Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Blasts Nikon's Closed File Format
Joe Decker writes "Thomas Knoll, creator of Adobe Photoshop,
blasts Nikon's use of encryption to limit access to white-balance information contained in D2X RAW images files. Fearing the DMCA, Adobe won't reverse-engineer the file, slightly reducing Photoshop's support for those files.
Nikon responds. Is Adobe whining? Is Nikon shooting itself in the foot?" We've covered this previously.
Nikon are screwing open source developers in the foot too :(
Will this turn into something like Open Office's support for the .DOC format?
Have you metaroderated recently?
Just to be clear. Have any of these links not been linked in a previous slashdot story; if so, which ones; and chronologically when were they posted on the webpages wherein they are linked in relation to the links FROM the previous slashdot story?
Why doesn't Adobe just break the encryption outside of the United States, and keep all the infringing information on non-US servers so they cannot be sued for breaking the law in the US. I'm sure other people work around the DMCA in the same way?
Jonathanjk.com
NEF file formats will continue to have support in Adobe Photoshop as a plugin. This is the current state of NEF processing, it will continue to be so in the future.
The Nikon SDK that permits decoding of the format is still available to 3rd parties.
In short, it's the same as it ever was.
If the licensing is so heinous that an open source project can't accept it, then perhaps the problem isn't on the Nikon side, but in the perception and conception of how licensing should work on the part of the project team.
Patents aside, there might also be an issue reading some of these manufacturers' RAW formats in years to come if you've lost the original CD or it doesn't work on Windows ZZZZ.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Fortunately, outside the Land Of The Free(tm), anyone can access Nikon's encrypted data with a simple GNU/Linux application
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Is Adobe whining? -- Yes.
Is Nikon shooting itself in the foot? -- Yes.
1. Adobe is whining because it doesn't really matter in the end (see #2).
2. Nikon is shooting itself in the foot because even though I'm not a professional I know enough gurus in the graphics field to know that they are insane product researchers, and won't come within 10 feet of a product that will produce less than optimal results with photoshop.
Ok, next topic. Refresh, refresh, refresh...
Is that Nikon camera users will blame Adobe for a lack of compatibility, and there's nothing Adobe will be able to do about it. If the other camera builders do the same, then Adobe could well be stuffed for Raw File editing. I'm guessing that Nikon have done a deal with a different graphics editing company.
The best solution would be to pay camera companies to include a "Compatible with Photoshop" peelable sticker on the bottom of the camera / camera packaging. That'd probably get Nikon crawling back pretty quickly.
Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
It is ironic that Adobe mocks Nikon for their closed file format, while they are guilty of suing a person who reverse-engineered their precious format in the past. It would be fun if Adobe try to reverse-engineer their format and Nikon would respond by throwing one of their engineers into jail.
Looks like Nikon's goofy encryption has been broken.
Oh, here's a link to dcraw which will blast through Nikon's bullshit.
Word of mouth is an amazing thing. I bought a digital camera a couple years ago. After reading a lot of web sites, I choose a Canon G5. Since I'm the go-to guy in my circle when it comes to tech purchases, I've convinced at least 5 or 6 friends to purchase Canon digital cameras. Choose with your feet and tell others to do the same. As a group we've got a lot of power.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Adobe should just put a little message in so when you try to access a Nikon camera in Photoshop it starts bitching about the DMCA and how Nikon doesn't love their customers as much as other manufacturers.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Isn't this familiar to you? http://www.freesklyarov.org/
See http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/23/205 0249&tid=93&tid=155 for original story.
This posting is actually referring to the earlier news - but the above link refers to Nikons response...
Freely readable white-balance information is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.
Free as in mason.
Nikon says they will provide a SDK for "bona fide software developers". I wonder what they are?
first its just an encryption.. and for later i expect they'll apply public-key for camera too.. and maybe, just maybe, then digital format photo can be accepted in court as evidence
http://aip.corolla.or.id/
You dick, how the fuck do you pirate your own material? Guess what, when you click the button on the camera, the image you take is yours, not Nikons. Its nothing to do with ethics, they'd do it if it weren't for the DMCA.
Jonathanjk.com
It was full of .NEF files (no, I haven't RTFA so I don't know if these are the files in question) so I emptied them off and she went back to taking pictures.
Thing is, the CD's she had with her that she'd got with the camera, were full of crippled software - "lite" versions you have to purchase the full version, etc.
I didn't have the time or inclination to look into it fully so maybe other Nikon owners will point out that I'm talking out my ass, which is a possibility.
Seems to me, though, that the Nikon "format" is far from user friendly, nor their software adequate or intuitively obvious to install...
If the licensing is so heinous that an open source project can't accept it
It isn't a problem for open source projects. They can already access the data. Well, those outside the US anyway, and people inside just need to download from outside...
It's Adobe, a proprietary US company, that's having problems.
As far as I am aware, Adobe had not paid - they used a widely used public domain (OSS) piece of decoder software instead.
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Why should let a camera company encrypt the data you capture, trying to prevent you from processing the data the way you prefer?
Still..Nikon can open it to 3rd party decoders for a license fee perhaps.
-
Left sigs long time ago!
95% of all sigs are made up.
If Nikon and Adobe won't play ball, we'll have to work around them, don't we?n cryptnef.asp !
Check out http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05041901nikon_e
Is it just me, or is Adobe being just a teensy bit hypocritical here?
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
dcraw now supports nikon raw files:
h ttp://news.com.com/Nikons+photo+encryption+report ed+broken/2100-1030_3-5679848.html?tag=st.pop
http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/
You need to sign an NDA to get hold of it, so it won't be redistributable and most users are going to have to just disable its use when building the program. It probably only includes binaries for Windows/x86, anyway.
