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

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 so bad 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.

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...

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