RAW NEF WB debate even reaches the SMH

[KerryPierce]

..but with this issue, they're trying to assert ownership of my photos.

Sorry Kerry - i think you're fundamentally wrong here and overly emotional.

That's okay, you're entitled to your opinion and we are allowed to disagree on things. Having said that, I'll invite you to substantiate your opinion on both the above assertions.

The end run of what Adobe is trying to do is remove the imaging processing technique from Nikon.

How is that different than any other competitive consumer product? First of all, Nikon is not a software company. They make cameras and lenses. Software is a sideshow for Nikon. Adobe is a software company. They don't make cameras or lenses. Adobe is not a direct competitor for Nikon and is not the issue here.

Nikon's failure to follow the EXIF standard breaks every piece of software out there, not just Adobe's software. Adobe is not the only software that people use, so they are not the issue here.

History is replete with examples of what happens to consumer products when competition is removed or significantly mitigated. Removal of competition is a bad thing for consumers, of that, there is no doubt.

If Nikon can't be in control of the signal processing at the end, why bother with the quality of the lens?

Nikon's control ends when the file is written to the CF card. That is the same for any other camera made and is no different than film. To take the point further, Nikon has absolutely no control over any editing of the JPG files that are produced. Why is that any different? No other camera maker does this nonsense.

With digital it's a system. The last thing Nikon can afford is a the possibility of a great camera that CAN produce great images being hampered by a third party failing to come on board either on quality or timing.

Again, this is no different. Nikon has no right to control anything beyond the camera. Follow this logic to the full conclusion. Nikon doesn't control film, doesn't control JPG or TIFF and didn't try to control NEF until now. In what way has that harmed Nikon's reptution or the image quality, for all of these years?

To take Nikon's assertion to the logical conclusion is to remove lousy photographers from the equation as well. If they can't afford to have 3rd party editing software goofing up the photos, they surely can't afford to have bad photographers using Nikons.

Nikon certainly aren't infallible or without blame, but I believe your view is a little short sighted.

I'm not looking only at the short term. In the short term, there are workarounds available for the issue. What happens next? If Nikon continues down this road, the next time they'll encrypt the entire file, with military strength encryption. Then what do you do?

What happens if, for whatever reason, ACR processes Canon RAW better than Nikon? Why would Nikon take that chance?

That's the way the market works. You offer a product for sale, in competition with other makers. Without competition, Nikon can charge anything they desire for their product and there would be no incentive for them to innovate or improve their products. Why should Capture be exempt the same market forces that drive Nikon to make better cameras and lenses?

There are already end runs around the ACR issue that work as a plugin to PSCS I believe. There's a solution already and there will be more plugins too if Adobe continue to refuse the SDK.

The fact that people are breaking the encryption and providing alternatives should indicate that there is significant demand for alternatives to Capture and the SDK. People are buying those alternatives, because they believe that they are better solutions. So, at this point, Nikon has failed to do what they apparently intended.

I don't expect Nikon or Canon to release the exact spec of their glass making technique that gives us great glass. Nor do I expect open RAW converters. They're both part of the system. Neither should be owned by Adobe either.

Adobe is not the issue here. That's a red herring and not material to the central issue. The issue is that you own the file, when it is written to your CF card. That's your copyrighted image, at that point. Nikon has no right to put a lock on any portion of your image. Nikon has no right to dictate how you will process that file, any more than it has a right to dictate how you use your camera or lenses.

The technology exists where Nikon could put sensors in their equipment to force you to use a tripod and a remote release. They could encrypt the control software to restrict you to buying and using only Nikon tripods and remote releases. No more bad Nikon photos because of hand held shots. Would that be acceptable to you?

[dooda]

Well put Kerry, and I agree whole heartedly.
Even the WB encryption issue in and of itself isn't what upsets me, its the fundamental consequences of such an act. Imaging up until the present has always operated one way. We all bought our cameras under this assumption, now Nikon is trying to fundamentally undermine one of the most basic principles of imaging (dictate what happens to the image after it's been fully realized). Granted there will be hacks and different ways to overcome this, but it sets a dangerous precedent. If people choose to accept this based on the fact it won't impact them much in the short term, I think that they're being short sighted and should look at the possible long term ramifications of such a greedy and filthy act.

