NEF vs. JPEG with a Nikon

Malindi · July 16, 2008

I'm finding that if I shoot RAW, I get fuzzier pictures than when I shoot hi-res JPEGs. How is this possible? I'm using a D80 and the 18-200 VR lens. The test shots were at 200mm.

ISO was 100 and I used the landscape setting.

Any ideas? Thanks.

geospatial_junkie · July 16, 2008

Can you post a couple of JPG vs RAW examples of the same image with the exif data? That way, someone will be able to help you better!:D

wholenewlight · July 16, 2008

Are you doing some sharpening in photoshop or some other program?

If not it will likely be less sharp - little if any of the in-camera processing is applied to a Raw (NEF) image. You get to do those things on your own on your computer.

From an article I saved:

A Raw file is…

• not an image file per se (it will require special software to view, though this software is easy to get).
• typically a proprietary format (with the exception of Adobe’s DNG format that isn’t widely used yet).
• at least 8 bits per color - red, green, and blue (12-bits per X,Y location), though most DSLRs record 12-bit color (36-bits per location).
• uncompressed (an 8 megapixel camera will produce a 8 MB Raw file).
• the complete (lossless) data from the camera’s sensor.
• higher in dynamic range (ability to display highlights and shadows).
• lower in contrast (flatter, washed out looking).
• not as sharp.
• not suitable for printing directly from the camera or without post processing.
• read only (all changes are saved in an XMP “sidecar” file or to a JPEG or other image format).
• sometimes admissable in a court as evidence (as opposed to a changeable image format).
• waiting to be processed by your computer.

In comparison a JPEG is…

• a standard format readable by any image program on the market or available open source.
• exactly 8-bits per color (12-bits per location).
• compressed (by looking for redundancy in the data like a ZIP file or stripping out what human can’t perceive like a MP3).
• fairly small in file size (an 8 megapixel camera will produce JPEG between 1 and 3 MB’s in size).
• lower in dynamic range.
• higher in contrast.
• sharper.
• immediately suitable for printing, sharing, or posting on the Web.
• not in need of correction most of the time (75% in my experience).
• able to be manipulated, though not without losing data each time an edit is made - even if it’s just to rotate the image (the opposite of lossless).
• processed by your camera.

Malindi · July 16, 2008

geospatial_junkie wrote:

Can you post a couple of JPG vs RAW examples of the same image with the exif data? That way, someone will be able to help you better!:D

Thanks. Will do. Can't FTP through the firewall here so it'll have to be tonight.

Malindi · July 16, 2008

wholenewlight wrote:

Are you doing some sharpening in photoshop or some other program?

If not it will likely be less sharp - little if any of the in-camera processing is applied to a Raw (NEF) image. You get to do those things on your own on your computer.

From an article I saved:

A Raw file is…

• not an image file per se (it will require special software to view, though this software is easy to get).
• typically a proprietary format (with the exception of Adobe’s DNG format that isn’t widely used yet).
• at least 8 bits per color - red, green, and blue (12-bits per X,Y location), though most DSLRs record 12-bit color (36-bits per location).
• uncompressed (an 8 megapixel camera will produce a 8 MB Raw file).
• the complete (lossless) data from the camera’s sensor.
• higher in dynamic range (ability to display highlights and shadows).
• lower in contrast (flatter, washed out looking).
• not as sharp.
• not suitable for printing directly from the camera or without post processing.
• read only (all changes are saved in an XMP “sidecar” file or to a JPEG or other image format).
• sometimes admissable in a court as evidence (as opposed to a changeable image format).
• waiting to be processed by your computer.

In comparison a JPEG is…

• a standard format readable by any image program on the market or available open source.
• exactly 8-bits per color (12-bits per location).
• compressed (by looking for redundancy in the data like a ZIP file or stripping out what human can’t perceive like a MP3).
• fairly small in file size (an 8 megapixel camera will produce JPEG between 1 and 3 MB’s in size).
• lower in dynamic range.
• higher in contrast.
• sharper.
• immediately suitable for printing, sharing, or posting on the Web.
• not in need of correction most of the time (75% in my experience).
• able to be manipulated, though not without losing data each time an edit is made - even if it’s just to rotate the image (the opposite of lossless).
• processed by your camera.

Aha .. that makes me feel better. I just got the D80 and I'm shooting crappier pics than with my cheapo Canon S2 IS...

Mnemosyne · July 16, 2008

A Raw is to a JPEG, what a negative is to a polaroid.

Your camera can do post processing to a jpeg, allowing it to bypass Photoshop. Out of the box settings shouldn't be crazy, but enough to make a noticable difference.

