I've gone back to jpg

Trevor Kloeden · Jun 18, 2003

I've shoot 95% JPG. Have a great work flow and believe it or not get some shots right out of the D100 that DON'T require any processing. I still compose my shots, like in the good old film days, and don't really on the shotgun approach with digital shooting.

My 2c worth.

Trevor

Jono Slack · Jun 18, 2003

Hi Howard

Howard S Passman said:
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 do this as well - I find that with the fine jpg, I can make one set of modifications and save again without trouble - but it's no good going on to another generation, so if I think I haven't 'finished' then I'll save as tiff (or sometimes as a photoshop file).

Howard S Passman said:
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.

I think you hit the nail on the head - if you have the time, then you have the time to get it right with jpg!

Howard S Passman said:
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.

and processor times too! I quite agree.
kind regards
jono

Howard S Passman 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...

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

Howard S Passman · Jun 18, 2003

I'm with you Trevor with the exception of event shooting. If I were to try to compose too many shots at a gymnastics competition the only shot I would come back with is the winners podium. THEN I could use RAW

Bests

Howard

Trevor Kloeden said:
I've shoot 95% JPG. Have a great work flow and believe it or not
get some shots right out of the D100 that DON'T require any
processing. I still compose my shots, like in the good old film
days, and don't really on the shotgun approach with digital
shooting.

My 2c worth.

Trevor

Jono Slack · Jun 18, 2003

Drew Loker said:
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.

Drew Loker 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?

Perhaps you don't know David Bailey? he is probably the most bankable of english photographers - started in the 60's and 70's and still producing wonderful work today. The point of the excercise was to prove that those who had refused the files were working on the basis of their predjudices rather than any objective reality.
kind regards
jono slack

Drew Loker said:
Thanks!!

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

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

Jono Slack · Jun 18, 2003

Hi Trevor
Thank you - I was beginning to feel a little beleageared!

It just makes life SOOO much easier - I now plug in to the mac, download the jpegs and run a slide show in Graphic Converter (this has a delete button in the slide show) - that way I can weed out all the failures straight off - then any work which needs doing on the keepers can be done really speedily.

One of the problems I found with shooting RAW was that although I could use batch conversion, I didn't want to do the same things with all the shots, so I ended up spending 5 minutes on each shot, whether it was any good or not.

kind regards
jono slack

Trevor Kloeden said:
I've shoot 95% JPG. Have a great work flow and believe it or not
get some shots right out of the D100 that DON'T require any
processing. I still compose my shots, like in the good old film
days, and don't really on the shotgun approach with digital
shooting.

My 2c worth.

Trevor

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

Anthony Medici · Jun 18, 2003

I batch convert using Capture 3.5 the NEFs using camera settings and resave the NEF. This allows me to view a Large Preview in Nikon View so that I can quickly weed out images I don't want to keep. If you've taken the image carefully, you could then convert them to jpeg the same way and you are no worse off than having taken the image using jpeg to begin with.
--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

Jono Slack said:
Hi Trevor
Thank you - I was beginning to feel a little beleageared!

It just makes life SOOO much easier - I now plug in to the mac,
download the jpegs and run a slide show in Graphic Converter (this
has a delete button in the slide show) - that way I can weed out
all the failures straight off - then any work which needs doing on
the keepers can be done really speedily.

One of the problems I found with shooting RAW was that although I
could use batch conversion, I didn't want to do the same things
with all the shots, so I ended up spending 5 minutes on each shot,
whether it was any good or not.

kind regards
jono slack

Vtie · Jun 18, 2003

kecohen said:
for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy.

On the contrary, with the D100, Jpeg's contain less noise than NEF's
(according to the test review on this site). They are are softer, though.

kecohen said:
Plus, if you were wanting to
crop and enlarge, you certainly don't want to do that with a jpeg.

Why not? As long as you save as (compressed) TIFF?

kecohen said:
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.

This is not true, for a particular color, the human eye can only
distinguish around 30-40 different intensities in the same scene.
So, even 8 bit (256 steps) is more than enough. No one will ever
be able to see the difference between an 8 bits or a 12 bits (NEF's
are 12 bits, not 8 bits), not on a display nor on a print, enlarged or not.
The true value of having more than 8 bit lies in the processing phase,
giving more freedom to change the tone curves, saturation, etc...
But, for final printing, there is no difference. You can safely convert
your manipulated 16 bit file back to 8 bit, you will never see a difference.
As a matter of fact, I don't even think that there exists a printer or press
that puts more than 256 variations of a color on paper. It would be
very hard to achieve, and totally useless.

kecohen said:
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.

