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.
Will this turn into something like Open Office's support for the .DOC format?
Have you metaroderated recently?
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
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.
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
Nikon says they will provide a SDK for "bona fide software developers". I wonder what they are?
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...
Since the DMCA specifically permits reverse engineering for purposes of interoperability, it's unlikey that those inside the US have a problem either. Well, not yet another problem. You know what I mean.
That is true. Nikon has provided software which functions as a means of bypassing an encryption scheme which protects copyrighted works to which they don't hold the copyright (the copyright belongs to the photographer). Seems like anybody who has taken a picture with one of these cameras would have standing to bring a DMCA complaint against Nikon.
Guess that knife cuts both ways, eh?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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!
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.
Adobe has also been a successful defendant in a DMCA lawsuit over font software embedded in PDFs. The court held that non-mandatory bit flags that can be used for copy protection are not effective access controls under the DMCA and that disregarding those flags is not necessarily a violation of the DMCA. (The lawsuit was brought by Agfa Monotype Corporation.)
Don't forget Adobe's opinion on closed formats (eBook) and the attempts of people to make interoperable tools. The last time someone tried it, he ended up being arrested.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
it's simply a tempest in a teapot,
No, Nikon are obviously market testing the we-encrypt-your-data waters and trying to set a precedent.
Future models will be much more restrictive. If there is no backlash now when do you think people should take a stand?
Kudos to Adobe on this one.
---
DRM - Democracy Restriction & Manipulation