I've gone back to jpg

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air - everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

The problem is for us D100-owners who has less quality in our jpegs.
--
http://www.pbase.com/interactive

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy. Plus, if you were wanting to crop and enlarge, you certainly don't want to do that with a jpeg.

And I do take exception with the article in this regard...while the human eye is perhaps not capable of discerning some subtle variations in tone on a monitor, it is most certainly capable of discerning the difference in tonality and richness between an enlargement printed at 16 bits and one printed 8 bits.

Moreover, anyone thinking about selling their digital files as stock, had better not even think of jpegs. Most of the stock companies want 28 megabite tiffs or higher. You simply can't enlarge a jpeg as well as a tiff file and maintain the integrity of the file.

--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

HI Karen

In case you haven't looked back at the 'black and white' thread - I'm still waiting for proof of your spectacular equipment (and Lou's come to that as well). It gave me a good laugh the other morning.

As for this - well - I don't have a D100, so I can't really comment on that part of it.

As far as the D1X is concerned, I've ressed up some jpg files to 10mp to compare with the 10mp NEF output from Capture, and if I was forced to come down on one side or the other, I think I'd go for the jpg.

clearly you can't go on saving it as a jpg, but I've found it quite possible to make modifications to it and then save the results as a tiff or psd file.

kind regards
jono

p.s. I read an interesting article by David Bailey about the requirements of agencies and others for large tiff files - he said that he'd submitted jpgs, which had been refused. As an experiment he'd tried printing them and then scanning them in on a flatbed scanner and sending them in - no complaints.

So, although I accept the truth that they require such files, I don't necessarily accept that it's for a good reason!

kecohen said:

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy. Plus, if you were wanting to
crop and enlarge, you certainly don't want to do that with a jpeg.

And I do take exception with the article in this regard...while the
human eye is perhaps not capable of discerning some subtle
variations in tone on a monitor, it is most certainly capable of
discerning the difference in tonality and richness between an
enlargement printed at 16 bits and one printed 8 bits.

Moreover, anyone thinking about selling their digital files as
stock, had better not even think of jpegs. Most of the stock
companies want 28 megabite tiffs or higher. You simply can't
enlarge a jpeg as well as a tiff file and maintain the integrity of
the file.

--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you
need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Yes Karen....but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

kecohen said:

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy. Plus, if you were wanting to
crop and enlarge, you certainly don't want to do that with a jpeg.

And I do take exception with the article in this regard...while the
human eye is perhaps not capable of discerning some subtle
variations in tone on a monitor, it is most certainly capable of
discerning the difference in tonality and richness between an
enlargement printed at 16 bits and one printed 8 bits.

Moreover, anyone thinking about selling their digital files as
stock, had better not even think of jpegs. Most of the stock
companies want 28 megabite tiffs or higher. You simply can't
enlarge a jpeg as well as a tiff file and maintain the integrity of
the file.

--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you
need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

Click to expand...

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=284418

HI There

Of course - I wasn't aware that there was a problem with D100 jpg files. Poor you!
kind regards
jono

PerL said:

The problem is for us D100-owners who has less quality in our jpegs.
--
http://www.pbase.com/interactive

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

I forgot to add ))

Lou Verruto said:

kecohen said:

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy. Plus, if you were wanting to
crop and enlarge, you certainly don't want to do that with a jpeg.

And I do take exception with the article in this regard...while the
human eye is perhaps not capable of discerning some subtle
variations in tone on a monitor, it is most certainly capable of
discerning the difference in tonality and richness between an
enlargement printed at 16 bits and one printed 8 bits.

Moreover, anyone thinking about selling their digital files as
stock, had better not even think of jpegs. Most of the stock
companies want 28 megabite tiffs or higher. You simply can't
enlarge a jpeg as well as a tiff file and maintain the integrity of
the file.

--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you
need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

Click to expand...

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=284418

Click to expand...

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=284418

Hi Lou
The implication seems to be that the D100 jpgs aren't up to par?

Never tried one myself

kind regards
jono

p.s. where's those shots of the buns you promised?

Lou Verruto said:

kecohen said:

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy. Plus, if you were wanting to
crop and enlarge, you certainly don't want to do that with a jpeg.

And I do take exception with the article in this regard...while the
human eye is perhaps not capable of discerning some subtle
variations in tone on a monitor, it is most certainly capable of
discerning the difference in tonality and richness between an
enlargement printed at 16 bits and one printed 8 bits.

Moreover, anyone thinking about selling their digital files as
stock, had better not even think of jpegs. Most of the stock
companies want 28 megabite tiffs or higher. You simply can't
enlarge a jpeg as well as a tiff file and maintain the integrity of
the file.

