Reading mode: Light Dark

I've gone back to jpg

Go to last post
ymo said:
For a NewB like me with a D100,
Nef is a security because I can change
Exp and WB mistakes.
Click to expand...
Probably true for newbies, especially those moving from print film to digital. There are a LOT of things to get right to make a great photo: focus, DOF, exposure, contrast control, composition, straight horizons (or not), steady camera, etc. When you add sharpness setting, white balance, contrast/tone, and a host of other settings necessary for digital, this leads to missing "the moment" because you're too busy trying to work through every last detail and the dozens of controls. And if you shoot for the moment and ignore the details, you compromise the image and what you might be able to do with it.
ymo said:
But the more confident I feel the more I'm
fed up with the heavy postprocessing.
Click to expand...
Well, there's where we start to see differences in photographers. If you're shooting casually, then RAW processing can get to be an issue (though we now have plenty of batch possibilities). But most photographers will want to post process their best images and get them exactly the way they want them, and with JPEG you're starting with a handicap. Personally, I like Fujifilm's solution: embed a 1/4 size JPEG in the RAW file (of course, until recently, they didn't give us an easy way to batch those out). Canon and Kodak have cameras that can save both a JPEG and RAW. I suspect the next Nikons will, too.
ymo said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it won't. This is the same argument used back in the B&W film days, when all of us were hand processing our film (most of us with slight tweaks to chemicals, process, or timings). The argument was that when the automated processors and printers came along that we'd stop doing hand processing. Nope, didn't happen. True, the vast majority went the "it's good enough" route, but the rest of us wanted every last bit of quality we could get out of our images and kept at our old ways. The difference this time is that we are nowhere near the "best possible" demosaicing engine. We've seen improvements across the board in the last two years in post processing software, with no end in sight. When a camera gets designed, especially these days with Canon's Digic and Nikon's unnamed ASIC in the D100, the demosaicing and JPEG rendering is locked in foreever for that camera. If that's "good enough" for you, be happy and take pictures.

--
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
 
Hi there,

It all depends on your work flow. I like editing in Capture in NEF mode. Especially being able to come back and do a touch up if something is slightly off tilt. If I shoot in JPEG mode ( and I do often) first thing I do is batch to NEF in a seperate folder from there in make any changes needed and save back to the same NEF file. If I shoot NEF then I just edit in the original file. When done editing I just batch to a new folder labeled with the date plus JPEG. Then I batch with a reduced size to another folder labeled date plus WEB. When I am done I have 3 folders 1-NEF 2-JPEG 3-WEB. If I need a large print I just make a TIFF from the original edited NEF. I use Batch a lot to cut down time. Shooting JPEG actually makes more work for me.

D100/MB-D100 and some great glass!

GenoP
Jono Slack said:
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.)
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/genop754
 
You right because I'm NewB : if I don't need
to much post processing it's the sign that I manage
better :
Thom Hogan said:
a LOT of things to get right to make a great
photo: focus, DOF, exposure, contrast control, composition,
straight horizons (or not), steady camera, etc."
Click to expand...
To be honest the heavy postprocessing I was talking about
is related also to the mac version of Nikon program (not really
optimized)

For the "nef museum", ok I get what you say and in order to
be consistent with what I'm telling, I'll contact you in a few years
on that point :-).

Thom I bought your book a few weeks ago and it's really helpfull.

Thank for your answer.

