D300s and D90 Raw

Bsimon

I am absolutely loving my 300s. Asside from being a much more robust body, I can say without doubt that at least between my two coppies of bodies (D300s and D90) that the D300s's Raw Uncompressed files are much MUCH nicer.

Let me explain-

On the D90, shooting in raw, upon import to LR3 all images look very dull and without very much color etc.

On the D300s, all uncompressed raw images imported with the same method, no treatments on import, look much closer to the finished product. Very little loss or need to adjust color too much one way or the other. Whereas on the D90 the color is very very dull.

Has anyone else noticed this between the two cameras? Is it a pure factor of the uncompressed RAW image or could something potentially be wrong with my D90?

FWIW, jpeg images out of the D90 still look fabulous, however, I very rarely shoot jpeg unless they are just snapshots.

cab.in.boston

I don't know how LR handles viewing the files. Does it actually render the RAW files, or are you just viewing the embedded JPEG? I think it does some work on the real RAW, which is what the "rendering 1 to 1 preview" step on my import process is, but I'm not sure. If it's just viewing the embedded JPEG, then it could just be a difference in how the two bodies create that file.

Could be that you're just getting better captures in camera with the 300s, although I'm curious why the 90 would create great JPEGs but a lousy embedded JPEG in the RAW. Honestly, I haven't used my D90 since I got my D300 (D90 became primarily my wife's camera), so I haven't tried this directly. I'll give it a shot later on and see if I have the same experience.

In either case, your 300s has 14-bit RAW vs. the 90's 12, that's the only big difference in the two files.

I'd be curious if you detect any difference b/t the uncompressed and lossless compressed RAW files from the 300s, because there really should be no reason at all to shoot uncompressed. When I got my D300, I just set it to 14-bit lossless compressed, and I've never even tried any other setting. Doesn't make sense to me to waste the card space with uncompressed.

Bsimon

Thanks for the reply. As to the lossless compressed vs. uncompressed, I shoot uncompressed simply bc the screen reads the same amount of images that can be writen regardless if it is set on lossless or uncompressed.

I shoot on manual exp 99% of the time so I dont believe it would be the camera meter and I still use the same rules for my WB control as I did with the D90.

It really is a drastic difference in image quality between the two strait out of the camera. If I have a chance tonight I will post two images back to back with same settings/lens etc for debate.

Zerodog

I noticed something similar. But I almost never shoot full manual. 90% of the time I am in Aperture priority. My theory on it is the auto focus system. Images are just sharper, so they look better. At least this is the case with moving subjects.

Bsimon

Though the autofocus system is superior, it wouldnt account for the color differences. Sharpness has not been a problem from either camera. Eager to post side by side images later on tonight

cab.in.boston

Bsimon wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. As to the lossless compressed vs. uncompressed, I shoot uncompressed simply bc the screen reads the same amount of images that can be writen regardless if it is set on lossless or uncompressed.

Yes, the # remaining readout is the same, but you can actually fit 50-60% more photos on a card when shooting compressed. When the camera calculates space remaining, it always uses the size of uncompressed files, because it doesn't know how large the file will actually be until it's shot. So it tells you there's room for 296 (on my 8GB card), but I can fit way more than that shooting lossless compressed. It's not really important, but it does take up more hard drive space when downloaded.

I shoot on manual exp 99% of the time so I dont believe it would be the camera meter and I still use the same rules for my WB control as I did with the D90.

It really is a drastic difference in image quality between the two strait out of the camera. If I have a chance tonight I will post two images back to back with same settings/lens etc for debate.

No, it would not be the meter controlling color. I always just use AutoWB since I shoot RAW. Occasionally this means my preview and/or embedded JPEG is off, but normally it does a pretty fair job. I thought they were the same, but maybe there is a difference in the processing of on-board JPEGs between D90 and D300s. I'm curious about this now, I think I will try to replicate your situation myself. I look forward to your samples.

Bsimon

Ok, so let me put this to bed as you look at the pics. There must have been some sort of lighting shift in the time it took to put the lens on the D90 from the 300s since the 300s exposure it slightly hot but not blown.

They look pretty similar to me other than that. Heck i'd be hard pressed to see a difference (which is what I was hoping for)

Must just be the New Camera mindset that the 300s is somehow extremely superior even though they have almost the exact same sensor (if it isnt exactly the same).

Needless to say, not a scientific test by any measure but at least it makes me feel better that the 90 is still a workhorse in my bag!

D90 Raw unedited


D300s Raw unedited


Exif data can be seen HERE

Password is test

InsuredDisaster

I've noticed something similar in LR comparing 300 vs 700 files. I am not sure why, except for a possiblity of 12bit vs 14bit, but I don't see why that would happen. The colors on the 700 seem much better.

www.SGphoto.us

the d700 vs the d300s is kinda different than comparing the d300s to the d90

InsuredDisaster

www.SGphoto.us wrote: »

the d700 vs the d300s is kinda different than comparing the d300s to the d90

I don't know, they both are black and say "Nikon" on them.



What I meant by my comment was that I felt that the colors handling seems very different in LR. It seems that LR "dumps" all of the vibrant colors as they come out of camera from the 300, but not th 700. Not sure why this is.

Well, look at it this way, at least you can instantly tell which camera took which shots!

cab.in.boston

I was wondering if perhaps LR sets a Camera Profile for the D90 (and maybe the D700) and for whatever reason does not for the D300/s. The first thing I do when in the Develop module on my D300 files is to go all the way to the bottom of the right-hand panel and set a profile. It defaults to "Adobe Standard" which I usually find weak. I change it to Camera Portrait/Vivid/Standard, etc until I see a starting point that I like, then adjust the picture from there. Sometimes the Vivid setting is too strong, but other times it looks good to me.

So is it possible that when LR imports a D90 (or D700) file, that it sets that profile to something other than Adobe standard, and that's the difference you're seeing? I don't know why it would set a profile for those bodies and not for a file from a D300, but the profile does make a big difference on the colors in the file. Just curious...

mpaulie

Just a quick question, not sure if it is applicable.... Are the Active D-lighting settings the same? Maybe try with it off on both.

Edit: Also exif says exposure bias of 2/6 EV for the first and 0 EV for the second

Bsimon

Yeah the delighting is on auto on both but the exp bas only applies to the auto modes, a, s etc. On manual, the user controls exp comp regardless of what was left over from the past auto use.