Reading mode: Light Dark

Adobe addresses relationship with Nikon, regarding NEF

Go to last post
Robert Palmqvist said:
It must be in Nikon's best interest to enable anyone (the world) to develop the best NEF supporting applications (APIs, utilities, RAW processors, desktop applications, whatever enables the best possible workflow for Nikon RAW shooters). It sure would be in Nikon's customers best interest...
Click to expand...
I totally agree.

The difference between the embedded preview and what any of the camera presets in Lightroom for my Nikon cameras actually render is so large that several Nikon shooters I know have ditched RAW (NEF) alltogether because it is such a huge step back having to spend time just to get the photo up to 'right out of the camera'-quality.

I used Nikons own software a few years ago (don't remember the name right now), and it consistently delivered results as a starting point when importing NEF that was far better than anything I have ever experienced in Lightroom.

Why Adobe can not (or is not allowed to - or properly informed by Nikon) do that I will never understand. The data necessary is right there in the file, so deliberately sabotaging other RAW-converters such as Lightroomn by not sharing information is a very strange move by Nikon.
 
Last edited:
Rumi Siddiqui said:
Rumi Siddiqui said:
Marcin 3M said:
On the other hand, I still hope, that NX-D will evolve into full-featured raw procesor.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't think that will happen. Nikon have only a fraction of the resource that Adobe have for developing raw processing software, and their potential market is smaller anyway (only Nikon users). Nikon can't compete with Adobe, nor really come close.

This was the problem with NX2. The relationship with Nik wasn't really the issue; it was lack of resource to develop a full-function raw processor.
Rumi Siddiqui said:
To be more serious - raw processing in CNX2 looked like some kind of the in-camera processing mode emulation. Not only simple package of "how to transform" data, but also some algorithms. I think that Nikon won't be too fast to deliver those algorithms to Adobe...
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're right. In that case, what can Nikon and Adobe do? Nikon could provide camera profiles for Lightroom and ACR, I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
McCool69 said:
Robert Palmqvist said:
It must be in Nikon's best interest to enable anyone (the world) to develop the best NEF supporting applications (APIs, utilities, RAW processors, desktop applications, whatever enables the best possible workflow for Nikon RAW shooters). It sure would be in Nikon's customers best interest...
Click to expand...
I totally agree.

The difference between the embedded preview and what any of the camera presets in Lightroom for my Nikon cameras actually render is so large that several Nikon shooters I know have ditched RAW (NEF) alltogether because it is such a huge step back having to spend time just to get the photo up to 'right out of the camera'-quality.
Click to expand...
If someone stops using raw for that reason they obviously don't know a great deal about what raw files are about and how they can be used ...

... and it literally takes a few minutes to create a preset in LR to meet a certain set of camera settings. Once that is done, it can be applied automatically when importing. Problem solved.
McCool69 said:
I used Nikons own software a few years ago (don't remember the name right now), and it consistently delivered results as a starting point when importing NEF that was far better than anything I have ever experienced in Lightroom.
Click to expand...
That is because Nikon software does read the camera settings from Exif data and by default applies those same settings as a starting point. LR choose not to do so. But, as mentioned above, with a few minutes of effort you can do essentially achieve same thing using presets in LR.
McCool69 said:
Why Adobe can not (or is not allowed to - or properly informed by Nikon) do that I will never understand. The data necessary is right there in the file, so deliberately sabotaging other RAW-converters such as Lightroomn by not sharing information is a very strange move by Nikon.
Click to expand...
Well, Adobe could read those settings if they wanted to (nobody is stopping them), but as most other third party raw manufacturers they tend to ignore them and rather make their own interpretation of the raw data in the file. I don't know about Adobe, but I do know developers at Capture One has expressed they are not overly impressed with Nikons own interpretations of NEF files ... They don't bother with those camera settings simply because they don't think they matter that much.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smells funny
 