Yves
Thom Hogan said:
ymo said:
For a NewB like me with a D100,
Nef is a security because I can change
Exp and WB mistakes.
Click to expand...
Probably true for newbies, especially those moving from print film
to digital. There are a LOT of things to get right to make a great
photo: focus, DOF, exposure, contrast control, composition,
straight horizons (or not), steady camera, etc. When you add
sharpness setting, white balance, contrast/tone, and a host of
other settings necessary for digital, this leads to missing "the
moment" because you're too busy trying to work through every last
detail and the dozens of controls. And if you shoot for the moment
and ignore the details, you compromise the image and what you might
be able to do with it.
Thom Hogan said:
But the more confident I feel the more I'm
fed up with the heavy postprocessing.
Click to expand...
Well, there's where we start to see differences in photographers.
If you're shooting casually, then RAW processing can get to be an
issue (though we now have plenty of batch possibilities). But most
photographers will want to post process their best images and get
them exactly the way they want them, and with JPEG you're starting
with a handicap. Personally, I like Fujifilm's solution: embed a
1/4 size JPEG in the RAW file (of course, until recently, they
didn't give us an easy way to batch those out). Canon and Kodak
have cameras that can save both a JPEG and RAW. I suspect the next
Nikons will, too.
Thom Hogan said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it won't. This is the same argument used back in the B&W film
days, when all of us were hand processing our film (most of us with
slight tweaks to chemicals, process, or timings). The argument was
that when the automated processors and printers came along that
we'd stop doing hand processing. Nope, didn't happen. True, the
vast majority went the "it's good enough" route, but the rest of us
wanted every last bit of quality we could get out of our images and
kept at our old ways. The difference this time is that we are
nowhere near the "best possible" demosaicing engine. We've seen
improvements across the board in the last two years in post
processing software, with no end in sight. When a camera gets
designed, especially these days with Canon's Digic and Nikon's
unnamed ASIC in the D100, the demosaicing and JPEG rendering is
locked in foreever for that camera. If that's "good enough" for
you, be happy and take pictures.

--
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
Click to expand...
 
Hi Jose

I wish, I wish! But I'm very flattered, so here's a BIG thank you :-)

kind regards
jono slack
JoseMaza said:
JoseMaza said:
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,
Click to expand...
For you . . .
JoseMaza said:
and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.
Click to expand...
Congratulations for your work.

Jose Maza
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
Well it seems that Jay Meisel and you are causing quite a stir here today:)
Lovely and robust conversation. I'm enjoying the give and take very much.
Jono Slack said:
I wish, I wish! But I'm very flattered, so here's a BIG thank you :-)

kind regards
jono slack
JoseMaza said:
Jono Slack said:
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,
Click to expand...
For you . . .
Jono Slack said:
and I've yet to feel that I'd spoiled a shot and
should have used NEF.
Click to expand...
Congratulations for your work.

Jose Maza
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
Click to expand...
--
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=284418
 
Excellent points Jono - let me add my voice to your choir.

I used to do a lot of NEFs for and use jpgs for casual stuff. Sure enough I forgot to change the camera from Jpg/fine to Raw one day and shot the first 10 shots or so with jpg instead of Raw. I processed them and, for me, it was not worth the difference to process the nef files. I found the nef files to be overly noisy and not fun to process. From that day on I shoot Jpg. I fou

However, my workflow has changed just a bit. Here is my Jpg workflow.

I shoot Large/Fine/No Sharpening/normal contrast and WB as necessary for the situation.
From the Camera into ACDsee.
I cull out the ones I don't want and leave the rest alone.

If I need to post a shot on the internet or print a shot then I pull it into PS 7. Crop, change perspective and such (if necessary), then use two of my favorite tools; iCorrect and Nik Sharpener. From here I will save the changed file as a tiff. During this entire process I have NOT changed my original jpg. My jpg is my negative and I store and backup those as necessary.

The main reason I went from film to digital was to get myself out of the smelly darkroom. Well, I did that, but I was still spending a good bit of time with the electronic enlarger, Nikon Capture. For me, 99% of getting an image right is done at the capture point - the instant you press the shutter. My technique has not changed in that regard from using film. So, if use the same care I used with film when taking digital, my shots tend to be just as nice.

An interesting side-bar though. I did notice myself getting a little sloppy with my photo taking technique because I knew that I could fix things back on the computer usng Nikon Capture. Bad habits started creeping into my sessions. Now, since I know that I must get the photo as good as I can get it (I took away my own crutch - the Raw), my methods and technique have returned to my film days - I am a bit more careful to visualize color, shadows and highlights, balance, etc. In essence, I shoot everything as if my camera was loaded with Velvia (one of my favs). My digital learning curve and quality of photos went up, down, and now is up again. Funny, moving to jpg helped me with that journey.