A Raw is literally what your camera saw, but ready to be changed if you had the settings wrong. The white balance isn't fixed, nor are other settings in it. A JPEG is a fixed photo that records the settings you chose (including sharpness, contrast, color tone, etc).

For example, even if you tell your camera to shoot a black and white RAW, it won't because it saves all the color info. A JPEG on the other hand loses all color info, because it's saved as is. A RAW is still malleable.

Malindi · July 16, 2008

Mnemosyne wrote:

A Raw is to a JPEG, what a negative is to a polaroid.[

That really drives the point home, thanks! Ok, I guess I'll have to live with the post processing steps then. I'd "prefer" to have the picture come out ok right away, but it's not happening. Iris reflections when shooting people, for instance, are fuzzy compared to using a cheapo camera and I need to put sharpness to 113 or sometimes 150% in Lightroom to even get close to the cheapo camera. Clearly, I must be doing something wrong ... Time and experience I guess. I only took 300 or so shots so far with this thing and about 10,000 on the Canon S2.

Mnemosyne · July 16, 2008

Malindi wrote:

That really drives the point home, thanks! Ok, I guess I'll have to live with the post processing steps then. I'd "prefer" to have the picture come out ok right away, but it's not happening. Iris reflections when shooting people, for instance, are fuzzy compared to using a cheapo camera and I need to put sharpness to 113 or sometimes 150% in Lightroom to even get close to the cheapo camera. Clearly, I must be doing something wrong ... Time and experience I guess. I only took 300 or so shots so far with this thing and about 10,000 on the Canon S2.

Everything I learned, I learned from my dad. And a lot of books. And websites. And trial and error.

But mostly my dad. I think that was a nugget of wisdom he gave me.

Just keep asking questions. If I hadn't annoyed everyone I knew with a camera for the past year, I would still suck. Now I only suck a little

pathfinder · July 16, 2008

Malindi wrote:

I'm finding that if I shoot RAW, I get fuzzier pictures than when I shoot hi-res JPEGs. How is this possible? I'm using a D80 and the 18-200 VR lens. The test shots were at 200mm.

ISO was 100 and I used the landscape setting.

Any ideas? Thanks.

Without seeing the files, we cannot answer this question.

A DSLR, shooting RAW, when shot with good technique, should produce excellent images, significantly better than cameras with smaller sensors like in point and shoots. Good point and shoots can be shot in RAW also like my G9 routinely is.

BUT - the images must be shot with good technique, and a 200mm lens will certainly display poor technique. The images must be properly focused, the camera held still ( did you use a tripod?) and then the images must be processed either by you or by the camera with the processing parameters set by you.

Unless your camera is defective, it is capable of fine images, but you may have to learn some new skills to really utilize its capabilities.

Post your images with the EXIF data so that we can attempt to answer your questions.

Malindi · July 16, 2008

Ok, here are the links to the pictures:

http://berettaconsulting.com/other/nikon/20080715-DSC_0355.NEF

http://berettaconsulting.com/other/nikon/20080715-DSC_0354.JPG

The picture is from a ski hill in Vancouver (Grouse Mountain), shot from about 12 miles away through my office window (clear glass). So that gives you some parameters.

WildWally · July 16, 2008

Well . I did not open the raw file , but here .. you shot at F/10 iso2001/250secauto exposureauto white balance .. The shot looks to me like it was very over-exposed , along with some camera shake .. It looks as though you shot in very bright sun . Even at F10 , the shutter speed needs to be shorter in order to expose properly .. Hope this helps !!

Malindi · July 16, 2008

WildWally wrote:

Well . I did not open the raw file , but here .. you shot at F/10 iso2001/250secauto exposureauto white balance .. The shot looks to me like it was very over-exposed , along with some camera shake .. It looks as though you shot in very bright sun . Even at F10 , the shutter speed needs to be shorter in order to expose properly .. Hope this helps !!

Ok, thanks for the feedback

Mnemosyne · July 17, 2008

And if you're shooting through glass, don't expect great photos. Glass can fool the camera on focusing. Try getting outdoors so you don't have any obstructions

Malindi · July 17, 2008

Mnemosyne wrote:

And if you're shooting through glass, don't expect great photos. Glass can fool the camera on focusing. Try getting outdoors so you don't have any obstructions

True indeed. I just played around with the camera outdoors and used my gf's tripod (a $600 carbon fiber job...yikes!!). Turned off VR for a few shots and the results are to die for. No need to muck with Lightroom or what not. Razor sharp!!!

NEF vs. JPEG with a Nikon

Comments