Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Blasts Nikon's Closed File Format

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the starting-a-fist-fight dept.

Encryption 347

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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nikon (5, Funny)

wirah (707347) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334922)

Nikon are screwing open source developers in the foot too :(

Re:Nikon (5, Funny)

DrXym (126579) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334956)

Mixed metaphors are fun! The hands on the other foot now!

Re:Nikon (5, Funny)

caluml (551744) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335060)

This article tries to turn the sow's ear of an overstretched metaphor into the silk purse of a pithy comment, but winds up counting it's chickens in a castle built on sand as the skeletons in the closet come home to roost.

Stolen from somewhere I can't remember.

Re:Nikon (5, Funny)

Stregone (618612) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335126)

Keep an eye out for an old dude with a sports almanac from the future!

Re:Nikon (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335186)

"I don't need a compass to tell which way the wind shines."

-- Mr Furious, "Ticking Time-bomb of Rage"

Re:Nikon (5, Funny)

Kadmium (679058) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335210)

I bet you were burning the midnight oil at both ends to come up with that one.

Re:Nikon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335020)

Ewww....

Re:Nikon (5, Informative)

mballe (878747) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335064)

What other digital camera manufacturers have documented their RAW file format?

Adobe has previously been having a similar problem with the Fuji WB's as it can been seen here, taken from the following thread on usenet:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/adobe.photosho p.windows/browse_thread/thread/8636502afc4e20f9/60 6e144ad0af19c2?q=fuji+s2+white+balance+adobe&rnum= 7&hl=en#606e144ad0af19c2 [google.com]

>Chris Cox Feb 20 2003, 10:08 pm show options
>It's out of agreement because the plugin cannot read the FUJI
>proprietary and undocumented data, and is making a guess at
>the whitepoint based on the image contents.
>
>If you would like to see this improved, please contact Fuji and
>ask them to work with Adobe to read their proprietary and
>undocumented file format(s).

Hmm (5, Interesting)

Agret (752467) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334923)

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

Re:Hmm (4, Informative)

RaffiRai (870648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334933)

Ptobably not, as Nikon has already responded violently and Adobe is a rich, proprietary company, who doesn't want people writing unlicensed support for the PSD, and doesn't like what's happened with PDFs.

Re:Hmm (1)

Agret (752467) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335004)

What about through plugins though?

Re:Hmm (2, Informative)

RaffiRai (870648) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335165)

Nikon already provides support through plugins. Adobe wants to integrate it. i.e., make it so that 'It Just Works.' (tm)

Re:Hmm (1)

nomaan (685185) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335218)

you mean, adobe will have less than satisfatory support for the Nikon format?

eos20d (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12334926)

eos20d owns you.
fp for adi.
yeah!

FP!!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12334927)

Fuck you taco my bitch. Like some salty donkey balls.

You fail it! (1)

hardcorebuttsecks (871562) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335034)

Jew!

Okay, I... wait (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12334929)

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?

Duplicate Posting (2, Informative)

jools33 (252092) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334981)

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...

Here is a solution. (2, Interesting)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334932)

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?

Re:Here is a solution. (4, Insightful)

NeuralAbyss (12335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334940)

They're a US company; the same way that soliciting somebody to commit a crime is (usually) criminal, I'm assuming they'd also be found to be guilty in a civil court when the DMCA is broken.

Re:Here is a solution. (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334992)

But it doesn't matter if they broke the law where its unapplicable? Remember the guy who broke the encryption on Adobe E-books? He did it in Russia and if he never went stateside he would never of been arrested.

Re:Here is a solution. (2, Informative)

BobTheLawyer (692026) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335065)

Adobe is stateside. The US courts will have jurisdiction over its actions, wherever they are committed.

Re:Here is a solution. (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335084)

Oh okay, just wanted to know more clearly as I don't live in the US anyway, thanks.

Why do Americans have this problem? (1, Informative)

shreevatsa (845645) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335217)

You mean "he would never have been arrested".

Re:Here is a solution. (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335161)

>They're a US company; the same way that
>soliciting somebody to commit a crime is
>(usually) criminal, I'm assuming they'd also be
>found to be guilty in a civil court when the
>DMCA is broken.

So, for the sake of argument, if making cars was illegal in USA, any american company that would manufacture and sell cars in other countries (were it would be legal) would be commiting a crime in USA?

What about a situation were a specific action is required to make business in some country, but that activity would be illegal in USA, would that mean that no USA company could operate in that country?

Re:Here is a solution. (1)

NeuralAbyss (12335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335180)

No idea; you'd have to ask someone who's familiar with the USA's laws.

IANAL, and IANAUS Resident.

I'm guessing that they would be fine, as long as they do not sell their cars into the US.