There would be no question that Adobe is a "bona fide software developer", and would be able to get their hands on the SDK. The good news is that they are refusing to sign up for it - They are determined to get the information out in the public domain, legaly.
For this, they should be praised. IMHO.
They could always make a non US version were they don't have to care about the DMCA.
Well, IANAL, but it seems to me that Nikon itself can get in trouble with the DMCA.
If I use their software to read your encrypted data, then they have provided the software to do so!
Of course, I consider this a bad law -- but it is the law.
Adobe don't claim any rights on the settings you apply to images created with Photoshop. Whilst file formats are often proprietary, or are open to a limit expressed by API documentation (is .psd an open format ? Could Capture Read / Write .psd ? I think so...) here .NEF is replacing film. Did Nikon own your processed film ? Seems like commercial suicide to me - they're in danger of making their products extremely unattractive to advanced users.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I would paste in their real response, but it's encrypted and they haven't distributed the key. Oh well. I shouldn't second-guess their expertise.
... some companies started dyeing their film bases orange to match Kodaks.
They didn't understand why the leader in Film Technology at the time was making their film bases orange but there had to be a good reason.
In short, there was, but I don't believe it was patented at the time. Had it been Kodak would have had to disclose the reasons behind the logic... and instead it bought then another 9 years of non-competition as everyone tried to understand what was happening.
AgX film vs Digital: The stakes are the same, just it's a bit on the fast side.
Nikon's move to encrypt the white balance information in NEF files is just about as unwelcome as Adobe's own decision to turn CS 3 into a portal for RF images.
Both ideas are antipathetic to photographers, obviously Nikon ones and equally, all those trying to make a living from RM stock or commissions.
I am very glad I made the switch to Canon years ago.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Except that Adobe is a fan of the DMCA. So they didn't like it when people decrypted their ebook format and had the programmer jailed (!).
So now they're complaining about somebody else doing the same thing. I find their whining at best, uh, whiny.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Nikon are free to do this.
We are free not to buy their products.
I run a heavy traffic photo mailing list (http://www.topica.com/lists/streetphoto) and the overwhelming response has been "Stuff Nikon".
Photogs tend to have well established workflows with a few choice tools (eg Capture One + PSCS) and do not enjoy having to use Nikon's frequently b0rked software.
There is no reason whatever to encrypt this data except to screw more $$ out of the customer.
If Nikon had a conspicuously superior product then this might conceivably make some kind of bean-counting sense but these days they don't. Canon's DP stuff is arguably superior and the only real effect of this on anyone will be to drive up Canon sales and drive down Nikon, amplifying an already-existing trend.
Thomas Knoll, who blew the whistle on this, is regarded with great affection within the DP community. Nikon is not.
If you listen carefully, you can hear the sound of Nikon flushing itself down the toilet.
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
Adobe are correct to whine, it focusses peoples view on Nikons closed deliberately encrypted format.
You can have your photo with incorrect white balance, or you can have your photo with reduced quality, but you can't have your photo correct at full resolution even though the brochure says it is supported.
The system has already been reverse engineered, so they are not protecting secrets, that horse has bolted.
Well, this is certainly an ironic twist. Adobe should have lost its right to complain about the DMCA when it created the Dmitry Sklyarov incident, creating the first and still most ominous DMCA-related precedent for the use of criminal charges for what are fundamentally business problems and civil matters...
Adobe CREATED this and now wants protection from it. That's kinda funny. I don't care so much about white balance. The other issue in this matter is much more interesting.
Hahahaha what a weird topic... Adobe blasting about close file formats ? Who is blasting Adobe now for permanet treatment of the KDE people for having done Kexi Vector drawing stuff ?
Why are we posting this again?
Encryption here is very light, already broken coded and being used by other converters. There is no case whatsover that can be brought.
Only Adobe's DMCA happy lawyers could possible see a case here.
Adobe want to be the defacto RAW converter, and to make their life easier they want all manufacturers to convert to Adobe's own DNG format.
So I think we can expect more of this whining to come.
I bought a D70 recently. I choose cameras by using them (and of course reading the odd review). This way i've always bought cameras that I, myself, can take great pictures with (previously, Canon A70, Olympus C-5060).
I also tried out the Canon 300D and 350D, E-300 etc. The Nikon felt best in my hand. That's the secret to a good camera/photographer relationship.
I would put up with having to install a plug-in if it meant getting better results. Perhaps Nikon's plug-in produces better results?? They did create the camera, after-all.
I think Nikon's biggest problem is they have no decent mid-range D-SLR. But then I can't imagine what you would need that the D70 can't deliver.
You mean "he would never have been arrested".
Nikon are holding photographers pictures as hostage. The end results are not good, the end results is a bad precedent is set.
They've it for as long it has been around. If you run a software company, you will qualify for it and there is no charge.
They are a hardware company. Their value is the hardware they make. What do they loose by opening not only their file format, but all the software around their products?
At least I know what kind of camera to avoid.
The image is a dream, the beauty is real. Can you see the difference?
The DMCA is about protecting copyrighted works.
A photo you take, and its representation (including
whitebalance information) is *your* copyrighted work,.
As owner of the work, you can give yourself permission
to break the encryption (says so in the DMCA).
If Nikon tries to sue you in spite of this, countersue them
for theft of copyrighted material.
Alternately, if all of this is too much bother, and the whole
concept offends you, don't buy Nikon.
Or one might make the case that a picture taken using Nikon equipment - or any other brand - is really the property of the person who shot it. That person should be able to do whatever he or she wants with the photo without having to pay Nikon any more $, either directly or indirectly through the cost of software whose developers had to pay for a license to Nikon's SDK. Call me crazy.
/lawyer doubletalk reason that they never ever will understand.
