NEF Files

[parthiban]

This is mainly for Rich as I know he has a Nikon DSLR but do you use Photoshop to edit your NEF files?

 

I've realised I've been a bit stupid and this is not a good idea at all (and has led to much unnecessary work) - Nikon's own software interprets the NEFs so much better!

[Rich]

I use Adobe camera RAW to process the NEFs and then resize or crop in photoshop. I've used Adobe software for years so have stuck with it and never used the Nikon one.

 

However, to my understanding NEF/RAW files is just data so any relevant program should open it the same. I manually process all my photos so unless you let the software do it automatically I can't see how it can be any different.

 

I'll try it though and see if there's a difference.

[parthiban]

I've always had an issue that NEFs look really flat and washed out and take a lot of work in PS to get them looking right, while the camera created JPEGs look a lot better. Open the NEFs in the Nikon software and it looks exactly like the JPEG - which provides a much better starting point!

 

Among those who know a lot more than I do, apparently ACR both doesn't interpret the NEF as well, and also doesn't incorporate adjustments made on the camera.

[Rich]

That is how they're supposed to look and the whole point of shooting RAW cos the processing is done afterwards to your own liking and not to how the camera has been set to convert them to jpg. I'd be disappointed if I opened my RAW files and they looked like the camera processed jpgs. Maybe there is a setting on the Nikon software that opens them this way.

[parthiban]

Sorry I might have mislead you by saying it looks exactly like the JPEG - obviously it doesn't but it looks very similar, which in my opinion is how it should be, as it needs to look like what you were actually shooting in the first place.

 

I don't see why a RAW needs to look worse and require work to make it look good - it should look fairly accurate to begin with, and then allow tweaking to make it perfect. For me the main reason behind shooting RAW is to have the full data allowing manipulation and not be compressed.

 

A digital photo always needs processing - I'm sure pros will simply have presets in Adobe that apply certain parameters to every photo, which is exactly what I'm expecting my camera to do. What's the point in having cameras like ours if we don't trust them to produce good results! I'll see if I can pull together some examples this evening to try and illustrate what I mean.

[Rich]

RAW will always look worse cos it's an unprocessed file format (it's not an image format) so has had no saturation, sharpness, contrast etc applied to it and will always look washed out compared to a jpg. The camera will look at the white balance, contrast and other variables then apply it's predetermined values and save it as a jpg. Sometimes it will get it right, sometimes it won't but it's to the cameras taste and not your own. Most of the time I don't like how the camera processes them so choose to do it myself on the computer.

 

If you really don't want to be editing RAW files then you need to shoot in jpg but get everything bang on in the camera instead, from aperture and shutter speed (exposure) to ISO, white balance, metering, exposure compensation etc.

 

What is the name of the Nikon software you're using?

[parthiban]

I thought this was a useful link in explaining the situation: http://photographylife.com/how-to-get-accurate-nikon-colors-in-lightroom

 

I do understand what you're saying but I don't really see the point for casual photographers like me. I want to shoot in RAW as I'm not always 100% happy with the camera's work so it needs to be a RAW to be fully adjustable, but on the flip side I don't see why you'd have such a good camera and then not use it?

 

I can't remember which model you have but the D90 has pretty impressive tools on board producing good results on its own. To then strip all that away and start from scratch seems a bit silly. I would much rather have a photo as a starting point that already looks pretty much like what I saw when I took it, to then tweak a little to make perfect. It's not a case of the camera's taste or your own - if you get the camera's settings in a RAW file then you have the best of both worlds.

 

It's Capture NX-D that I've just started trying out (http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/capturenxd/) - it seems the previous full on software Capture NX2 has been discontinued and is no longer supported but might see if I can get hold of it somewhere if I get on well with NX-D as it has some pretty impressive features (and still works on the D90 as it's an older camera).

[Rich]

I've been reading up about it this afternoon as you got me intrigued and it seems that when you open the NEF file in Nikon's own software it imports all the camera settings and profile as well, so basically it will look like what's on your LCD screen and similar to your jpg as you've found out. I have probably got NX2 in my camera box, the newer version won't work on my Mac. I did download ViewNX and could see the NEFs looked different compared to Adobe Camera RAW, which will strip it back to a proper RAW file with no camera enhancements applied.

 

I personally would prefer to work from a true RAW file and I have been doing that for 4 years now so can't see me changing. It's not really that much more work cos I take one photo from a set, adjust it to my liking and then apply that to all of the others with maybe making a slight adjust to one or two of them. It seems you can't set up automatic profiles in camera RAW so the colours look similar to those produced in camera and I wasn't that keen on Lightroom when I tried it.

 

If you would rather use what you see in the camera and just tweak them slightly then using Nikon's software is probably better for you

 

I'll dig my NX2 disc out (assuming it's that one) and will test it out properly.

