Farktography.net

It's not photography, it's Farktography.net


Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topicPrintable versionPrivate messagesView next topic
Author Message
Curious
Post subject: NEF + jpg fine in camera -or- NEF only and convert later  PostPosted: 10.03.2012 11:25
Moderator


Joined: 06.01.2006 Posts: 1607

i have been using View NX2's convertor thingy after shooting NEF with my D3000. just got a D5100 and doing that really amps up the CPU temps. OTOH since NEF is producing 16MB files on the card i really don't want to add more stuff to the card. also how much does that slow down writing to the card?

if that is confusing tl;dr version. shoot NEF and convert later or shoot NEF + jpg fine. the converting causes 64 degree CPU temps and alarms go off.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Curious
Post subject: RE: NEF + jpg fine in camera -or- NEF only and convert later  PostPosted: 10.03.2012 15:54
Moderator


Joined: 06.01.2006 Posts: 1607

well that is interesting. while shooting some other tests i decided to just go ahead and try the NEF + jpg fine and while it does take up some card space other than that is good.

an 8 GB SanDisk SDHC card will hold 330 images in NEF and 235 uisng NEF + jpg fine. now a third less images might be a problem but since i usually shoot less than 235 on any given day, and i carry extra SDHC cards ......... for the time being i'll use the in camera convertor.

speaking of tests this camera has a "macro" setting. it isn't. all it does is slow the shutter down to increase the f stop. what a gyp. although i don't really know just what i expected Smile
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Kestrana
Post subject: RE: NEF + jpg fine in camera -or- NEF only and convert later  PostPosted: 10.03.2012 16:05
Moderator


Joined: 10.09.2009 Posts: 1750

I only shoot RAW .nef files but I use a photo editor that reads them as the raw file and only exports to .jpg after I am done. I think this is the best way because it reduces .jpg degradation.

I know orionid shoots both but he uses the .jpgs just as thumbnails that are easy for him to look at when determining what to process, and processes the .nef file.

If you're not going to edit the RAW files, I don't really know why you'd want to shoot them and just stick to .jpg. It does take a long time to convert with NEX software. I usually do it in small batches, and process as I go, for the time I need to convert (which is pretty much limited to HDR creation although Photomatix 4 likes the .NEF files now so I don't need to do that anymore).

_________________
flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kestrana/
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Curious
Post subject: RE: NEF + jpg fine in camera -or- NEF only and convert later  PostPosted: 10.03.2012 16:34
Moderator


Joined: 06.01.2006 Posts: 1607

i shoot RAW/NEF to fit in. all you guys were going on and on about how much better it is so i now do it.

to be a bit more serious i have only been using my photos for farktography for the last couple of years. post processing is maybe a crop and "save for web". now there are times i'll play with curves and or really work on one before printing but that's rare. given the vast array of monitors and color rendition i really don't see much sense in spending more than a few minutes making an image look good here. hell even my dual monitor setup has a big shift in color/contrast.

also since card capacities got bigger and prices dropped it makes sense now to shoot at the setting that gives you the most use later.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
chupathingie
Post subject: Re: RE: NEF + jpg fine in camera -or- NEF only and convert l  PostPosted: 10.03.2012 17:23



Joined: 10.09.2009 Posts: 924

      Kestrana wrote:
I know orionid shoots both but he uses the .jpgs just as thumbnails that are easy for him to look at when determining what to process, and processes the .nef file.


I see I'm not needed here... That's the ONLY reason I even bother shooting to .jpg.

_________________
It's so flat here I can stand on a beer can and see Toronto.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
orionid
Post subject: Re: RE: NEF + jpg fine in camera -or- NEF only and convert l  PostPosted: 10.03.2012 19:54
Moderator


Joined: 04.09.2008 Posts: 3175

      chupathingie wrote:
      Kestrana wrote:
I know orionid shoots both but he uses the .jpgs just as thumbnails that are easy for him to look at when determining what to process, and processes the .nef file.


I see I'm not needed here... That's the ONLY reason I even bother shooting to .jpg.


Yar.

_________________
For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.

~Leonardo Da Vinci
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Choc-Ful-A
Post subject:   PostPosted: 11.03.2012 00:42



Joined: 29.11.2007 Posts: 481

I'm pretty sure I've said this somewhere on this site before, so I'll give the short version.

I shot in NEF only, convert then to PNG in a batch when I upload to my Linux system, that script just calls "ufraw". Since PNG is lossless, there's none of the detail loss caused by JPEG compression. Then I just use GIMP to open the PNG's for the most part. I sometimes will go back to the NEF's to see if a difference conversion will prove interesting. Then I just open them with ufraw or Raw Therapee and if I like what I find, I'll save them as PNG's after the edits. The only time I convert things to JPEG format is once an image is completely done and I want to post it online.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Kestrana
Post subject:   PostPosted: 11.03.2012 10:11
Moderator


Joined: 10.09.2009 Posts: 1750

RAW is better - but only if you have the ability to use it. From what you're describing, it's not appropriate for your uses, so save yourself the conversion time and shoot. Jpgs

_________________
flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kestrana/
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Yugoboy
Post subject:   PostPosted: 11.03.2012 13:16
Moderator


Joined: 24.04.2011 Posts: 1011

      Kestrana wrote:
RAW is better - but only if you have the ability to use it. From what you're describing, it's not appropriate for your uses, so save yourself the conversion time and shoot. Jpgs


Appropriate usage would largely be if you have a reasonable expectation of printing in larger than 8x10?
(Or at least wish to be ready for that?)