And yes, of course the solution is "if you don't like it, don't buy it". So I won't. However, I'm feeling some pity and righteous anger on behalf of the inevitable bulk of Nikon buyers who (a) never heard of this outrage and (b) wouldn't understand until it's too late and they find out they have to buy more software for some incomprehensible computer nerd
The anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA protects from unauthorized access from copyrighted works. If you took the picture, you own the copyright to that picture.
It's not like a dvd, where you're accessing (rightly or wrongly) someone else's copyrighted work. Adobe wouldn't be designing a product to aid in unauthorized access.
The primary purpose would be for the copyright owner to access information in their own copyrighted work. Nikkon should have no interest under the DMCA with which to sue.
I'm missing something here: Why hasn't Adobe just asked Nikon for the SDK so that they can access the data? Sure, it's a RPITA that they have to go through this nonsense, but for a company as happy to get patents on technology (just look at the patent list associated with PDF, and the fact that the PDF spec allows use of some patents) the reality that Nikon wants to hold some cards close to their chest (I won't get into an argument about WB info being a stupid thing to encrypt) should not be a big deal.
With regards to the Open Source impact of this, why not get Tridge to reverse engineer the format. Even if an Open Source group received the SDK, they probably couldn't resdistribute it anyway.
Why don't OS people put their money (ha!) where their mouth is and start sending requests (in the tens of thousands) to Nikon and see what they do.
What most /.-ers miss is that Adobe Camera RAW as well as most other converters such as Capture One or RawShooter don't rely on manufacturers' SDK to convert RAW files. This way they can achive better results.
I don't know about Nikon, but for my Canon I know that ACR produces far better results than Canon RAW Converter.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As proven time and time again, there is only 1 mentality and opinion on this site when it comes to companies trying to keep their trade secrets, well secret.
Every post says that the company is bad, but people who try to break the law to circumvent encryption are good. So cliche.
Report back to your pods now slashbots, your work here is done...
Shooters who are serious about RAW files don't use Photoshop as their RAW converter. Photoshop may be the number-one image editor, but when you've got 300 RAW files to process it's totally unacceptable for that task. Not only is the output merely good rather than great, Photoshop just isn't engineered for smooth high-volume workflow. If you shoot weddings, catalogs, fashion, or the like; you've got too many files to use Photoshop time-efficiently.
The kind of shooter who needs a D2x will be using something like Capture One. I once used it to convert 300 RAWs under difficult stage lights in two hours. I grouped photos under similar light, fine tuned the converter for one group, set it batch converting the group in the background while I moved on to the next group. This would have taken a loooong time in PS. Once your RAWs (NEFs ORFs CRWs, whatever) have been converted to TIFFs, THEN you move to Photoshop, if necessary.
PhaseOne has already announced that C1Pro 3.7.release.candidate supports the D2x, so I guess the SDK is available to 3rd parties. The overlap of [D2x owners} and {Adobe Camera RAW users} will be a relatively small group.
Forgive me if it's obvious, but I'm part of the dropped on my head several times in my youth club so I don't see why they'd want to do this.
I can just picture the development of this.
Head Honcho: Ah I see our new file format is coming along nicely... Wait! You forgot to encrypt the white balance! For god's sake man think! The White balance! The WHITE BALANCE!!!!!
is if the combination of white balance and your photo are a derived work. In which case, is it you or the camera? Has to be the camera, really. But Nikkon need your permission to make a derivative works from your copyrighted work, don't they?
It's ironic that this is coming from a company that, for many years, kept the (encrypted) file format of Postscript Type 1 fonts a closely-guarded secret.
It took a combined threat from Bitstream (who successfully reverse-engineered the format), Apple and Microsoft (who teamed up to produce a serious alternative, TrueType) to force Adobe to open the file format to the public.
So I guess the same would apply here--either reverse-engineer the Nikon format (a legal course of action in the US, UK and Australia), refuse to buy their products or design and popularize with an superior alternative file format.
And a patent would have yielded 17 years of protection, rather than 9. Bad call on Kodak's part.
Nikon's own application is perfectly ok for adjusting contrast, sharpness and exposure. Why not use that then save and adjust in Photoshop ?
"Sweet llamas of the Bahamas !"
We've covered this previously.
But that won't keep you from the same article you posted on what was it, Friday? There goes the theory that duplicate posts were merely the results laziness. Clearly they're also a result of simply not giving a shit as well.
Freely readable white-balance information is the bedrock of our liberties. Those who would give up essential white balance information to obtain temporary control over copyright infringement deserve neither.
Is that we don't know what the NDA and licensing agreements mean. Imagine it said "you will not operate with competing manufacturers of digital cameras"?
Even, "You may not sue us for patent infringement or you lose the license". That's been done before too.
You can read about it here as it was posted on the 23rd. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=147139&cid=123 25589
Life is not for the lazy.
Well I WAS considering the Nikon 70Ds, but after learning of this, I will be spending a bit more $$$ and go for the Canon 20D.
check out all the specs here: http://dpreview.com/
It's not the destination that matters, but rather the journey.
You bring up a good point, despite the unnecessary cussing. The DMCA only applies to things that are "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under" the copyright laws (other provisions are similar, IIRC). To what copyrighted-work does this encrption scheme limit access? It can't be the photographs . . . Nikon did not contribute in any way. It can't be the camera's firmware . . . how does the this encryption scheme limit when/where/how offen you can access that work?
I'm not a photography buff. Perhaps somone who uses this stuff can explain.
You might be right about the technical aspects. To me as a consumer hower Nikons behaviour illustrates brilliantly the mindset of this company and I refrain from ever entering into a customer/supplier relationship with such entities.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
"when you click the button on the camera, the image you take is yours, not Nikons"
I'm willing to bet that, somewhere in the microprint in that little booklet that came with the camera that you threw away, Nikon says it's the other way around, and you agreed to that when you clicked the button on the camera.
