Nikon encrypting white balance in new NEF files...

[KirkDarling]

Discussions over the reluctance of camera manufacturers to leap to a third party ("standard") RAW format, discussions over the reluctance of manufacturers to release all data on their formats, and this move by Nikon suggest that the manufacturers have a significantly different view of what RAW is for from many users.

The typical user attitude is "the image data is mine, and so is all information about whatever format the image happens to be in." Photographers tend to think of the RAW as being the analogy of a film negative, thus want the ability to produce a print from it now or many years from now.

But it doesn't appear that manufacturers feel the same way. This does have a film analogy: Kodachrome and Kodaks proprietary process. Also, within the digital data world, I ask this as an open question (not rhetorical, because I really don't know for sure): Are all (or any) data encryption systems "open source?" If one uses a proprietary system to encrypt his data, does the company that provided the encryption application provide decryption information to others?

It can be argued that data encryption is a different issue--it would be absurd to make it open source--but it does bear on the question of whether a data format intended to be purely transitory must be made open source.

I suspect manufacturers do not see the RAW as an archivable digital "negative." I suspect they see it as purely a temporary transitory form--more like a [b]undeveloped[b/] film, and that a TIFF or JPEG is actually the "digital negative" in the process. Thus, they are required to provide a means to immediately process the RAW after shooting, but not required to guarantee the RAW can be reprocessed in perpetuity (just as Kodak does not guarantee that Kodachrome processing will be available in perpetuity).

I've found in many other areas of doing business with people that it's counterproductive to ascribe disagreements to the other party being evil. It's probably more productive to try to discover from what point of view the manufacturers are looking at the situation. It would be nice if they spent more time talking about company vision and mission at the product level rather than using every media moment selling products.

[DanSroka]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect manufacturers do not see the RAW as an archivable digital "negative." I suspect they see it as purely a temporary transitory form--more like a undeveloped film, and that a TIFF or JPEG is actually the "digital negative" in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting point Kirk.

It's always interesting to remember that raw files have only been widely used for a very short time. Photographers, camera makers, and software companies all think of raw files in different ways. The camera manufacturer wants a file formats that capture the full possibilities of their hardware, and reflect all of their technical innovations. Software companies want all raw file formats to easily open in their software, with a minimum of technical and legal hurdles. Photographers want a format that is robust, yet stable, and has a chance of permanance. We are all approaching this subject from different perspectives, and it might be years before we all hash out the best way for raw files to function.

Dan

[ QUOTE ]
I use "AS-SHOT" 90% of the time with my 1DMkII RAW files in ACR. It's usually very very good...particularly when using AWB.

The thing I noticed when I first opened the 1DMkII box is how Canon provides EVERYTHING you need to get shooting, including all of the software applications. They don't sell the software separately - it's free. They are acknowledging that the software is an important part of the overall production workflow, and they provide it as part of the package. I like that philosophy.

Contrast that with Nikon, where you have to buy almost everything separately including the key Nikon Capture application. It's a nickle-and-dime-you-to-death philosophy that is just annoying. But it is obviously a philosophy they believe in strongly because they are now implementing software "protections" to make Nikon Capture a requirement in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Canon is giving away free copies of ACR now? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[DavidHarpe]

[ QUOTE ]
Canon is giving away free copies of ACR now? [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Find me a full-time professional shooter that does not own and use Photoshop.

[jimdunham]

My thanks to Bruce, Andrew and others for sharing their considerable insight on this important matter.

On Luminous Landscape, MR cites a recent Jeff Schewe post on PhotoshopNews as matching his own position on this subject:

While the battle for supremacy in digital cameras should be a well fought battle, the battle must end at the point...

I concur and think this is an important statement.

Best,
Jim

[Peter_Galbavy]

[ QUOTE ]
Find me a full-time professional shooter that does not own and use Photoshop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may not be full time, but I am a professional. I do not own or use or intened to own or use Photoshop. There are many different lines of business within the generic label "Professional Photographer" some of which will require their own graphics editing skills and tools, others not.

I just received a call this morning explaining that the DNG format is apparently truly free of legal and royalty encumbrances from a legal eagle I trust. Assuming this to be true, I'm in full support of an open raw format, with changes, additions, deletions to the spec controlled by an independent international organization such as http://www.iso.org/

Second, while I don't think any camera manufacturer should incorporate roadblocks in it's RAW, (or other) files, and I'm sure Nikon will rectify this with a simple firmware update, I don't see it as a big deal in real world terms. To quote what Thomas Knoll actually said, repeated on the same list Jim referenced, by AJM;

“This has absolutely no effect on the quality of the final result out of Camera Raw (it is just the starting point and is nearly always fine tuned in any case), and the new multiple file features of Camera Raw 3 actually make it nearly painless to perform similar adjustments on a large number of images. Beta testers of Camera Raw 3.1 are very happy with the Photoshop CS2/Bridge/Camera Raw workflow when processing D2X files, despite the white balance issue.”

However, I still find the Adobe stock/directory issue dispicable, and have lost a great amount of respect for Adobe with that, and the heavy handedness they, (or their 'independent consultants'), have displayed in the Nikon fiasco. And to think just a month ago I thought they were the best thing since Pepsi Cola....

IMO, of course.

Mastrianni