If, instead, as Adobe would hypothetically do with Photoshop - perform illicit reverse engineering overseas, import into the US, then sell a product depending on said reverse engineering, I think they would be in the shit.

Re:Here is a solution. (1)

jon855 (803537) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334944)

I think since ADOBE is selling its products, it does not matter if you break the code outside as long youre selling on the inside, unless ADOBE "Slips the code into the internet" and then we could use it as an open source project. We can't revert what spills into the internet, esp with the codes.

Re:Here is a solution. (1)

Overcoat (522810) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334961)

A couple of guesses:

1. Nikon would try to sue anyway and Adobe wants to avoid the legal headache.

2. Adobe wants to settle the issue nicely without alienating a manufacturer of high-end cameras, cameras which are no doubt used by a lot of people who use Photoshop to edit their photos.

Re:Here is a solution. (2, Insightful)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335014)

Nikon has competition, Adobe just bought theirs out. Who do you think will suffer over a format tussle?

because (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12334969)

some people (people working for adobe) actually have ethics, unlicke the average pirating slashdotter, who holds no respect for intellectual property

Re:because (3, Insightful)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335005)

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.

Re:Here is a solution. (1)

EpsCylonB (307640) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335074)

didn't adobe use the DMCA against some russian guy ?

Adobe can't have it both ways.

Re:Here is a solution. (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335096)

Oh I agree, but they had to wait for him to enter the states before arresting him. This is the basis for my original post, if he could do it out of the states then so could Adobe, but as somebody pointed out, the DMCA would still apply to them because the company is still in the US regardless of whether they break the encryption on non-US soil.

No one is screwed.Unless they've been so all along (5, Insightful)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334936)

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.

Re:No one is screwed.Unless they've been so all al (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335036)

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 [lwn.net] . 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.

Re:No one is screwed.Unless they've been so all al (1)

mwillems (266506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335039)

As far as I am aware, Adobe had not paid - they used a widely used public domain (OSS) piece of decoder software instead.

Re:No one is screwed.Unless they've been so all al (4, Insightful)

Ben Hutchings (4651) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335056)

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.

An unforeseen consequence of the move to digital? (4, Interesting)

Zog The Undeniable (632031) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334937)

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.

When Kodak introduced the magenta-leaving coupler (1)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335150)

... 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.

Hooray for the DMCA (5, Informative)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334938)

Fortunately, outside the Land Of The Free(tm), anyone can access Nikon's encrypted data [lwn.net] with a simple GNU/Linux application [cybercom.net]

Re:Hooray for the DMCA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335040)

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.

Re:Hooray for the DMCA (3, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335049)

it's unlikey that those inside the US have a problem either.
But there's enough uncertainty for this to be Adobe's cited reason for not doing it. Remember, DVD Jon cracked CSS to make his Linux system interoperate with commercial DVDs, but he still got severely dragged over the coals before being exonerated.

Re:Hooray for the DMCA (1)

Wordsmith (183749) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335081)

DVD Jon wasn't in the US. He probably would have been dragged over the coals in the US, too, though.

Re:Hooray for the DMCA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335095)

But that's communist open sores software! My company won't touch that crap with a ten foot pole because we love America and crony capitalism.

Re:Hooray for the DMCA (2, Insightful)

Pofy (471469) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335168)

>Fortunately, outside the Land Of The Free(tm),
>anyone can access Nikon's encrypted data with a

Considering it is NOT Nikon's data, I don't see the problem to start with.

Both (5, Interesting)

StormyWeather (543593) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334945)

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 (1)

Fussen (753791) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334976)

Yeah definately shooting in the foot and whinning. It seems like this should be a non-issue. We're talking about WHITE BALANCE.

If Nikon starts to kick up dust, I'm just going to take my business to Canon.

At least the EOS line won't give me some ninny-nanny meta data exclusive white balance club with some stupid "No Adobe Allowed" on the door.

Adobe are right to whine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335183)

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.

What will happen (5, Interesting)

seanyboy (587819) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334955)

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:What will happen (0)

DrXym (126579) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334972)

That or they use Adobe's open digital negative format(DNG) or something similar. DNG is just tiff with some extra information sections.

Re:What will happen (1)

seanyboy (587819) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334987)

It's still not RAW format, and every magazine tells me that for best results you MUST use the RAW format. This may actually not be true (I don't know), but it's certainly perceived as fact.

Re:What will happen (1)

MrMickS (568778) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335094)

The idea behind DNG is that it is a wrapper for the Camera RAW format. The RAW data is encapsulated in DNG. There are then additional tags added to the DNG to describe how the RAW data should be interpreted. For a given camera this information is likely to be static, all dynamic information being contained within the RAW format, so the encapsulation should be speedy.

So in answer to the parent. No DNG isn't RAW format but it doesn't have any impact on the image quality and should not have an impact on performance.