PhotoShop CS2 lists for $599. I think Adobe could probably afford to pay the licensing that Nikon is asking for, rather than just complaining about it to the media. Sorry if I'm not sympathetic to a multi-billion dollar corporation having to deal with another multi-billion dollar corporation's licensing fees.
XeoMage
Typically the SDKs don't provide full, unfettered access to the manufacturer's raw format, just a subset. Canon is as bad as Nikon in this regard. Despite that, Thomas Knoll has usually managed to decode any given camera's raw format well enough that Adobe Camera Raw produces results as good or better than the manufacurer's software and with more parameters that can be adjusted.
.CRW 2 or 3 times faster than Canon's own software.
My experience with a Canon G4 is that ACR not only is more flexible (and even allows recovery of blown highlights if at least one color is not blown on the highlight), but converts images from
Knoll has essentially reverse engineered the formats for the cameras that ACR supports, but is being extra cautious with the Nikon situation because of the possible DMCA legal issues where encryption is involved. There has been no encryption involved in the other formats ACR handles.
Adobe recently unveiled XML-based DNG (Digital NeGative) as a universal open format, which they are encouraging all camera manufacturers to support.
What other digital camera manufacturers have documented their RAW file format?
That entirely misses the point.
Undocumented RAW formats are one thing, and can in most cases be reverse-engineering quite trivially just by using commonsense.
But what Nikon did was to *ENCRYPT* the values contained in one particular set of fields, those holding the white balance information.
This is totally unrelated to the structure of their RAW files being undocumented. It requires a decryption key to release that data (which is the photographer's data anyway, not theirs), and commonsense cannot possibly reveal it.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
If I took the photograph isn't the data mine? Not Mine and NIKONS... Shouldn't I be able to control what parts are encrypted and what parts aren't, so I can get the best posible image/color/detail out of the photograph.
There should be no fear of decrypting this data. Didn't I create that file? Isn't the data even though encrypted mine?
I can't even think of an analogy. Even MS with its word file format, won't document how it works but isn't so evil as to encrypt it.
This is bad form and is another strike against Nikon.
"Fearing the DMCA, Adobe won't reverse-engineer the file"
The poetic justice is lovely this evening.
This was covered so recently that my browser still colors the link as recently visited! :P
Nuff said.
"Adobe won't reverse-engineer the file, slightly reducing Photoshop's support for those files."
Adobe needs to just punish Nikon by stripping all support for Nikon raw images from Photoshop until Nikon caves. Nikon will have a hard time selling digital cameras to professional photographers if Photoshop just spits up all Nikon raw images as improperly formatted.
Is the story poster scared of the "another dupe" tossings? I much preferred "Update to previous story" or some such. Much better then what was used by the story poster. The "We've covered this previously" sounds between a cross of: "Hey idiot, listen to us for the SECOND time" OR "It's a slow news day, we are doing repeats today."
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
More out of control corporations. I simply don't understand why Nikon would pull something like this... It would be the same thing if Kodak decided that no one could develop their film in anything but kodak chemicals.
If Nikon locks out Photoshop, then their sales will plummet. Photoshop users are probably the bulk of their digital camera purchasers.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
One key difference is that Nikon has not only left their file format undocumented, they've actively encrypted a key image parameter, allegedly as a spoiler tactic to prevent 3rd party developers fully parsing the files without signing up as 'approved' developers. If Nikon decides you are a 'bona fide' software company worthy of the honour, you can get hold of an SDK (apparently Windows/Mac C++ only with binary runtime libraries) but won't be given a full description of the file format. This has serious implications for the use of Nikon NEF files as an archival format (will Nikon's SDK components work on whatever OS you are running in 20 years time?), for developers who want to use their own algorithms (like Adobe), and for FOSS projects. Luckily, Dave Coffin has already reverse engineered the decryption algorithm in the current version of his open source dcraw RAW converter, so we're not yet locked out of the NEF format. What isn't yet clear is whether Nikon will continue with this sort of tactic in future NEF versions, and if Adobe will overcome their DMCA concerns to fully support NEF in their ACR raw converter (assuming they're not just grandstanding). Incidentally, there's a brief description by Tom Christiansen of the white balance encryption algorithm here, and a pointer by Thomas Knoll (of Photoshop fame) to the relevant section of the dcraw code here.
What, exactly, has happened with PDFs that Adobe doesn't like?
Hell, they've managed to make most people think you need horribly expensive "Distiller" software, when they could just use GhostScript and PDFCreator. What a racket...
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I'm no lawyer, but I've a feeling here in Scotland the encryption of other people's data without providing them with a means of decrypting it COULD be taken as illegal.
Here in Scotland, preventing someone access to something they own (and you would expect that the photographer owns the data of the photograph) is viewed as theft by the law. It's why car clamping is illegal in Scotland. I'm not sure if there are any cases which provide precedence for this with regards to data, but would be interesting to see Nikon bought to court over this!
Nikon released a statement late last week regarding the "encryption" (not technically encryption, but instead, obfustication) of the RAW format (NEF) photo data taken with a D2X camera:
Nikon: You Are Wrong. Period. And do not insult me by lying.Update: Nikon has removed this statement from their web site.
The thing that galls me about Nikon's statement is that Nikon is essentially telling me that I need to use their processing solution, or one that they approve, or not use the NEF format at all.
They can wax poetic in PR legalese all they want, but at the end of the day, all I am reading is that Nikon is saying that my data is for me to use as they see fit. No, Nikon, it is not.
A camera is an instrument to take a photograph, and that's all. Now, however, the coming of age of digital has married irrevocably cameras and software. Without software, a digital camera is absolutely useless. It produces nothing tangible, and to make that photograph anything more than a small image on the LCD screen on the back of the camera, you simply must have software.
