Digital BW, The Print

I have not been reading the postings here on these cameras that closely 
because they don't interest me right now but something just popped into my 
head -- and maybe no one has mentioned it.  

I recall reading several months ago that Nikon has moved into a propreitary 
RAW format. Generally being out of the news I don't know if that's changed or 
what has happened since. But this item seems to throw a spanner into the 
works of a universal standard for the RAW format. How many pieces of 
software do we need on our computers afterall? Though I generally detest 
"one size fits all" sometimes it is a blessing and the ideal.

Something to take into consideration when buying a brand.

Craig Snyder

With a subject line like that few I think will even look at this post. 
Perhaps your subject should have been more specific about Nikon and RAW 
instead of the tired "Nikon vs. Canon"?

On 8/23/05, Craig Snyder <forum@...> wrote: 
> 
> I have not been reading the postings here on these cameras that closely 
> because they don't interest me right now but something just popped into my 
> 
> head -- and maybe no one has mentioned it. 
> 
> I recall reading several months ago that Nikon has moved into a 
> propreitary 
> RAW format. Generally being out of the news I don't know if that's changed 
> or 
> what has happened since. But this item seems to throw a spanner into the 
> works of a universal standard for the RAW format. How many pieces of 
> software do we need on our computers afterall? Though I generally detest 
> "one size fits all" sometimes it is a blessing and the ideal.
> 
> Something to take into consideration when buying a brand.
> 
> Craig Snyder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND 
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
>  ------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 
> 
> 
>    - Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" 
>    on the web.
>     - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
>    Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. 
> 
> 
>  ------------------------------
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> From: Craig Snyder
>
> I have not been reading the postings here on these cameras that closely
> because they don't interest me right now but something just
> popped into my
> head -- and maybe no one has mentioned it.
>
> I recall reading several months ago that Nikon has moved into a
> propreitary
> RAW format. Generally being out of the news I don't know if
> that's changed or
> what has happened since. But this item seems to throw a spanner into the
> works of a universal standard for the RAW format. How many pieces of
> software do we need on our computers afterall? Though I generally detest
> "one size fits all" sometimes it is a blessing and the ideal.

As I understand it, what they did was encrypt the white balance information.
Other software can still decode the image, but not the information put into
it about the white balance, so presumably their software can do a better job
of tweaking the color.

On the other hand, I don't know what information the camera has concerning
the white balance that didn't come from the sensor in the first place. It's
not as though the camera has a separate sensor to read the ambient light.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
>  > From: Craig Snyder
>  >
>  > I have not been reading the postings here on these cameras that closely
>  > because they don't interest me right now but something just
>  > popped into my
>  > head -- and maybe no one has mentioned it.
>  >
>  > I recall reading several months ago that Nikon has moved into a
>  > propreitary
>  > RAW format. Generally being out of the news I don't know if
>  > that's changed or
>  > what has happened since. But this item seems to throw a spanner into the
>  > works of a universal standard for the RAW format. How many pieces of
>  > software do we need on our computers afterall? Though I generally detest
>  > "one size fits all" sometimes it is a blessing and the ideal.
> 
> As I understand it, what they did was encrypt the white balance information.
> Other software can still decode the image, but not the information put into
> it about the white balance, so presumably their software can do a better job
> of tweaking the color.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't know what information the camera has concerning
> the white balance that didn't come from the sensor in the first place. It's
> not as though the camera has a separate sensor to read the ambient light.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
> 

Nikon does it's white balance from the Colour Matrix Meter II and a 
White Balance sensor that's mounted on the front of the viewfinder on 
the D2x (and possibly the D2Hs). These are the only Nikon's with 
encrypted white balance (The newer D50 and D70s lack it).

And Craig, all RAW formats are inherently proprietary. Even DNG is Adobe 
Proprietary, and DNG's not a true raw format, rather a useful 
intermediary that preserves raw sensor data.

-Adam

Actually the D2H and D2X do have a separate white
balance sensor located up near the prism.