Imagine if a microphone company forced you to used THEIRsoftware to burn a song that you wrote? Or a music company that forced you to use their stereo system to play a cd that you bought? This will probably work itself out as it did with Sony in the whole Beta/VHS issue, the only difference here is that Nikon has enslaved their clientele with a bunch of expensive lenses and a huge potential financial loss.

[birddog114]

Myself and other fellows here did not see that way and IMHO people just over reacted with what they heard and seen. We still have more ways to use the NEF for PP and safely, so this issue is not so critical for among our hobby or semi pro photogs.

"This storm" is quiet down on other site as DPR or Nikonians.org and will be "gone with the wind".

I've seen more people are chasing the stock of D2x and D70s and I sold more D2x + D70s, 80-400VR, 70-200VR and other big zoom lenses than before the storm, where are we heading?

[birddog114]

Hehehehehehehe!!!!!!

And now Adobe released new ACR & DNG supports D2x. Why?

Downloaded and installed. Saves D2X NEF files much quicker than NC. As shot colors suck. I don´t know how can I get good colors with it, or how to work with shadows, but NC delivers more detail than ACR, Raw Shooter and Bibble. NC is not that slow on my PCs. PS CS2 is slow and the ACR converter is too.

Please note:
Camera Raw 3.1 ONLY works with Photoshop CS2. However, the included DNG Converter DOES convert NEF's from the D2X into DNG which can be read with Camera Raw 2.4 and Photoshop CS.

 PS: Now, I lost all of my esteem in waiting to get the "DUMP" gears from other "NIKON FLAMERS"

[KerryPierce]

Hehehehehehehe!!!!!!

And now Adobe released new ACR & DNG supports D2x. Why?

Because that's what they said they'd do, from the very beginning. But, they don't use the "as shot" WB info. Instead, they use an "auto" WB routine in the program to get an "approximate" value.

Downloaded and installed. Saves D2X NEF files much quicker than NC. As shot colors suck.

hehehehehe!!!!! That's because it doesn't use the as shot colors, as I mentioned above. You will probably have to manually correct each photo because of that.

Please note:
Camera Raw 3.1 ONLY works with Photoshop CS2. However, the included DNG Converter DOES convert NEF's from the D2X into DNG which can be read with Camera Raw 2.4 and Photoshop CS.

The DNG converter doesn't use the "as shot" WB info either, so it will also likely require manual correction of each shot.

 PS: Now, I lost all of my esteem in waiting to get the "DUMP" gears from other "NIKON FLAMERS"

heh, maybe you a little too soon. Us Nikon flamers are simply waiting to see how Nikon handles this issue. Don't get impatient, Birdy. The time may yet come. BTW, if you think this issue has died on DPR, you need to look at this thread and a few others there. Lots of Nikon Flamers there, including Thom Hogan, the notorious Nikon basher.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=13350616

[birddog114]

Thom Hogan will jump ship!!!!! and it's only one of his thread, thing will changes soon and it's only DPR, don't you know DPR Not on this board.

Anyhow! now the D2x files now can be used with PSCS2 in some otherway, give more times for Adobe to fix it and surely they will do.

Here is my initial observation on the new ACR:

After comparing half a dozen D2X NEF images using first ACR3.1 and then NC I find that Nikon Capture blows ACR away, big time. The colors are far richer and more accurate, the detailing is superior (due to more accurate color, IMO). This is without considering the white balence issue.

[Greg B]

In my view, the real issue is that something which wasn't a problem is now a problem, and a lot of people are concerned about it.

It is not a matter of what software is better or worse than any other software, that is a decision entirely for each individual to make.

It is a not a matter of whether there will be a workaround, it would be far better not to have to find a workaround.

Different software programs designed to do basically the same thing should be allowed to compete on their merits. Maybe Nikon believes that NC can't compete on merit, and it is necessary to create a competitive advantage by other means - whether functionality or convenience.

It appears that Nikon is attempting to impose it's will on existing and loyal customers, and inhibit their freedom of choice in the matter of PP software. That is not acceptable.

[Hlop]

Wow! What a battle!