That said, if the images are now aetherial bits, do they not still belong to us, the photographers, or our assignees?
I think the answer to that is yes. They certainly would if they were film images. And has any camera manufacturer ever mandated what film processing methods must be used with photographs taken with their camera? No. It would have been insane for one to even try.
And this is insane now.
As such, I think that the SDK should be freely available to anyone who asks for it, and at the very least, to any owner of a Nikon digital camera. Why should I not be allowed to write my own software? Because Nikon says that I can't, as I am not a 'bona fide' developer? Do I need to be one, to write applications to fiddle with my own images?
No. The data are mine.
Let me use a real world example: I photograph a lot of panoramics. I use Panorama Tools a great deal of the time to stitch those programs together. Now then, PTools does not have an embedded interface for NEF files, especially D2X NEF files. Let's say that I wanted to open my NEF files and input them programmatically into Panorama Tools. With this press release, Nikon is telling me that I cannot have the information to do the task I want to do. In other words, sod off, pay us to play.
This whole issue reminds me much of Gillette, the razor company, when their mantra was "sell the razor cheap and the blades at a high price." Instead this time, it is "sell the camera high and continue to reach into their pockets to allow the photographer to use his/her pictures. Use our software, or someone we like, or do not use your data as you see fit."
Worst of all, this has been enabled by the US government, what with the asinine provision of the Digital Milleneum Copyright Act. The DCMA makes it illegal to reverse engineer encrypted files. Bottom line is that one can argue that NEF files are not encrypted, but in reality, they are, because the data are obfusticated...and without Nikon's blessing, one risks enormous civil fines and prison to bypass Nikon's methods.
I hope at the end of the day Nikon is punished severely by the marketplace for this. I truly hope that Canon makes a point to point out in their marketing that not only do they not charge for their RAW conversion tools but that developers can get the information they need to extend the capabilities of Canon cameras.
That sounds severe, but the only thing Nikon will understand is a beat-down from their potential customers. And this time, Nikon deserves a black eye.
I think you meant "ALL YOUR PHOTOS ARE BELONG TO NIKON". But this is the kind of crap we somehow tolerate in EULAs, but wouldn't begin to think of tolerating for actual physical devices. I wonder where we went wrong.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
IOW, if they don't like you, you're out of luck. If you're not "bona fide", you're out of luck. Guess who gets to define "bona fide"? Don't like how the SDK handles things? Tough; complain to your Nikon rep and maybe they'll do something.
2. I'm not so sure if "it's the same as it ever was" either. Adobe, for example (and according to this page, uses the open source dcraw. (Modulo their modifications.) They don't use manufacturers' SDKs because they usually provide (from what I've read) limited access to the raw data and limited conversion opportunities. (The Nikon SDK only allows you to convert to JPG an TIFF.) Before, Dave Coffin (author of dcraw) only needed to reverse engineer camera X's raw format, while now, if he does that with the Nikon white balance information, he runs afoul of the DMCA -- quite possibly a battle he doesn't want to fight (and I wouldn't blame him). If Dave isn't supporting this new raw format, then Adobe has the choice of running afoul of the DMCA theirselves. (Nice irony, eh?)
3. There are many third partys out there who develop alternative raw converters. Depending on who you ask, these third party converters are better than the one available through the SDK. They are much SOL here.
4. A photographer's workflow is very important to them. If they have a favorite third-party converter, such as Phase One's Camera One, have it well integrated into their workflow, then go out and get a D2X, they could very well be nuking an important part of their workflow for no reason other than a Nikon power grab. This will lead to even grumpier photographers. Not a pretty... well, you get the idea.
They could certainly simply reverse-engineer the format and fight it out in court. But they're kind of in a bind because they like broad applications of the DMCA and don't want to weaken it.
It's unlikely white balance information is copyrightable at all. Which means decrypting it isn't bypassing a technological measure protecting a copyrighted work, which means the DMCA doesn't apply. In any case, the white balance information in a photo isn't copyrighted _by Nikon_ (unless a Nikon employee took the picture), so Adobe could probably get any case dismissed for lack of standing.
It's amusing to see Adobe hoist by its own petard. And even more amusing to see that the format (including encryption) has been reverse-engineered, and will be supported by open-source tools.
is there _any_ valid reason to use closed format files? what is the benefit of using a closed format for pictures? does it help te product? can somebody do something very bad when the file format is open?
i can't find any good idea not to open up your formats, files are just the end product of a process.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
I too have to wonder if the DMCA applys at all. The real answer should come from the market. People should not buy Nikon cameras. If they lock away your data you should not use them.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"And has any camera manufacturer ever mandated what film processing methods must be used with photographs taken with their camera?"
I thought that was one of the reasons for Kodak coming up with their silly disk cameras.
To combat this, Adobe has introduced a new open RAW format called DNG for digital negative. They provide a free converter to convert all of the closed proprietary formats to it and are willing to work with the camera comanies to make sure that the format contains the information they need.
The RAW converter that came with $2500 Minolta SLR I bought does a terrible job. They want me to pay an extra several hundred dollars for the Pro version that does the job decently. All that just to read the damn pictures I take!
Can you imagine if you bought a film camera and got consistently crappy prints from it unless you bought a pro-upgrade lab? At least Adobe takes the time to reverse engineer these proprietary formats and even provides a free tool to convert to an open format.
Nikon might want to consider publishing their format. But it it truly just image information? I thought there was some internal state information included. This might be simply a way to protect their complete 'system,' whose borders reach beyond the physical camera, to the export of jpeg and tiff. It really is their format, after all. Positive persuasion is more appropriate here, not demonization.