Woody Spedden

--- "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
> From: Craig Snyder
>
> I have not been reading the postings here on these
cameras that closely
> because they don't interest me right now but
something just
> popped into my
> head -- and maybe no one has mentioned it.
>
> I recall reading several months ago that Nikon has
moved into a
> propreitary
> RAW format. Generally being out of the news I don't
know if
> that's changed or
> what has happened since. But this item seems to
throw a spanner into the
> works of a universal standard for the RAW format.
How many pieces of
> software do we need on our computers afterall?
Though I generally detest
> "one size fits all" sometimes it is a blessing and
the ideal.

As I understand it, what they did was encrypt the
white balance information.
Other software can still decode the image, but not the
information put into
it about the white balance, so presumably their
software can do a better job
of tweaking the color.

On the other hand, I don't know what information the
camera has concerning
the white balance that didn't come from the sensor in
the first place. It's
not as though the camera has a separate sensor to read
the ambient light.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


      

      SPONSORED LINKS  
                                               
Digital photography technique                         
          Digital photography                         
          Photography school                          
                                     Professional
digital photography                                   
Stock photography                                     
 
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

> From: Elwood Spedden
>
> Actually the D2H and D2X do have a separate white
> balance sensor located up near the prism.

Interesting. I wonder how well that works.

I guess that explains why they were tempted to encrypt the WB info. I've
heard lots of complaints about this decision, though, and nothing nice.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Not to go too far with this thread, it was probably
the stupidest thing Nikon has done to alienate their
customer base. I don't think any of us who shoot
Nikons bought them because of Nikon Capture software.
(Which is a fine product by the way but that isn't the
issue)

The long term effects of that decision on customer
loyalty remains to be seen but it can't be good. Canon
has already given Pros many reasons to change and this
will only add to that base.

Sad because the reason Canon is so inventive and
aggressive is because of Nikon's presence in the
market. If they get much more market share we the
shooters will pay dearly for it.

Vive le competition
Woody Spedden

--- "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
> From: Elwood Spedden
>
> Actually the D2H and D2X do have a separate white
> balance sensor located up near the prism.

Interesting. I wonder how well that works.

I guess that explains why they were tempted to encrypt
the WB info. I've
heard lots of complaints about this decision, though,
and nothing nice.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


  
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

  
---------------------------------

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:


> As I understand it, what they did was encrypt the white balance information.
> ...
> On the other hand, I don't know what information the camera has concerning
> the white balance that didn't come from the sensor in the first place. It's
> not as though the camera has a separate sensor to read the ambient light.

It encrypts user-specified white balance. If you tell the camera you are 
shooting under tungsten, or if you set a custom white balance to deal 
with unusual lighting, that information is encrypted. This information 
does not come from the sensor. So Nikon is encrypting creative data that 
the photographer inputs into the camera's computer manually, and 
separately from taking an exposure.

This move is almost certainly hurting Nikon. Out of the seven wedding 
and sports shooters I know who used Nikon, six have ditched them due in 
part to their perception that they have no credible high-volume raw 
processing option with the latest Nikons. That may just be the straw 
that broke their backs, though, as most of them have acknowledged for a 
few years that Canon is ahead of Nikon in various ways significant to 
their work.

-- 
Jeff Medkeff
Eagle River, Alaska

One thing to remember is that Canon has been involved with digital
video in a very big way for many years and had a head start in the r&d
with micro components. The division between what is a video device and
what is a still camera is quickly being erased. Canon is in that
category in direct competition with Sony, who has traditionally been a
fierce competitor in the television business. Nikon on the other hand
also put a lot of time and effort into scanner software that, as we
all know is a temporary market in a troublesome technology.

Having said that, I don't think Nikon will catch up unless they are
bought out by some other big Japanese electronics corp, (lets just
hope is isn't Seiko) which isn't out of the realm of possibility. I
think analogue lenses are dead for this market anyway. That was a
transitional compromisse to begin with. Canon's competition just might
come from someplace we haven't thought of yet.

John

> From: Jeff Medkeff
>
> It encrypts user-specified white balance. If you tell the camera you are
> shooting under tungsten, or if you set a custom white balance to deal
> with unusual lighting, that information is encrypted. This information
> does not come from the sensor. So Nikon is encrypting creative data that
> the photographer inputs into the camera's computer manually, and
> separately from taking an exposure.