--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you
need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

Click to expand...

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=284418

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Lou Verruto said:

Lou Verruto said:

Yes Karen....but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get
what you need.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I might be able to respond.

--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

Hi Jono -

I think a lot of this depends on your uses. I find for general shooting outdoors(non-portraits) jpegs are fine with my D100, I don't have any of the problems (sharpnessm etc) others have. However, when I get in the studio, or anything with skin tones I go RAW. Or paid work just for safeties sake..

BKKSW

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

Jono Slack said:

p.s. I read an interesting article by David Bailey about the
requirements of agencies and others for large tiff files - he said
that he'd submitted jpgs, which had been refused. As an experiment
he'd tried printing them and then scanning them in on a flatbed
scanner and sending them in - no complaints.

So, although I accept the truth that they require such files, I
don't necessarily accept that it's for a good reason!

Click to expand...

let's see, thought I already mentioned:

Jono Slack said:

You simply can't enlarge a jpeg as well as a tiff file and maintain the integrity of
the file.

Click to expand...

Oh sure Lou, you certainly can convert a jpeg into a tiff or a psd, but the 8 bit jpeg has already lost all the additional color data (not pixels as the article claims) that it had at 16 bit, and that can't be restored. The files may be visually ok as they are, but for super high resolution enlargements they could've should've would've been much better at 16 bit. Having worked with agencies for oh, a crapload of years, I can tell you from personal experience that you only want the richest and best when printing on a high speed offset press.

BUT who am I to talk -- just another gal with spectacular equipment. ;-)
--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

Me either. I have no experience with the D100.

Jono Slack said:

Never tried one myself

kind regards
jono

p.s. where's those shots of the buns you promised?

Lou Verruto said:

kecohen said:

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy. Plus, if you were wanting to
crop and enlarge, you certainly don't want to do that with a jpeg.

And I do take exception with the article in this regard...while the
human eye is perhaps not capable of discerning some subtle
variations in tone on a monitor, it is most certainly capable of
discerning the difference in tonality and richness between an
enlargement printed at 16 bits and one printed 8 bits.

Moreover, anyone thinking about selling their digital files as
stock, had better not even think of jpegs. Most of the stock
companies want 28 megabite tiffs or higher. You simply can't
enlarge a jpeg as well as a tiff file and maintain the integrity of
the file.

--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you
need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

Click to expand...

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=284418

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=284418

For a NewB like me with a D100,
Nef is a security because I can change
Exp and WB mistakes.
But the more confident I feel the more I'm
fed up with the heavy postprocessing.
PS x allow incredible transformation if needed.
And the best shoot the less PS x.
So I agree with you and I think that nef
will go in the museum soon.
Just opinion of a NewB

Yves

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

Well I hope you are Happy young man. Here I was, minding my own business, and you drag me into this discussion. Then there is Karen, speaking of her beautiful equipment( I am assuming she is referring to cameras, lenses Etc.) whilst I am am busy working on recent (high quality )jpeg images. Now, instead of concentrating on the work at hand, I am imagining Karen's equipment and wondering why I purchased Adobe Camera Raw! Thankyou.

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=284418

... for serious work, fast isn't enough ...

Don't get me wrong, I think jpeg fine is very adequate but the time lost for post processing a jpeg is bigger than the wait to open a NEF file for me ...

I do Jpeg once in a while though ...

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

--
Yves P.

Jono Slack said:

As for this - well - I don't have a D100, so I can't really comment
on that part of it.

Click to expand...

I have a D100. I normally shoot NEF on portrait and wedding jobs, strange lighting, or landscapes that I hope to sell or enlarge one day. Family, casual shoots, church shoots, parties and events, etc. I shoot JPEG.

Is the D100 really that much worse off on the JPEG?

Also, a question I have never gotten answered is the JPEG quality setting. If coming from a NEF, saving as an Excellent Quality generates a 6mb file. Where as shooting in JPEG high results in a 2.5mb file. What is the difference between shooting in RAW for most control on shots that JUST might need a little post processing tweaking that would be best done at the Capture level, and then batch converting to JPEG Excellent Quality and going from there? It would seem that the majority of the shots will not need to have anything done, but you might have one or two that need a WB or exposure adjustment, then run the whole batch through to JPEG or TIFF. I know where you are coming from as far as the speed. I though my P4 1.8ghz was a fast enough...but its not. BUT when workign with TIFFs, the computer REALLY comes to a crall. But JPEGs, even at the Excellent Quality seem to respond quick enough.