Grevture said:
McCool69 said:
(snip)
The difference between the embedded preview and what any of the camera presets in Lightroom for my Nikon cameras actually render is so large that several Nikon shooters I know have ditched RAW (NEF) alltogether because it is such a huge step back having to spend time just to get the photo up to 'right out of the camera'-quality.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think it's mistake to talk of getting the photo "up to" Nikon's out-of-camera quality. That's Nikon's rendering, not necessarily the best rendering, as Grevture says below.
Grevture said:
(snip)
Grevture said:
Why Adobe can not (or is not allowed to - or properly informed by Nikon) do that I will never understand. The data necessary is right there in the file, so deliberately sabotaging other RAW-converters such as Lightroomn by not sharing information is a very strange move by Nikon.
Click to expand...
Well, Adobe could read those settings if they wanted to (nobody is stopping them), but as most other third party raw manufacturers they tend to ignore them and rather make their own interpretation of the raw data in the file. I don't know about Adobe, but I do know developers at Capture One has expressed they are not overly impressed with Nikons own interpretations of NEF files ... They don't bother with those camera settings simply because they don't think they matter that much.
Click to expand...
And I'd agree. For example, some people remark about Nikon's default ("Standard" picture control) giving sharper pictures than Adobe rendering at "Camera Standard" default settings. Quite right: Adobe presumably think a lower sharpening is a better default setting, as the Nikon default is high enough to lead to slight over sharpening artefacts.

I think it's more appropriate to think of Nikon default rendering as simply "different" to Adobe and Capture One default rendering, not necessarily "better".

Some people will prefer Nikon default rendering, some Capture One and so on. But most raw convertors can produce the same results with suitable presets.
 
Robert Palmqvist said:
I would not call encrypting metadata like WB cooperating.
Click to expand...
WB has never been encrypted. It is written out to the EXIF data using idiosyncratic encoding. That kind of nonsense is very common among many proprietary formats.

"Encrypted" implies a method of writing the data which resists deciphering for more than a few minutes of analysis. The way WB is written out in the EXIF metadata does not qualify.
 
TOF guy said:
Robert said:
I would not call encrypting metadata like WB cooperating.
Click to expand...
WB has never been encrypted. It is written out to the EXIF data using idiosyncratic encoding. That kind of nonsense is very common among many proprietary formats.

"Encrypted" implies a method of writing the data which resists deciphering for more than a few minutes of analysis.
Click to expand...
Nonsense! Encryption can be applied to almost any method of altering the data in a way intended to hide the meaning of data, no matter how easy it is to break. The simplest letter-substitution code is still encryption. For example, here's an encrypted message:

Ifmmp

To save you hours of analysis, that is "Hello", with each letter substituted by the following letter.
TOF guy said:
The way WB is written out in the EXIF metadata does not qualify.
Click to expand...
If the WB is written in a form that is not intended to be understood without proprietary information from Nikon, then it may be encrypted - however easy it is to break.

If you're saying that WB is written in metadata in a way made public by Nikon, then it's not encrypted. If they don't publish the way it's written, then it could be regarded as encypted, even if it doesn't meet your standards of difficulty to decrypt!
 
Simon said:
Nonsense! Encryption can be applied to almost any method of altering the data in a way intended to hide the meaning of data, no matter how easy it is to break. The simplest letter-substitution code is still encryption.
Click to expand...
In which case pretty much any documents we create with a computer short of a simple text (w/o formatting) or image file is encrypted.

And so are nearly all the raw formats out there., as well as Adobe's own .psd format :-P
 
Simon Garrett said:
TOF guy said:
Robert said:
I would not call encrypting metadata like WB cooperating.
Click to expand...
WB has never been encrypted. It is written out to the EXIF data using idiosyncratic encoding. That kind of nonsense is very common among many proprietary formats.

"Encrypted" implies a method of writing the data which resists deciphering for more than a few minutes of analysis.
Click to expand...
Nonsense! Encryption can be applied to almost any method of altering the data in a way intended to hide the meaning of data, no matter how easy it is to break. The simplest letter-substitution code is still encryption. For example, here's an encrypted message:

Ifmmp

To save you hours of analysis, that is "Hello", with each letter substituted by the following letter.
Simon Garrett said:
The way WB is written out in the EXIF metadata does not qualify.
Click to expand...
If the WB is written in a form that is not intended to be understood without proprietary information from Nikon, then it may be encrypted - however easy it is to break.

If you're saying that WB is written in metadata in a way made public by Nikon, then it's not encrypted. If they don't publish the way it's written, then it could be regarded as encypted, even if it doesn't meet your standards of difficulty to decrypt!

