Nikon, Active D-lighting, JPEG, and NEF/RAW

Zerodog

:dunno
I have been shooting NEF/RAW with both of my Nikons and have never really tried JPEG. I use LR2 to do my file handling and editing. RAW is great for adjusting things and getting control of the image on your computer. But am I missing some of the great things my camera will just do for me?

Does Active D work in NEF/RAW? And even if it did will LR see it? I have always just had it turned off.

How about JPEGs? Is there any benefit besides size in using them?

arodney

Zerodog wrote:

I have been shooting NEF/RAW with both of my Nikons and have never really tried JPEG. I use LR2 to do my file handling and editing. RAW is great for adjusting things and getting control of the image on your computer. But am I missing some of the great things my camera will just do for me?

In a word, no. Not if you want to continue to have advantage of this rendering control. Otherwise, the camera will produce a rendering it “thinks” is best and you’ve locked that in stone (pixels).

Its a bit like shooting color neg film and making your own prints versus shooting a transparency. In terms of color rendering, one is fixed, the other up to a world of interpretations. If you like the preset interpretation great. If you don’t, not so much.

BinaryFx

Zerodog wrote:

I have been shooting NEF/RAW with both of my Nikons and have never really tried JPEG. I use LR2 to do my file handling and editing. RAW is great for adjusting things and getting control of the image on your computer. But am I missing some of the great things my camera will just do for me?

Does Active D work in NEF/RAW? And even if it did will LR see it? I have always just had it turned off.

How about JPEGs? Is there any benefit besides size in using them?

What Nikon software came with your camera? The software should have the same ability to process JPEG or Raw files using camera features such as D-lighting.

That being said, when D-lighting first came out it was not very good when compared to the Photoshop Shadow/Highlight command. Adobe raw processing software has "Fill Light" which should do similar things to D-Lighting (probably better, unless Nikon have improved things).


Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/
http://prepression.blogspot.com/

insanefred

If you use ADL (medium, high or extra high) on anything other than manual, IT WILL EFFECT YOUR RAW FILES TOO! By adding - exposure comp. when shooting.
Only Nikon software will read the ADL data. If you do use ADL, I recommend Low or auto, I find that auto (on the D700) doesn't just use low medium and high, it seems to tailor it on it's own and luckily conservative about it.
I use it most of the time on auto, except when using flash, it seems to screw things up there.

I hope my info will help you.

Zerodog

This weekend I tried both JPG and RAW. I used the 2 memory cards on the D300s. One recorded JPG the other RAW. So I got to compare side by side the 2. I had the ADL set to Auto and I did use the flash. But I used it in the High Speed sync mode and didn't really have speeds less than 1/1600. So it was strictly fill. What did I find? Hands down the JPG was better for almost every shot. And adjusting the RAW image to match the JPG was difficult. The active D really worked on the sky and clothing. I will post some samples when I get them up on Smugmug.

So in conclusion I will put the 2 cardslots on the D300s to work in the future and record both. If I have an image that is a problem, I will pull up the RAW file and edit it if I need to. Otherwise, the JPG saves some serious ass time in front of the computer. At least it did with this set of pictures.

alexf

I shoot only RAW and process all with Capture NX 2. Period. Makes no sense - to me - to shoot in any other format. I keep the NEF files as my negatives, with all the non-destructive editing in them and can undo-redo again in the future if I learn new tricks or get better software. I convert a copy to JPG to pass to other programs (PSP, Silver Effex Pro, Topaz) and for resizing. to post online. Then these copies are deleted and only the NEX file is kept.

Zerodog

I need to try the demo of NX2 to see what I think of it compared to LR. The big benefit of NX2 is that you get all of the Nikon info in the file. Where LR2 you do not. Don't get me wrong RAW is great. And I do like working with it. I just had to do a lot less work on the JPGs for this particular shoot.

Zerodog

Here are a few examples of NEF vs. JPEG. I have been shooting both formats for a few weeks now and will continue to do so just to see the benefit of each format. What I have found is this. The Nikon does an awesome job in camera with JPEG. And Active-D works........really good. There are some instances where I can not replicate the sky features in the RAW file. On the flip side, the JPEGs are very sensitive to changes in WB, Saturation and every other adjustment. A little bit on the slider can make them get very weird. With RAW you can really move stuff around. So both are good in different areas for different things.

Here is a straight NEF/ RAW right from the camera.