The above was MY experience and My thoughts on the jpg/raw point. I don't suggest move to jpg, just for me....it works.

Kathy
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...
 
NEF is a proprietary (spelling?) format
against Tiff, jpeg and so on.
I prefer open format for the futur.

Yves
ymo said:
ymo said:
a LOT of things to get right to make a great
photo: focus, DOF, exposure, contrast control, composition,
straight horizons (or not), steady camera, etc."
Click to expand...
To be honest the heavy postprocessing I was talking about
is related also to the mac version of Nikon program (not really
optimized)

For the "nef museum", ok I get what you say and in order to
be consistent with what I'm telling, I'll contact you in a few years
on that point :-).

Thom I bought your book a few weeks ago and it's really helpfull.

Thank for your answer.

Yves
Thom Hogan said:
ymo said:
For a NewB like me with a D100,
Nef is a security because I can change
Exp and WB mistakes.
Click to expand...
Probably true for newbies, especially those moving from print film
to digital. There are a LOT of things to get right to make a great
photo: focus, DOF, exposure, contrast control, composition,
straight horizons (or not), steady camera, etc. When you add
sharpness setting, white balance, contrast/tone, and a host of
other settings necessary for digital, this leads to missing "the
moment" because you're too busy trying to work through every last
detail and the dozens of controls. And if you shoot for the moment
and ignore the details, you compromise the image and what you might
be able to do with it.
ymo said:
But the more confident I feel the more I'm
fed up with the heavy postprocessing.
Click to expand...
Well, there's where we start to see differences in photographers.
If you're shooting casually, then RAW processing can get to be an
issue (though we now have plenty of batch possibilities). But most
photographers will want to post process their best images and get
them exactly the way they want them, and with JPEG you're starting
with a handicap. Personally, I like Fujifilm's solution: embed a
1/4 size JPEG in the RAW file (of course, until recently, they
didn't give us an easy way to batch those out). Canon and Kodak
have cameras that can save both a JPEG and RAW. I suspect the next
Nikons will, too.
ymo said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it won't. This is the same argument used back in the B&W film
days, when all of us were hand processing our film (most of us with
slight tweaks to chemicals, process, or timings). The argument was
that when the automated processors and printers came along that
we'd stop doing hand processing. Nope, didn't happen. True, the
vast majority went the "it's good enough" route, but the rest of us
wanted every last bit of quality we could get out of our images and
kept at our old ways. The difference this time is that we are
nowhere near the "best possible" demosaicing engine. We've seen
improvements across the board in the last two years in post
processing software, with no end in sight. When a camera gets
designed, especially these days with Canon's Digic and Nikon's
unnamed ASIC in the D100, the demosaicing and JPEG rendering is
locked in foreever for that camera. If that's "good enough" for
you, be happy and take pictures.

--
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thom Hogan said:
kecohen said:
for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy.
Click to expand...
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.
Thom Hogan 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.
Click to expand...
What printer are you using that prints at 16 bits?
Thom Hogan said:
Moreover, anyone thinking about selling their digital files as
stock, had better not even think of jpegs.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
My experience is that Nikon sacrifices sharpness for noise in the jpegs. All jpegs sacrifice color detail. I agree that converting NEFs to jpegs in NC creates more noise, but that can be handled VERY nicely with Dfine.

We print on high speed web offset from 16 bit tiffs or we print 16 bit tiffs to Epson 9600, 7600 or Gyclee. Or, I can print NEF files directly from NC to any of our Epson printers. In any case they have to be handled via RIP.