I completely don't understand all these statements about freedom of choice and decisions.

If you're running Windows, you're buying applications for Windows, you can't run Unix or Mac software on it. If you bought a car with disel you can't use uleaded fuel. If you've got Canon, you can't use Nikon glass on it. etc. etc. etc.

Nikon knows their file format better than Adobe, so, why don't use Nikon software?

All above is just IMHO

[birddog114]

Well said Hilop and I'm totally agreed!
I buy Nikon and I buy Nikon Capture, does thing will make or change my life difference if I buy PCSC, big NO

I buy Merc car and I buy Merc's parts, does BMW's parts and technical will work on the Merc? again BIG NO

[JordanP]

yes it is true. I buy Nikon camera I use nikon glass. BUT this is the first time I have ever had to use Nikon to have full access to my negative once I have taken a shot.

[birddog114]

yes it is true. I buy Nikon camera I use nikon glass. BUT this is the first time I have ever had to use Nikon to have full access to my negative once I have taken a shot.

Is this happenned on your D70 NEF files already? it's quick

[KerryPierce]

Wow! What a battle!

I completely don't understand all these statements about freedom of choice and decisions.

Nikon knows their file format better than Adobe, so, why don't use Nikon software?

All above is just IMHO

heh, it's just us Yanks. Too much inbreeding gone on here. We have a history of revolting over issues like this, it's kinda in our blood.

[birddog114]

Let's the Aussie relax, that why I moved here 20 years ago

[KerryPierce]

In my view, the real issue is that something which wasn't a problem is now a problem, and a lot of people are concerned about it.

It appears that Nikon is attempting to impose it's will on existing and loyal customers, and inhibit their freedom of choice in the matter of PP software. That is not acceptable.

Yup, that's it in a nutshell, IMO. Well said, Greg. Well, you forgot to include us Nikon Flamers in there along with the Loyal customers.

[JordanP]

yes it is true. I buy Nikon camera I use nikon glass. BUT this is the first time I have ever had to use Nikon to have full access to my negative once I have taken a shot.

Is this happenned on your D70 NEF files already? it's quick

Not already - just imminent unless Nikon change their direction.

[KerryPierce]

Let's the Aussie relax, that why I moved here 20 years ago

You need to move to America, Birdy. If I don't jump ship with Thom Hogan, I'll need a good place to buy more stuff!!

[birddog114]

Let's the Aussie relax, that why I moved here 20 years ago

You need to move to America, Birdy. If I don't jump ship with Thom Hogan, I'll need a good place to buy more stuff!!

Kerry,
I come back home twice every year, am from SoCal BTW.

[onimod]

Kerry - I'm at work and can't reply specifically to your reply - I'll have a go tonight.
My quick thought is that RAW is not like a universal negative - that's what a jpg is for. Raw is something new and Nikon has a right to evolve it as it sees fit - it reperesents the blue ribbon picture. On that basis alone I can understand why the want to retain control. If the decide to add further recorded settings to their 'sidecar' then they can do so at a whim. If they give that to Adobe to develop then they're limiting their future right to innovate.
Up untill now we had the best of both worlds but it appears ACR and the Nikon SDK are diverging. I don't believe the Software should drive or limit the hardware at this stage.

[KerryPierce]

Kerry,
I come back home twice every year, am from SoCal BTW.

SoCal is a long way from here.... I can fix you up with a really nice apartment, in beautiful downtown Detroit. It don't get much better than that. That'd make it a lot easier for us to do business.

[Greg B]

Wow! What a battle!

I completely don't understand all these statements about freedom of choice and decisions.

If you're running Windows, you're buying applications for Windows, you can't run Unix or Mac software on it. If you bought a car with disel you can't use uleaded fuel. If you've got Canon, you can't use Nikon glass on it. etc. etc. etc.

If you buy a diesel car, you make that choice. The car maker doesn't make the fuel input so that it will only accept BP for example. You can use any brand of diesel.

If you buy a Canon camera, you make that choice. You can, however, use Sigma or Tamron lenses on either.

Nikon knows their file format better than Adobe, so, why don't use Nikon software?

Sure, but is that decision for Nikon to make, or for the user? If I want to use one or the other, that's my decision. If Nikon's software is that much better, then people will use it.

