Reading mode: Light Dark

NEF to TIFF in ViewNX

Go to last post
H

Hedgehog26

Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
Budapest, HU
Hello,

I got an issue converting my D90's NEF files to TIFF in Nikon ViewNX.

I thought TIFF was also a RAW (lossless) filetype, so I was shocked to see after a NEF-to-TIF conversion that a considerable amount of fine detail was lost from the image. While the NEF is crisp and clear, the TIFF version is somewhat blurry although I kept the image size and used 16 bit.
Is it ViewNX's fault or should I avoid using TIFF?

Thank you.
 
Some afterthoughts:

I can see other threads here already dealt with this issue but they gave no answer to the basic question: is ViewNX producing good TIFFs? For me, it isn't, the NEF in RAW view gives a much more detailed image (at 100%) than the converted TIFF version although they should be the same - or shouldn't they?
 
Hedgehog26 said:
Some afterthoughts:

I can see other threads here already dealt with this issue but they gave no answer to the basic question: is ViewNX producing good TIFFs? For me, it isn't, the NEF in RAW view gives a much more detailed image (at 100%) than the converted TIFF version although they should be the same - or shouldn't they?
Click to expand...
Yes, they should be much the same, if not identical. When you save as TIFF you're asking View NX to convert the raw data into an image and then save the resulting image, verbatim, into a TIFF file.

Can you post a 100% crop from a TIFF, and a screen shot of what you're seeing in View NX?

--
http://www.pixelfixer.org
 
Hi,

This is the NEF version:



This is the TIFF version:



If you look at it carefully, you will see the difference in detail. This is just a crop but if you see the whole image, the difference makes the TIFF look disappointing.
 
That's strange alright... it looks like View NX has applied slightly less sharpening when you told it to export to TIFF. Have you tried using Capture NX2 to see if behaves any differently?
Hedgehog26 said:
Hi,

This is the NEF version:



This is the TIFF version:



If you look at it carefully, you will see the difference in detail. This is just a crop but if you see the whole image, the difference makes the TIFF look disappointing.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pixelfixer.org
 
Yes but what we see in the NEF isn't the result of sharpening, it is the raw file as it is. Strange indeed - and frustrating.

Well the reason I try to cope with ViewNX is that I don't have Capture... I'm trying to find out if View is faulty or something else goes wrong here...
 
Hedgehog26 said:
Yes but what we see in the NEF isn't the result of sharpening, it is the raw file as it is. Strange indeed - and frustrating.
Click to expand...
No, that's not really how it works. When you view a NEF in View NX you're looking at an embedded JPEG that was put there by the camera (unless you've edited the NEF in View NX or Capture NX at some point, in which case the embedded JPEG will be updated). If you click the "RAW" button in View NX it will go and render the raw data into an image, and display it, but in either case you're looking at an interpretation of the raw data.

The raw data itself isn't actually a fully-formed image, so it has to be processed before it can be viewed.
Hedgehog26 said:
Well the reason I try to cope with ViewNX is that I don't have Capture... I'm trying to find out if View is faulty or something else goes wrong here...
Click to expand...
I've tried this myself, and I'm actually seeing the same thing as you. Surprisingly, View NX seems to render the raw data a bit differently for the on-screen preview. If I compare a TIFF generated by View NX to a TIFF produced by Capture NX 2 I can't tell them apart, but the image shown in View NX is either more sharpened or has less noise reduction appled. High ISO images definitely look noisier in View NX, but if I disable NR in Capture NX 2 they look much more similar so maybe it skips the NR to make the image appear on-screen quicker?

Btw, you can download a free 60-day trial of Capture NX 2, if you want to try it out.

--
http://www.pixelfixer.org
 
As a result of your post I did some experiments and have concluded that TIFF images aren't as good as NEF. At least when it comes to my particular workflow.

My NEF files in Capture NX 2 look much clearer, sharper, better tones etc. than working with those same files as TIFF in Photoshop. Not sure what is going on - the nef to tiff conversion was done by capture nx2 - so any particular nikon raw decoding magic should have been applied to the tiff.

I've decided I really need to stay within Capture NX2 to maintain the highest quality, which is a bit of a shock. Previously I had thought that moving images to photoshop via tiff preserved quality and was no problem. Now it looks like you pay a price for converting to tiff.
 
