RAW and NEF

Hi

I have a Nikon D40 and I shoot in RAW. (Coz every says its best to shoot in RAW)

I was wondering if there is a difference between RAW and the NEF

I was reading :
http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/NEF_conversion/neffiles.html

NEF is a file format produced by the Nikon D1 digital camera, it is the closest thing to 'raw' data which can be saved by

"Closest thing".. Is it not the same thing?

The rawest possible form that the sensor deals with would be the analog signals prior to conversion to digital, but you have to perform such a conversion (influenced by ISO...) before actually recording a file of digital data.

NEF contains that, as well as shooting parameters. It doesn't contain enough to perfectly reconstruct the full analog signals prior to digitzation. If you mistakenly shot an image at ISO 100 when you should have used ISO 1600, and some shadow detail was thrown away, you're not getting it back -- you can only retrieve what survived the conversion to digital.

Leejay gave you a real good answer.

You know you don't have to shoot in raw just cause "everyone" says so.

You might try shooting in jpeg and seeing whether or not it makes any difference to you. You might just be surprised at how good they are from the Nikon.
LM
--
A member of the rabble in good standing

Each manufacturer has its own file format for saving raw data. Nikon files have the suffix .nef, Canon .crw or .cr2, Pentax .pex, etc.

In addition there is a standardised RAW format supported by Adobe which uses .dng, however, so far not many camera manufacturers have adopted it. Pentax offers it as an alternative raw format.
--
Chris R

So... to answer your question in basic terms: NEF and RAW are the same thing. NEF is the Nikon version of a RAW file. Other camera manufaturers call their RAW files something else that is proprietary to them.

Shooting in RAW allows you to have more options in changing "core" aspects of the image, such as White Balance, Exposure, and other aspects of the image that you cannot modify if you shoot in jpeg.

However, Jpeg has the advantage of being smaller in size, more standard so you can e-mail the image or post it on a web site without having to convert it from NEF to JPEG first.

If you are going to shoot RAW, I recommend that you read up on it, understand what it can do, and determine if you want to get into it at that depth. It can be very rewarding shooting in RAW if you are willing to put the time and effort into working with RAW; then again, you may like the way your jpeg's look right out of the camera, and tweak some minor and not so in-depth changes if needed.

The Indian PhotoGrapher said:

Hi

I have a Nikon D40 and I shoot in RAW. (Coz everyone says its best to
shoot in RAW)

Click to expand...

They are correct. If you can shoot in RAW, do it. As I'm sure you've already learned, you have much more image information to tweak in a RAW file than in a JPG file. If you miss the correct settings by much when shooting JPG, you're pretty much cooked. But with RAW, you can save just about anything.

--

'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com

LM2 said:

You know you don't have to shoot in raw just cause "everyone" says so.
You might try shooting in jpeg and seeing whether or not it makes any
difference to you. You might just be surprised at how good they are
from the Nikon.

Click to expand...

if you're new to post-processing, your camera might be better at processing the data than you... in fact, it's sure to be.

shooting jpeg also means you need to learn how to control the camera. many people are latching on to raw as a means of covering up some sins when they shoot. like not setting white balance and exposure compensation, etc, etc.

raw can only save your backside so much. so start with jpeg if you're a newbie to all this.

bugzie said:

shooting jpeg also means you need to learn how to control the camera.
many people are latching on to raw as a means of covering up some
sins when they shoot. like not setting white balance and exposure
compensation, etc, etc.

raw can only save your backside so much. so start with jpeg if you're
a newbie to all this.

Click to expand...

Very true... you shouldn't shoot raw with the throught that you can always save a picture, and therefore be careless about how to properly take the shot (that takes out a lot of the fun of shooting, plus you hinder your growth in your skill and creativity this way). Use the raw processing power (... use the Force Luke) only if necessary ;-)

cosilver said:

cosilver said:

shooting jpeg also means you need to learn how to control the camera.
many people are latching on to raw as a means of covering up some
sins when they shoot. like not setting white balance and exposure
compensation, etc, etc.

raw can only save your backside so much. so start with jpeg if you're
a newbie to all this.

Click to expand...

Very true... you shouldn't shoot raw with the throught that you can
always save a picture, and therefore be careless about how to
properly take the shot (that takes out a lot of the fun of shooting,
plus you hinder your growth in your skill and creativity this way).
Use the raw processing power (... use the Force Luke) only if
necessary ;-)

Click to expand...

Ahh, I see, ...we're all being scored on our prowess with basic materials? Some huge cosmic test?

C'mon people, the goal is to get the best image we can in every situation, using every tool at our disposal. Not using RAW when possible is like shooting with one hand tied behind our back, just to prove we can do it.