I have moved from a canon G3 to the d70. PS ain't cheap, but I know how to use it. Why should Nikon decide that I must change.

I cannot accept that removal of choice is ever in the consumer's interests.

[birddog114]

Kerry,
I come back home twice every year, am from SoCal BTW.

SoCal is a long way from here.... I can fix you up with a really nice apartment, in beautiful downtown Detroit. It don't get much better than that. That'd make it a lot easier for us to do business.

Yes, Thanks Kerry! I was up that way sometimes in the past visiting friends, who's living there. One day near, if I have a chance to get to Detroit MI, we might meet and have fun.

[tasadam]

hehehehe!
I'm waiting for all the bargaining of Nikon gears coming from many sources once people jumped ship especially the big zoom
Haven't seen any thing yet! people is still rant but not dump their gears.
Still waiting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me know when you've got a new "second hand gear" section Birdy!
Might get that 70-200 VR sooner than I think...

[birddog114]

yes it is true. I buy Nikon camera I use nikon glass. BUT this is the first time I have ever had to use Nikon to have full access to my negative once I have taken a shot.

Is this happenned on your D70 NEF files already? it's quick

Not already - just imminent unless Nikon change their direction.

What's next? A Canon 1Ds Mark II?
or
D2x with more happy smiling?
or
a "Drible" 350D?
We now are DSLRUSERS.com

[JordanP]

yes it is true. I buy Nikon camera I use nikon glass. BUT this is the first time I have ever had to use Nikon to have full access to my negative once I have taken a shot.

Is this happenned on your D70 NEF files already? it's quick

Not already - just imminent unless Nikon change their direction.

What's next? A Canon 1Ds Mark II?
or
D2x with more happy smiling?
or
a "Drible" 350D?
We now are DSLRUSERS.com

I would love to see Nikon back down and I'd go with the D2X for sure - thus I will continue to be a voice against their current direction.

cheers,

[Hlop]

yes it is true. I buy Nikon camera I use nikon glass. BUT this is the first time I have ever had to use Nikon to have full access to my negative once I have taken a shot.

OK. Let me put it this way. You can run Unix application under Windows using VMWare (emulator) but you'll find a lot of bugs and problems there. So, why don't you use recommended platform then? In this case you've got to buy additional computer and use proper Operation System.

The same with NEF files and NC. And, if I got it right, you still be able to se PS but have to adjust WB manually as you like. That's it Any way, when I was using Adobe CameraRAW, I was adjusting WB manually for each shot. Now I switched to NC and found that it handles NEF files much better in my taste. I'm using PS just to do some special work on files but initial RAW work - NC only

[Hlop]

Sure, but is that decision for Nikon to make, or for the user? If I want to use one or the other, that's my decision. If Nikon's software is that much better, then people will use it.

I have moved from a canon G3 to the d70. PS ain't cheap, but I know how to use it. Why should Nikon decide that I must change.

I cannot accept that removal of choice is ever in the consumer's interests.

But who says that you have to give up PS? Keep using it but instead of camera RAW use NC. Ther is no removal of choice! And as said above you still can use CameraRAW adjusting WB manually if you completely against NC. Anyway current CameraRAW with current d70 files often wrong in setting WB

[KerryPierce]

Yes, Thanks Kerry! I was up that way sometimes in the past visiting friends, who's living there. One day near, if I have a chance to get to Detroit MI, we might meet and have fun.

That would be great fun, Birdy. I have a photo of a place that's currently vacant, that I know you'd love. I'll have to process it and the other photos of the neighborhood and then post them for your approval. But, since I have to use Capture, it will prolly take me a couple of days to do that.

Just keep your eye peeled on the images forum. They'll be there.

[stubbsy]

Well I've held back on this for a while.

Kerry I think the thrust of what you are saying is correct. We shouldn't accept someone who wants to stop us having full control of our digital negative (and for me this is the RAW file, not a jpg). At present it's only the WB that's encrypted, but there's nothing to say that in the future the entire RAW file couldn't be done this way. For me the issue isn't WB, but the concept (and I guess fear) that more could be encrypted later.