--
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/
 
"We print on high speed web offset from 16 bit tiffs or we print 16
kecohen said:
bit tiffs to Epson 9600, 7600 or Gyclee. Or, I can print NEF files
directly from NC to any of our Epson printers. In any case they
have to be handled via RIP."
Click to expand...
Hi Karen:

I can understand the need for a RIP...hey, time is money. But as far as I know the printers you noted are till 8 bit per channel. So at RGB that would equate to 24 bits or at CMYK 32 bits. As Tom noted, I don't know of any printer that uses 16 bits per channel. A 24bit RGB(8/chan) or 32 bit CMYK(8/channel) will still produce over 16 million colors. The RIP and resulting hardware within the printer will still map the colors to 8bits per channel.
But, hey, I could be wrong....its happened before...many times.

Kathy
kecohen said:
Thom Hogan said:
kecohen said:
for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
My experience is that Nikon sacrifices sharpness for noise in the
jpegs. All jpegs sacrifice color detail. I agree that converting
NEFs to jpegs in NC creates more noise, but that can be handled
VERY nicely with Dfine.

We print on high speed web offset from 16 bit tiffs or we print 16
bit tiffs to Epson 9600, 7600 or Gyclee. Or, I can print NEF files
directly from NC to any of our Epson printers. In any case they
have to be handled via RIP.

--
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...
 
Nor do I do the same kind of work he does, and I doubt I ever will even want to. I won't ever spend the kind of money he does on equipment and accessories. And I will never make the kind of money on photography that he does. There are two sides to my photography: the sports action stuff, and the stuff I do stricly for myself as references for my paintings. I don't look to create photos that are finished works of art.

For those who aspire to be like Jay Maisel, you might be surprised to know that he used to shoot all RAW. Now he doesn't feel he needs to.

As for me, I have no problem batch processing my files or taking several 1gig flash cards with me. Because of my particular shooting style, I can get as many shots as I want as quickly as I need to -- and by the way, even with my sports photos I don't tend to take nearly as many as some folks who rely heavily on the burst and I always manage to get more than enough keepers, mostly because I anticipate well and I know what I'm looking for. I don't just keep shooting because "film" is cheap and I might get lucky.

But hey, you know, the best thing about digital is the ability to choose. We have different formats and sizes for different styles, techniques and applications.
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/
 
Kathy Sunny16 said:
Kathy_in_MD said:
bit tiffs to Epson 9600, 7600 or Gyclee. Or, I can print NEF files
directly from NC to any of our Epson printers. In any case they
have to be handled via RIP."
Click to expand...
Hi Karen:
I can understand the need for a RIP...hey, time is money. But as
far as I know the printers you noted are till 8 bit per channel.
So at RGB that would equate to 24 bits or at CMYK 32 bits. As Tom
noted, I don't know of any printer that uses 16 bits per channel.
A 24bit RGB(8/chan) or 32 bit CMYK(8/channel) will still produce
over 16 million colors. The RIP and resulting hardware within
the printer will still map the colors to 8bits per channel.
But, hey, I could be wrong....its happened before...many times.
Click to expand...
You seem infallable to me!

kind regards
jono slack
Kathy_in_MD said:
Kathy
kecohen said:
Thom Hogan said:
kecohen said:
for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy.
Click to expand...
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.
Kathy_in_MD 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.
Click to expand...
What printer are you using that prints at 16 bits?
Kathy_in_MD said:
Moreover, anyone thinking about selling their digital files as
stock, had better not even think of jpegs.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
My experience is that Nikon sacrifices sharpness for noise in the
jpegs. All jpegs sacrifice color detail. I agree that converting
NEFs to jpegs in NC creates more noise, but that can be handled
VERY nicely with Dfine.

We print on high speed web offset from 16 bit tiffs or we print 16
bit tiffs to Epson 9600, 7600 or Gyclee. Or, I can print NEF files
directly from NC to any of our Epson printers. In any case they
have to be handled via RIP.

--
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...
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
Hi Kathy

You've put it much better than I have, but I'm sure that you're right.

