Why Doesn't Canon/Nikon License RAW Converters to Adobe, Apple, etc.?

It is well accepted now (I hope) that different RAW converters vastly differ in their interpretation of colors

coming from the same RAW file.

<p>

For example:

<p>

<ul>

<li>Lightroom interprets reds as oranges, whereas Canon DPP keeps reds red</li>

<li>Lightroom tends to render skin tones with a greenish cast, whereas Canon DPP doesn't suffer from this

problem</li>

</ul>

<p>

Those are just two examples; there are many other differences. I myself have noticed this in Canon RAW files

coming from 2 different Rebel XTi's and 2 different Canon 5D's. It's not a camera problem; it's just that Adobe

Camera RAW just doesn't know what it's doing when it comes to interpreting the colors from Canon RAW files. I've

heard similar complaints re: its handling of Nikon RAW files.

<p>

Yes, using the ACR 'Camera Calibration' *can* help; but it really doesn't give you as 'rich' or 'nice' colors as

Canon DPP. And it causes other artifacts. For example, every time I use the ACR calibrator & a Gretagmacbeth

color checker card to come up with my values for the ACR calibration sliders, invariably the results indicate

that I need to up the red saturation and move its hue 'to the left' (toward magenta). This causes magentas in the

image to become overtly magenta, gaudily so. What happens is one gets patches of fully saturated magenta, which

look unnatural. I will try and post some visual examples shortly.

<p>

The recent release of the 'beta DNG profiles' from Adobe (here:

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles), changes all that and finally gives colors & renditions

similar to the manufacturer's software (e.g. Canon DPP).

<p>

My question is this: why don't camera manufacturer's (i.e. Canon, Nikon) license out their RAW converters, or at

least their color interpretation component, to software companies such as Adobe (for ACR), or Apple (for

Aperture), etc.? Camera manufacturer's aren't in the market for their software; in fact, photographers avoid

their software like the plague. Camera manufacturers themselves could <b>make</b> money by licensing out these

RAW conversion algorithms, and software developers wouldn't have to <b>waste time</b> trying to shoot color

charts with test models of new cameras to extrapolate the color response of these cameras for their own RAW

converters. Since time=money, this would mean that the software companies could also save money by buying the

license from the camera manufacturers.

<p>

At any rate, my bottom line is this: I don't understand why their isn't more communication between camera

manufacturers and developers of photo editing software when it comes to RAW conversion. It's almost universally

accepted that people like Canon DPP's rendition of colors in comparison to ACR (in Lightroom or Photoshop)... the

people that don't even realize there's a difference: please open a RAW file in Lightroom vs. DPP & witness the

color difference. Or, you've probably seen that when you first load up RAW files in Lightroom, the colors look

great & saturated, then within seconds as Lightroom 'reads' the files, the colors become dull & ridiculous.

That's because you're first seeing an embedded JPEG (processed by the camera, so, using the same RAW conversion

as the manufacturer software) first, which is then replaced with a preview generated by Lightroom and the ACR engine.

<p>

Anyway, just wanted to get some thoughts on this & what people think.

<p>

Cheers,<br>Rishi

It's simple: some software vendors don't want to spend what <i>other</i> vendors are asking in order to license their technology. Nikon, for example, has spent a lot of money evolving their own image handling and editing software. They're going to keep evolving that software. Adobe is a competitor that would like to have all of that business for themselves. What would be Nikon's motivation for letting someone else take away more of their software business, at no charge? So, they ask a price. And Adobe doesn't feel the need to pay, because they know they've got most people locked into using their products.

i totaly understand your point.

 

on the other hand, i find personnaly that all the canon image are a bit too red and a bit to saturated. So i simply use and create a preset that *fix* this, and get the file where i want it..without even really using the canon profile.

 

I think it will be a good thing for all user that keep complaining that there DPP or Caputre is better out of the box, but for me that use Lr everyday and really know it..it will only save me a 1-2 second per image at best. Still, it will be nice to save them, as second make minute pretty fast.

 

So yes, i think it could be a good idea for camera developper to give there recipe to Adobe..but maybe they are affraid that Adobe release a camera that shoot like a canon or nikon : )

Matt, my argument did presuppose that Canon & Nikon don't, nor do they intend to, make money off of their software. My entire argument falls apart if they do.

 

But, do they? Canon certainly doesn't sell their software; DPP is free. So, heck, why doesn't Canon just GIVE Adobe their RAW converter? In fact, if they did this, then, since most people want to use Adobe software anyway, Canon would have an edge in digital camera sales because consumers may CHOOSE a Canon digital camera over a Nikon digital camera simply because Adobe software conversions would be better for the Canon.