--
Simon
Click to expand...
Since all the developers seem to be able to 'decrypt' it, it is effectively public knowledge.

All of this dates from a time when Nikon was, IMO, wrongly in the business of producing imaging software for profit, creating a conflict of interest with developers. Hopefully, the death of CNX2 marks the end of that folly and it will not be repeated.
 
TOF guy said:
Simon said:
Nonsense! Encryption can be applied to almost any method of altering the data in a way intended to hide the meaning of data, no matter how easy it is to break. The simplest letter-substitution code is still encryption.
Click to expand...
In which case pretty much any documents we create with a computer short of a simple text (w/o formatting) or image file is encrypted.

And so are nearly all the raw formats out there., as well as Adobe's own .psd format :-P
Click to expand...
If the intention is to hide the content then yes. If the format is meant to be public then no.

This is a rather meaningless debate - my point was that you can't put some arbitrary level of difficulty before one is allowed to call it encryption. I don't think we're disagreeing on how easy it is to find out the content any of Nikon's proprietary metadata!
 
Simon said:
If the intention is to hide the content then yes.
Click to expand...
In my view this is not enough to define encryption. Encryption implies a will to make it difficult to restore the original.
 
TOF guy said:
Simon said:
If the intention is to hide the content then yes.
Click to expand...
In my view this is not enough to define encryption. Encryption implies a will to make it difficult to restore the original.
Click to expand...
Some definitions have intent as an important factor. Others simply say to put into code, which would include ASCII encoding. It seems that the definition of "encryption" is not precise enough to sustain this argument.
 
TOF guy said:
Robert said:
I would not call encrypting metadata like WB cooperating.
Click to expand...
WB has never been encrypted. It is written out to the EXIF data using idiosyncratic encoding. That kind of nonsense is very common among many proprietary formats.

"Encrypted" implies a method of writing the data which resists deciphering for more than a few minutes of analysis. The way WB is written out in the EXIF metadata does not qualify.
Click to expand...
I admit that "encrypting" might not have been the most appropriate term in this context but I think you got the idea. Encrypting or not sharing information, semantics. Let me put it this way, obfuscating or not sharing information is not the best way to cooperate, especially not when working with information technology.

Open standards (accessible by anyone without restrictions or cost) would be the best, industry standards (restricted to partners, members, for money or that comes with a EULA) is better than nothing. Having to fallback on reverse engineering is pretty bad given that Nikon could provide the needed information (missing pieces) if they only wanted to, don't you agree?
 
Last edited:
The current situation calls for Nikon's rationale for NEF. What makes NEF better than DNG or any other RAW format?

I would get it if Nikon provided us (stakeholders of the Nikon system) with an open specification of the format and a rationale why this format is superior. Or if they provided a superior workflow enabled by this format (open or closed).

In the past, the latter held some merit but what about now? I don't claim that DNG is a better format but it's fully documented and accessible. An open standard for RAW that every camera maker could get behind and implement would be the best, isn't that exactly what made JPEG so successful (not as a RAW standard but as a standard used for images, not only by cameras but through the whole workflow and by everyone)?

I think Nikon or anyone with a not fully open RAW format should explain the merit of such a format. Especially when we invest a lot in content "locked up" in such a format. What about full life-cycle support? What if Nikon is not around anymore to interpret their propriety format? Who will "unlock" your content and manage it to its full potential (without reverse engineering and guesswork)?
 
Last edited:
Robert Palmqvist said:
The current situation calls for Nikon's rationale for NEF. What makes NEF better than DNG or any other RAW format?
Click to expand...
Is there really any explicit claims of NEF files being better then other raw files? I might have missed something, but what I have seen from Nikon is just pretty standard marketing-speak about their raw files being great (by virtue of their cameras being great). Not very different from the claims of any other manufacturer of cameras with raw files of some sort ;)
Robert Palmqvist said:
I would get it if Nikon provided us (stakeholders of the Nikon system) with an open specification of the format and a rationale why this format is superior. Or if they provided a superior workflow enabled by this format (open or closed).