Jono Slack said:

requirements of agencies and others for large tiff files - he said
that he'd submitted jpgs, which had been refused. As an experiment
he'd tried printing them and then scanning them in on a flatbed
scanner and sending them in - no complaints.

Click to expand...

Why couldn't you jsut save the file as a TIFF? Why go to the trouble of scanning it?

Thanks!!

--
Drew
http://www.pbase.com/lokerd

Here's a link
http://www.pdnonline.com/cobrand/nikonnet/masters/jay_maisel/maisel.html

click on the audio clip and see what he says.

If it's good enough for Jay blah blah

Bit it IS the D1X
kind regards
jono slack

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Hi Jono

According to Phil's review the D100 produces softer jpegs owing to inappropriately conservative in camera sharpening. Contradicting what karen says, the result of this is that raw provides more detail and sharpness but higher noise.

I shoot mainly in Raw now simply because it gives you better control (and the wonderful Phase 1 Capture converter which is the first piece of image editing software I've come across with a really polished user interface).

However, I must say that when I do shoot in jpeg I don't really notice that much difference in quality. Then again I could never see any difference between jpeg and raw with the E10 despite the fact that many swore it was night and day...

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

Hi Karen,

Please don't take this wrong, but I convert jpg to tiff all the time and then back to jpg for storage. tiff is huge and with so many images it slows the transfer of data and takes up large amounts of storage.

I certainly would rather get the shot than not and this goes for static work also. I find if I have the time to take many more shots of something important I just might get and angle or lighting I wouldn't have had time for otherwise. If it's a static object I can always go back with my favorite in hand and shoot it again later in RAW. Of course if I have that much time and latitude I should have the WB and exposure dead on and won't need RAW anyway.

We have so much more built in latitude with digital it isn't even funny. I wonder how many of our young shooters could even cope with film and darkroom work much less slide film of any sort. I'm curious even they would end up with much of a portfolio at all. I know the ability to shoot 300+ images without thought to film costs, developing and processing time has almost liberated me to experiment while I shoot without fear of loosing anything. Until buffer times and media storage sizes get far more advanced I'll be shooting jpg and loving it.

Have a great day!

Howard

kecohen said:

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy. Plus, if you were wanting to
crop and enlarge, you certainly don't want to do that with a jpeg.

And I do take exception with the article in this regard...while the
human eye is perhaps not capable of discerning some subtle
variations in tone on a monitor, it is most certainly capable of
discerning the difference in tonality and richness between an
enlargement printed at 16 bits and one printed 8 bits.

Moreover, anyone thinking about selling their digital files as
stock, had better not even think of jpegs. Most of the stock
companies want 28 megabite tiffs or higher. You simply can't
enlarge a jpeg as well as a tiff file and maintain the integrity of
the file.

--
Karen

...but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you
need.

http://www.e-designarts.com
http://www.pbase.com/kecohen/

Click to expand...

Hi Dave

I have to say, the feeling I get is that there is quite a difference between jpg on the D100 and the D1X - I notice that to date nobody shooting with the D1X has seriously criticised the approach.

Do you know, I don't think I ever bothered with raw much on the E10, and looking back at the results I got then, they still look pretty good.

I think it's too easy to let the technicalities take over from the craft of photography, and where I'm concerned this doesn't make for better results.

The extra freedom I get from shooting jpg seems to me to produce better results.

kind regards
jono slack

DMillier said:

According to Phil's review the D100 produces softer jpegs owing to
inappropriately conservative in camera sharpening. Contradicting
what karen says, the result of this is that raw provides more
detail and sharpness but higher noise.

I shoot mainly in Raw now simply because it gives you better
control (and the wonderful Phase 1 Capture converter which is the
first piece of image editing software I've come across with a
really polished user interface).

However, I must say that when I do shoot in jpeg I don't really
notice that much difference in quality. Then again I could never
see any difference between jpeg and raw with the E10 despite the
fact that many swore it was night and day...

Jono Slack said:

HI All

For the last six months or so I've been shooting NEF files. But I
was getting thoroughly fed up with the post processing - each shot
needed treating slightly differently, and it was consuming a great
deal of time. A couple of weeks ago I thought I'd try going back
to fine jpg on my D1X - it's been like a breath of fresh air -
everything is SO MUCH faster, and the results really are pretty
much indistinguishable.

Of course, it means more care when taking the shot to get the
exposure exactly right (and the white balance). But it isn't so
much trouble, and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.

I was discussing this with Lou Verruto on email, and he sent me
this link:

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

just a thought for those of you who are (like I was) getting tired
of waiting to open those NEF files.

kind regards

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk