CIASpook
Veteran Member
For some reason this does not make me feel all that much better, hahaha
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
RAW and Capture are for idiots
- Thread starter gthervey
- Start date
That's because you're a, well, you get the idea...
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
--
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
Gordon Mc
Member
I also assumed that I would need the CS version of Photoshop to import NEF files, so I was pleasantly surprised to find that it DOES work with PE2.
I'm using Mac OS X 10.3.4 and Photoshop Elements 2.0 and I can't remember exactly where I got the plugin from, I think it was off the Picture Project CD that came with my D70.
Assuming you've installed Picture Project, you could just copy the "Nikon NEF LE Plugin" file (package) from
"Picture Project/File Formats/" to
"Adobe Photoshop Elements 2/File Formats/"
I think that's what I did and PS elements can now open NEF files. When you open one, you get a dialog box with a small preview image and can change exposure compensation and white balance.
I'm using Mac OS X 10.3.4 and Photoshop Elements 2.0 and I can't remember exactly where I got the plugin from, I think it was off the Picture Project CD that came with my D70.
Assuming you've installed Picture Project, you could just copy the "Nikon NEF LE Plugin" file (package) from
"Picture Project/File Formats/" to
"Adobe Photoshop Elements 2/File Formats/"
I think that's what I did and PS elements can now open NEF files. When you open one, you get a dialog box with a small preview image and can change exposure compensation and white balance.
CIASpook
Veteran Member
I came into work today thinking that I'm a pretty smart guy. I have to be for the job I do. Then I went to being an idiot and now a moron...I guess you could say at least I'm on my way back up...so that's a good sign...I think.
CIASpook
Veteran Member
I have not used it, but Capture has a batch mode. I love that I can copy all my NC adjustments and apply them to the next image. I also love that with NC, I can save the file as an NEF and will remember all the changes so I can return to the original OOC file. (out of camera). With Photoshop, can you still save as NEF? And if yes, can you revert back to original settings?
For now, I prefer to open in NC and do spot corrections for special effects in Photoshop.
As great as NC is, it's worthless for cleaning up a pimple
haha
For now, I prefer to open in NC and do spot corrections for special effects in Photoshop.
As great as NC is, it's worthless for cleaning up a pimple
hahaThis makes no sense
Nikon capture 3 was released with the D1X and
has had batch handling ability from day one, so whats he
on about?
Uninformed and misinforming.
Sounds like the internet in general.
Gota sift out the good info from the masses of cra*
Nikon capture 3 was released with the D1X and
has had batch handling ability from day one, so whats he
on about?
Uninformed and misinforming.
Sounds like the internet in general.
Gota sift out the good info from the masses of cra*
RecalcitrantRon
Veteran Member
to be an idiot! Smart people work hard to make things so much easier for us.
--
Just my nickels worth.
Happy Snappin'!
Ron
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/recalcitrantron
FCAS Member No. 68
pbase supporter
D Seventy
--
Just my nickels worth.
Happy Snappin'!
Ron
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/recalcitrantron
FCAS Member No. 68
pbase supporter
D Seventy
LurchNC
Leading Member
Robert Peters
Veteran Member
While this will let you open NEF files the capabilities of the plug-in are very limited.
Bob Peters
Bob Peters
fjp
Veteran Member
--
FJP
An Analogy:
Imagine you shoot a wedding and you get it printed
but on picking up your prints they are too light,
and the color is off, but on asking the printer to
reprint he says sorry I lost the negs so we will have to print
from these results trying to undo these issues.
This is like shooting jpegs.
Some other Advantages of Raw:
1/Better image , more detail , tonal range etc
2/Exposure adjustment in camera stops,
in photoshop you can lighten, darken, curves etc but there is no direct
parallel to + 1stop or - 1 stop which is what photogs understand
3/ 12 bit colour! better for post proccessing
4/ Total control of Color space, sharpening, contrast/curves,
Hue, White balance (kelvin), etc POST PICTURE TAKING!!!!
With Raw as you learn what is better or best you can go back and reprocess the image out to a better result.