In the past, the latter held some merit but what about now? I don't claim that DNG is a better format but it's fully documented and accessible. An open standard for RAW that every camera maker could get behind and implement would be the best, isn't that exactly what made JPEG so successful (not as a RAW standard but as a standard used for images, not only by cameras but through the whole workflow and by everyone)?

I think Nikon or anyone with a not fully open RAW format should explain the merit of such a format. Especially when we invest a lot in content "locked up" in such a format. What about full life-cycle support? What if Nikon is not around anymore to interpret their propriety format? Who will "unlock" your content and manage it to its full potential (without reverse engineering and guesswork)?
Click to expand...
I agree NEF files are proprietary, but are they really locked? Again, I might have missed something but if you download the SDK for NEF files (third from last item on https://sdk.nikonimaging.com/apply ) my understanding is that if you are developing a raw converter you can read and utilize the NEF files to your hearts content. I have heard complaints about Nikon being a bit slow to update these SDK:s, that there is no Linux support, and that their documentation leaves something to be desired. But they are there.

How Nikon describe it: "The NEF file SDK is supplied in two parts (a CD will be supplied) executable modules provided, sample program and user documentation included (NEF format module and open library files for RGB conversion)."

And about the WB encryption ... As I understand it, that was something Nikon introduced back in 2004-2005 (the D2x and D70, if memory serves me right), sparking much controversy. Then by releasing the first mini-SDK later in 2005 the issue more or less died down.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smells funny
 
michaeladawson said:
Robin Casady said:
I found that a few days ago. Not sure how long it has been up. Difficult for me to distill the corporate PR speak to get to any real info.

I think what is more telling is how quickly the ACR beta came out after the release date of the D810.

I don't know what the current situation is with the encrypted WB numbers. Anyone compared Adobe's "As Shot" WB to what was actually set in camera? If Lightroom 5 started making use of Active D-Lighting, we would know their cooperation had improved.
Click to expand...
Yes. I have. It's not the same. Loading a RAW into ACR results in an "As Shot" WB a couple of hundred Kelvin higher than what I manually set in the camera. I seem to remember that when I set 5260K in camera (my Sunny value) it reads out as around 5500 in ACR.
Click to expand...
Let me posit another scenario: the camera isn't producing precisely what you dialed in and the software is simply reading the actual number.

2nd scenario (more likely): neither is producing/reading 5260k precisely, therefore, you should reset your "standard" to whatever value meets your criteria (as judged by your own eyes) given the particular hard/soft/ware combination and not let a specific number stymie you.

--
Rick Knepper, photographer, shooting for pleasure. It is better to have It and not need It than need It and not have It. Various RAW comparisons at Link below. Includes 5D3 vs D800E (new uploads), 5D3 vs. 6D, Zeiss lenses etc. https://app.box.com/s/71w40ita6hrcfghojaie
 
Last edited:
Grevture said:
Robert Palmqvist said:
The current situation calls for Nikon's rationale for NEF. What makes NEF better than DNG or any other RAW format?
Click to expand...
Is there really any explicit claims of NEF files being better then other raw files? I might have missed something, but what I have seen from Nikon is just pretty standard marketing-speak about their raw files being great (by virtue of their cameras being great). Not very different from the claims of any other manufacturer of cameras with raw files of some sort ;)
Click to expand...
If it's not better than DNG then why provide it and nothing else? What's in it for me as a Nikon customer? Why not use an open format like DNG instead (I do know that DNG is not uncontroversial but why create and support another controversial format instead of trying to reach common ground)?

It would be easier to swallow if the format was superior in any way (quality, size, whatever) or enabled a superior work flow (Nikon or Nikon partner providing the best software on the market underpinned by the NEF format)...
Grevture said:
Grevture said:
I would get it if Nikon provided us (stakeholders of the Nikon system) with an open specification of the format and a rationale why this format is superior. Or if they provided a superior workflow enabled by this format (open or closed).

In the past, the latter held some merit but what about now? I don't claim that DNG is a better format but it's fully documented and accessible. An open standard for RAW that every camera maker could get behind and implement would be the best, isn't that exactly what made JPEG so successful (not as a RAW standard but as a standard used for images, not only by cameras but through the whole workflow and by everyone)?

