Nikon label Adobe 'non' bona fide software developer!!

[IanS]

Well, I thought I'd grab the headline before PhotoshopTabloidNews.com did

Seriously though, can Adobe really expect the manufacturers to just fall in line with it's own proposed industry standard for a common RAW format? Call me old fashioned, but don't industry standards need to be set either by the industry or a monopoly? Adobe have already changed the spec of DNG to 1.1.0.0, who gets to ratify it, or do Adobe have absolute control??

Now where's the baby eating bishop of Bath and Wells? Last I heard he had a very red hot poker...

Ian.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland

 

[Andy Evans]

I think its also good to point out that the SDK is FREE to software developers.

Begs the question. WHY haven't Adobe asked them for one?

--
Aviation Photographer, Fighter Control poster, D70/S5000z user.

 

[nachos]

The press release is clearly a translation from japanese corporate headquarters. Bona fide is an odd word choice, and probably not meant how a native english speaker would read it (as adobe isnt genuine).

In typical japanese fashion, its polite, non-direct and nobody loses face. But it does seem to suggest that adobe hasn't bothered to get the nikon SDK for some reason and that if they request it, nikon will give it to them.

Well, I thought I'd grab the headline before
PhotoshopTabloidNews.com did

Seriously though, can Adobe really expect the manufacturers to just
fall in line with it's own proposed industry standard for a common
RAW format? Call me old fashioned, but don't industry standards
need to be set either by the industry or a monopoly? Adobe have
already changed the spec of DNG to 1.1.0.0, who gets to ratify it,
or do Adobe have absolute control??

Now where's the baby eating bishop of Bath and Wells? Last I heard
he had a very red hot poker...

Ian.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland

 

[IanS]

... because they believe they can do it better.

Doesn't really move things on much does it?

Ian.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland

 

[nachos]

Well the plot has certainly thickened. I don't know whats in the SDK exactly..but since ACR can seemingly process every part of the NEF except the WB area, and since the WB is very simply "encrypted" - how can adobe do any better than the SDK in that area? Could they not just use the SDK for WB decryption?

Maybe thats the sticking point, and the SDK doesn't include that ability. Seems weird and unlikely that it wouldn't though.

... because they believe they can do it better.

Doesn't really move things on much does it?

Ian.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland

 

[Sir Fallot]

I think its also good to point out that the SDK is FREE to software
developers.

Begs the question. WHY haven't Adobe asked them for one?

Why do you use Adobe rather than Nikon Capture??

Because it does things better.

Adobe probably don't want to use the Nikon SDK- they can do it better, but if they write there own decoding software fear that they will infringe Nikon's intellectual rights.

--
Aviation Photographer, Fighter Control poster, D70/S5000z user.

--
Sir Fallot
http://www.haldenphotography.com
http://www.nottinghillcarnival.org.uk

There are those that read the small print and learn through knowledge, while others ignore the small print and learn through experience.

 

[Andrew Booth]

The SDK only provides TIFF and JPG output to the developer's app - all the RAW convertion remains in Nikon's software.

If Adobe used the SDK they couldn't add any value to the process, you wouldn't benefit from Adobe's camera raw, and you may aswell just convert in Nikon's software to tiff, and open them in PS.

 

[SoftD100]

i was thinking the same thing, definatly not japanese english its too direct

 

[IanS]

..and everything to do with control of file formats.

Nikon/Canon are unlikely to give it up without a fight. Adobe are using new camera users as pawns to try and get them to force Nikon into using DNG... The D2X being the main target as it's the 'pro' camera which is in theory PS CS's core market.

At the moment the man in the street seems only to be concerned with the WB issue, however...

In PS CS, ACR stores info on every RAW file it converts into a database which resides either in an application data folder or a 'sidecar' file that get saved with each RAW file. Adobe claims it does this as it can't write processing info such as what white balance, sharpness, saturation etc, the user selected back to the RAW file as they don't know how to dafley do it and the format could change.

In PS CS2, they can now put this info into the DNG file. Of course this info is PS CS specific... So now you have a DNG file with PS CS application data added... not an awful lot different to Nikon adding similar info to a NEF or Canon to a CR2. OK if you like ACR, gonna make for messy DNG files if you use different converters.