[parthiban]

If you got Capture NX2 in the box that's good, think I only got a trial with mine - all that came with it was Nikon Transfer and maybe ViewNX (can't remember on that one). Yep I definitely want to get what I saw on the camera, and then tweak that to make it right. I actually do something similar with copying settings, but that's not actually that different to letting the camera do it - I much prefer the time saved though and possibly might even get better results.

 

Here's a sample using a picture I took of the shed recently. Obviously there's a lot of personal opinion involved, but in my own the last shot is by far the best, and is pretty much something I'd be happy with straight out of the box. I'd make a few adjustments to make it perfect, but on the whole that's pretty much there.

 

JPEG straight off the camera

 

 

RAW opened in Adobe Camera Raw and converted to JPEG

 

 

RAW opened in Capture NX-D and converted to JPEG

 

[NickT]

They all show a shed

[parthiban]

Haha yes indeed - on that basis they're all fine 

[Rich]

If you got Capture NX2 in the box that's good, think I only got a trial with mine - all that came with it was Nikon Transfer and maybe ViewNX (can't remember on that one). Yep I definitely want to get what I saw on the camera, and then tweak that to make it right. I actually do something similar with copying settings, but that's not actually that different to letting the camera do it - I much prefer the time saved though and possibly might even get better results.

 

Here's a sample using a picture I took of the shed recently. Obviously there's a lot of personal opinion involved, but in my own the last shot is by far the best, and is pretty much something I'd be happy with straight out of the box. I'd make a few adjustments to make it perfect, but on the whole that's pretty much there.

 

Maybe I have the same then, I never actually looked at the software, just stuck with what I already use.

 

How did you take these in full auto mode or another setting?

 

To me the original RAW (opened in Adobe so stripped of all editing) is a little under exposed and the shadows/saturation of the colours is better on the jpg from the camera.

 

The jpg from NX-D does have slightly more black, saturation and is a little sharper (compared to the camera version) but the difference is negligible, I couldn't see it looking at the 2 on this thread separately I had to layer them in photoshop to spot it.

 

Based on those photos though if I wanted to do minimal editing to the original RAW file then I would chose the one from NX-D that has had the camera profile and settings applied to it.

 

This is a gif so the quality will be reduced but it gives you a better idea.

 

[parthiban]

Thanks for that, that does make it a lot clearer

 

The photo was taken in P (don't really use full auto at all). I would actually say the NX-D version has the most accurate colours/saturation as well - particularly the colour of the shed, fence and the acer on the right are much closer to the actuals. You're right the differences aren't massive, and that's because again the camera has pretty good in camera processing.

 

Unless you're looking to do some weird and wonderful stuff with your photos, the NX-D output is so close to where I would want the photo to be. So for me personally I don't really understand the point of starting with the RAW that looks completely wrong, and spending time just getting it to the same point that would have come straight out of the camera?

 

And at the end of the day it's still the full uncompressed file, so if you want to strip all that back you still can!

[Rich]

This is half the fun for me, I enjoy the PP stage so don't mind starting from a completely stripped down RAW file. I like photos with high saturation but if I want to take a quick snapshot of something like a shed then I wouldn't be so bothered about this and just use the jpg straight from the camera, I don't even bother opening the RAW file.

 

I was going through some photos yesterday that I've not processed yet and was surprised to find that some of my jpgs looked worse than the RAW file! I don't think I've noticed that before so it might have just been this set I took but I'm going to look at the settings in my camera that are used to create the jpgs and try tweaking them, see what results I get. I'm not sure how much difference there is between the in camera processing of the D90 and D5000, I've never looked - might do that later!

[parthiban]

That's fair enough, for me the challenge is getting the shot right in the first place - I'm not yet close to achieving that goal but I'll keep trying!

 

If you like saturation try switching the camera into vivid (although you'll need to use NX-D to actually see it) - you should be quite pleased with the results.

[Rich]

You will find this argument on most forums with a photography section. I don't think getting it right in camera is as important as it used to be in the days of film, when you can do so much in PP now.

 

Most of my photography is done on family days out where I have a few seconds (or minutes if I'm lucky) to take a shot before we move on. I don't have time to try different settings to get that perfect shot in camera, especially when most of it is just the camera processing it the same as you would manually on a computer - it's just a different means to the same/similar result.

 

The things that need to be nailed in camera are the composition, focus, aperture, shutter speed and ISO - don't get those right and you get a terrible looking photo that not even PP would correct!

[parthiban]

Of course, it's just for me personally the challenge is getting the perfect shot straight away. I use my camera in exactly the same way for the most part so don't have time to compose the shot or anything - but I also want to minimise the time spent tinkering at my PC.

 

But either way I would still want my starting point to be the way the photo looked in the LCD when I took the photo - otherwise it's almost irrelevant as the photo you work on later looks completely different to the one you shot.