Trouble is that at present software makers can include support for the encrypted stuff if they want by licencing the SDK and that fact has been lost a little in the heat of debate. If Adobe really wanted to support the encrypted WB then they need only licence the SDK and it's a dead issue.

So for me there are two bad guys here. Nikon for encrypting in the first place (why did they do so BTW?) and Adobe for deciding they didn't like this so they'd make it appear a Nikon problem rather than say what the heck and licence the SDK (like they do for GIF for example).

One more thought: Let's say Nikon come up with a better, more useful way of encoding WB and it's not encrypted, or a better RAW. It still breaks existing WB or RAW reading so Adobe would have to reverse engineer it again. Would they then be crying about the change and the need to reverse engineer. I think so.

So my current thinking is that, while it causes me some grief, Nikon are entitled to do what they like with how my digital negative is encoded PROVIDED they also allow me access to it. Since they have a licencable SDK they are doing this. In this instance the bulk of my grief is being caused by Adobe who are playing hard ball (probably for some corporate reason like making DNG the new RAW).

So while both are bad guys Adobe is worse since if they had their way we could easily end up with restrictions on how Nikon (and Canon et al) innovate to improve the quality of my digital negative.

[genji]

i guess until there is an iso standard for 'raw', the camera company can do whatever they want.

make me think that the uptake of digital photography has grown so fast that the standard organisation have no say.

[birddog114]

I'll buy an F6 soon if this issue is going on and on and on
Or wait until F7 with both film and digital back

[Greg B]

Sure, but is that decision for Nikon to make, or for the user? If I want to use one or the other, that's my decision. If Nikon's software is that much better, then people will use it.

I have moved from a canon G3 to the d70. PS ain't cheap, but I know how to use it. Why should Nikon decide that I must change.

I cannot accept that removal of choice is ever in the consumer's interests.

But who says that you have to give up PS? Keep using it but instead of camera RAW use NC. Ther is no removal of choice! And as said above you still can use CameraRAW adjusting WB manually if you completely against NC. Anyway current CameraRAW with current d70 files often wrong in setting WB

Nikon Capture costs ~ $250. Why should I have to buy it?

I realise there are workarounds, and frankly, it doesn't matter that much. There is a principle at stake, and I would prefer that Nikon (and others) did not go down this path.

[timbo]

I'll buy an F6 soon if this issue is going on and on and on
Or wait until F7 with both film and digital back

I'm with you birddog. Was looking through a friend's wedding photos last night: shot with an F5 on decent neg stock, printed by a good pro photo development house (and no, it didn't have to be a proprietary Nikon print development shop!! ) The images were fantastic.

Time to retrieve my film stock from the fridge and break out the trusty old F801 if this goes on too much longer!

[gstark]

My quick thought is that RAW is not like a universal negative - that's what a jpg is for. Raw is something new and Nikon has a right to evolve it as it sees fit - it reperesents the blue ribbon picture.

And I would have to disagree here.

Raw IS your digital negative. JPEG is a lossy format, and should be viewed more as a finished option - akin to a print.

While I shoot in raw + jpg, I work with the raw images, and save as jpg only when I'm ready to display, either on the web, or as a print, or to distribute to an end user.

But to say you can work with a jpg as a negative ... just try it, and see how much quality you retain after saving a fifth generation working (i.e. interim) modifiaction that you've made to the image. The results will not be impressive.

As I see it, we have a different set of controls with a raw image (as compared with a film neg), but the point that's been made - that Nikon produce cameras and lenses, and that they're not a software company - is the salient point.

And it surely shows in many elements of their software.

The bottom line for me is that I'm making the image, and just as they cannot tell me what to make an image of, nor when I should make that image, their only input into this is to faithfully record the image that I'm making.

They have no right to do anything else, and god help any Maxwell (or Nikon) employee who tries to install any form of encryption into my non-encrypted camera without my prior approval.

[KerryPierce]

Well I've held back on this for a while.

Kerry I think the thrust of what you are saying is correct. We shouldn't accept someone who wants to stop us having full control of our digital negative (and for me this is the RAW file, not a jpg). At present it's only the WB that's encrypted, but there's nothing to say that in the future the entire RAW file couldn't be done this way. For me the issue isn't WB, but the concept (and I guess fear) that more could be encrypted later.