If you choose to shoot Jpg you have to be mindfull of Exposure,Focus,
sharpening, contrast, white Balance at the point of shooting.
You MUST GET IT RIGHT in camera.
The safest way to shoot with jpgs is low contrast no sharpening, very
mindfull of any change in light qualities.
This then means lots of post processing to correct for this safe
shooting result so why not just shoot Raw and have your
digital NEGS to return to at any time
For a wedding photog, Space on cards is a non issue Cards are cheap and results are important when someone is paying you, you should be using
best possible practices. = RAW
Jpgs are fine for sport and jounalism where speed of shooting and
post processing is an issue.
Imagine you shoot a wedding and you get it printed
but on picking up your prints they are too light,
and the color is off, but on asking the printer to
reprint he says sorry I lost the negs so we will have to print
from these results trying to undo these issues.
This is like shooting jpegs.
Some other Advantages of Raw:
1/Better image , more detail , tonal range etc
2/Exposure adjustment in camera stops,
in photoshop you can lighten, darken, curves etc but there is no direct
parallel to + 1stop or - 1 stop which is what photogs understand
3/ 12 bit colour! better for post proccessing
4/ Total control of Color space, sharpening, contrast/curves,
Hue, White balance (kelvin), etc POST PICTURE TAKING!!!!
With Raw as you learn what is better or best you can go back and reprocess the image out to a better result.
If you choose to shoot Jpg you have to be mindfull of Exposure,Focus,
sharpening, contrast, white Balance at the point of shooting.
You MUST GET IT RIGHT in camera.
The safest way to shoot with jpgs is low contrast no sharpening, very
mindfull of any change in light qualities.
This then means lots of post processing to correct for this safe
shooting result so why not just shoot Raw and have your
digital NEGS to return to at any time
For a wedding photog, Space on cards is a non issue Cards are cheap and results are important when someone is paying you, you should be using
best possible practices. = RAW
Jpgs are fine for sport and jounalism where speed of shooting and
post processing is an issue.
SashaJuric
Active member
I couldn't find the word 'idiot' in that article at all, so the 'self-insulting' part of your post is your own reaction to that article.
Personally, I agree with most of that article. I do believe that RAW has more information than JPG, but I still shoot always just JPG. Why? Because I do use my camera 100%, and I like to adjust everything I can before, or while taking pictures. So I adjust my light, and all other options before shooting, and I check what did I do, so I can shoot again if something went wrong. If I don't have enough time to adjust everything, I allow camera to find best it can and use that. Yes, there were situations where I could get a bit better picture if it was shot with raw, but those are very rare. On other hand, when post-processing my pics, I crop, I sometimes adjust contrast and a red-eye if it sneaked in, and that is about it. Those actions could be done in a few seconds. Chasing perfect color of the light is something I'd rather avoid, or better yet, do when I have the light in front of me during shooting.
So, yes, RAW gives more power, but in my opinion - that power is too expensive because of additional inconviniences. Of course, this is just a personal opinion and my own expirience. At this moment I'm just an amateur, so nobody asked me for absolute best in these pictures, and nobody pays me to go spend more time on them to make them 'perfect'.
Sasha
Sasha
Personally, I agree with most of that article. I do believe that RAW has more information than JPG, but I still shoot always just JPG. Why? Because I do use my camera 100%, and I like to adjust everything I can before, or while taking pictures. So I adjust my light, and all other options before shooting, and I check what did I do, so I can shoot again if something went wrong. If I don't have enough time to adjust everything, I allow camera to find best it can and use that. Yes, there were situations where I could get a bit better picture if it was shot with raw, but those are very rare. On other hand, when post-processing my pics, I crop, I sometimes adjust contrast and a red-eye if it sneaked in, and that is about it. Those actions could be done in a few seconds. Chasing perfect color of the light is something I'd rather avoid, or better yet, do when I have the light in front of me during shooting.
So, yes, RAW gives more power, but in my opinion - that power is too expensive because of additional inconviniences. Of course, this is just a personal opinion and my own expirience. At this moment I'm just an amateur, so nobody asked me for absolute best in these pictures, and nobody pays me to go spend more time on them to make them 'perfect'.
Sasha
--
Sasha
THomasAdams
Senior Member
What professional artist would not capture in a format which did not degrade the work they were trying to capture? Why does the United States library of congress store images in an uncompressed format... I believe Ken Rockwell is missing the point. To bad he won’t be alive when someone says, I love this Art, I would like to make it large, and post on a wall. And all they have is a poorly archived Jpg.
I do not believe Ken Rockwell is a professional artist, he is a Pro photographer. If this is what a pro photographer is about, I will surely pass. I will never be completely satisfied with anything but the best, thusly I will constantly learn and improve, I will not forget the path that I took to get there.
Keep shooting and ignore the man on a soap box!
Just my two cents.
I do not believe Ken Rockwell is a professional artist, he is a Pro photographer. If this is what a pro photographer is about, I will surely pass. I will never be completely satisfied with anything but the best, thusly I will constantly learn and improve, I will not forget the path that I took to get there.
Keep shooting and ignore the man on a soap box!
Just my two cents.
Zippy DooDah
Senior Member
Yes to both of your questions. Photoshop-CS saves the changes to the NEF file so that when you re-open the image the next day your custom changes are still there. And, yes, there is an option to revert to "As Shot" which is the original settings.
Nikon Capture does have a batch mode, but as far as I can tell it's different from Photoshop in how it's implemented. In Photoshop I simply open all the NEFs in file browser and then select the first set of images to apply the same settings to and away it goes. In Nikon Capture, it appears batch works based on folders and can apply a set of settings to all the NEFS. The problem with this is that I need to be able to SEE the images and select just the ones I want to apply settings to... just as Photoshop's File Browser allows. If I shoot a wedding, there will be multiple lighting conditions, so I need to be able to quickly apply settings to subsets of the total. Photoshop-CS seems to do this better.
And here's the part I don't understand. If Photoshop can do everything that Nikon Capture can do and you can't see any difference in the final image, why would one want to start in Nikon Capture and then export it to Photoshop-CS to complete the image processing (even if it's just to remove a zit)? Wouldn't it make more sense to do everything in one package such as Photoshop?
Keep in mindthat for wedding and event photographers, time is money, so we have to process as many images as possible in the shortest amount of time while maintaining a high level of quality. As I noted earlier, if I have 300 wedding images and I have to spend an extra 30 seconds on each image, that equals an extra three hours of work for me. I'd much rather be bonkin' the wife than doing image processing.
Nikon Capture does have a batch mode, but as far as I can tell it's different from Photoshop in how it's implemented. In Photoshop I simply open all the NEFs in file browser and then select the first set of images to apply the same settings to and away it goes. In Nikon Capture, it appears batch works based on folders and can apply a set of settings to all the NEFS. The problem with this is that I need to be able to SEE the images and select just the ones I want to apply settings to... just as Photoshop's File Browser allows. If I shoot a wedding, there will be multiple lighting conditions, so I need to be able to quickly apply settings to subsets of the total. Photoshop-CS seems to do this better.
And here's the part I don't understand. If Photoshop can do everything that Nikon Capture can do and you can't see any difference in the final image, why would one want to start in Nikon Capture and then export it to Photoshop-CS to complete the image processing (even if it's just to remove a zit)? Wouldn't it make more sense to do everything in one package such as Photoshop?
Keep in mindthat for wedding and event photographers, time is money, so we have to process as many images as possible in the shortest amount of time while maintaining a high level of quality. As I noted earlier, if I have 300 wedding images and I have to spend an extra 30 seconds on each image, that equals an extra three hours of work for me. I'd much rather be bonkin' the wife than doing image processing.
CIASpook wrote:
I have not used it, but Capture has a batch mode. I love that I
can copy all my NC adjustments and apply them to the next image. I
also love that with NC, I can save the file as an NEF and will
remember all the changes so I can return to the original OOC file.
(out of camera). With Photoshop, can you still save as NEF? And
if yes, can you revert back to original settings?