It is true that the industry almost exclusively relies on TIFF's.
But that is simply because they are the industry standard. In many
cases, they would demand 8 bit CMYK TIFF's. Try to give a 16 bit TIFF
to a prepress office, in many cases they will simply refuse it (and in
all other cases they will convert it to 8 bits themselves)

Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie

Ger Bee · Jun 18, 2003

Jono Slack said:
If it's good enough for Jay blah blah

................ RAW on a D1x is a fantastic tool to have, but not necessarily necessary, I say it is essential on the D100 and is totally wasted on my 1D.

I used RAW only for a few commercials and in the trickiest lighting in available light and high ISO. It was indeed an assignment saver on one or two occasions and I could well see others actually depending on it.

But the JPEG files were very acceptable in Normal and were absolutely brilliant in Fine, though with the right subjects one could find the compression artifacts, but I’m an image man first and quality second.

Had a lovely shot printed from the D100 recently and the 70~200 AFS of a girl being crowned Miss Cork (2) but my dynamic close AF did as expected and the girl is actually OOF, because of the organizer being nearer the camera – I know most on this forum would have dumped that shot but it made the national papers and was used large with no trace of the OOF in newsprint and it was a JPEG Fine capture.

So what an artifact or two between friends --

)

--
Eos** means New Dawn, the fun has begun ...

Leif Olstrup · Jun 18, 2003

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

I agree. Personally I have a hard time seeing big differences between NEF and JPEG files in terms of quality. But, as you say, you need to get things right before you push the release button. Now, I have been shooting slides for decades, so I do have the routines under my skin (if I hadn't I wouldn't have been shooting slides, right?). I can plan in advance which WB to use, and I do know how to expose properly. BTW with the latest edition of Bibble, you can also change the WB and exposure of JPEGs.

The thing with JPEGs is they are softer out of the camera. But I don't see that as a problem either. I have camera sharpening set to none and sharpen afterwards in PS. With appropiate sharpening, you can get as much sharpnes and resolution out of JPEGs from the D100 as the optics and the pixel size will allow. It is especially important not to use too high a radius in USM. If you do, you loose details and amplify JPEG artifacts.

In another post in this thread is is said that the noise level of D100 JPEGs is very high. I don't agree to this. In fact I find the JPEGs to have a lower noise level than the NEFs (probably because of the softness of the JPEGs).

I admit, with JPEGs you have to get it right when you shoot the picture. But after all, that's what I had to do with slides all those years.

Erik Magnuson · Jun 18, 2003

Drew Loker said:
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.

I belive that the principal reason for this is that in-camera JPEGs use 2x1 chroma subsampling while most software (e.g. Photoshopl) use 1x1 subsampling at the high quality levels.

For a link on chroma subsampling, try http://www.wfu.edu/~matthews/misc/jpg_vs_gif/JpgCompTest/JpgChromaSub.html

Although it only covers the difference between 1x1 vs 2x2.

--
Erik

Vtie · Jun 18, 2003

Leif Olstrup said:
In another post in this thread is is said that the noise level of
D100 JPEGs is very high. I don't agree to this. In fact I find the
JPEGs to have a lower noise level than the NEFs (probably because
of the softness of the JPEGs).

I don't agree neigther. The noise levels of JPEGs are lower than
equivalent NEFs. This is also confirmed in the D100 review of this
site. Like you said, most likely, it is because they are softer.

Vtie
http://www.pbase.com/vtie

Jono Slack · Jun 18, 2003

HI Anthony

This is pretty much what I was doing - but for 150 shots it took ages - both in terms of the conversion and the general fiddling about. Nikon View isn't great for weeding, as you can only do the weeding in thumbnail view.

With Graphic converter I can run a slide show, and there is a trash button at the bottom - it really makes things faster.

Of course, I could (and was) doing this with the converted NEF files - but then I had to go through the routine of matching up the jpg and nef files and deleting the nef files which I had rejected as jpgs.

THEN I had to re-open the NEF files for the 'keepers' and make the adjustments I wanted and resave them. Of course, I could have worked on the jpg files - but in that case there was no point in shooting NEF in the first place!

kind regards
jono slack

Anthony Medici said:
http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

Jono Slack said:

Hi Trevor
Thank you - I was beginning to feel a little beleageared!

It just makes life SOOO much easier - I now plug in to the mac,
download the jpegs and run a slide show in Graphic Converter (this
has a delete button in the slide show) - that way I can weed out
all the failures straight off - then any work which needs doing on
the keepers can be done really speedily.

One of the problems I found with shooting RAW was that although I
could use batch conversion, I didn't want to do the same things
with all the shots, so I ended up spending 5 minutes on each shot,
whether it was any good or not.

kind regards
jono slack

Click to expand...