On the other hand, when people shoot raw, they typically don't even think
about things like white balance that have no effect on the raw data. At
least they don't if they understand what raw is.

I can't see any very good reason to set a white balance value in the camera
before shooting, rather than setting it afterwards while looking at the
image on a computer screen, if the only thing that that camera setting does
is establish the default value for the conversion in the computer.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
>  > From: Jeff Medkeff
>  >
>  > It encrypts user-specified white balance. If you tell the camera you are
>  > shooting under tungsten, or if you set a custom white balance to deal
>  > with unusual lighting, that information is encrypted. This information
>  > does not come from the sensor. So Nikon is encrypting creative data that
>  > the photographer inputs into the camera's computer manually, and
>  > separately from taking an exposure.
> 
> On the other hand, when people shoot raw, they typically don't even think
> about things like white balance that have no effect on the raw data. At
> least they don't if they understand what raw is.
> 
> I can't see any very good reason to set a white balance value in the camera
> before shooting, rather than setting it afterwards while looking at the
> image on a computer screen, if the only thing that that camera setting does
> is establish the default value for the conversion in the computer.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
> 
> 

It's a typical step when measuring the WB manually.

-Adam

> > From: Jeff Medkeff
> > It encrypts user-specified white balance. > I can't see any very good reason to set a 
white balance value in the camera
> before shooting, rather than setting it afterwards while looking at the
> image on a computer screen, if the only thing that that camera setting does
> is establish the default value for the conversion in the computer.
> Paul      

Paul,

The controversy was Nikon encrypted the White Balance for the raw file. Even though the user 
does not set WB for raw, third party raw conversion software could not read the "as shot 
white balance". Basically Nikon was/is trying to force users to buy their Nikon software for 
$100.00.

> From: Adam Maas
>
> It's a typical step when measuring the WB manually.

Don't you just shoot a picture of a gray card, and then use that as the
reference in the converter later? I've never done it, so I don't know.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

> > From: Adam Maas
> >
> > It's a typical step when measuring the WB manually.
>
> Don't you just shoot a picture of a gray card, and then use that as the
> reference in the converter later? I've never done it, so I don't know.
>
> --
>
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

The manual WB info is recorded in the RAW file. Nikon encrypts this on 
the D2x (Just liike it does Auto or Preset WB if chosen).

-Adam

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:




> On the other hand, when people shoot raw, they typically don't even think
> about things like white balance that have no effect on the raw data. At
> least they don't if they understand what raw is.

I understand what raw is, and I pay very close attention to white 
balance when shooting raw - as do a great many photographers. One reason 
is that I rely upon the histogram to insure I am getting the levels I 
want in the photograph. The displayed histogram on every digital camera 
I've ever picked up is a histogram of the demosaiced image, with a white 
balance correction applied. So, if I did not set the correct white 
balance in the camera at the time of shooting, my histogram will be 
systematically in error when displayed in camera. That can lead to 
problems - clipping, if the systematic error reduces levels in a color 
channel of interest; or excessively lowered signal to noise ratio if the 
systematic error increases levels. This, in turn, certainly affects BW 
conversion and the ability to process for printing down the line. This 
is a major technical reason to set the white balance correctly in 
camera, when shooting raw.

There is also a reason involving convenience. As already mentioned, it 
is de rigeur to color-meter the light and set this in a digital camera 
directly. Alternately, you can shoot your gray card and set a white 
custom balance by selecting that image in-camera with the appropriate 
menu choices, the camera deriving the color temperature and tint terms 
necessary to balance images in that light. It is a great convenience, if 
you are doing either, to have your conversion software automatically 
respect this setting, rather than having to try to figure out what the 
setting was, or read it off redundant paper notes you took at the site 
and type it into your raw converter manually. Clicking on photos of gray 
cards in the converter works fine, but it is more labor intensive (in 
some converters, significantly more) than just having the converter read 
the raw metadata.