Taking a page from another corporations playbook no this, Adobe needs to execute only three things.
Inside, though, I have to smile at Adobe running into compatibility issues with locked proprietary formats.
However, as a longtime FOSS user, I'm going to make a note to steer clear of getting a Nikon when I do buy a digital camera.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Only ones who are truely being locked out are the FOSS developers. The PRO photog is probably using a Mac or maybe a Windows machine with Photoshop. To them, it does not matter if they can edit the RAW image directly, what matters is that they can convert it to some other uncompressed format like a uncompressed TIFF file. Once that's done, they can photoshop it to their hearts content. Since the camera likely comes with software that will do this, it's just a simple conversion step.
That's not to say that I think Nikon is dumb for doing this. Is there any reason but vendor lock in for them to do this? No. I mean they already somewhat have this with thier lenses and now they want to do this with thier software??
Gorkman
Uhhh... you realize that many large cities prohibit the sale of photos of their buildings without buying the rights? Or that selling photos of photos, ads, sculptures, paintings, artwork, etc can get you sued if you don't acquire the rights to the original? It's called "photography clearance".
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Let's see what kind of DMCA based argument Nikon might be able to use. You say that "the DMCA protects from unauthorized access from copyrighted works" which is its claimed intention.
So let's look at the copyright issue. The image you create is your copyright, no question. However we're not talking about that, but the white balance data. This is generated by the firmware based on data provided by and copyright of Nikon. That makes it a derivative work and so also subject to their copyright. Based on that Nikon could make a DMCA case, since the data has been encrypted. Is that something you'd be willing to defend in court?
Then there's another possible problem. I haven't read through the full DMCA, but the problem is this. Who has authority to grant the right to break encryption? While it plainly should be the copyright owner legal matters are rarely as straightforward as they should be.
http://www.openraw.org/ OpenRAW is a group of photographers and other interested people advocating the open documentation of digital camera RAW files.
Comments from others say that the white balance support in Nikon's plugin does not allow use of the original white balance, but only presets based on the original white balance; it will not work in photoshop raw. It only helps when you bring the image into photoshop, and photoshop does not get to do anything with the WB data.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I figured this was the case. The only issue is with the RAW unprocessed data from the camera CCD, which consumers will not be touching except maybe out of curiosity.
Professionals, as in all disciplines, will use the best tool for the job. If that tool happens not to be photoshops converter - so be it. I can appreciate how it's nice to be able to import images right into photoshop from the camera etc. - but IMO that's where a plugin should come into place. Whether it's Adobe that writes it, or Nikon - doesn't matter. If it's Adobe, they'll have a hard time selling it - but Nikon could probably sell it for a couple bucks.
Makes it pretty obvious why they aren't anxious to help Adobe, not that I agree with their position. Photoshop is an expensive and professional tool, Nikon just wants to tap into that market with some software as well - plus that allows them to control the quality and impact on its end users (who they'd have to support for importing into Photoshop with Adobes tool anyway)
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
Thats a side issue and nothing to do with the topic at hand, I was being specific with regard to ownership between the customer and Nikon, but you are correct.
Jonathanjk.com
Which is.... not copyright.
You still own the copyright, even if you need to make agreements to use the photographs commercially.
It's called reality.
cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
Wouldn't that open them up to antitrust lawsuits? Anticompetetive actions and all..
While you are correct about disk cameras and to a degree APS cameras, my comment is based upon SLRs and now DSLRs.
:-)
It's been so long since I used an Instamatic-style camera I often overlook the the low end of the market.
Certainly even the D50 would not be the 'low-end' of Nikon's digital line...it's aimed at the entry market for folks transitioning to DSLRs. I can guarantee you that the target for my camera, the D2X, is the pro market.
I've seen reference to a few companies who have reverse-engineered this new format, and of course Adobe chooses not to do that, are you aware of any product currently shipping willing to use Nikon's SDK?
I'm a nature photographer.
So how come no one's screaming about Sony's encrypted raw format? They encrypt the entire thing, not just the white balance.
Does Adobe Camera RAW handle that? If so why aren't they bitching about it? If not, why aren't they bitching about it?
Clearly they're also a result of simply not giving a shit as well.
Of course they don't, they're perl scripts!
They just pick up on keywords like 'patent', 'google', 'apple' and submit. If only someone would write one that checked the previous 48 hours of posts...
New poll: which is your favorite perl script?
() timothy
() CmdrTaco
() CowboyNeal
() Zonk
() Hemos
Seriously, is it just me, or has Zonk been doing 90%+ of the editing for days now? I'm questioning Zonk's ability, just wondering where the rest of the staff is.
Okay, I can't believe you didn't get a response to that.
I did a quick search on google and can't find an answer to this ... please tell me you're kidding about that existing in the EULA? (Is there even a EULA on a digital camera?) I mean, it appears to be sarcastic, but we've seen some pretty crazy EULA's before.
Second, it's only white balance information. It's what the photographer told the camera about "white" or "gray" at the time of the shot, but it doesn't change the underlying image data.
Why are you minimizing its importance? The photographer has chosen this white balance by looking at the ambient light, and obviously wants it recorded, not lost. Having to guess what the lighting conditions were at the time so that WB can be applied retrospectively is the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard in a long time. The camera knows the lighting conditions (that's why we BOUGHT a camera with auto-WB after all), and now it is denying that data from us.
On top of that, we may have supplied our own custom WB based on grey card exposures etc, and now that info that we took pains to record is being kept from us. This is just plain draconian.
OK at this point I'm fed up with the Slashdot crowd completely misrepresenting the situation here by continually spewing incorrect facts. Now Nikon is doing something completely stupid here, but you should at least hang them on the stupid things that they are doing and not the stupid things that everyone thinks they are doing.
