Photoshop to read Nikon encrypted RAW data

Nikon may still be encrypting RAW white balance data, but discussions between Nikon and Adobe have apparently resulted in detente. Nikon has provided Adobe with a "mini-SDK" for accessing the encrypted data (which affects the company's D2X and D2H cameras), and Adobe is poised to release the Camera Raw 3.2 plug-in for Photoshop, which will include the ability to read it. Way to go guys. Now how about releasing that SDK to the rest of the world, Nikon? Or better yet, cut everyone a break and just scrap this whole encrypted RAW thing altogether.

[Soap @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

I don't really get why they would encrypt it anyways. Doesn't really seem like it would be something to encrypt.

[Kramer @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Maybe encryption is needed for authencity.
So you can prove that image wasn't manipulated in any way.

Could be useful for documentary and legal stuff.

I remember Canon does something like that, but they are not encrypting entire image. Canon attach something like CRC code to image so authencity can be verified.

[asher @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

By encrypting it.. they essentially own it. Own your pic. You may take it and use it, but they own the method u saved it. And like all this rather gray area, they could use it at will. PMA and others have protested this practice and potentially devastating code.

AIM owns the words you use to message ppl. Is this any different?

[Edward @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Actually, the reason that you see a lot of camera manufacturers keeping access to the RAW data encrypted has to do with hardware and not software. RAW data off of a CMOS chip tells you a lot about how the chip works, and if you've made some novel discoveries regarding imaging and sensors you might want to protect that. You might also want to sell your product and not wait for a patent. So hence encryption; although you might argue that this will have little or no effect on people trying to reverse engineer your CMOS, every little bit helps.

[Brian @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

I'll never buy another Nikon as long as they're encrypting the white balance data, or any data in their RAW format.

[Eric @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Nikon blinked is what happened. You can read it in their press release. They keep claiming there was a misunderstanding. But there was no misunderstanding. They wanted to force people to use their software to access their photos. They claimed that the best "Nikon experience" came from using their software (that you had to plunk down over $100 to get). Which any pro photographer will tell you is nonsense. Their software was buggy and slow, and did not offer highlight recovery that Adobe's ACR offers.

This was Nikon backing down - and Adobe winning. And that's a good thing. Now, if only they can convince camera manufacturers (besides Hassleblad and Leica which have already done it) to accept their DNG RAW format, we would have photo harmony. Like back when we all used a few standardized film formats (35mm, Medium Format, Large Format, 110, etc.) that worked in all cameras of a given film size.

When that happens, photographers will once again OWN their intellectual property. It is inexcusable that Canon and Nikon and others have proprietary RAW formats. And there's NO reason not to adopt DNG other than silly nonsense about locking people into one camera line.

[carpeicthus @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Brian: As long as you go to Leica or Hassy, more power to you, you rich guy you, but most manufacturers, such as Canon, do the same stuff.

[KirbyMeister @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Yeah Photoshop that's fine, but what about everyone else?

And I'm afraid to say the letters G, I, M, and P because then I'll be attacked, saying that I should plonk down $$$ for software that wont run on my machine, and then say I should plonk down more $$$ for a crappy OS that wont work on my machine, and then they'll tell me to spend $$$ on a new machine...

Well I guess since this is professional photography they're used to paying through the nose for the best stuff... so I dont apply.

[Navie @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

The problem with G, I M and P is that it's open source. For open source software to contain proprietary DRM decrypting code would be impossible. Nikon would never hand over their DRM to an open source project.

[Eric @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

There are alternatives to using ACR. You could use Adobe's free converter that converts most RAW formats into Adobe's DNG format. That should be supported by open source software such as GIMP since DNG is an open format. And it also shows the most promise for you having the ability to access your photos forever.

The biggest problem with GIMP is that it doesn't have the rich feature set of Photoshop, and it doesn't support CMYK (which is important for people in the print world (yes, print is still alive and kicking). If you are a serious photographer, there is no substitute for Photoshop.

[Jeff L. @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

DNG is a pain in the ass. period. there is no reason they can't just make ACR work right, and that means updating the previous version as well to work with newer cameras such as the D70s.

[Samuel Lago @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Nikon must be the only camera company that aren't working with MS to harmonise the RAW format for images. If you did not know there should be a single format for RAW files adopted industry wide, thus the special SDK provided at the mo is not future proof. This is just gimic stuff

[TMeister @ Dec 19th 2005 1:37AM]

Well, I had my Nikon D50 all of about 1 week before being totally pissed that my pictures were showing up blue / green by all other applications except Nikon Capture (the 30 day trial).

After hearing that Microsoft Longhorn / Vista and Nikon reached a deal integrating and promoting the proprietary format in the OS, that was my last straw. I'm NOT investing in $$$$ Nikon ever again.