 

Is it time for me to call up a Canon PR rep? :)

 

-Rishi

BTW, I know this is my personal opinion, but for me Lightroom's conversions are <b>so bad</b> that I opt to first output the RAW files as TIFFs from Canon's DPP using a contrast of (-4) and the 'faithful' setting, then import these (62MB or more each) files into LR for post-processing.

<p>

Pathetic, I know. But I know there are others out there like me (most of my friends that I've helped 'see the light' by forcing them to do their own comparisons, as well as others that discovered the color issues themselves). So I do think there's room for some improvement...

<p>

Let me reiterate, though, that the new DNG profiles from the ACR team are quite amazing. I'm just wondering why the heck they have to even waste their time, money, & resources developing them when Canon should really just give it out for free or for a nominal fee.

I have to say I think third parties licensing profiles or raw processors is a really, really bad idea.

 

In short, it poisons the well of competition. If every third party software provider was using Nikon's raw converter, there would be no competition to produce the best image from a Nikon raw file. Such competition has almost certainly furthered the quality we get even from Nikon's own software.

 

In general it has a negative effect on research. It shouldn't be that surprising that a third party could get better quality from a raw image file than the manufacturer of a sensor. You don't expect the maker of a violin to be the best player, and to use a photographic analogy Polaroid didn't anticipate or even encourage the kinds of uses people got from their products.

 

Poorly implemented standards, bodged algorithms, and scattered knowledge are vastly preferable to unvarying, definitive implementations of converters from companies who are not actually known for their software quality. The former will continuously evolve through the pressure of competition and the thirst for innovation. The latter will stagnate like APS and disk film.

"photographers avoid their software like the plague"

 

I for one like DPP, their interpretation, their lens correction feature etc. I can copy style and paste it to

the group etc. I've no use for lightroom. If I need to edit more extensively I convert the CR2 to either TIFF

or DNG and edit in PS, or just use the JPG out of camera since I shoot RAW + JPG sometimes.

 

I understand where you're coming from and who knows what's going to happen down the line but for now

I trust the manufacturer rather than the 3rd party.

for what reason then im staying with Ligthroom? dam, i should get DPP rigth away and start getting better image for my client..all this time i tought my image look good...

 

_______________

 

I think a software is as good as the operator; if pro, real pro, have switch from C1Pro (or others) to Ligthroom..there must be a reason? why then those pro ditn use DPP or Capture instead?..maybe because they can get a better or similar quality out of it, as fast as anyone can do it with the manufacturer software.

 

Thats not to start a argument about apple vs orange, it just to let people know that serious user get amazing result as today with Lr, sure a littler preset would be a nice addition (they already start doing some for nikon and canon) but if i can develop a canon or nikon raw in 10sec in Lr..im sure other user can also.

on the other end, i keep my workflow simple by knowing only 1 raw converter and master it well, instead of having to get capture, dpp, c1pro and others existing, since im working for photographer and therefore have acces to a lot of different brand and model raw everyday. It would be insane to have all of those software and tried to fully understand them.

Patrick,

 

Do you shoot any landscapes? It's not just that I can't, in 10 seconds, get pleasing results from LR. I can spend countless hours in LR & NEVER get the right colors. Because the RAW conversion is just plain wrong. Reds should not be orange and oranges should not be yellow. When I shoot Velvia film, an orange sunset comes back orange, not yellow/green (& yes I have a profiled monitor & have intensely studied color management).

 

I'm not doubting it works for you. I'm just saying that, objectively, reds should be red. And btw I scored perfect on the following Color IQ test :)

 

http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77

 

And Michael: wow, I gotta say, in your one posting you've convinced me that you're right & I'm wrong :) I guess I'm also more willing to concede defeat now that the ACR team has put out pretty damn good profiles as of the October 22nd update that I linked to above.

 

Cheers,

Rishi

The algorithms the various raw processors use are part and parcel of a company's intellectual property. Thye have a great deal invested in it.

 

Part of the problem is that they fear that too much transparency with a second party like Adobe may somehow inadvertently result in a leak of their proprietary information over to their more direct competitors (Canon v Nikon v Sony v Pentax v etc.) and from that raw raw code it might be possible to glean intimations of where a company plans to go in the future. While of course the competitors can (and do) buy each others cameras and software and take a good hard look at it it doesn't make competitive sense to make it easier for company A to company B's life easier.