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

Jono Slack · Jun 18, 2003

Hi Leif
You got it!

In a nutshell, the problem with shooting jpg is that you have to get it right in the first place.

But I think that this is a good thing - it keeps you concentrating, and IMHO that also results in better composition.

Of course, I wouldn't hesitate to use NEF under some special circumstances, but they are few and far between.

Personally I feel like a great weight has been taken from my shoulders!
kind regards
jono slack

Leif Olstrup 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...

I agree. Personally I have a hard time seeing big differences
between NEF and JPEG files in terms of quality. But, as you say,
you need to get things right before you push the release button.
Now, I have been shooting slides for decades, so I do have the
routines under my skin (if I hadn't I wouldn't have been shooting
slides, right?). I can plan in advance which WB to use, and I do
know how to expose properly. BTW with the latest edition of Bibble,
you can also change the WB and exposure of JPEGs.

The thing with JPEGs is they are softer out of the camera. But I
don't see that as a problem either. I have camera sharpening set to
none and sharpen afterwards in PS. With appropiate sharpening, you
can get as much sharpnes and resolution out of JPEGs from the D100
as the optics and the pixel size will allow. It is especially
important not to use too high a radius in USM. If you do, you loose
details and amplify JPEG artifacts.

In another post in this thread is is said that the noise level of
D100 JPEGs is very high. I don't agree to this. In fact I find the
JPEGs to have a lower noise level than the NEFs (probably because
of the softness of the JPEGs).

I admit, with JPEGs you have to get it right when you shoot the
picture. But after all, that's what I had to do with slides all
those years.

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

motofoto148913 · Jun 18, 2003

some questions for those who are choosing JPEG over RAW on the basis of time lost to conversion, etc:

• what is the approximate number of exposures you make monthly?
• are you a pro or amateur?
• what is your typical final output?
• do you frequently use curves and / or levels to adjust files?

Thanks,
Mike

--
'shoot early, shoot often'

Joe Hoddinott · Jun 18, 2003

I used to argue this point until blue in the face with some people in favor of shooting RAW. But the truth is that I think there is room for both in anyone's workflow.

I basically do 3 types of shooting.

1) Sports - with onsite printing
2) Weddings, lite PJ, and portraits
3) Personal

Sports is speed, I don't have time to wait for RAW or TIFF processing. Here I'm shooting the D1h and D1x combo using the D100 as a backup camera. The D1's in this case really shine as their JPGs have great noise algorythms. But since my product needs to be sold in a matter of minutes, RAW and TIFF formats are not an option. This does force me to do more in the camera, but it's a challenge that I think is important and keeps the brain working when other things begin to get routine.

Now for a wedding or portrait, I will only shoot in RAW. This helps my nerves and I know I have more latitude to retrieve the image should I make a mistake (which of course has yet to happen! ;-) ) Since I shoot with both a D1x and D100 in these environments, it helps bring the noise level of the D100 on par with the D1x. There is a big difference in the quality of JPGs. I want my clients to have the best quality work possible, and shooting in RAW leaves open many options for different print sizes.

My personal stuff is quirky. Usually, I shoot in RAW, but I think that it really depends on the mood I'm in. My personal stuff includes shooting candid portraits and a growing interest in wildlife and animals in general. For this the advantage of RAW is when I'm stalking about in the brush, and the light changes, I'm not forced to stop and switch my WB. But sometimes, like Jono, I tire of the post processing and turn on my brain a little bit and shoot in JPG.

I think there is room for both as quality is generally not an issue for printing even up to 16x20" prints. I'll go on record saying: situation will dictate the format need. Your shooting environment, and output needs all take part - but I believe there are strengths of both and people nailed down to one format need to expand a bit if their situation allows.

--
Regards,
Joe H.

PPA
---------------------------------------
http://www.biggerboatstudios.com

(Sarcasm Included - some assembly required.)

Anthony Medici · Jun 18, 2003

Not true. I'm using Capture 3.5 and View 6.0.

Set Capture to save large previews in NEFs as a settings change.
Set View to not regenerate view and use the preview jpegs.

You batch process to camera settings and save over the original NEFs so that you can store the large preview.

When you have a full screen browse up in View, hit the delete key and say yes and it will trash the file.

Works great on both my XP machine and my Mac.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

Jono Slack said:
Nikon View isn't great for weeding, as you can only do the
weeding in thumbnail view.

Jono Slack · Jun 18, 2003

Hi Joe

there's certainly a place for RAW, and I'll certainly continue to use it - but only for odd shots where I'm not sure of the results. I've found that going back to shooting mainly jpg has reduced my computer time by a factor of 3 0r 4 (not to mention the reduction in irritation).