Here is the JPEG straight from the camera. Possibly a bit on the warm side.


Here is my best attempt in LR with the RAW file. Not sure which one I like better. This one took some work, and the JPEG was ready to rock.

arodney

Zerodog wrote:

What I have found is this. The Nikon does an awesome job in camera with JPEG.

Not surprising, it should (as should Canon’s rendering). You don’t hear too many user complain about the JPEG rendering when everything is shot correctly for JPEG. Point is, you have no choice here, the camera builds a JPEG and throws away your raw (unless you shoot raw+jpeg, then you better decide which you want to properly expose for). But when you, the image creator wants the control over rendering, well JPEG doesn’t allow this. You’ve got baked (8-bit) pixels.

And Active-D works........really good. There are some instances where I can not replicate the sky features in the RAW file.

Not a fair test unless you shot first a JPEG, then a raw and both were exposed for that data. IOW, if you shoot for the raw, you’ll blow out the JPEG, if you shoot for the JPEG, you’ll under expose the raw. And I think that this Active-D is actually in effect, a true exposure compensation (which would affect the raw data when shooting raw+JPEG even more).

Zerodog

For these shots I am shooting RAW+JPEG. So all of the exposures are the same. What I have seen is that Active D has no effect at all on RAW files. This is an in camera function that only effects JPEG. This might not be entirely true if I were to use NX2. But this is the case with LR.

You are right about the JPEG being more locked in. This is a fact. My point is if the JPEG is 95% right on and only a very minor tweak is needed, why not use it? It saves a lot of time. But I will continue to shoot RAW+JPEG to see the effects it has on certain conditions.

zoomer

zerodog,
I have shot raw and jpeg both for years and processing them in Lightroom.
Typically the jpegs require hardly any adjustment in Lightroom if you have them set up how you like them in camera, mostly just some compensation adjustment.
The main saving I see with the jpegs are substantial time savings loading and downloading files and the space required to save them, as well as processing time is much faster with jpeg as normally only some compensation adjustment or white balance adjustment is required here and there.
Yes the d-lighting feature works great with the jpegs, especially if you are taking pictures in the sun on a sunny day.
The only real processing difference I have seen with the jpegs is in highlight recovery. The jpegs can be recovered just a bit and the raw files quite a bit more, all of the other adjustments available in Lightroom can be made to jpegs as well as raw files if necessary.

FYI the image you see on the back of your camera when chimping is the jpeg version of the image, even if you are shooting in raw.

Glad to see you are doing some experimenting to decide for yourself which is best for you.

arodney

Zerodog wrote:

For these shots I am shooting RAW+JPEG. So all of the exposures are the same. What I have seen is that Active D has no effect at all on RAW files.

Even so, you’ve under exposed for the raw if you capture for the JPEG (see http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml and http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html). And apparently, this Active D does alter the exposure somewhat, which will affect the raw data (introducing more noise as a result of less exposure).

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00OYaw

Active D-Lighting definitely does change the captured "raw" data but it is at the sensor level on a photsite by photosite basis before any other processing like Bayer color interpolation and coding is applied. is applied. BAsically it is looking at the signal and saying if signal is S then do Y and if signal is H then do Z.

Ellis knows his stuff, so I suspect he’s correct.

Zerodog

I will post more examples. What I have seen, with Active D set to Auto, is that the JPEGS will be exposed correctly and the RAW will be over exposed. This is the case with 100s of shots I have taken. Now the RAW is not un fixable like this. It is just the usual tweak in Brightness and possible Exposure in LR. But this is with the default settings in LR. The brightness is always set to +50 and the contrast +25.

Now you say expose properly for RAW. If the screen only shows the JPEG as the preview how do you check this?

arodney

Zerodog wrote:

I
Now you say expose properly for RAW. If the screen only shows the JPEG as the preview how do you check this?

You can’t accurately unfortunately. The feedback on the LCD (histogram, blinkies, color etc) are based on the in-camera JPEG. You have to treat it a bit like the old Polaroid and learn to adjust once you get the correct exposure compensation (ETTR). Some suggest seeing all the picture styles and such to the most flat contrast helps a bit, but there’s still a disconnect between the JPEG rendering on the LCD and what’s really happening with the raw data.

TonyCooper

I have a Nikon D40 and a Nikon D60. Both accept only one memory card. However, I can set the camera to shoot RAW, jpeg or RAW+jpeg. If it is set to RAW+jpeg, two images are created for each shot.