"It's simple: some software vendors don't want to spend what <i>other</i> vendors are asking in order to license their technology."

 

It's simple, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

Both Nikon and Canon provide their raw converters in a form that others can link to (SDKs with DLLs). Where does that leave Adobe?

 

They have to hope that linking the Nikon and Canon code doesn't cause any additional stability problems with Lightroom, in addition to maintaining their own code base for Pentax, Sony, Hasselblad, Leaf, Fuji, etc..

 

Then they have to figure out how to send the parameters to the Nikon and Canon SDKs so that the Lightroom sliders do the same thing if you move hue 12 degrees and set sharpening +25 for a Sony through the Adobe engine, a Nikon through the Nikon engine, a Canon through the Canon engine, etc. That means a whole lot of reverse engineering and experimentation.

 

So, the basic argument is wrong: it's not that Adobe can't get Nikon and Canon engines, it's that they don't really want them.

 

p.s. Rishi, if your standard for getting colors right is Velvia, then your entire argument about which converters do and don't get colors right has and unstable foundation and will collapse.

Bascially as Matt Laur said, Nikon, in particular has an interest in protecting a market for their imaging software.

I find that both Lightroom, and Aperture tend to make the skin tones on my D200 orange. But I also discovered PhaseOne Capture 1 and so far that does a nice job on the skin tones of my D200 Neff files.

IBM at one time, did'nt take their software seriously. Now all they can do is look out their WINDOWS.

IT would be a big mistake to let a software company control the future of your product. Its the interpretation of color that is sold in camera comercials. If all cameras had the same tonalities, it might limit some of our choices in creativity. And yes we can probably recreate with software almost any interpretation we see fit, but it is nice to open our minds to these interpretations. Photography is not just an act of documentation of sight but an art form as seen through the eyes of the mind and heart.

Like I've always said to myself about digital camera's, you're not buying a lens and camera body, you're buying software and a

CMOS, Foveon or Bayer sensor.

 

There's no way around it.

Rishi, which DNG profiles do you find useful? I have a Canon 20D and I've yet to really figure out how to use the DNG profiles in a useful way. All the camera presets have a magenta cast- Adobe standard looks the best of them. Camera standard has some odd colors but I like that it compresses the shadows.

Even using the various profiles available in ACR, none match the file when it's opened in Capture NX/NX 2. ACR opened files are darker

overall, including the colors, especially reds. If there's a way to make a preset in ACR to make it match NX/NX 2 I'm not aware of how to

do it.

Carl, you know the little right panel with exposure, recovery, fill etc..on the side of the screen? this is where you *fix* it : )

 

As previously said, just create a preset, a base preset for ALL your image, a setting that have 1/2 or 3/4 of a stop (.50 or .70 let say) a bit of recovery, a bit of fill light, black 3, add 24 and 25 for noise luminance and color, let the sharpen at default, add 20-40 clarity, 15-25 vibrance...in color remove a bit of saturation for the red, add a bit or majenat to it and BAM BAM a newly base preset for many CANON camera.

 

im too good for the rest of the mortal or what..i dont think so?! If it work for me on 8 image a day..it should work for any of you..i cant see why not?!

 

dam, just give it a try..its free.

heres, for the lazy one : )

That doesn't display, Patrick, and I shoot Nikon anyway.

nothing to display its a zip file, you just have to click on it to make it download on your desktop.

 

same settign apply to nikon also, in any case, you will certainly have to refine some setting, thats normal..then you save it as a new preset for you.

 

the point is, user open a image in Lr, take a look at it, close it and rant about Lr without trying most of the time just to do basic corrections..it take me generally around 10-20 sec to *fix* 1 images, then if the other are similar, applied the setting to them also and then refining the setting for each of them...just do 8 studio shot (could have been nature, car, trees..but it append it was a girl over a gray background) from a P45, with the export, a 125meg file x 8 it took around 5min to import / correct / export.

Patrick, I did download the file, but it would not open. Here's the error message.

 

Safari can’t open the file “*BASIC_NOSHARPEN.lrtemplate” because no available application can open it

its a lr 2 file compress in a zip format.

 

so you double click the desktop file, it will open as a folder, inside a lr 2 file, double click it or put it in your develop preset folder. But you probably need Lr 2.1 to read it.

AHA, I use ACR 4, not LR. I don't even have LR. I should have paid attention to the file to start with, and I would have

known it was a LR file. Can you do that for ACR 4?

when i have time aroudn chrismas : )

 

until then, applied what i said i ACR.