Now, if this produced less good photographs it would be meaningless, but from the last week or so it's seemed to me that the results are just as good as they were before (and sometimes better).

I think that the point I'm trying to get to is that many of us (myself included) might feel concerned that in shooting find jpgs we are somehow compromising our results, and my recent experience tells me that this is NOT the case.

Reading this thread it has been pretty clear to me that this is an easier decision to take using the D1X than it is with the D100, where the jpg files perhaps aren't quite so reliable.

I was interested in the fact that Jay Meisel had decided to shoot fine jpg exclusively, he doesn't seem to me to be the type of guy who would make compromises with his image quality!

kind regards
jono

p.s. hope you're well.

Joe Hoddinott said:
I used to argue this point until blue in the face with some people
in favor of shooting RAW. But the truth is that I think there is
room for both in anyone's workflow.

I basically do 3 types of shooting.

1) Sports - with onsite printing
2) Weddings, lite PJ, and portraits
3) Personal

Sports is speed, I don't have time to wait for RAW or TIFF
processing. Here I'm shooting the D1h and D1x combo using the D100
as a backup camera. The D1's in this case really shine as their
JPGs have great noise algorythms. But since my product needs to be
sold in a matter of minutes, RAW and TIFF formats are not an
option. This does force me to do more in the camera, but it's a
challenge that I think is important and keeps the brain working
when other things begin to get routine.

Now for a wedding or portrait, I will only shoot in RAW. This
helps my nerves and I know I have more latitude to retrieve the
image should I make a mistake (which of course has yet to happen!
;-) ) Since I shoot with both a D1x and D100 in these
environments, it helps bring the noise level of the D100 on par
with the D1x. There is a big difference in the quality of JPGs. I
want my clients to have the best quality work possible, and
shooting in RAW leaves open many options for different print sizes.

My personal stuff is quirky. Usually, I shoot in RAW, but I think
that it really depends on the mood I'm in. My personal stuff
includes shooting candid portraits and a growing interest in
wildlife and animals in general. For this the advantage of RAW is
when I'm stalking about in the brush, and the light changes, I'm
not forced to stop and switch my WB. But sometimes, like Jono, I
tire of the post processing and turn on my brain a little bit and
shoot in JPG.

I think there is room for both as quality is generally not an issue
for printing even up to 16x20" prints. I'll go on record saying:
situation will dictate the format need. Your shooting environment,
and output needs all take part - but I believe there are strengths
of both and people nailed down to one format need to expand a bit
if their situation allows.

--
Regards,
Joe H.

PPA
---------------------------------------
http://www.biggerboatstudios.com

(Sarcasm Included - some assembly required.)

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

Jono Slack · Jun 18, 2003

I'm still not sure what you're doing however.

Anthony Medici said:
Not true. I'm using Capture 3.5 and View 6.0.

Set Capture to save large previews in NEFs as a settings change.
Set View to not regenerate view and use the preview jpegs.

You batch process to camera settings and save over the original
NEFs so that you can store the large preview.

When you have a full screen browse up in View, hit the delete key
and say yes and it will trash the file.

How do you get a full screen browse up in view (do you mean by clicking the image)
more info required I think.
kind regards
jono

Anthony Medici said:
Works great on both my XP machine and my Mac.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

Jono Slack said:

Nikon View isn't great for weeding, as you can only do the
weeding in thumbnail view.

Click to expand...

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

Thom Hogan · Jun 18, 2003

kecohen said:
for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy.

Really? Every D100 I've tested has much lower noise in JPEG images than RAW (Phil's review says the same thing). Indeed, that's one of the slight drawbacks of the camera: Nikon has sacrified detail for noise-free and artifact-free JPEG images.

kecohen said:
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.

What printer are you using that prints at 16 bits?

kecohen said:
Moreover, anyone thinking about selling their digital files as
stock, had better not even think of jpegs.

True. The better agencies want RAW files.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guides to the Nikon D100, D1, D1h, & D1x and Fujifilm S2
http://www.bythom.com

Jim101232 · Jun 18, 2003

Excellent idea.

Anthony Medici said:
Set Capture to save large previews in NEFs as a settings change.
Set View to not regenerate view and use the preview jpegs.

You batch process to camera settings and save over the original
NEFs so that you can store the large preview.

When you have a full screen browse up in View, hit the delete key
and say yes and it will trash the file.

Works great on both my XP machine and my Mac.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

Jono Slack said:

Nikon View isn't great for weeding, as you can only do the
weeding in thumbnail view.

Click to expand...

I've gone back to jpg

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Erik Magnuson

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts