Do you mean "am I able" or "should it be possible"?
If you are able, then it is possible. Without 3rd party software, there are times immediately after a new camera release when a raw file can only be adjusted using the camera manufacturer's software. In this case, you are not able because it is not possible.
Why would a camera manufacturer not
want it's customers to have access to the means to produce the best
Do you consider yourself the owner of your car? Do you go to a third-party car-workshop because the car manufacturer tells you their car is an open format, go wherever the h*ll you please and we still provide you with all the benefits and requirements of guarantees and obligations on our part?
Car manufacturers will not void your warranty based on the brand of the tools used to work on the car. We are talking about the digital file, not the camera. If I sent my Canon camera to Nikon to be repaired, I would not expect my warranty to be honored.
Did you sign a mutual contract with the camera manufacturer that specifically states that they will make available RAW data to you that is yours and yours to do however you please? Or did you just purchase a camera which produces JPG which is a ubiquitous format and it can also do RAW?
No, I did not. But, at the same time I think that there is a reason why Camera Manufacturers don't do this. They are not stupid. If Canon made it so where customers could not use 3rd party raw converters, the companies that allow their customers to use 3rd party converters would immediately have an advantage: better looking images. Pro and amateur photographers would abandon Canon in droves. The average human knows the word Photoshop and associates that with digital images, how many know what you are talking about when you say DPP? I purchase a camera based on the image quality that is possible to achieve from the particular camera. If I am limited to a lower possible quality then I will look for an alternative. Photoshop/Lightroom/C1 etc are that alternative.
(remember, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, don't take it out on me).
No worries. I have an open mind and hope to learn something from this exchange. So, give me a benefit to the customer for the camera manufacturers not to embrace a universal raw format?
I don't understand "dictator" in this context. But if I for example want to introduce a new Color Filter Array as did Fuji recently, should they somehow postpone introduction until all third-party converters have implemented a reasonable conversion and support?
Why would there be a need to delay production? The third party converter that is the first to respond with the goods will reap the benefits from the market. You stated that "raw converters do not dictate raw format development". If raw converters do not dictate, then that means that another party is dictating...this means that there is a dictator.
DNG fails to separate processing from data. An open RAW format should simply be designed as a container for the RAW data and meta data.
I was not aware that DNG fails in this aspect. If it does, I am in agreement with you on this.
However, DNG seems to be developed from the processing paradigm at Adobe. One glaring example would be the introduction of dual dng profiles. First of all there was a perfectly good color profile standard available in the form of ICC profiles. Second there is absolutely no reason to introduce something like dual profiles where only one response will do fine from a color management point of view. And behind this idea is an entirely incorrect or false processing paradigm based on incorrect application of basic color science. (introduction of temperature and tint).
Another example would be the current lens profiling options. There is a significant difference between the idea of profiling a lens vs introducing formulas for distortion processing.
I am not knowledgeable enough in this area to form a valid opinion. I will have to research this first. Can you provide me with a source of documentation?
How do you know whether it is easy to reverse engineer the data? How do you know they have reversed engineered *ALL* the data?
I do not know that they have reversed engineered ALL of the data. Apparently they have reversed engineered enough in order to produce an arguably higher quality output.
Do know if they want that, but I also wonder how prohibitive it is for a commercial company to have to license the Adobe RAW converter to sell with your cameras and also keep a timely product development cycle, plus the dependence on a third-party etc. etc..
There is no need to depend on a 3rd party convertor, the manufacturer could also use an open raw format. Note that I did not say dng. I dont care if it is dng or not. Just a generic container for the info. At the moment, dng is the most prominent. Is there another alternative. Heck, I don't care if we use .kdc format as it seems that kodak will not be using it..LOL.
It may also be that camera manufacturers generally tend to be hardware manufacturers, not software manufacturers, however, I do not read any arguments here why they should adopt an open RAW format and stop providing their own solution.
They do not have to stop providing their own solution. But, how many people buy a Canon camera just so they can use DPP or how many Nikon user bought their Nikon just so they could use Capture NX?
Don't shoot the messenger.
No danger. My opinion is not changed as of yet.
Do you own a car? If so, what garage do you go to for periodic check up, and why?
Yes, I own a car. Here in Germany, we must (by law) take our cars to the local TÜV garage once every two years for a very thorough inspection. But, I keep an eye on it myself. My father was a mechanic by trade and I grew up helping him in his garage.