-- 
Jeff Medkeff
Eagle River, Alaska

> From: Jeff Medkeff
>
> I understand what raw is, and I pay very close attention to white
> balance when shooting raw - as do a great many photographers. One reason
> is that I rely upon the histogram to insure I am getting the levels I
> want in the photograph. The displayed histogram on every digital camera
> I've ever picked up is a histogram of the demosaiced image, with a white
> balance correction applied. So, if I did not set the correct white
> balance in the camera at the time of shooting, my histogram will be
> systematically in error when displayed in camera. That can lead to
> problems - clipping, if the systematic error reduces levels in a color
> channel of interest; or excessively lowered signal to noise ratio if the
> systematic error increases levels. This, in turn, certainly affects BW
> conversion and the ability to process for printing down the line. This
> is a major technical reason to set the white balance correctly in
> camera, when shooting raw.

But as you note, the histogram describes the image _after_ applying a
particular white balance correction. It doesn't necessarily tell you if your
raw file has any clipping, or excessive headroom, in any channel. If that's
what the histogram shows, then ideally you'd want to select a white balance
that reflects the native white balance of the sensor itself, so that the
histogram would most closely approximate what's coming off the sensor. The
optimum white balance for that purpose would have nothing to do with the
color of the ambient light.

> There is also a reason involving convenience. As already mentioned, it
> is de rigeur to color-meter the light and set this in a digital camera
> directly. Alternately, you can shoot your gray card and set a white
> custom balance by selecting that image in-camera with the appropriate
> menu choices, the camera deriving the color temperature and tint terms
> necessary to balance images in that light. It is a great convenience, if
> you are doing either, to have your conversion software automatically
> respect this setting, rather than having to try to figure out what the
> setting was, or read it off redundant paper notes you took at the site
> and type it into your raw converter manually. Clicking on photos of gray
> cards in the converter works fine, but it is more labor intensive (in
> some converters, significantly more) than just having the converter read
> the raw metadata.

I think it's probably easier just to snap a raw picture of your gray card,
under the same light as your subject, and then use the white balance
eyedropper (or equivalent tool) in your raw converter. That eliminates the
need to do anything WB-related in the camera.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:


> But as you note, the histogram describes the image _after_ applying a
> particular white balance correction. It doesn't necessarily tell you if your
> raw file has any clipping, or excessive headroom, in any channel.

If the raw file is clipped, the demosaiced image will clip; but you can 
still clip when demosaicing even when the sensor data is not. I don't 
use mosaiced images, so this is important. And I don't always want to 
apply a factor to the linear data to create my "headroom" for each of 
dozens of images, either.

Your point about using the native white balance of the sensor is fine in 
theory and works great for broad spectrum lighting, for those who have 
figured out what the spectral response of their sensors is (it isn't 
always what Canon and Nikon have specified it to be). But the technique 
can break down when using light sources with emission lines, due to a 
lack of full cutoff in the mosaic filters.


> I think it's probably easier just to snap a raw picture of your gray card,
> under the same light as your subject, and then use the white balance
> eyedropper (or equivalent tool) in your raw converter. That eliminates the
> need to do anything WB-related in the camera.

You are at liberty to think and do whatever you want, of course; but I 
find it a great deal simpler to set the white balance in camera than to 
go clicking around in raw converters. I use three converters, depending 
on the application. In one of them, I have to open, and click on, the 
gray card photo once for *each* raw file I was converting. That simply 
isn't convenient. The other two converters use different methods to 
apply one click to all subsequent images being converted - methods 
different from the converter already described, and different from each 
other.

Meanwhile, my *cameras* (two manufacturers) use only *one* method of 
setting the white balance. It is much easier to learn how to do 
something one way than to learn three different ways of doing it and 
remember which way goes with which tool.

Of course, with Nikon I guess there is no real problem along these 
lines, because in the US you only get *one* choice of software for 
converting their raw files, unless you want to violate federal copyright 
law.... But my point is that gray-card shooting and ignoring white 
balance at exposure time is *not* consistent with many photographers' 
work requirements.

