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.

Comments

Hmm

[Agret]

Will this turn into something like Open Office's support for the .DOC format?

An unforeseen consequence of the move to digital?

[Zog The Undeniable]

I guess silly software patents should be thrown into the film vs digital debate. There's not a lot you can do to prevent someone else's brand of standard format film or paper being used in your camera, for example.

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.

Both

[StormyWeather]

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...

Re:Both

[rebelcool]

I actually am a pro photographer.

ACR (adobe's raw converter) has always produced suboptimal results with NEF, so many don't use it. It takes quite a bit of profiling and tweaking to get an image that doesnt look flat and dull out of it - something other raw converters dont seem to have a problem with. So typically you export to TIFF in another converter, then do your photoshopping.

Most really high end camera systems use completely proprietary formats that only their own software can read. I've got a 22mp digital back here that costs 5 times what a D2X costs and it can only be handled with its own software. This has been pretty normal for years ...

As a professional, this is an annoyance, but at the same time, I can't say it bugs me too much. Photographers arent quite as obsessed with things like this as typical slashdotters are. Got better things to do...

It is however, a PR nightmare. Nikon's never been too good at PR. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I think theres much more going on behind the scenes between adobe and nikon than is let on.

What will happen

[seanyboy]

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.

Re:Sue Nikon under the DMCA!

[Dachannien]

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?

They're free, we're free

[Deep Fried Geekboy]

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.

This is a tempest in a teapot, and here's why...

[LaminatorX]

To put things in context, I'm one of the specialists in this sort of thing at one of the oldest and most respected photographic suppliers in the midwest.

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.