An enigmatic situation. After...
An enigmatic situation.
After considerable personal research, I have reached my own personal conclusion regarding the raw file encryption enigma. My conclusion is that the processes to resolve this are already in place and should have been used to diplomatically resolve the dispute before it arose. The conundrum is not Adobe / Nikon exclusive.
Some background factoids:
There already is a raw standard that addresses the interests of all parties. This is the ISO TIFF/EP (Electronic Photography) standard. This is owned by the ISO, not a single vendor. The TIFF 6.0 standard is owned by Adobe. The ISO TIFF/EP standard was formulated in 2001 specifically to address the needs of sophisticated sensor metrics and raw data. It appears to me that it was deficient in a few areas. Specific rules for white balance and spectral response data points are two deficiencies. By default, these were left to another (loosely) architected standard, EXIF Makernotes. It appears to be time for an updated version of the TIFF/EP standard.
Adobe already owns the TIFF 6.0, DNG, and XMP standards. TIFF 6.0 did not fully address the raw needs, hence the ISO TIFF/EP standard. The EXIF standard addressed the need for camera metrics irrespective of image format and came in the late 1990s. EXIF Makernotes provided a mechanism to save otherwise undocumented metrics, so the manufacturers started using it. Adobe DNG came along in late 2004 defining the raw metrics needed by Adobe. As a point of fact, Adobe and DNG do not fully support all of the TIFF/EP constructs. DNG has only cursory mention of the Makernotes area.
I am personally troubled with the concept of a single software vendor controlling so many crucial standards for an industry. This smacks of potential monopoly and encourages megalomania. I don’t want to give Adobe or anyone else Humma Kavula’s “Point of View” gun (Hitchhiker’s Guide).
I believe that the long-term solution lies within the ISO and the TIFF/EP standard. If the standard were more robust and complete, there would be little need for reverse engineered hacks. It does need some minor revisions, but this is hardly unusual.
On the other hand, I vigorously support the OpenRAW position. To me it simply means that the raw vendors should openly disclose their Makernotes tags and metrics. As long as the rest of the data complies with verifiable and usable industry standards, this should not be a difficult or unreasonable request. It will allow the users to choose their own favorite image editors. It is not a guarantee of image quality or software features.
Cheers, Rags :-)
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
--
http://www.rags-int-inc.com
Rags, a few responses: You say: "DNG has only cursory...
Rags, a few responses:
You say: "DNG has only cursory mention of the Makernotes area".
Because it is a mess! The rules for it are not well-defined, therefore you can write apparently valid Makernotes that processors of the file cannot handle sensibly. Only the "maker" knows whether it is safe to re-write the Makernotes exactly as they are, or whether this will corrupt them.
DNG provides 2 tags that make this aspect safe: DNGPrivateData "provides a way for camera manufacturers to store private data in the DNG file for use by their own raw converters, and to have that data preserved by programs that edit DNG files"; and MakerNoteSafety "lets the DNG reader know whether the EXIF MakerNote tag is safe to preserve along with the rest of the EXIF data".
DNG provides 2 separate ways for "makers" to safely store their data in the DNG file - to use DNGPrivateData according to the rules, or use MakerNote and state that it is safe using MakerNoteSafety.
Isn't that enough?
You say: "I believe that the long-term solution lies within the ISO and the TIFF/EP standard. If the standard were more robust and complete, there would be little need for reverse engineered hacks. It does need some minor revisions, but this is hardly unusual".
Surely DNG comprises PRECISELY those "minor revisions" that makes TIFF/EP "more robust and complete"?
As the DNG specification says: "DNG is an extension of the TIFF 6.0 format, and is compatible with the TIFF-EP standard. It is possible (but not required) for a DNG file to simultaneously comply with both the DigitalNegative specification and the TIFF-EP standard".
Isn't that good?
You say: "I believe that the long-term solution lies within the ISO".
(What would you guess be about a date for such changes? 5 years time?)
But what should happen before then? Here are the 3 questions I asked elsewhere. What do YOU think sensible answers are?
1. "If Canon asked OpenRAW today "what Raw format would you like to see in our next camera?", what would the answer be?"
My answer is "DNG". What is yours?
2. "If a photographer wants to alleviate the problems identified by this website, what can they do today?"
My answer is "convert to DNG and archive the DNG, if necessary embedding the original Raw file". What is your answer?
3. "And - what would any ISO standard in this area be based upon?"
My answer is "DNG". What do YOU think it would be based on?