Or is it also about the ability to severely crop and still get good shots (like for birding or sports from the stands?)

Or both?

But for those of us generally shooting for computer-based usage (Farktography, or classroom presentations on lcd projector) .jpgs are generally OK, no?
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
CauseISaidSo
Post subject:   PostPosted: 11.03.2012 13:36
Bibliostatus Rex


Joined: 13.07.2010 Posts: 1600

There are two benefits to RAW files that lead me to shoot exclusively in RAW:
  1. Wider dynamic range. RAW files are generally about 12 bits per channel, while JPGs are 8 bits. This allows you to pull out a usable picture from what might otherwise be a throwaway. Probably isn't an issue for most of you Wink, but it's saved at least a couple of my shots.

  2. Lossless editing. The "recipe" (as Canon calls it) of modifications and curve adjustments is stored separately within the RAW file and you can always revert to SOOC. Re-editiing causes no loss in quality, no matter how many times, whereas each time a JPG is saved, some detail is lost.
I know many of you run a Linux variant so this isn't applicable, but for those who just use JPG for thumbnails and run Windows XP or later, I highly recommend the FastPictureViewer Codec Pack which is reasonably (IMHO) priced at $14.95. It will allow you to view RAW files from most manufacturers as thumbnails in Explorer or as full-size images in Windows Photo Viewer.

There's a free codec pack from Microsoft for Windows 7 for viewing Canon and Nikon RAW files, but it's only for 32-bit systems, whereas the FPV codec works with more files and 64-bit O/S's. I bought the combo pack that also includes their picture viewer, which eliminates the color matching issues that Windows Photo Viewer has. (Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with them other than being a customer.)
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
sleeping
Post subject:   PostPosted: 11.03.2012 13:47
Moderator


Joined: 21.12.2005 Posts: 853

      Yugoboy wrote:
Appropriate usage would largely be if you have a reasonable expectation of printing in larger than 8x10?
(Or at least wish to be ready for that?)

Or is it also about the ability to severely crop and still get good shots (like for birding or sports from the stands?)


It's really got more to do with post-processing than straight-up quality. The thing is, when the image is converted to a JPEG a whole bunch of data that was originally recorded by the sensor gets discarded. So, basically, it's to your advantage to do that conversion as late in the processing workflow as possible, i.e. after the image is completely processed.

If you're using the camera settings to do all of the processing for you, then the advantage to shooting RAW is likely to be small (depending on how good the in-camera jpegs are vs the output of your raw converter), but if you have plans on working on the images later, it can be really significant.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Reply with quote Back to top
Choc-Ful-A
Post subject:   PostPosted: 11.03.2012 14:20



Joined: 29.11.2007 Posts: 481

GIMP will preview NEF files as thumbnails natively even though it can't open the full res image. I don't know if it's building the thumbnail or extracting one that's embedded in the NEF format, but it does let you inspect your RAW files (at least Nikon ones) to see what's in them.

Also, if you have an image editing progam that can handle all 12 bits of color info in the RAW files, you can always convert the RAW files to 16 bit PNG's instead of JPEG. They are rather big, but if you want the detail you want the detail. And disk is pretty cheap these days.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Curious
Post subject:   PostPosted: 11.03.2012 16:07
Moderator


Joined: 06.01.2006 Posts: 1607

      Kestrana wrote:
RAW is better - but only if you have the ability to use it. From what you're describing, it's not appropriate for your uses, so save yourself the conversion time and shoot. Jpgs


if that was directed at me i'll take it in the spirit it was intended. and no PS7 won't handle NEF. but the Gimp will so there. it's one of those things where the "costs" of doing something are negligible and the benefits outweigh them.

      CauseISaidSo wrote:
There's a free codec pack from Microsoft for Windows 7 for viewing Canon and Nikon RAW files, but it's only for 32-bit systems,


says you. i can't get it to work on my win7 64 bit machine. oh wait. anyway UFRaw (a plugin for the Gimp) works if i need a viewer other than the Nikon View NX2.

      Choc-Ful-A wrote:
And disk is pretty cheap these days.


what you said. both capture disks and HDDs. i have a 1 TB storage HDD installed and a 1.5 TB external for backup.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Curious
Post subject:   PostPosted: 11.03.2012 16:19
Moderator


Joined: 06.01.2006 Posts: 1607

the pixel size of these images is ridiculous. according to the booklet 4928 x 3264 = 16.4 x 11.4 print. now my (sort of new to me gift from my sister) Epson Stylus 2200 is supposed to print 13 x 19 so maybe all those pixels will come in handy.

of course i got Sam's to print me a 20 x 30 from a 3008 x 2000 pixel 5MB file so image size may not play a big part here.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
chupathingie
Post subject:   PostPosted: 11.03.2012 22:49



Joined: 10.09.2009 Posts: 924

There are a million things wrong with processing images in jpg... from enhancing artifacts when adjusting contrast to turning your histogram into a picket fence with even gentle levels/curves adjustments. 24 bit color is simply horrible for anything but a final image. Converting a 12/14/16 bit RAW file to native 48bit color gives you a file that you have to seriously abuse before you start chewing up your histogram.

_________________
It's so flat here I can stand on a beer can and see Toronto.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topicPrintable versionPrivate messagesView next topic