I usually shoot RAW only, but sometimes shoot the RAW+jpeg combo.

I open in Bridge and edit in CS4. Usually, though, I go through the jpeg versions first. If the jpeg is good as-is, I don't even bother with the RAW. If I feel the image needs some tweaking, I open the RAW file (converted to .dng in Bridge) and work with that.

As a general rule, the family snapshots are usually captured in the jpg format as good as its going to get. The more arty work, and images I intend to convert to black and white, are better to work with from RAW.

malch

Shooting RAW and only RAW is the only option that makes sense to me.

1. If I want some JPEG's real fast, I just extract one of the JPEG's that is already embedded in each NEF file. This program will chew through a batch of NEF's very rapidly indeed:

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/nef-jpeg-preview-extractor.html

2. If I want something better, I batch the NEF's through Capture NX or CS4.

3. And, finally, I still have the option of re-processing the batch or individual images using Capture NX or CS4 with as much individual attention and editing as I want.

It gives me the best of all worlds without any unnecessary overhead dealing with redundant images.

Zerodog

It isn't about size, speed or previews for me. RAW+JPEG is great. You can then select the "BEST" image. Another thing I have found is I can look at the JPEG and tweak the RAW image to match or in many cases look better than the JPEG file. If you only shoot RAW you ARE missing out on what your cameras processor was built to do. The NR, Active D, color rendering and all are pretty sweet. Not to say that the JPEG is a superior format at all. It isn't. You do not have the leeway you do with a RAW file for serious tweaking. But if you are shooting 500+ images at some sporting event, and you don't want to go crazy with time post processing, JPEG is looking pretty good to me at the moment.


Tony,
Why convert RAW to DNG and then edit? Isn't the point to work on the straight RAW file? I have heard of guys going from RAW-JPEG then editing? If that is done it is a huge waste of time and effort.

arodney

Zerodog wrote:

Why convert RAW to DNG and then edit? Isn't the point to work on the straight RAW file? I have heard of guys going from RAW-JPEG then editing? If that is done it is a huge waste of time and effort.

A DNG is a raw file, a non proprietary file:
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf

TonyCooper

Zerodog wrote:

Tony,
Why convert RAW to DNG and then edit? Isn't the point to work on the straight RAW file? I have heard of guys going from RAW-JPEG then editing? If that is done it is a huge waste of time and effort.

I have Nikon cameras, and Nikon's version of a RAW file is a NEF file. Adobe Photoshop CS4 doesn't like NEF, so Bridge can be set to automatically change the file to a .dng file when the SD card is uploaded to the computer. A .dng file is the "straight RAW file".

There's no extra step involved and no time or effort wasted.

When my Nikons are set to "RAW+Jpeg", the camera automatically captures both a RAW file and a jpeg. I'll edit one or the other. Sometimes the jpeg doesn't need any more editing than cropping.

Zerodog

arodney wrote:

A DNG is a raw file, a non proprietary file:
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf

Great link. That explains non-destructive editing very well.

Tony, I know what you mean about NEF. It sucks that it is not better supported. I had to get an NEF reader for windows just to see what is in folders when I am using windows.

KoryJ

I know this is a couple months late but I have been on the same quest as zerodog, I just couldn't beat the jpeg the camera produced without a long session at the computer and that's what I need to speed up.
I found that Adobe released LR presets that grab Nikon/Canon camera profiles saved on your computer and can set your raw files with the same profile your camera uses... I just read it and am at work so I've yet to try it but wanted to post it up so its known.

http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/presets-camera-profile-presets/

malch

KoryJ wrote: »

I found that Adobe released LR presets that grab Nikon/Canon camera profiles saved on your computer and can set your raw files with the same profile your camera uses...

I shoot Nikon RAW and currently process most images with Capture NX. It was typically easier to get the results I wanted with NX than it was with ACR.

The Adobe presets significantly narrowed the gap and they're quite useful.

However, if you really want to make ACR operation slick (maybe even better than Capture NX) then:

1. Use ACR 6.1

2. Shoot a properly illuminated calibration target and then use the Adobe DNG Profile Editor to make a custom profile for your camera. Pow! Great, accurate colors, instantly.

The same technique is indispensable for those who shoot with more than one model of camera body; you'll get very consistent colors across your different cameras.