Quite so. My hope is that the uproar over this issue will curtail any future Nikon thoughts along these lines. I'm an optimist. If I didn't believe that there was hope, I wouldn't bother with the issue and would sell out now.

Trouble is that at present software makers can include support for the encrypted stuff if they want by licencing the SDK and that fact has been lost a little in the heat of debate. If Adobe really wanted to support the encrypted WB then they need only licence the SDK and it's a dead issue.

That's why this issue is so contentious. Nikon's public response was very clever. They ducked the issue of explaining why they're encrypting files and tried to shift the blame to Adobe, with that use the "free SDK" line. That's just smoke and mirrors. None of the serious 3rd party vendors will ever use the SDK, because it's not a true SDK. It doesn't give access to the raw data. It simply performs the conversion for you, using the slow and buggy dlls that Capture uses. The license to use the SDK supposedly prohibits any of the practices of reverse engineering that many 3rd party developers use, including ACR.

Nikon knew all of that, when they issued that lame response. It's a red herring, to divert attention away from the fact that Nikon is encrypting the files for no good reason.

One more thought: Let's say Nikon come up with a better, more useful way of encoding WB and it's not encrypted, or a better RAW. It still breaks existing WB or RAW reading so Adobe would have to reverse engineer it again. Would they then be crying about the change and the need to reverse engineer. I think so.

This is the way it's always been, with all the makers. Each time they come out with a new camera, the 3rd party vendors have to scramble to support the files. Without the encryption, it's no big deal.

SDK they are doing this. In this instance the bulk of my grief is being caused by Adobe who are playing hard ball (probably for some corporate reason like making DNG the new RAW).

This is exactly what Nikon wants you to think. Adobe isn't playing hardball, at all. Not even close. To start with hardball play, they could have simply refused to support any Nikon NEFs, or they could have filed a lawsuit, seeking an injunction against the practice. They did neither of those things. Besides, Adobe is not the only player to be adversely affected.

So while both are bad guys Adobe is worse since if they had their way we could easily end up with restrictions on how Nikon (and Canon et al) innovate to improve the quality of my digital negative.

DNG isn't the issue. Nikon could easily just say no to DNG, without encrypting the files, without changing any of their past practices or being restricted in any way. How could Adobe not support NEFs then? The fact is that Nikon never needed encryption to innovate or improve the files before. Why do they need it now? They don't.

This Adobe thing is a red herring. That's a fact.

[gstark]

This Adobe thing is a red herring.

Or, at best, an sRGB herring.

[birddog114]

The F6 will taking off soon from their base in SEA
And I'm out of shooting film soon

[stubbsy]

Kerry

Well argued response to my comments and I have to say the more I find out about the SDK, the more my view shifts from anti Adobe to anti Nikon.

Of course what I'm most anti is the DMCA that really makes reverse engineering encyrption so easy to prosecute. The DMCA was enacted to make life easier for big business (especially the MPAA) to encrypt their products. Whatever happened to consumer rights. Comes down to the fact that money is more persuasive for politicians than votes.

Oh, and lest you think DMCA is only a US issue, thanks to the Free Trade Agreement our current government signed with the US we have DMCA here by stealth.

[Hlop]

Nikon Capture costs ~ $250. Why should I have to buy it?

I realise there are workarounds, and frankly, it doesn't matter that much. There is a principle at stake, and I would prefer that Nikon (and others) did not go down this path.

US$99.95 Box version from Adorama. And cheaper if you buy just reg.code after trial online. BTW, with film you have to use standard process to particular type of film. If you use another process you'll get just crap. And if you use tomato juce (which is much cheaper) you'll get complete crap. So, why don't you use standard rcommended by manufacturer process (while there is no international standard for RAW, let's say Standard Nikon process) ?

[gstark]

And cheaper if you buy just reg.code after trial online.

And Maxwell's sell this?

BTW, with film you have to use standard process to particular type of film.

Not entirely: in many cases you have a choice of processing chemistry regimes to choose from, and you certainly have a choice of a vast array of ways to implement that processing. Anything from IDII, D76, C41, or E6 at home, to any number of mini or prolabs. And yes, you can cross-process too - E6 film in IDII or C41, for instance, to gain some special effects.