I think that there is also an element of 'keeping up with the Jones' here - There is a kind of 'well if it's good enough for you - be a happy snapper then' attitude which the dedicated techies use to imply that you can do anything you want, but if you want the best you must use NEF.

ah well, I knew it was a tricky thread to start, but at least it's brought up some interesting points

kind regards
jono slack
Kathy Sunny16 said:
I used to do a lot of NEFs for and use jpgs for casual stuff. Sure
enough I forgot to change the camera from Jpg/fine to Raw one day
and shot the first 10 shots or so with jpg instead of Raw. I
processed them and, for me, it was not worth the difference to
process the nef files. I found the nef files to be overly noisy and
not fun to process. From that day on I shoot Jpg. I fou

However, my workflow has changed just a bit. Here is my Jpg workflow.

I shoot Large/Fine/No Sharpening/normal contrast and WB as
necessary for the situation.
From the Camera into ACDsee.
I cull out the ones I don't want and leave the rest alone.
If I need to post a shot on the internet or print a shot then I
pull it into PS 7. Crop, change perspective and such (if
necessary), then use two of my favorite tools; iCorrect and Nik
Sharpener. From here I will save the changed file as a tiff.
During this entire process I have NOT changed my original jpg. My
jpg is my negative and I store and backup those as necessary.

The main reason I went from film to digital was to get myself out
of the smelly darkroom. Well, I did that, but I was still spending
a good bit of time with the electronic enlarger, Nikon Capture.
For me, 99% of getting an image right is done at the capture point
  • the instant you press the shutter. My technique has not changed
in that regard from using film. So, if use the same care I used
with film when taking digital, my shots tend to be just as nice.

An interesting side-bar though. I did notice myself getting a
little sloppy with my photo taking technique because I knew that I
could fix things back on the computer usng Nikon Capture. Bad
habits started creeping into my sessions. Now, since I know that I
must get the photo as good as I can get it (I took away my own
crutch - the Raw), my methods and technique have returned to my
film days - I am a bit more careful to visualize color, shadows and
highlights, balance, etc. In essence, I shoot everything as if my
camera was loaded with Velvia (one of my favs). My digital
learning curve and quality of photos went up, down, and now is up
again. Funny, moving to jpg helped me with that journey.

The above was MY experience and My thoughts on the jpg/raw point.
I don't suggest move to jpg, just for me....it works.

Kathy
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
 
hi Ger

Hope you're well - thanks for weighing in.

I'm certainly not writing off NEF, and will continue to use it when situations warrant it, it's just a huge relieve to be using a much smoother workflow, without sacrificing much in quality.

kind regards
jono slack
Ger Bee said:
Ger Bee said:
If it's good enough for Jay blah blah
Click to expand...
................ 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 ...
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
Hi Karen
kecohen said:
Nor do I do the same kind of work he does, and I doubt I ever will
even want to. I won't ever spend the kind of money he does on
equipment and accessories. And I will never make the kind of money
on photography that he does. There are two sides to my photography:
the sports action stuff, and the stuff I do stricly for myself as
references for my paintings. I don't look to create photos that are
finished works of art.

For those who aspire to be like Jay Maisel, you might be surprised
to know that he used to shoot all RAW. Now he doesn't feel he needs
to.
Click to expand...
Certainly not - but I think it possibly proves my point.
kecohen said:
As for me, I have no problem batch processing my files or taking
several 1gig flash cards with me. Because of my particular shooting
style, I can get as many shots as I want as quickly as I need to --
and by the way, even with my sports photos I don't tend to take
nearly as many as some folks who rely heavily on the burst and I
always manage to get more than enough keepers, mostly because I
anticipate well and I know what I'm looking for. I don't just keep
shooting because "film" is cheap and I might get lucky.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree with you there - when I started out on digital, I took many (too many) shots, but now I'm almost back to the film levels, but the level of keepers has gone up hugely.
kecohen said:
But hey, you know, the best thing about digital is the ability to
choose. We have different formats and sizes for different styles,
techniques and applications.
Click to expand...
Absolutely

kind regards
jono slack
kecohen said:
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
 
Jono Slack said:
Plus, if you were wanting to crop and enlarge, you certainly don't want to do that with a jpeg.
Click to expand...
Can't remember who posted the above but I agree. I use a D1H and CP5000 for nature shots. In both cases the results I get cropping jpg to max are poor. Turning sharp off and adj. other functions helps but is still below NEF par.