Re:What will happen (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335116)

In addition, its supposed to replace the various types of RAW into one standard making it easier for photographers to do their work without worrying about incompatiblities.

Re:What will happen (0)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335171)

No you do not need to use RAW. "RAW" is the name we usually give to uncompressed images without any metadata whatsoever, just the content. What you do need is a high resolution non-lossy image.

A 16-bit per channel PNG would fit the bill. If you can use it for satellite photos, you sure can use them for land photos at a short range. As would a TIFF with RAW or LZW compressed data, etc. You would want some extra metadata however.

Re:What will happen (4, Informative)

seanyboy (587819) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335216)

No. There's a difference between a lossless format and the camera's raw format. [wikipedia.org] A camera raw image file contains the unprocessed data from the image sensor of a digital camera.

Re:What will happen (1)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335030)

Nikon has well known products but so does Adobe. What if Adobe prints in a huge black font in its manual, product box or emails to customers the message that unfortuantely due to lack of cooperation from Nikon they will not provide opening and editing of Nikon RAW files. Maybe someone (or many!) avid Adobe Photoshop users will eventually want to upgrade thier digital camera, and I wonder if they would remember that Nikon RAW files don't "work" in Photoshop and choose another camera. A little far fetched but still possible.


On the other side, someone who is a big Nikon fan, wants to go shopping for the best photo editing software, well, they pretty much have no choice, Adobe Photoshop is only product they would want. So anyway you look at it, Nikon seems to be at a disadvantage (i.e. shooting themselves in the ... lense)

Re:What will happen (1)

seanyboy (587819) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335055)

That may work, but If I were an Adobe Marketing or legal person, I'd be loathe to put negative messages about other large companies in my documentation. I'd also be wary about making the fight so obvious to my customers. At least something like the Designed for Windows [microsoft.com] or Intel Inside logos wouldn't be overtly negative against Nikon.

Re:What will happen (2, Interesting)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335204)


Nikon has well known products but so does Adobe. What if Adobe prints in a huge black font in its manual, product box or emails to customers the message that unfortuantely due to lack of cooperation from Nikon they will not provide opening and editing of Nikon RAW files. Maybe someone (or many!) avid Adobe Photoshop users will eventually want to upgrade thier digital camera, and I wonder if they would remember that Nikon RAW files don't "work" in Photoshop and choose another camera. A little far fetched but still possible.


Clearly you have never purchased a serious camera before. I'm only an amateur, but even then my last purchase racked up to about $5000.

Often pros spend $10,000 on a single lens.

Heck, the Canon 1Ds costs $12,000

Are you telling me that these serious users will ditch their whole platform, sell off their equipment at rip off prices, just because Adobe doesn't support their favourite brand's file format?

Please.. be realistic.

/me doesn't care. (-1, Offtopic)

polysylabic psudonym (820466) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334962)

I've got a Minolta :)

Double strandards? (5, Insightful)

geighaus (670864) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334967)

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.

Re:Double strandards? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335088)

But Adobe has not reverse-engineered Nikon's format yet. So far they only complained about it and that's not using double standards.

Re:Double strandards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335123)

More aside , thats um hypocrisy not irony .

heh, just read this story today (5, Informative)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334970)

Looks like Nikon's goofy encryption has been broken. [com.com]

Oh, here's a link to dcraw [cybercom.net] which will blast through Nikon's bullshit.

Re:heh, just read this story today (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334998)

Yes, but it may be illegal for Adobe to use the knowledge.

It probably wouldn't be, since the protected information is the photographers photos, but Nikon would probably have grounds to sue, and Adobe don't want to spend money defending this in a court when they can turn it into a big PR thing.

Or am I being too cynical?

Nikon shooting itself in the foot. (3, Insightful)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334971)

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.

Re:Nikon shooting itself in the foot. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335078)

Easier said than done at the D2X end of the line (or Canon 1D / 1Ds, same idea). People have thousands (or, if they're buying D2X's, probably tens or hundreds of thousands) of dollars invested in glass (lenses to everyone else). Switching camera manufactureres is a VERY expensive proposition. Not only do you have to buy a whole new set of glass, but you have to learn (from scratch) which of the new manufacturers lenses work best for what you do, and how to use them to get that result.

Sure, at the G5/Powershot/etc level, changing brands is a matter of picking a new camera up. When you get into DSLRs, changing brands is orders of magnitude more expensive than simply buy a new camera body.

Squeel? (5, Funny)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334973)

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.

Re:Squeel? (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334983)

haha ya right.. that'll happen real soon :) I'm willing to bet my toenail shavings that Adobe will be using the DMCA to persecute someone in a high-profile case within 8 months.

Well, except (2, Interesting)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335172)

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.

Ehi, Adobe: (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12334980)

Isn't this familiar to you? http://www.freesklyarov.org/

Let me be the first to say: (5, Funny)

LittleBigLui (304739) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334990)

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.