-- 
Jeff Medkeff
Eagle River, Alaska

The key item is the _gray_ card.  Kodak gray cards are not neutral; bad.
Also there have been good discussions supporting the use of a much lighter
gray for white balance in the raw converter.  The lightest gray patch on the
color checker, patch 20, is ideal.  L value ~81.  For fieldwork, there is a
product at http://www.whibal.com/ that is very neutral and durable.  If you
like finding things that cost almost nothing, find a sign shop that uses the
rigid PVC foam called Komatex, Sintra, or Celtec and get a scrap piece of
light gray, or buy it for ~$2/sq-ft.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Paul D.
DeRocco
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:37 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Nikon vs. Canon

<snip>
I think it's probably easier just to snap a raw picture of your gray card,
under the same light as your subject, and then use the white balance
eyedropper (or equivalent tool) in your raw converter. That eliminates the
need to do anything WB-related in the camera.

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Aug 23, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Jeff Medkeff wrote:

> Of course, with Nikon I guess there is no real problem along these
> lines, because in the US you only get *one* choice of software for
> converting their raw files, unless you want to violate federal  
> copyright
> law

Gee, Photoshop seems to wok just fine...

--Darin

www.darinboville.com

Darin Boville wrote:



> Gee, Photoshop seems to wok just fine...

I've never tried to fry up a copy of photoshop, but who knows, it might 
be good. ;-)

We recently tried to use Photoshop to convert a Nikon D2X raw file taken 
with a user-set white balance under low pressure sodium vapor lighting. 
ACR ignored the user-set white balance information and the converted 
image had a strong yellow-orange cast. It may have looked just fine to 
you, but the result wasn't "just fine" to the client.

My proposal to print the image in black and white was shot down, 
unfortunately. We ended up buying software from Nikon to deal with the 
image, passed about $1,300 in additional charges on to the client, and 
ate about that in lost productivity ourselves. So dealing with a single 
image from a $5,000 camera cost about $2,500. Not an impressive business 
outcome.

This is the result of Nikon's encryption scheme: to force changes in 
some of their users' workflows. Changes which the users don't want, in 
part because their old workflows worked fine, and in part because 
changing a workflow costs money. Even if you don't need new (and grossly 
overpriced) software, the cost of learning and adapting to a new set of 
practices can be significant to many users. I know some photographers 
think they have all the answers and that their simple ideas can be 
usefully adopted by all photographers, but that simply isn't the case. 
The controversy surrounding Nikon's move is real, and is grounded in the 
dollars and cents that some Nikon users are losing as they adapt to the 
greater control Nikon is exercising over how they can process their 
images. It is too bad, because the users unaffected by Nikon encryption 
would also be unaffected by a lack of encryption.

-- 
Jeff Medkeff
Eagle River, Alaska

Sorry, I know this is totally OT in this forum, ..

Nikon View and the NEF plugin which is free will open the file with
the custom or auto WB just fine. Passing down the $100 Capture
software for $1,300 to the customer is definitely a very good business
outcome.

> 
> My proposal to print the image in black and white was shot down, 
> unfortunately. We ended up buying software from Nikon to deal with the 
> image, passed about $1,300 in additional charges on to the client, and 
> ate about that in lost productivity ourselves. So dealing with a single 
> image from a $5,000 camera cost about $2,500. Not an impressive
business 
> outcome.

Michael Hung wrote:



> Nikon View and the NEF plugin which is free will open the file with
> the custom or auto WB just fine.

Thanks for this suggestion; it is one we explored. As I have already 
suggested, there is no universal answer to all photographer's problems. 
This free blackbox software doesn't necessarily help someone who may be 
required to (among other things) tell lawyers the algorithm used to 
suppress zippers in the image, nor is it necessarily helpful to Joe 
Wedding Shooter who wants to retain their existing bulk processing 
methods and is now eyeing their upgrade path. This is regrettable - I'm 
not gleeful about it, I'm disturbed by it.


> Passing down the $100 Capture software for $1,300 to the customer is
> definitely a very good business outcome.

Billing a client well over bid is not the kind of "good business 
outcome" that I'd like to often repeat. And the bulk of the time 
resulting in this billing (and the unbillable losses we absorbed) was 
spent researching Nikon's freebie software, determining its apparent 
unsuitability, and talking to Nikon about alternatives. Although we did 
buy software from Nikon, we did not inflate that cost to the client as 
you suggest.

