_Leaflet.pdf
http://www.europe-nikon.com/uploads/ngb/Brochur
"Compressed NEF (RAW): 12-bit compression,
JPEG: JPEG baseline-compliant
Exif 2.21, Compliant DCF 2.0 and DPOF"
Notice it says NEF (RAW) without stating the missing white balance information.
Further down it talks about the camera supporting white balance.
"Auto (TTL white balance with 420-pixels RGB sensor), six manual modes, preset white balan"
And the only mention of software is in the "Optional Accessories".
"Optional Accessories....Nikon Capture 4 (ver.4.3) Software"
So, you have:
1. A misleading statement that NEF is RAW format.
2. A statement that the camera supports white balance.
3. A statement that the capture software is extra.
dcoffin:Format no more secret
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.