I'd like to see the industry come up with a standard, not just for negatives but also for finished product too... Not much word on the latter from Adobe as they know most people currently use PSD (to save layers etc) for master files and generate final output for specific pruposes from there... and I don't suppose they have a problem with closed formats if it's their own??

Ian.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland

 

[IanS]

If Adobe used the SDK they couldn't add any value to the process,
you wouldn't benefit from Adobe's camera raw, and you may aswell
just convert in Nikon's software to tiff, and open them in PS.

They could add value, just different value by working purely on workflow and effectively providing the facility to open a NEF direct... That in itself would be better than convert with other software then open...

It's just battle for control, Adobe are fed up with adding new cameras even though they took the decision to reverse engineer.

Ian.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland

 

[mpixel]

If Adobe used the SDK they couldn't add any value to the process,
you wouldn't benefit from Adobe's camera raw, and you may aswell
just convert in Nikon's software to tiff, and open them in PS.

They could add value, just different value by working purely on
workflow and effectively providing the facility to open a NEF
direct... That in itself would be better than convert with other
software then open...

If you look at Phil's recent reviews it seems that Adobe seems to do a better job of RAW conversion than some of the manufacturers own software. By using the SDK they can no longer do this and so the consumer looses. I think the most striking example of this was in the Fuji S3 review.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page19.asp

What Nikon are saying is that when it comes to RAW conversion we don't want you to have a choice of algorithms.

It makes me wonder if this is the first step to push everyone to sign up to their SDK so that they can encrypt the entire RAW file in future.

It's just battle for control, Adobe are fed up with adding new
cameras even though they took the decision to reverse engineer.

Ian.
--
http://www.pbase.com/ian_stickland

 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

If this were so, why are the results from Adobe's converter like junk compared with Nikon View/Capture? This is the root of the problem, the world's best image processing tool manufacturer produced a poor tool for opening Nikon's files. Nikon has worked on the image processing of the data from their sensors and the anti-aliasing filters etc. are designed so that the software does certain processing ... and that's in the SDK. Nikon is just trying to make sure that photographers get a decent quality image, which is not what has been happening. So they made changes to the format to discourage developers from bypassing Nikon's algorithms which are 50% of the image quality (the camera is the other 50%).

 

[swardo]

to make a mess of MY pictures in post processing if I should choose to do so. I don't remember ever having someone in the darkroom slapping my hand because I left the paper in the developer too long. Once I buy something it's MINE TO DO WITH HOW I CHOOSE.

 

[Jeff Schewe]

Well, I thought I'd grab the headline before
PhotoshopTabloidNews.com did

We posted this story http://photoshopnews.com/?p=257
on Friday, April 22nd, 2005 at 5:05 pm and is filed under Photoshop News


--
Regards,
Jeff Schewe

 

[robmob]

Thanks for the'wrap-up!
me understands better

RobMob

 

[Andy Evans]

Why is it void?

Well read the licence agreement (that you most likely didnt) when you installed Windows or when you first booted it up (if pre-installed).

If you read some of the blurb written in it, from the second you agree to the licence, Microsoft technically have owners rights to your PC, any software installed on your PC, and any FILES stored or accessed on your PC.

And thats the biggest problem with the IT industry, no-one actually has real owners rights on anything if they are an end user!

--
Aviation Photographer, Fighter Control poster, D70/S5000z user.

 

[Bob GB]

.. Adobe tries to get an upper hand on their raw format,
for then to start charging for it

No wonder Nikon and Canon among others have other ideas.

 

[igb]

For a different view of the relative quality of Nikon's vs 3r party software:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=13205702

 

[ByronP]

If Adobe was forced to use each vendors conversion software, their cost of developing and maintaining their raw processing would be very expensive and the program would run slower.

Users have a choice. They can and always been able to use the vendors raw conversion software or a third party. Seems Nikon is trying to limit user choice.

until they remove the requirement. Nikon customers will still have a choice (but limited). I bet if Adobe does this, Nikon will end up selling quite a few less high end cameras.

So before someone spends around $4000 on a high end Nikon camera, one will be forced to think about what software they will use to process the images and since PS is the choice of pros, Nixon will be stabbing themselves in the foot.

Seems that is is a Nikon problem, not an adobe one that Nikon created all by their lonesome selves.

BP