I wish I had been involved in the capture of the image; we could have 
done a bit better.

Sorry to further clutter the list; I just didn't want to let slide the 
apparent gratuitous smear.

-- 
Jeff Medkeff
Eagle River, Alaska

John,

Been away so rather late with this, but to correct your reply - some third 
party raw conversion software CAN and DOES decrypt the Nikon WB info from 
the D2x (I think Bibble does), but Adobe has decided not to do this for some 
legal or 'political' reason in its ACR software.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Vitollo" <jvlist@...>

The controversy was Nikon encrypted the White Balance for the raw file. Even 
though the user
does not set WB for raw, third party raw conversion software could not read 
the "as shot
white balance". Basically Nikon was/is trying to force users to buy their 
Nikon software for
$100.00.

Jeff,

Oh dear, I've been letting the D2x color meter the light from its two 
sensors and set it automatically.

;)

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Medkeff" <medkeff@...>

 it is de rigeur to color-meter the light and set this in a digital camera 
directly.

"but Adobe has decided not to do this for some
legal or 'political' reason in its ACR software."

Wrong:


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/05090601nikon_adobe.asp

Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
<bob@f...> wrote:
> John,
> 
> Been away so rather late with this, but to correct your reply - 
some third 
> party raw conversion software CAN and DOES decrypt the Nikon WB 
info from 
> the D2x (I think Bibble does), but Adobe has decided not to do this 
for some 
> legal or 'political' reason in its ACR software.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Vitollo" <jvlist@c...>
> 
> The controversy was Nikon encrypted the White Balance for the raw 
file. Even 
> though the user
> does not set WB for raw, third party raw conversion software could 
not read 
> the "as shot
> white balance". Basically Nikon was/is trying to force users to buy 
their 
> Nikon software for
> $100.00.

Scott,

Right? If you read the earlier story on the same DpReview page, it says:-

"While the encryption can be cracked, Adobe is concerned about being sued 
for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Dpreview 
agrees with the sentiments of chief engineer and original author of 
Photoshop Thomas Knoll, who said "I think the copyrighted information inside 
the NEF file belongs to the photographer, not Nikon. But Nikon apparently 
thinks they own the information inside the NEF." UPDATE: Third party RAW 
converter, Bibble, has announced that it has decoded the D2X's RAW white 
balance parameter and will fully support it. Author of dcraw.c David Coffin 
has also decoded the encryption."

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "scott_now_coming" <scott_now_coming@...>


"but Adobe has decided not to do this for some
legal or 'political' reason in its ACR software."

Wrong: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/05090601nikon_adobe.asp

They decided they couldn't do it for legal reasons without Nikon's 
permission, while Bibble and the open source software people just went 
ahead and did it, I think on the assumption that the negative publicity 
from Nikon trying to assert its arguable legal position would deter them 
from doing so. Adobe have of course gone to law with some success over 
not unrelated issues around some of their own software in the past.

So the previous statement was not entirely misleading. Just things have 
moved on a little since then. I haven't heard that Adobe have updated 
their software yet to work with the Nikon encryption - but haven't 
really been taking too much notice since I don't use a D2X or ACR. Are 
you saying that they have issued a version of ACR that works with the 
D2X now?

Regards

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     +44 (0)1784 456474
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



scott_now_coming wrote:

>"but Adobe has decided not to do this for some
>legal or 'political' reason in its ACR software."
>
>Wrong:
>
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/05090601nikon_adobe.asp
>
>Scott
>
>
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
><bob@f...> wrote:
>  
>
>>John,
>>
>>Been away so rather late with this, but to correct your reply - 
>>    
>>
>some third 
>  
>
>>party raw conversion software CAN and DOES decrypt the Nikon WB 
>>    
>>
>info from 
>  
>
>>the D2x (I think Bibble does), but Adobe has decided not to do this 
>>    
>>
>for some 
>  
>
>>legal or 'political' reason in its ACR software.
>>
>>Bob Frost.
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "John Vitollo" <jvlist@c...>
>>
>>The controversy was Nikon encrypted the White Balance for the raw 
>>    
>>
>file. Even 
>  
>
>>though the user
>>does not set WB for raw, third party raw conversion software could 
>>    
>>
>not read 
>  
>
>>the "as shot
>>white balance". Basically Nikon was/is trying to force users to buy 
>>    
>>
>their 
>  
>
>>Nikon software for
>>$100.00.
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>

"Are
you saying that they have issued a version of ACR that works with the
D2X now?"