As I said, I'm asking my Nikons to do one thing, and one thing only: record the image that I'm making.

For Nikon to even harbour the thought that I want more from them than this is the height of sheer arrogance on their part, and they can go to hell.

Certainly, they can - and are welcome to - offer me more than this.

But it is my choice - and it must always remain my choice - to accept or reject those offers, and any intrusion by them (or anyone else, be they a Westfield security monkey, or a Waverley councillor) is unwelcome and will be met with resistance.

[Hlop]

And Maxwell's sell this?

Don't know. Why bother if you can buy it online?

Not entirely: in many cases you have a choice of processing chemistry regimes to choose from, and you certainly have a choice of a vast array of ways to implement that processing. Anything from IDII, D76, C41, or E6 at home, to any number of mini or prolabs. And yes, you can cross-process too - E6 film in IDII or C41, for instance, to gain some special effects.

As I said, I'm asking my Nikons to do one thing, and one thing only: record the image that I'm making.

OK. Sorry. That was bad example. Mea Culpa

But it is my choice - and it must always remain my choice - to accept or reject those offers, and any intrusion by them (or anyone else, be they a Westfield security monkey, or a Waverley councillor) is unwelcome and will be met with resistance.

And it's still your choice - you can use CamereRAW correcting WB manually and that makes life more interesting.

Liberty is precious -- so precious that it must be rationed. (C)V.I.Lenin

[Greg B]

Well it has been an interesting discussion. Mikhail, we shall have to agree to differ, in fact I am surprised that it could be possible to mount an argument in favour of Nikon's proposed action, but you have. I am not persuaded, however, you have had a go.

[Hlop]

Cheers, Greg!

[dooda]

Working in Jpeg simply isn't an option (one of the main reasons we shoot with higher end cameras is for the raw option specifically). For the stuff that I shoot Jpeg no longer cuts the mustard. You lose too much. The Raw file is what the demographic that specifically uses these cameras. Particularly the D2X, a designated pro camera. No D2X user is going to shoot much in Jpeg. They need the highest quality at all costs.

One side of me thinks, "okay Nikon will try this, realize that everyone hates them for it, and will lay off"

The other side thinks "This is so typical of Nikon, they are content right now with the people that are heavily invested in their equipment. This is but one example in a string of acts to force revenue from customers. If anyone here thinks that Nikon will end their monopolizing and mistreatment of their clients at this point I believe that they're sorely mistaken.

Funny, I use to have a chuckle about the Dribble, being a crippled 10d or 20d. It seems quite harmless now compared to this Nikon stunt.

On the other hand I understand the need to get money on things like Software and remotes and bags etc, the markup is a lot more favorable on those items than the hardware (bodies and lenses). But there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. The right way would be to commit to making a better product. The wrong way is to cripple their customers options.

Take the Nikon Coolwalker. I don't think they've sold very many of these since the Epson p2000. So they need to either come out with a competitive product or cut their losses. This is what they did with the D70. They took the Dribble as a blueprint and then blew it out of the water with a better camera at a similar price point. No one minds spending a little extra for a better product. But as soon as Nikon finds themselves competing out of their league they change the rules at the cost of consumers.

[darb]

what about media companys that have photographers out in the field, with an array of different cameras, all sendnig their images back in, to backroom editors who use a common platform, photoshop, to process images,a nd then onto the editors to put into articles and what not ... its a crock.

We can only hope that a decent "hack" becomes available, either on the firmware, or for photoshop ...

[MHD]

very good point...

[johndec]

what about media companys that have photographers out in the field, with an array of different cameras, all sendnig their images back in, to backroom editors who use a common platform, photoshop, to process images,a nd then onto the editors to put into articles and what not ... its a crock.

We can only hope that a decent "hack" becomes available, either on the firmware, or for photoshop ...

Fair point. Nikon just found another way to lose an even greater share of the PJ market.

[Greg B]

Nikon pyjamas?

[darb]

have to be bedsheets, i sleep nude !

[johndec]

Nikon pyjamas?

You're a real card Greg

Shame it's the 2 of spades