On the topic of color balance in the field so one can use jpg: Good luck snapping off a shot if your adj balance under a canopy of green foliage, then under blue sky, then in various types of shade. Same goes with exposure comp. right at time of shoot. Michael
 
motofoto said:
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?
Click to expand...
Varies greatly from very few to over 1000.
motofoto148913 said:
• are you a pro or amateur?
Click to expand...
Amateur.
motofoto148913 said:
• what is your typical final output?
Click to expand...
Inkjet print, computer slide shows, publication.
motofoto148913 said:
• do you frequently use curves and / or levels to adjust files?
Click to expand...
Almost always - motives vary so much.

BTW, why do you want to know?
 
Kathy Sunny16 said:
Kathy_in_MD said:
bit tiffs to Epson 9600, 7600 or Gyclee. Or, I can print NEF files
directly from NC to any of our Epson printers. In any case they
have to be handled via RIP."
Click to expand...
Hi Karen:
I can understand the need for a RIP...hey, time is money. But as
far as I know the printers you noted are till 8 bit per channel.
So at RGB that would equate to 24 bits or at CMYK 32 bits. As Tom
noted, I don't know of any printer that uses 16 bits per channel.
A 24bit RGB(8/chan) or 32 bit CMYK(8/channel) will still produce
over 16 million colors. The RIP and resulting hardware within
the printer will still map the colors to 8bits per channel.
But, hey, I could be wrong....its happened before...many times.

Kathy
kecohen said:
Thom Hogan said:
kecohen said:
for owners of the D1X or D1H with their low noise, but the D100 in
camera jpeg algorithm is very noisy.
Click to expand...
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.
Kathy_in_MD 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.
Click to expand...
What printer are you using that prints at 16 bits?
Kathy_in_MD said:
Moreover, anyone thinking about selling their digital files as
stock, had better not even think of jpegs.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
My experience is that Nikon sacrifices sharpness for noise in the
jpegs. All jpegs sacrifice color detail. I agree that converting
NEFs to jpegs in NC creates more noise, but that can be handled
VERY nicely with Dfine.

We print on high speed web offset from 16 bit tiffs or we print 16
bit tiffs to Epson 9600, 7600 or Gyclee. Or, I can print NEF files
directly from NC to any of our Epson printers. In any case they
have to be handled via RIP.

--
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...
Click to expand...
No you're right, about the printers at 8 bit, but print quality is effect by how and when you're making the conversion.

A JPEG file effectively creates two forms of color data loss: the jpeg compression algorithm averages color data that it "assumes" the eye couldn't discern anyway, particularly in large areas of similar tonal value. The results of which is a blending of color; the jpeg attempts to resolve say three colors into one. The second form of color data loss is in the conversion from 16 to 8 bits: the algoritm is very different. There is no blending done, the intermediary colors are eliminated, and you're left with a proper gradient with a smooth transition between hues and values.

The latter is the only color data loss that we want to "see". The benefit of digital imaging is the increased detail in the shadow areas. But jpeg compression wants to eliminate it. So, you've lost some of that detail from the original capture just by writing to jpeg in the first place, and then when you do any changes to it and resave the file (even at 100% or highest quality.)

I will grant you that most people are not trained to see the difference, and wouldn't, even if it were pointed out to them. But when you work with very high resolution prints, or really big enlargements, the difference can be major. The colors in the shadows muddy and detail everywhere disintegrates.
--
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/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Custom EVF/LCD framing grids using pixel-perfect raw files
Replies
1
Views
222
John Ideal
J
CX Bob
🎵Oh where, oh where, has my UV gone?🎵
Replies
5
Views
6
fadedsign
F
JohnPhive
Invitation To Witness a Spacex Launch
Replies
2
Views
84
1DSmII
1
Hjonkers
Nikon Zf Curious - from M43 to FF?
Replies
10
Views
136
UsherFellig
U
T
Comparison: 24-120mm vs 28-400mm
Replies
13
Views
211
Thomerik
T

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