I think Nikon or anyone with a not fully open RAW format should explain the merit of such a format. Especially when we invest a lot in content "locked up" in such a format. What about full life-cycle support? What if Nikon is not around anymore to interpret their propriety format? Who will "unlock" your content and manage it to its full potential (without reverse engineering and guesswork)?
Click to expand...
I agree NEF files are proprietary, but are they really locked? Again, I might have missed something but if you download the SDK for NEF files (third from last item on https://sdk.nikonimaging.com/apply ) my understanding is that if you are developing a raw converter you can read and utilize the NEF files to your hearts content. I have heard complaints about Nikon being a bit slow to update these SDK:s, that there is no Linux support, and that their documentation leaves something to be desired. But they are there.

How Nikon describe it: "The NEF file SDK is supplied in two parts (a CD will be supplied) executable modules provided, sample program and user documentation included (NEF format module and open library files for RGB conversion)."

And about the WB encryption ... As I understand it, that was something Nikon introduced back in 2004-2005 (the D2x and D70, if memory serves me right), sparking much controversy. Then by releasing the first mini-SDK later in 2005 the issue more or less died down.
Click to expand...
Accessible trough an API, who is going to update this API if Nikon goes out of business? Any information not fully documented will be "locked up" when it is no longer accessible trough the API (it's hard to recompile or port an API for new platforms without access to the the source code and it's hard to create new software without full documentation). Sure most of the information could probably be made accessible through reverse engineering etc. Point is, it would not be necessary if Nikon released full documentation for the NEF format, or if they dropped NEF and started to use another fully documented format instead (e.g. DNG).
 
Last edited:
Rick Knepper said:
michaeladawson said:
Robin Casady said:
I found that a few days ago. Not sure how long it has been up. Difficult for me to distill the corporate PR speak to get to any real info.

I think what is more telling is how quickly the ACR beta came out after the release date of the D810.

I don't know what the current situation is with the encrypted WB numbers. Anyone compared Adobe's "As Shot" WB to what was actually set in camera? If Lightroom 5 started making use of Active D-Lighting, we would know their cooperation had improved.
Click to expand...
Yes. I have. It's not the same. Loading a RAW into ACR results in an "As Shot" WB a couple of hundred Kelvin higher than what I manually set in the camera. I seem to remember that when I set 5260K in camera (my Sunny value) it reads out as around 5500 in ACR.
Click to expand...
Let me posit another scenario: the camera isn't producing precisely what you dialed in and the software is simply reading the actual number.

2nd scenario (more likely): neither is producing/reading 5260k precisely, therefore, you should reset your "standard" to whatever value meets your criteria (as judged by your own eyes) given the particular hard/soft/ware combination and not let a specific number stymie you.
Click to expand...
 
This statement is from 2005 and it was made in the aftermath of the small kerfuffle that erupted over Nikon "encrypting" white balance information in, I believe, the D2X camera.

There was a little inter-company touchiness over this because (again, I'm working on fallible memory here) Thomas Knoll made a public statement about the encryption -- he wasn't happy with it -- and Nikon took issue with both the fact of the statement itself and with the 'encryption' characterization. So the two companies worked out a vague joint statement that amounted to a cease fire (on what had been a tiny little skirmish to begin with).

Here's this web site's Sept. 6, 2005 report on the statement when it was re-released by Nikon, which includes the text of the joint statement -- same as what you found yesterday.

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Anyway, bottom line: almost 10 years old. Presumably, the cooperation (whatever it amounts to) has been going on for 9 years already.
 
Do any of the manufactureres release the full implementation of their raw format?

Edit: From what I can tell, they all seem to be proprietary. This from photography life about canon:

Due to the fact that Adobe’s RAW converter is unable to read proprietary RAW header data, which often contains chosen camera profiles, some settings have to be either applied manually or applied upon import. My personal preference is to apply a preset while importing images, which saves me time later. Before we get into Lightroom, let me first go over camera settings and explain a few important things.

When shooting in RAW format, most camera settings like White Balance, Sharpness, Saturation, Lens Corrections and Color Profiles do not matter. Unless you use Canon-provided software like Digital Photo Professional, all of those custom settings are mostly discarded by third party applications, including Lightroom and Photoshop. That’s because it is hard to process each piece of proprietary data, which is subject to change from one camera model to another. Now imagine trying to do this for a number of different camera
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top