I think there is a lot of unecessary confusion here. There is no such thing as looking into an NEF image. It is just raw data, nothing that can actually be viewed. When you are looking at the image, it is an interpretation of the raw image based usually upon default assumptions. In a sense the NEF one is viewing is no different thatn if you were viewing a JPEG image that was taken simultaneously. The limitations of the computer screen is really the limiting factor. When I convert an NEF to either a JPEG or TIFF without first adjusting the NEF, the images are identical when viewed on the computer screen. The power of NEF is in the editing process prior to conversion, changing default assumptions, and correcting for aberations, highlights, shadows, etc. If one converts from NEF to JPEG or TIFF there is no real advantage at all.
--
Erwin
 
tcab said:
As a result of your post I did some experiments and have concluded that TIFF images aren't as good as NEF. At least when it comes to my particular workflow.

My NEF files in Capture NX 2 look much clearer, sharper, better tones etc. than working with those same files as TIFF in Photoshop. Not sure what is going on - the nef to tiff conversion was done by capture nx2 - so any particular nikon raw decoding magic should have been applied to the tiff.

I've decided I really need to stay within Capture NX2 to maintain the highest quality, which is a bit of a shock. Previously I had thought that moving images to photoshop via tiff preserved quality and was no problem. Now it looks like you pay a price for converting to tiff.
Click to expand...
So it's not just ViewNX but Capture NX 2 as well. Both JPEGs or TIFF. Unfortunate.
 
lowdown said:
tcab said:
As a result of your post I did some experiments and have concluded that TIFF images aren't as good as NEF. At least when it comes to my particular workflow.

My NEF files in Capture NX 2 look much clearer, sharper, better tones etc. than working with those same files as TIFF in Photoshop. Not sure what is going on - the nef to tiff conversion was done by capture nx2 - so any particular nikon raw decoding magic should have been applied to the tiff.

I've decided I really need to stay within Capture NX2 to maintain the highest quality, which is a bit of a shock. Previously I had thought that moving images to photoshop via tiff preserved quality and was no problem. Now it looks like you pay a price for converting to tiff.
Click to expand...
So it's not just ViewNX but Capture NX 2 as well. Both JPEGs or TIFF. Unfortunate.
Click to expand...
Well, if I convert to TIFF in Capture NX 2 and compare the NEF and TIFF side-by-side in Capture NX 2 I can't see any differences. Also, if I open the TIFF in Photoshop I still can't see any differences, as you'd expect.

What tcab is seeing may be caused by something else.

--
http://www.pixelfixer.org
 
Thomas Comerford said:
lowdown said:
tcab said:
As a result of your post I did some experiments and have concluded that TIFF images aren't as good as NEF. At least when it comes to my particular workflow.

My NEF files in Capture NX 2 look much clearer, sharper, better tones etc. than working with those same files as TIFF in Photoshop. Not sure what is going on - the nef to tiff conversion was done by capture nx2 - so any particular nikon raw decoding magic should have been applied to the tiff.

I've decided I really need to stay within Capture NX2 to maintain the highest quality, which is a bit of a shock. Previously I had thought that moving images to photoshop via tiff preserved quality and was no problem. Now it looks like you pay a price for converting to tiff.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thomas Comerford said:
Thomas Comerford said:
So it's not just ViewNX but Capture NX 2 as well. Both JPEGs or TIFF.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Unfortunate.
Thomas Comerford said:
Well, if I convert to TIFF in Capture NX 2 and compare the NEF and TIFF side-by-side in Capture NX 2 I can't see any differences. Also, if I open the TIFF in Photoshop I still can't see any differences, as you'd expect.

What tcab is seeing may be caused by something else.

--
http://www.pixelfixer.org
Click to expand...
Actually you're right.However, there is a difference (in ViewNX) between the TIFF and
the NEF file when the RAW image button is pressed.
 
Make sure you have the latest version of View. I can see no difference and I do not believe there is one. Again, you are not actually viewing the NEF file in View, it is an interpretation based upon your Cameras default settings, no different than any other file format. When you convert immediately it is just as if you took a NER and JPEG simultaneoulsy in your camera, they are identical. One is just a rendered image, now a real viewable file. My question is why would anyone want to convert in view anyway? You can only benefit from raw if you use Capture to modifiy default settings, correct for abberations, use levels and curves, white balance etc.
--
Erwin
 