Here are the Facts:
Nikon provides FREE tools to work with NEF files. Both Nikon View and PictureProject are provided free with Nikon cameras and they both fully support working with NEF images. Now their support is minimal, but it lets you do a lot of what you need.
Nikon provides a FREE Photoshop plugin to work with NEF files. It's not nearly as fully featured as ACR, but it is free and lets you adjust White Balance and Exposure Compensation (again very crappy compared to ACR or Nikon Capture).
Nikon provides a FREE SDK that allows you to include NEF support in your application for free. There are no licensing fees for this and they give it to pretty much anyone. Of course there are those that will bitch about needing to be a "bona fide" software developer but that language just comes from a very crappy Japanese to English translation. I don't know exactly what Nikon meant with that but I have yet to hear of anyone asking for the SDK and not getting it.
Adobe is the only one who has even mentioned the DMCA. Nikon hasn't mentioned it, they haven't threatened anyone and they have yet to take any action against anyone supporting D2X NEF decoding (Bibble is decrypting the WB). Nikon hasn't really explained this asinine move but they haven't threatened anyone either. Remember it was Adobe that put a programmer in jail for DMCA violations. Adobe, rather than challenge the DMCA has decided to respect it since they have used it in the past. It would be far more respectable for Adobe if they announced that they were going to break the encryption and be prepared challenge the DMCA in court. But no, they'd rather stand by it so they can use it to their advantage down the road.
Nikon has not asserted any ownership of your images. This outcry has come from the general bitching that everyone has with the encryption issue. Everyone's falsely concluding that just because something is encrypted in the file that that means that Nikon owns your image. How absurd is that! My guess is that there's more than just white balance that is encrypted in the file. The reason for the outcry is because out of the stuff that is encrypted, the WB settings is what is used by ACR and other RAW converters. I wouldn't be surprised if proprietary information about the CCD, the Lens used, how the lens works, etc. was stored in the NEF and that sensitive information is also encrypted. It's just that the RAW converters need the WB information and that too just happens to be encrypted. The RAW converters just ignore the other stuff because they don't know what it is.
It's perfectly easy to hang Nikon on this without messing up all the facts.
Nikon is encrypting the *white balance* portion of the RAW format, not the entire file. The Nikon-produced plugin for Photoshop gives you a nice little drop-down for adjusting white balance. I doubt that they would stop supplying that with the cameras, as a great number of photographers are using Photoshop.
BTW, Corel makes an excellent RAW ---> whatever format converter that is freely available (yes, free as in beer!). I think it's called RAWShooter Essentials? It's no faster than the Nikon coverter, however, it cleans up memory after itself and doesn't run your CPU up to 100% during the conversion. I use it all the time to supply JPGs to clients.
--Insert catchy
The paper is here:
http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html
Essentially they're trying to create an open, ISO certified format that is capable of holding all the RAW information that a camera maker would need. This would future proof images so that they can be read by a number of tools.
cheers,
Kris
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
A lot of people don't seem to understand why the white balance has value to a professional photographer. When you shoot RAW, you can completely correct for ambient lighting after the fact by adjusting the white balance, and without any loss of quality.
Even just for "pro-sumer" cameras, this feature is great when working with ambient light.
This whole issue reminds me much of Gillette, the razor company, when their mantra was "sell the razor cheap and the blades at a high price."
In your analogy, is your $5000 camera the razor or the blade? If it's the razor: a) that must be some damn expensive software, and b) I'm in the wrong industry.
I still have a darkroom under my steps.
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
I've used Canon RAW Converter all of twice. While the results are good, Photoshop does better. Where it really counts, though, is speed -- ACR is many times faster than CRC in processing the file and updating previews. Where CRC chugs along if I dare touch a slider, ACR is almost instantaneous.
The other thing most people are missing, not being working photographers or dedicated enthusiasts, is workflow.
It's much faster to do everything from Photoshop and a familiar interface than it is to have to (a) preprocess using the vendor's software or (b) open it in Photoshop using the vendor's horrible plug-in.
Think of it like fueling your car: instead of pumping directly into the tank, you have to pump it into a gas can, wait for the pump to shut off, and then empty the gas can into your tank. It still gets the job done, but it's not nearly as easy.
Adobe *.dng (digital negative) files are a raw
format that Adobe would like every camera to
support. Whitepoint info is part of the DNG standard.
It's no surprise that Adobe would dislike having
their open and documented free standard being
ignored by Nikon.
Not really. The companies would have had a leap on all the research and understanding it would bring.
Nikon is not only excluding adobe, but in effect is doing the same to all professional photographers. I do not know any photographers who dare use anything but photoshop. Nikon's proprietary software is barely usable, and few professionals would want to use it. Nikon should give their customers what is wanted and make the format open.
Making it hard to find does not make it illegal to figure out how it works.
With the Nikon approach, as stated Nikon has actually made it so that (as far as Adobe can tell) it's ILLEGAL to even try!!!
And that is a HUGE difference. One that in the end is probably going to sink Nikon if they do not stop as Adobe moves forward with ever more impressive levels of RAW support and the workflow benefits you gain from it.
If you were a pro, hearing Adobe say they cannot read WB information from your RAW files beans the D2X is not even in consideration as a camera anymore. It's a toy for prosumers now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nikon is notorious for its deliberate slowness. I think adobe is trying to prod some better support out of nikon for the d2x as CS2 is coming out momentarily. And get people talking more about DNG.
But I agree that the people making the most noise about this are the least likely to ever actually use such a camera as the D2X.
-
If Adobe sued Nikon over this matter, Adobe would win. The courts would say that Adobe can legally reverse engineer NEF file formats, including the bits that are "encrypted" and many of us would rejoice.