Re:Let me be the first to say: (-1, Offtopic)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335053)

I prefer to have access to the pink-balance information for the woman that is home alone.

bona fide software developers (3, Interesting)

mrons (2769) | more than 9 years ago | (#12334993)

Nikon says they will provide a SDK for "bona fide software developers". I wonder what they are?

from encryption to the court (2, Insightful)

coklat (577117) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335002)

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

Re:from encryption to the court (2, Informative)

aderusha (32235) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335057)

Canon already offers a system for this very purpose: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvk e2.asp

Of course, the feature here is that it can be turned on or off as the user wishes. Moreover, you don't need to encrypt a file format to create a valid digital signature for it.

The only reason for Nikon to do this is to make sure that they can charge a license fee for anyone who wants to be able to manipulate raw images taken with their hardware. The best solution for everybody would be to do the obvious thing: buy a Canon :)

Recent Nikon experience (2, Interesting)

Eyeball97 (816684) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335006)

I had a visitor last week who brought her new Nikon with her. She had filled up the memory stick so she asked me to empty it for her...

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...

Re:Recent Nikon experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335105)

True, Nikon screws the buyer of it's $1000 digital cameras with lite versions of software. But the full version is great and your local mom and pop camera store may be sympathetic to your plight and give you an unlock code.

Re:Recent Nikon experience (5, Informative)

ukleafer (845880) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335119)

The NEF file format is Nikon's RAW data, ie: not compressed to JPEG or other format, it's pure image data from the camera's sensor.

By default, Nikon cameras (that are able to shoot RAW) convert to JPEG on the camera, and you have to select RAW manually. Sadly though as you discovered, they don't supply fully licensed software that can read RAW data with their cameras, beyond a trial version of Nikon Capture (this might have worked for you?).

Granted - their software is a total pain in the ass to install. I've just recovered from a situation in which I installed updated 4.1 to 4.2, but the installer crashed, and 4.1 refused to reinstall because it detected the remnants of 4.2 and aborted - leaving me with no usable version of the software. In the end I had to borrow a copy of version 3 which didn't have the newer-version-check in the installer, and then patch up from there.

I'm not bothered about NEF being encrypted or whatever, but I do think it's lame that they don't supply a fully licensed copy of Nikon Capture with their cameras that can shoot RAW. I own a D70 and had to fork out for a copy of it to make the most of the camera. Other than that, Photoshop natively supports NEF files, although IMO the remote control and live previewing features of Capture make it worth the cost.

Re:Recent Nikon experience (1)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335122)

A quick look at http://filext.com shows that these are indeed the files in question: "Nikon Digital SLR Cameras Raw Graphic File Format".

God, Linus, oh god! (1)

hardcorebuttsecks (871562) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335038)

I'm cumming!

fair? (1)

brajesh (847246) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335041)

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!

SOLVED! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335044)

If Nikon and Adobe won't play ball, we'll have to work around them, don't we?
Check out http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05041901nikon_en cryptnef.asp !

Adobe calling the kettle black? (1)

B747SP (179471) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335050)

Is it just me, or is Adobe being just a teensy bit hypocritical here?

Re:Adobe calling the kettle black? (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335163)

How? Adobe aren't being sued for reverse egineering, are they?

And here's the open source solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335051)

dcraw now supports nikon raw files:
http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/
h ttp://news.com.com/Nikons+photo+encryption+report ed+broken/2100-1030_3-5679848.html?tag=st.pop

The Good News, As i see it: (5, Insightful)

kabbor (856635) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335075)

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.

Re:The Good News, As i see it: (1)

rhetoric (735114) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335136)

Why should they be praised for being greedy also? Even if the end result is good. Reverse the situation and Adobe would do the same thing to some other company.

Make a non US version (1)

Pofy (471469) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335080)

They could always make a non US version were they don't have to care about the DMCA.

Sue Nikon under the DMCA! (1)

Darron (161679) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335085)

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.

Re:Sue Nikon under the DMCA! (4, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335154)

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?

Previously covered article? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335089)

We've covered this previously.

I didn't RTFA but i guess Slashdot is openly addmitting this is a dupe? :)

My thoughts. (2, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335102)

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.

Nikon's real response (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335131)

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.

Nikon's move (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335162)

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.

They're free, we're free (5, Interesting)

Deep Fried Geekboy (807607) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335179)

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.

How ironic (5, Insightful)

jyoull (512280) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335199)

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.

IT: Adobe Blasts Nikon's Closed File Format (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12335206)

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 ?

Slow news day so posting Adobe Whining again? (1)

guidryp (702488) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335207)

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.

This won't effect me and most other Nikonians (3, Interesting)

-unta (712537) | more than 9 years ago | (#12335208)


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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?