Erwin Buske said:
Make sure you have the latest version of View.
Click to expand...
Good point... I'm probably not using the latest version, although I think I'm only one version behind.
Erwin Buske said:
I can see no difference and I do not believe there is one.
Click to expand...
IMHO, it's a fairly subtle difference in low ISO images but more obvious in high ISO images.
Erwin Buske said:
Again, you are not actually viewing the NEF file in View, it is an interpretation based upon your Cameras default settings, no different than any other file format. When you convert immediately it is just as if you took a NER and JPEG simultaneoulsy in your camera, they are identical.
Click to expand...
No, the conversion from View NX/Capture NX tends to be very slightly different from the in-camera conversion... especially with the older cameras.
Erwin Buske said:
One is just a rendered image, now a real viewable file. My question is why would anyone want to convert in view anyway? You can only benefit from raw if you use Capture to modifiy default settings, correct for abberations, use levels and curves, white balance etc.
Click to expand...
While View NX can't do as much as Capture NX, it does allow you to make adjustments to white balance, Picture Controls, and exposure and apply D-Lighting. I suppose the price makes it quite attractive too. :)

--
http://www.pixelfixer.org
 
You are much better at detecting these subtle differences than I, but I recognize the possiblility of slight differences as we are talking about the difference between firmware and software for conversion. I was aware that View does allow limited changes to NEF files. But to take full advantage of NEF files one does need Capture. This was not apparent to me early on, but as I evolved in my editing skills it became painfully obvious. One moves away from reliance on picture controls and quickly makes adjustments using much more capable levels and curves with the histogram and easily and precisely controls color through LCH editor. Sharpening is better done as the last step in post processing through the USM. Use of NIK color control points and selection control points allows one to easily edit any portion of the photo. With the NIK Color Effex Filters Plug-in one can apply multiple filters to the RAW image, for example Graduated Neutral Density Filters (I find they actually work better and more precise than actual filters to about 2/3 Fstops.
--
Erwin
 
Erwin Buske said:
Make sure you have the latest version of View. I can see no difference and I do not believe there is one. Again, you are not actually viewing the NEF file in View, it is an interpretation based upon your Cameras default settings, no different than any other file format. When you convert immediately it is just as if you took a NER and JPEG simultaneoulsy in your camera, they are identical. One is just a rendered image, now a real viewable file. My question is why would anyone want to convert in view anyway? You can only benefit from raw if you use Capture to modifiy default settings, correct for abberations, use levels and curves, white balance etc.
--
Erwin
Click to expand...
Well, I have the latest version of View and am using it because I don't have capture. Have you seen my posted pictures comparing the NEF and TIFF versions? Do you still think there is no difference?

Well I understand that what we see in NEF raw view is basically just an interpretation of raw data but why is that particular interpretation MUCH better than any other versions I can get?? Really I wouldn't care about these things, but I can see a definite and irritating loss of quality when converting to TIFF which as I understand just shouldn't be there. Thomas and tcab confirmed that, too - "really strange."
 
tcab said:
As a result of your post I did some experiments and have concluded that TIFF images aren't as good as NEF. At least when it comes to my particular workflow.

My NEF files in Capture NX 2 look much clearer, sharper, better tones etc. than working with those same files as TIFF in Photoshop. Not sure what is going on - the nef to tiff conversion was done by capture nx2 - so any particular nikon raw decoding magic should have been applied to the tiff.

I've decided I really need to stay within Capture NX2 to maintain the highest quality, which is a bit of a shock. Previously I had thought that moving images to photoshop via tiff preserved quality and was no problem. Now it looks like you pay a price for converting to tiff.
Click to expand...
...and this is exactly what I felt and experienced, except that I use ViewNX.
 
Hedgehog26 said:
Erwin Buske said:
Make sure you have the latest version of View. I can see no difference and I do not believe there is one. Again, you are not actually viewing the NEF file in View, it is an interpretation based upon your Cameras default settings, no different than any other file format. When you convert immediately it is just as if you took a NER and JPEG simultaneoulsy in your camera, they are identical. One is just a rendered image, now a real viewable file. My question is why would anyone want to convert in view anyway? You can only benefit from raw if you use Capture to modifiy default settings, correct for abberations, use levels and curves, white balance etc.
--
Erwin
Click to expand...
Well, I have the latest version of View and am using it because I don't have capture. Have you seen my posted pictures comparing the NEF and TIFF versions? Do you still think there is no difference?

Well I understand that what we see in NEF raw view is basically just an interpretation of raw data but why is that particular interpretation MUCH better than any other versions I can get?? Really I wouldn't care about these things, but I can see a definite and irritating loss of quality when converting to TIFF which as I understand just shouldn't be there. Thomas and tcab confirmed that, too - "really strange."
Click to expand...
I also have the latest version of ViewNX and I'm still seeing differences between the NEF and the TIFF. Since ViewNX can give a much better interpretation why can't
the better interpretation be translated across when converting to TIFF(or JPEG).
It's almost like Nikon is teasing us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top