where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
heartyfisher said:
PS Studio Nice image BTW. Might go with a squarish crop and remove right side a bit ? Lovely hand.. is she the one you said has had hand modeling jobs?
Thanks hearty. No, it's not the hand model, though I noticed she does have nice hands.
Well, I can open NEFs directly from the CF card from within Photoshop (I don't know what Aperture did with them), and the ACR plug-in opens them fine. It is also aware that I'm in Adobe RGB.
studio460 said:
so I assume it put the NEFs somewhere.
Just put ".NEF" into your OS search and any and all NEF's will be found. And the NEF's should open in Camera Raw when you drag them over to PS, but you can always just use bridge to get there too.
studio460 said:
Well, I can open NEFs directly from the CF card from within Photoshop (I don't know what Aperture did with them), and the ACR plug-in opens them fine. It is also aware that I'm in Adobe RGB.
Are you using a Mac? I use the ImageCapture application to dump my NEF's from my cards to my drive because its a really low profile program, unlike iPhoto or any other programs I've tried in the past.
Thanks Squamish. Yes, OS X. Tried searching for ".NEF"--nothing. Trying to "export the master" in Aperture results in a file dialog box with .NEF in the extension for the file it's looking for, but it wants me to find it, as if it doesn't know where it is, or it was never imported. So, I just tried working on the "master" in Aperture, whatever it thinks that is (it doesn't show any extension to the file name in that view), exported to a 16-bit TIFF, downsampled for upload here, and it seemed to turn out better.
Nikon D3s: Aperture "master" exported to 16-bit TIFF; downsampled to 800 x 532-pixel .JPG.
A more straightforward method I found was to just pull the NEF directly off the CF card (tried on another image, since I'd already erased the image above off of the CF card), then open directly in Photoshop CS5 with the ACR plug-in installed. Opened this way, Photoshop already "knew" that I had shot in Adobe RGB.
Okay, now I'm an NEF believer, since I've found that the .JPG bit-depth only barely accommodated the subtle gradient from the reflective aluminum background (above) without aliasing quite easily. NEF FTW!
Come on, studio. You're supposed to make me think I don't need a D3s! I thought we were D7000 friends...
At least you're a raw shooter again. The week was looking very dark for me.
Is it possible that some manufacturer cameras are employing "better JPEG" levels than others? Given that RAW is such a proprietary thing I ask if JPEG levels and performance may vary or if they are relatively proportional to RAW. I NOTE THAT JPEG file sizes are roughly 6.3 MP and NEF RAW on a given Nikon in the 9-12MP.
I think Studio460 comments are excellent on JPEG fine large VS RAW which is still pretty much my conclusion as well. Also note: If I arrived on the scene and had all the capture cards and my best rigs ready, I would try to shoot JPEG AND RAW. Mostly though as a practical matter, it is better for ME to shoot JPEG and be very careful to get proper exposures, etc. I ask again though to you all.....
maybe JPEG excellence gets put off due to proprietary competitive struggles between manufacturers? This is a question and in no way a statement!
@DaveyJ: The JPEG standard allows any compression level (the more compressed, the less image quality), and every manufacturer uses the term "fine" differently:
- Some use for a slightly compressed image.
- Others use more compression.
Therefore the "fine" is not something the JPG standard defines. I did not see any manufacturer that does not use compression at all for "fine" (the best quality)
You may see the compression level used by looking on the EXIF info :)
(if the camera sets it or/and if it was not removed via the post-processing tool)
DaveyJ said:
Is it possible that some manufacturer cameras are employing "better JPEG" levels than others? Given that RAW is such a proprietary thing I ask if JPEG levels and performance may vary or if they are relatively proportional to RAW. I NOTE THAT JPEG file sizes are roughly 6.3 MP and NEF RAW on a given Nikon in the 9-12MP.
quick answer - yes.
That is why some companies (i.e. sigma, older pentax) always push using raw even for consumer users since they don't focus as much on the software Jpeg side.
My guess at this point is that RAW in Nikon cameras is about twice the file size or somewhat less. I have every Nikon from D100 to D700 and do not have a D7000 yet as the D90 and D300 combo is fairly good. For what it is worth, I still rate the D200 as really versatile and tough. RAW is what you should use under the most challenging situations and JPEG I still use most of the time as it is fast and RAW is a huge overkill. I do think the JPEG ranges from manufacturer to manufacturer. Since I shoot Nikons that is what I have now that I am out of large format. So do not discount JPEG fine large for a lot of your shooting. Unless you are going to squeeze a lot of post processing in. I do think one common situation that warrants use of RAW is distinct shadows on very sunny days where detail might be quite lost without manipulation. Some of the newer cameras have better dynamic range. Any comments about RAW versus JPEG with the D7000? Release dates on the D700 replacements and D400 and my current depressed budget indicates the D7000 may be all I could afford on the horizon.
Thank those who commented on JPEG fine large for individual manufacturers. Very helpful!
Hi DaveyJ,
I think for your purposes and tastes, JPGs are fine.
It's not a 'one size fits all' world; I have a lot of caps that prove that.
For me, I like to take my RAW images and tinker with them as I would (with some anguish) in the darkroom, only now I'm enjoying it more.
Layer masks, HDR, a slew of other things are better done with RAW files as the beginning ingredients.
Somehow I think we lose sight that everyone has their own way to get to their where their going.
My best,
Mike
Not a question of RAW or jpg, I was just curious about RAW.
How much data are you losing when you move from 14 bit to 12 bit?
And if it does not specify what type of RAW file it is, can I assume it's 12 bit?