That article states that the D2X white balance issuse will be "fixed" 
in the next ACR up-date, whenever that maybe (I'm assuming by year 
end).

Scott



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall 
<petermarshall@c...> wrote:
> They decided they couldn't do it for legal reasons without Nikon's 
> permission, while Bibble and the open source software people just 
went 
> ahead and did it, I think on the assumption that the negative 
publicity 
> from Nikon trying to assert its arguable legal position would deter 
them 
> from doing so. Adobe have of course gone to law with some success 
over 
> not unrelated issues around some of their own software in the past.
> 
> So the previous statement was not entirely misleading. Just things 
have 
> moved on a little since then. I haven't heard that Adobe have 
updated 
> their software yet to work with the Nikon encryption - but haven't 
> really been taking too much notice since I don't use a D2X or ACR. 
Are 
> you saying that they have issued a version of ACR that works with 
the 
> D2X now?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Peter Marshall
> petermarshall@c...     +44 (0)1784 456474
> _________________________________________________________________
> My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
> London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
> The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
> and elsewhere......
> 
> 
> 
> scott_now_coming wrote:
> 
> >"but Adobe has decided not to do this for some
> >legal or 'political' reason in its ACR software."
> >
> >Wrong:
> >
> >
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/05090601nikon_adobe.asp
> >
> >Scott
> >
> >
> >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Frost" 
> ><bob@f...> wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>John,
> >>
> >>Been away so rather late with this, but to correct your reply - 
> >>    
> >>
> >some third 
> >  
> >
> >>party raw conversion software CAN and DOES decrypt the Nikon WB 
> >>    
> >>
> >info from 
> >  
> >
> >>the D2x (I think Bibble does), but Adobe has decided not to do 
this 
> >>    
> >>
> >for some 
> >  
> >
> >>legal or 'political' reason in its ACR software.
> >>
> >>Bob Frost.
> >>
> >>----- Original Message ----- 
> >>From: "John Vitollo" <jvlist@c...>
> >>
> >>The controversy was Nikon encrypted the White Balance for the raw 
> >>    
> >>
> >file. Even 
> >  
> >
> >>though the user
> >>does not set WB for raw, third party raw conversion software 
could 
> >>    
> >>
> >not read 
> >  
> >
> >>the "as shot
> >>white balance". Basically Nikon was/is trying to force users to 
buy 
> >>    
> >>
> >their 
> >  
> >
> >>Nikon software for
> >>$100.00.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
resources as they are often being updated.
> >
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by 
visiting this same page.
> >
> >Please follow these basic guidelines:
> >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages 
to keep them short.
> >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed 
from the membership without notice.
> >- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of 
digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may 
be removed from the membership.
> >- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" 
in the Files section:
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> >BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT 
THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP 
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, 
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER 
INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL 
BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF 
SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE 
THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT 
OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) 
ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

> > 
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >

DP review, has article from Adobe and Nikon as in the marriage is back 
on dated Sept 6th. Anthony

scott_now_coming wrote:

>"Are
>you saying that they have issued a version of ACR that works with the
>D2X now?"
>
>That article states that the D2X white balance issuse will be "fixed" 
>in the next ACR up-date, whenever that maybe (I'm assuming by year 
>end).
>
>Scott
>
>
>
>-
>

Bob Frost wrote:



> Oh dear, I've been letting the D2x color meter the light from its two 
> sensors and set it automatically.

As I've repeatedly stated, not all photographers can supply all the 
answers for everyone else. There are lots of people using digital 
cameras that do not have built-in colorimeters, and there are others who 
want or need to use an external meter.

-- 
Jeff Medkeff
Eagle River, Alaska