Nikon encrypting white balance in new NEF files...

[DavidHarpe]

A thread over on Adobe Forums reports that Nikon has encrypted the white balance data in NEF files for the D2X and D2HS:

http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/w....0@.3bb9e9e8/1
(you'll have to register if you aren't a member)

From Thomas Knoll, a lead Adobe developer:

[ QUOTE ]
Nikon has never disclosed proprietary NEF data to Adobe. However, Nikon made a significant change with the Nikon D2X and D2Hs cameras. They decided to ENCRYPT the white balance data inside the NEF file for these cameras. Previously, the white balance data was stored in non-encrypted format, and was readable to third party raw converters using simple reverse engineering of the file format.

While any encryption system that stores the decryption key inside a PC computer program (vs. having the user type in the a decryption key) is fairly easy to crack (Bibble has already broken Nikon's encryption algorithm for the D2X), it does raise legal obstacles. Nikon might consider breaking the white balance encryption a violation of DMCA, and sue Adobe.
...
Adobe is still going to support the D2X in the upcoming Camera Raw 3.1 release. However, because of the white balance encryption, Camera Raw will not be able (unless Nikon backs down real soon) to read the "as shot" white balance from the camera, and users will be more likely to have to adjust the while balance manually in the Camera Raw dialog, since Camera Raw's default white balance will not match the cameras default white balance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only reason I can think of that Nikon would do this would be to "encourage" people to use Nikon Capture. Encrypting this kind of information is a very bad idea. I really hope the trend does not continue and extend into other areas/manufacturers. Thoughts?

[DierkHaasis]

Well, I cannot actually blame a company for trying to save their investment. According to a Nikon source I recently met (nothing high-ranking though), Nikon does actually make available info about their RAW formats, at least as an SDK. No idea if this is right.

From a practical perspective I am a bit miffed at Nikon, since their own Capture does not have the same smooth work-flow as ACR offers; Adobe simply put its converter into the program most likely used to touch up the picture. NC is also rather slow, and from what I read even slower with D2x files.

If one uses the "As shot" setting most of the time, neither ACR, Raw Shooter, Bibble nor NC are a must - Picture Project will automatically convert NEFs to the settings provided in the file. Otherwise - setting WB manually - it doesn't matter zip if "As shot" is encrypted.

Much more interesting is that you will need NC for tethered shooting of, say, product shots; it's the only way to shoot a Nikon D remote from a computer.

[Peter_Galbavy]

Two points; First an SDK is *useless*. The reason people write, package and sell RAW converters is because that (think) they can do better than the manufacturers own ones. Allowing only SDK access limits the developer to (a) the platforms chosen by the SDK authors and (b) the algorithms for access that they choose.

Second, I can't see how the DMCA would apply as you are not using technological means to decode copyright data. The copyright in the NEF file data is that of the photographer's, the copyright of the NEF file format is Nikon's, but only applies to the specification for the binary data - i.e. the specification document. The white balance data in turn would normally be considered too "small" to copyright in and of it's own. Then there is the issue of access to "interfaces" for the development of accessories.

I am no legal professional, and even if I was, I am in the UK and applying my UK and International experience...

[AndrewRodney]

It's one thing to decide not to write an SDK, it's another to go out of your way to encrypt useful data. I supposed this is a pretty firm indication about how they fell about .DNG. The people who suffer are the photographers.

Nikon isn't a software company by a long shot (at least based on the pretty crappy software I've seen from them). Again, I think the people who suffer the most from this isn't Adobe or Nikon but Nikon customers. They should concentrate on doing what they do well and be happy someone else will take the burden of software out of their hands.

As for the DMCA and the legal issues, my take from reading this from Thomas is yes, a company trying to go after Adobe wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But that doesn't stop companies from doing this and it's simply not worth the hassles. I'm sure Adobe has a heck of a lot of lawyers who simply advised them that it's not worth it to. So in the end, the encryption doesn't affect Adobe at all, it affects customers in how their camera company feels they should be treated. This and the "you don't need Photoshop" nonsense is certainly not providing Nikon any good will with photographers.

[DavidHarpe]

Good point about DNG. Since they were monkeying with the RAW software anyway, they could have just as easily moved to DNG (or at least provided it as another format option). Instead they chose to close their own format even further. Really disappointing.

[AlexJones]

Andrew is right again! From my point of view it would be better for Nikon to work as hard as they can at making cameras and lenses. Work with Adobe to make sure that Photoshop can do the best job possible with their files because Adobe is not going away. If Nikon would work with Adobe maybe their files and workflow could be superior to the other camera makers. Maybe Adobe could help them to make it even better. No one knows more about pixels than Adobe. While Nikon is at it they could make a FULL FRAME chip to complement their new relationship with Adobe (OK I still dream and digress). Please Nikon, stop causing us problems and show the loyal shooters some loyalty as well.

[David_Pennybaker]

I think they've gone nuts.