However, that is the last thing in the world they want. They do not want a court ruling that permits this reverse engineering of file formats. It would create massive problems for them and their ability to defend their "intellectual property" in other arenas.
Adobe won't sue. But they will apply what pressure they can in a public forum to get everybody upset with Nikon.
You couldn't be more right. Of course the project teams should change their perception of how licencing works. So should consumers. Nikon has made it clear that they do not consider what you do with the tools they sell you to be your own property. So I will never purchase a digital camera from Nikon. Lesson learned. Thanks, I'll pass that lesson on to all of my other photographer friends. Also, Minolta seems to have a similar opinion. So looks like I'll keep recomending and purchasing Canon photography equipment.
So Kodak got away with it at the low and and now Nikon thinks they can get away with it on digital.
We see these things with DVD burners (Powerbook) and such. How many hardcore geeks with the capability to do this have a Nikon camera though...my guess is that it was avoided in the first place.
Nikon Capture generally produces better results than ACR on my D70.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
At least the market kicks the ass of those foolish enough to try this stuff.
The whole purpose of DNG is to encapsulate the exact same raw data in a clearly-defined, portable way. If DNG is designed right---and I assume it is---it's simply a better, more portable way of encapsulating the same data.
Any lossy recoding of the lossless data is a boneheaded idea, and whoever thought of it should be spanked.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Yeah, but this was for a Windows-using supervisor of mine, who wanted to just be able to print to PDF from Windows. PDFCreator is simply a printer driver that acts as a wrapper for an included copy of GhostScript (which I think is missing some fonts). It's one-step as opposed to printing to a ps file and then doing a command-line conversion to PDF.
It's not the Linux Way, but it's a drop-in replacement for the Distiller driver that Adobe charges through the nose for.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Hmm. The only problem I've run into converting PS to PDF with GS was the ugly-font problem caused by using the tex--dvips--ps2pdf workflow; this was fixed by just using pdftex.
What are you feeding to GhostScript? Though it might be a pain for you to do so, I encourage you to hop on over to http://bugs.ghostscript.com/ and file a bug, with testcases and such, if one hasn't been filed already.
It's never been a problem for me, but I've only fed it particular types of files. I would be curious to know what "serious" PDF work is, so I don't run into the same problems you have.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
... without having to pay Nikon any more $, either directly or indirectly through the cost of software whose developers had to pay for a license to Nikon's SDK. Call me crazy.
I won't call you crazy, but I will say RTF response from Nikon: it clearly says "... the SDK is provided to the developer at no charge...." So, theoretically, Adobe could issue a free update to ACR that allowed processing of the D2X's NEF files. The fact that it appears that they're choosing to provide support through a new version of ACR, which requires CS2, is their choice, not Nikon's. To Adobe's credit, they are offering the DNG Converter to convert the RAW files to DNG format for use by earlier versions of ACR for people who do not yet wish to upgrade to CS2.
So, really, I wouldn't expect the "inevitable bulk of Nikon buyers" to thank you for your "pity and righteous anger" on their behalf.
Thanks for confirming what I suggested in an earlier post; this is useful information for me and others. Unfortunately, in today's world, many people think Photoshop is the end all of image processing and it just isn't always so.
On the subject of a sibling poster's comments on workflow: yes, workflow is a factor but it is only one factor. Speed of processing can be important in some applications but so can maximizing image quality. In cases where image quality reigns supreme, if Capture works better, the time will be taken and the workflow will bend.
Typically the SDKs don't provide full, unfettered access to the manufacturer's raw format, just a subset. Canon is as bad as Nikon in this regard.
...) are different beasts, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. As has already been mentioned, Capture is well-regarded by many for its image quality (though not for its speed). Some find its output superior to ACR's.
Do you know for a fact that Nikon's SDK provides access to only a subset of the NEF data? I find that when a statement starts with "Typically...." that there's some handwaving going on. What, specifically, makes you think Nikon's SDK is "bad" in this regard?
While your other commentary may be relevant to Canon, I would caution readers not to automatically infer that the same rules apply to Nikon. As most photographers know, Canons and Nikons (and Leicas, and
I have heard that Canon's RAW processing software is pretty crappy and that ACR is better. Let's not assume that that means Nikon's software is necessarily inferior to ACR.
The Photoshop (version 5 and earlier) document used to be an open part of Adobes free SDK, this is no longer the case and you'll notice no competing software can support .psd features beyond what was in Photoshop 5. Perhaps Nikon should ask for a tit for tat, as non of there software can use Adobes files.
And they could not have practices that leap for 17 years if the Kodak patents were written properly...
"Keep landing your troops"
"I will make it legal"
I've seen a few comments that the JPEGs that Canon cameras come up with are a lot nicer than Nikon's.
Check this: http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/
It seems, I think, that the RAW conversion Canon provides is nowhere near optimal, but that there's software you can get to work around that. Because, really, Canon isn't a software company, they're a camera company. I'd rather have them making better cameras, and letting someone else fiddle with the software.
'Course, dcraw decrypts Nikon's WB data anyway. So the whole point's semi-moot, except on principle.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
When I went to get my DSLR, I remember telling people who asked me why I was making such a big deal out of it that it's like getting married. That every lens I get (well, except for those Tamron or Sigma interchangeable-mount lenses) represents a further buy-in to the system, every expensive flash with fifty options and tie-ins, every accessory, means that I've dug myself further into being inextricably attached to the brand, since chucking all that equipment becomes ever more unthinkable.
I still kinda miss the feel of the satisfyingly metal-cased Nikon FE-2 I was using, and the huge hunk of glass on the front, the 50mm f/1.4. And I especially miss the split-prism focusing screen.
Like many others, I miss some parts of the old ways. Unlike most others, these things have nothing to do with the switch from film to digital.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca