NEF to DNG, TIFF or JPG, PSD or JPG?

[darko_m]

I'm new to RAW world via D40X and I'm still wondering about NEF to DNG, TIFF, PSD or JPG workflow. I have Photoshop CS3, CameraRaw 4.1 and Adobe DNG converter 4.1 (with support for D40X NEF format), iView MediaPro plus test version of Lightroom.

With JPG everything is simple: open, view and organize images in iView, edit in Photoshop. With Raw format I'm a bit lost: I still can open and view NEF images in iView, then proceed to Camera Raw and then to Photoshop. My questions are:
1. Is this workflow OK?

2. What kind of editing should be done in Camera Raw; version 4.1 is major upgrade and has a lot of functionality (see for example http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/ )?
3. At which point and how should conversion to DNG happen?
4. Is DNG the right choice or would be TIFF, PSD or JPG better?
5. Is here any place for Lightroom?

Thanks for any suggestions.

http://dailydozeof.blogspot.com/

 

[morris]

1. Is this workflow OK?

yes

2. What kind of editing should be done in Camera Raw; version 4.1 is
major upgrade and has a lot of functionality (see for example
http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/ )?

I do very little in ACR. Select white balance, adjust if overexposed. Others like to do a lot.

3. At which point and how should conversion to DNG happen?

Adobe wants you to believe it will let you edit old RAW images. Time will tell.

4. Is DNG the right choice or would be TIFF, PSD or JPG better?

I save the RAW images and finished JPEG images.

5. Is here any place for Lightroom?

Yes and it's not on my computer. Others like it.

Morris
--



http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~morris/POD

 

[yatesd399606]

Personally, I'd just leave the originals in place until you do something with them (post on web, print, etc.) ACR can do this very easily with NEF's or DNG files. I'll then convert to JPEG sRGB for posting on the web or sending to a printer.

I use LR and convert to DNG on import so that all of my develop settings stay with the file. I am sure others will offer other suggestions.

--
Doug

 

[Barry Pearson]

darko_m wrote:
[snip]

2. What kind of editing should be done in Camera Raw; version 4.1 is
major upgrade and has a lot of functionality (see for example
http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/ )?

There isn't a "right" answer, except that there is pretty well a consensus that white balance should be sorted out there, not later.

Over the years, I have been doing more and more in ACR, and then what I do in Photoshop is what I will laughing call "artistic" or "creative" (and some call "how to ruin a perfectly good picture"!)

I DO use the new sharpening features, but I consider them to be mainly for "capture sharpening", not for creative purposes or to get the best prints.

3. At which point and how should conversion to DNG happen?

This is personal - it depends what benefits you want from it? Size? Archival characteristics? The ability to hold settings within the file to make organisation easier? More here:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/benefits.htm

You won't find a consensus, because it depends so much on your own requirements and any other tools you use. (I convert from the memory card and discard my original raw files. Some convert after editing in ACR or Lightroom because they want a full-sized preview in the file that takes into account all the editing, and don't want to waste time creating such previews until they have finished editing. Some don't use DNG at all because they want to be able to use tools such as NX or DxO or Bibble or Capture One that won't accept DNGs).

4. Is DNG the right choice or would be TIFF, PSD or JPG better?

See above - it depends what you want. Many keep DNGs PLUS any heavily processed files such as Photoshop files with lots of editing. They serve different purposes.

5. Is here any place for Lightroom?

If you search the whole of DPReview for threads with Lightroom in the subject, you will discover that this is one of the hottest topics around! There isn't a consensus. Some find it has made their lives much easier. Some have given up because they have had problems with it. Some use alternatives.

I'm switching from ACR 4.1 to Lightroom 1.1 because I think it is a better tool to handle 100s of raw files from a shoot, especially when I consider the accumulation of those files and associated Photoshop (and other) files over years to come. But I don't think there is ANYTHING that I couldn't alternatively do with CS3 (Bridge + ACR + Photoshop, etc) plus other tools if Lightroom didn't exist.

 

[genece]

I tend to agree with Morris.....edit the RAW and save as JPEG.....but I am a complete amateur.
So perhaps for special needs there may be better alternatives.

I really feel NX is the way to edit Nefs....I have CS3, and use it for many things but not converting Nefs.

But I read something years ago that I feel still makes sense....
If you need to ask, just use JPEG.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gene
From Western PA.

Panasonic FZ 20 and FZ30
D50 and lenses.

http://imageevent.com/grc6



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!

 

[Barry Pearson]

genece wrote:
[snip]

But I read something years ago that I feel still makes sense....
If you need to ask, just use JPEG.

That made sense years ago, and still does for most tools that people use, or if people don't do any PP.

But I believe it will gradually change. Some of the more recent tools make working with JPEGs and Raw virtually the same, except for the extra flexibility and quality possible from raw. For example, Aperture, Lightroom, and perhaps some others.

Since raw is easier to shoot than JPEG, (except for some performance issues), because there are fewer camera settings to get wrong, then when using those newer tools raw can be easier than JPEG.

 

[gnagel]

I'm relatively new at post processing. But, I've been processing the NEF using Capture NX. I then convert the NEF to jpeg and save both the NEF and jpeg.

I then make any final adjustments to the jpeg through PSE5. As long as I don't edit the jpeg more than once or twice, the image quality doesn't seem to suffer.

Glenn
--
http://gnagel.zenfolio.com/
Save $5 off Zenfolio using referral code on my home page

 

[Clive Liddell]

I keep things very simple - I take NEF only - and process and crop them in Nikon Capture where necessary (note this processing - crop included - does NOT "touch" the NEF file which is your "negative".

I file away the PP'ed NEF only and it gets backed up routinely to another drive or DVD.

Now I may need to print a couple or email a few and I only convert to JPEG at the appropriate quality the ones I need to print or send or if its a job place on a DVD for the customer.

The rest stay as NEF.

--
Regards
Clive Liddell
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 

[georgemannphoto]

Having been a Nikon shooter for over 30 years and not about to change (no matter how awful their software is to use), I maintain two workflows so that I can take advantage of their software (Capture NX) whenever necessary (in camera settings, superior image processing, etc.), and use Adobe Lightroom and CS3 the rest of the time (I love the Lightroom interface and can not work without CS3).

I don't want to go into the differences between Capture NX and Photoshop (LR and CS3) here, I just like to have both available for different applications and projects.

My workflow:

1. I keep two complete and untouched NEF archives - one on external HDD, the other on DVD.

2. I copy my current project files from the external HDD archive to my internal computer drive and either import it into Lightroom or access it from my file directory if I am using Capture NX.

3. Once the project is finished I copy the finished files (whatever format they are in) to my external HDD, delete the files from the Lightroom database and start over again.

Note: Since Lightroom 1.1 now has multiple catalog access available, I will probably change my workflow somewhat since I can now keep multiple Lightroom projects in separate catalog files, but my archiving system will remain the same.

I do tend to convert to DNG a lot on import to Lightroom so am in the process of setting up another set of HDD for archiving DNG, but would never dump the original NEF files. (they are my original negatives, containing unique Nikon camera information, that will never be copied 100% by DNG or any other format)

George

--
My website - http://dpmac.com
My Blog - http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/lightroom/

 

[Clive Liddell]

Just to add one thing to my comments below:

I also convert any JPEG files I take with my P&S and a few that I took with my D70s in the first month or so that I had it, into NEF files ( by "saving as") in order to "lock" whatever quality exists BEFORE doing any processing on them. Unfortunately in NC you can only use controls that you could use on JPEG before "saving as" so you dont gain anything there - only no further deterioration of your image.

Clive Liddell

============

I keep things very simple - I take NEF only - and process and crop
them in Nikon Capture where necessary (note this processing - crop
included - does NOT "touch" the NEF file which is your "negative".

I file away the PP'ed NEF only and it gets backed up routinely to
another drive or DVD.

Now I may need to print a couple or email a few and I only convert to
JPEG at the appropriate quality the ones I need to print or send or
if its a job place on a DVD for the customer.

The rest stay as NEF.

--
Regards
Clive Liddell
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

--
Regards
Clive Liddell
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

 

[darko_m]

Many thanks to everyone for answers.

I have even 'consulted' the DAM Book by Peter Krogh but there are still some issues:
1. Adobe DNG converter is a little buggy (it can even freeze!)

2. Adobe DNG converter is slow: 8 seconds for one 10 MB RAW file (without embedded RAW)

3. Consequently RAW/DNG workflow is considerably slower than JPG workflow, I think I would have to 'build up' my software/hardware.

4. In my JPG workflow for 'good' photos I have 4 copies (lets name this photo example_070625_007.jpg):
a. example_070625_007.jpg (backup - iView: naming and keywords)
b. example_070625_007.jpg (archive - identical to a.)
c. example_070625_007_m.jpg (suffix m as master - edited in Photoshop) OR

example_070625_007_tm.tif (suffix tm as TIFF master - Photoshop) if using layers
d. example_070625_007_m_w.jpg (suffix w as for web)

I am not sure what kind of copies should I have for RAW/DNG workflow?! There are some suggestions in DAM book but Photoshop is conspicuously omitted

5. I am aware of (theoretical) RAW advantage, and I really like DNG philosophy but is there any example of comparing 2 photos (of the same scene under identical circumstances), one JPG, one RAW/NEF (if possible for D40X), just to convince undecided

 

[raymondox]

TIFF and JPG are the accepted standards. DNG is just a RAW format which is in the domain of photoshop.

Ask yourself the question. If you take your pictures to an online developer, or send them in to a competition what format will they accept. Tiff or JPG.

More importantly if you take yout pictures to the local shop for printing which format do they accept, normally only JPG. The difference between TIFF and JPG is that JPG is compressed.

DNG is just an Adobe standard they want to inflict on the world, as it Nikons NEF.

--
Bluenose

 

[Barry Pearson]

raymondox wrote:
[snip]

DNG is just an Adobe standard they want to inflict on the world, as
it Nikons NEF.

And, remember that DNG and TIFF have the same status: they are both openly-specified file formats owned by Adobe.

(I wonder how many people actually know that TIFF is owned by Adobe?)

 

[raymondox]

DNG is just an Adobe standard they want to inflict on the world, as
it Nikons NEF.

And, remember that DNG and TIFF have the same status: they are both
openly-specified file formats owned by Adobe.

(I wonder how many people actually know that TIFF is owned by Adobe?)

I didn't but I do now.

--
Bluenose

 

[yatesd399606]

A few things...when I use Adobe Lightroom it converts 100's of RAW files to DNG in a matter of minutes. I only retain 1 copy of the file (besides a duplicate on an external HD) unless I need to edit in PS (PSE in my case). All other changes are stored in the LR catalog and kept in the same folder.

I don't think the quality of RAW is noticably better. It is the flexibility that is noticably better. LR treats JPEG's and RAW files identically. However, if my exposure is off or the highlights are blown the RAW file has a much better chance of having the image recovered!

For me RAW workflow is just as easy as JPEG but it helps me when I goof up. I can't stress this enough. This is not the case with every program, but programs like LR and Aperture do make it easy.

--
Doug