I've yet to hear someone say; "It's not the best I could do, but I shot it in JPG, and ditched my monopod and shot handheld, so give me extra points."

In a nutshell, the image is more important than the EXIF.

What I am saying is, to try and get the best possible image you can when you shoot it. This will give you that much better final images after you process them.

Some pics may not need any raw tweaking, but you may want to edit them in Photoshop.

You may want to emphasize something in the pic that you saw but doesn't stand out enough in your raw image, and so raw editing can help bring out what you really had in mind. I am all for editing to present what you want to portray, and how.

But iif a person shoots carelessly thinking everything can be fixed anyway in the raw editing, I think they lose focus on what they want to bring out in the image, and are cheating themselves from getting the best image possible.

Why would you go through all the trouble of shooting and editing raw, if you're not putting the same effort into the actual picture taking as well?

cosilver said:

What I am saying is, to try and get the best possible image you can
when you shoot it. This will give you that much better final images
after you process them.

Some pics may not need any raw tweaking, but you may want to edit
them in Photoshop.

Click to expand...

And some would say that even editing in PS involves a bit of "cheating". I'd feel much prouder of a good RAW image, not tweaked in PS, than a JPG that did require PS tweaking. But that's just me.

cosilver said:

Why would you go through all the trouble of shooting and editing raw,
if you're not putting the same effort into the actual picture taking
as well?

Click to expand...

Where did I advocate less effort? Just the opposite. Shooting RAW is the equivalent of using maximum effort from the camera's standpoint. And if you are using maximum effort yourself, why expect less from your camera? Why put the camera in "lazy mode", i.e.: JPG?

By not using RAW, you are, in essence, nullifying a large part of the effort you mentioned. A good artist uses the best paints and brushes. Even Michaelangelo couldn't work with bad clay.

Let's say that instead of photography, you are target-shooting with a gun. If you absolutely wanted in ensure that you hit the target, the best thing to use would be a shotgun, rather than a .22.

But that doesn't automatically mean that you wouldn't aim just as carefully. It just means you have more latitude if even your best effort is slightly off center. When you go on any job, you bring all the tools you might possibly need, and you bring your best.

The other thing you may want to know is that to use NEF you have to buy additional software (unless you buy a D200 or better) - the Picture Project you get with most Nikon cameras will not do it (other manufacturers do give you free RAW software) and you need to include that in the camera cost.

Thank you for your replies!!

Just to re-iterate:

1. There is no difference between RAW and NEF! NEF is just the Nikon way of calling it RAW! There is no technical difference between them!

2. RAW/NEF gives us more post-processing power/capabilities as compared to JPG. This however does not excuse us from shooting in our best creativity. RAW/NEF will be help us "most" situations as compared to JPG!
--
Regards
The Indian PhotoGrapher
http://www.TheIndianPhotoGrapher.blogspot.com

Chuck Lantz said:

And some would say that even editing in PS involves a bit of
"cheating". I'd feel much prouder of a good RAW image, not tweaked in
PS, than a JPG that did require PS tweaking. But that's just me.

Click to expand...

Chuck, I think you misunderstood my post, or I didn't word it correctly . I agree with you 100%. I only shoot RAW, and mostly edit in RAW, but what I'm saying is people should not think that it will always fix whatever they ignored to do while taking the shot, and so care and skill should be applied while shooting.

I am quite happy with a lot of my images as shot, but some (if not most - lol), I edit the RAW image to get what I really had in mind or to improve on it.

In other words, I try not to take a pig and dress it up later, for no matter how much you dress it up, it is still a pig . I try to take the best quality picture I can with the camera, it will be only be that much better after editing.

cosilver said:

Chuck Lantz said:

And some would say that even editing in PS involves a bit of
"cheating". I'd feel much prouder of a good RAW image, not tweaked in
PS, than a JPG that did require PS tweaking. But that's just me.

Click to expand...

Chuck, I think you misunderstood my post, or I didn't word it
correctly . I agree with you 100%. I only shoot RAW, and mostly
edit in RAW, but what I'm saying is people should not think that it
will always fix whatever they ignored to do while taking the shot,
and so care and skill should be applied while shooting.

I am quite happy with a lot of my images as shot, but some (if not
most - lol), I edit the RAW image to get what I really had in mind or
to improve on it.

In other words, I try not to take a pig and dress it up later, for no
matter how much you dress it up, it is still a pig . I try to take
the best quality picture I can with the camera, it will be only be
that much better after editing.

Click to expand...

Understood. It looks like we're on the same page after all.

--

'If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough' http://www.ChuckLantz.com