I'm asking specifically about a D40.
Thanks.
You are losing HUGE amount of data "2 to the 12th power is 68 billion colours, and 14 bit is 4.3 trillion colours".
as for real world detail, there is only a big difference in the shadow detail.
AS FOR JPEG VS RAW.
My kids teacher had some wedding shots done which were very nice. I offered to print one for her as prints weren't included in the package she got.
The photographer used a d300 and a 85 1.4. they shot the photo i want to print at f2.2 ISO400. so this shot should look good.
when viewing at 100% (approx print size) I can see horrible grain, aliasing and noise. I asked for the RAW file to maximise for print, but it has been deleted.
I am a bit gutted as I could end up with a MUCH better print if I had the original RAW file, but with the jpeg I am limited. The photographer says that the file is the maximum quality, but I think they ran it through post to add pop, and in doing so added noise.
IMO, the photographer should offer RAWS for print, and stipulate this in the contract.
The teacher is still happy to have the pic printed, and I am having it framed very nicely, so it should look good from a couple of feet away, but up close, not as good as it could.
Gareth said:
You are losing HUGE amount of data "2 to the 12th power is 68 billion colours, and 14 bit is 4.3 trillion colours".as for real world detail, there is only a big difference in the shadow detail.
The big difference is not just in the shadow but in the total image. More colors creates smoother graduations (think of sunsets) and can even help with image detail.
Does it make much difference in real world? If you shoot stop signs for a living, probably not. Sunsets/rises or other gradual color shifts, It can make a big difference. With only a 6mp sensor, it can make a huge difference - but that really depends on what you are shooting.
I thought the D40 was only 12bit. Does it have a 14bit option?
no 14bit on d40 AFAIR
Gosh another thread I can learn from. So, I have this new camera D4 and find the Lightroom3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files. So, I am shooting in JPEG Fine, giving me 8-10 MB files before fiddling.
What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?
How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed?
Do I even know what I am doing?
TaoTeJared said:
The big difference is not just in the shadow but in the total image. More colors creates smoother graduations (think of sunsets) and can even help with image detail.Does it make much difference in real world? If you shoot stop signs for a living, probably not. Sunsets/rises or other gradual color shifts, It can make a big difference. With only a 6mp sensor, it can make a huge difference - but that really depends on what you are shooting.
I thought the D40 was only 12bit. Does it have a 14bit option?
Thanks for explaining.
I highly doubt 14 bit, I was just curious about the different sorts of RAW.
adamz said:
no 14bit on d40 AFAIR
Thanks for letting me know.
msmoto said:
... new camera D4 and find the Lightroom3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files. ... What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed? ...
As I mentioned before, that's part of the fun of being an early adopter, you may need to wait for the vendors to update their softwares (probably at some cost).
In the mean time, you could save both raw and jpeg for the shots you think may be improved in PP for later. Storage is rather cheap.
I have keept all of my raws thinking that when my PP skills improves, I have the option of going back to my prefered shots and give them another workout.
The raw has so much more information that can be retrieved simply not available in jpeg.
Raw is not a necessity as you may be perfectly happy with your jpeg but for me, I like to keep extra options in my pocket.
msmoto said:What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?
msmoto said:How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed?
Do I even know what I am doing?
TBH i think you'll find developing RAW of little use to you, as you can shoot with a D4 and 400 2.8 anyway, so won't need to get extra out of the files.
Maybe white balance might be of use.
I suggest reading up on raw and possibly getting the "raw without fud" instructional dvd. it was useful to me when I first looked into raw.
msmoto said:
Gosh another thread I can learn from. So, I have this new camera D4 and find the Lightroom 3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files.
I could be wrong but I think I have read, Adobe are only updating L4 for the D800 and D4
LR4 is a big improvement on LR3 particularly the brush tools and the clarity shadow and high light sliders
Pierre said:
Raw is not a necessity as you may be perfectly happy with your jpeg but for me, I like to keep extra options in my pocket.
Ah ha! A voice of reason...
I shoot 100% raw and process on the computer, before exporting to JPG for final use that get sent to printer department with machines like large format inkjet, offset (still have one left), Xerox high speed etc, for magazines, document, poster, or web use.
While I certainly *could* shoot just JPG (especially when its going to be used on a poster sized thing like something that gets hung in a 2 story stair well to advertize an event), how I record the image is because I want to be able to give the printers the best quality image for the tasks they have to perform.
If I am going to do a portrait that will get used no more than 3"x5", then while a small JPG might be all I need, I do not know if that is the only use it'll get. I may need to produce something that is not just a 3"x5" but also gets used at six feet on the long edge too. Doing as much of the editing and cropping etc in RAW (largest size and maximum detail) lets me keep as much of the quality until I can reformat it into the right size and resolution for the end result(s).
Note the plural above.....
Thank you, thank you, thank you.... you folks are all great. Of course no one answered the question, "Do I even know what I am doing?" Ha, ha, ha.
Most likely, I will go with Lightroom 4, as I am becoming a little familiar with LR 3. Primarily, my interest in post processing is an improvement in shadows, highlights, overall tonal balance, and composition. Eventually I may try some HDR stuff, really love it, but the end is almost always to attempt to emulate the Ansel Adams tonal range but do this in color. I think I can actually see some differences in the RAW images which I put on my desktop, import as DNG, then process. There is more available than with JPEG. And in the past with the D90, D200, I was always in RAW, shooting that is.
OK, please remember this is my ATTEMPT, to have nice images... so, thanks again for the help... from and old film photog...
You must log in to post.