For now, I prefer to open in NC and do spot corrections for special
effects in Photoshop.
As great as NC is, it's worthless for cleaning up a pimple
Murray McCulloch
Senior Member
M. W. Maddocks
Member
I should have said that if you try the CS plug-in you get an error message that it not supported on this platform. PSE2's support is very limited indeed.
--
Maddie
Murray McCulloch
Senior Member
I think you're a little too humble, GT. But that is your way.
In any case, in your self-deprecating Lieutenant Columbo way, you made a good argument against Ken's thesis. Sure, a perfect photographer may never need RAW. But nobody is perfect; as you illustrated, even a seasoned photographer will make mistakes, and RAW can rescue one from some mistakes. That in itself is enough to shoot down the assertion that a photographer who knows what he/she is doing should not need RAW.
But that's Ken Rockwell. He likes to be a little sensational at the expense of credibility.
Murray
In any case, in your self-deprecating Lieutenant Columbo way, you made a good argument against Ken's thesis. Sure, a perfect photographer may never need RAW. But nobody is perfect; as you illustrated, even a seasoned photographer will make mistakes, and RAW can rescue one from some mistakes. That in itself is enough to shoot down the assertion that a photographer who knows what he/she is doing should not need RAW.
But that's Ken Rockwell. He likes to be a little sensational at the expense of credibility.
Murray
L
lee lindquist
Guest
Ken is, I suppose, entertaining. I wouldn't take him seriously, though.
Here's a link to Sport Illustrated's workflow for the Superbowl.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821
They shot 16000+ images -- capturing RAW and JPG simultaneously.
They use the JPG for quick review, and the RAW for print quality.
It must be very humiliating for those folks at SI to learn from
Ken that they don't know what they're doing.
Todd Klimek
Member
I've got a better idea.....get a 4gb microdrive and shoot NEF+JPG....JPG are readily available for fast easy viewing....find a keeper in that bunch? No problem, open the NEF file and fine tune your masterpiece.
Cheers...
Todd Klimek
Cheers...
Todd Klimek
I feel as though I need to apologize to Ken Rockwell for starting this thread. I should not have used his name or included a link to his article. I don't know him, and certainly did not intend to start a discussion that turned into a referendum on his views. I referred to him and his article, however, because he seemed to be a good spokesperson for the view that RAW format is not necessary for those who really know their stuff.
All I was trying to say is that I appreciate the concept that someone who really knows what he is doing can shoot in JPEG because he will get it right the first time and not have to rely on the tools that Capture offers to fix mistakes. But, since I make mistakes, and will continue to do so, I can't hold myself to that standard, and so I will probably continue to shoot in RAW for important shots.
I leave it to individual readers to decide if they are so competent in their craft that they can work without the protections that the RAW format offers, and that allowed me to save what would otherwise have been ruined pictures of a once-in-a-lifetime event, my 7-year old's ballet recital.
This is not a new concept. Black and white film is more forgiving than color, and color negatives more forgiving than slides. If you want to twiddle and have margin for error, shoot B&W film. If you are confident and know the tricks, shoot color slides. I still need that margin of error, so I will stick to the digital equivalent of B&W film, and plan to have fun in the process.
Why? Because I am an idiot, as I proved last weekend, and apparently again when I started this post...
--
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
All I was trying to say is that I appreciate the concept that someone who really knows what he is doing can shoot in JPEG because he will get it right the first time and not have to rely on the tools that Capture offers to fix mistakes. But, since I make mistakes, and will continue to do so, I can't hold myself to that standard, and so I will probably continue to shoot in RAW for important shots.
I leave it to individual readers to decide if they are so competent in their craft that they can work without the protections that the RAW format offers, and that allowed me to save what would otherwise have been ruined pictures of a once-in-a-lifetime event, my 7-year old's ballet recital.
This is not a new concept. Black and white film is more forgiving than color, and color negatives more forgiving than slides. If you want to twiddle and have margin for error, shoot B&W film. If you are confident and know the tricks, shoot color slides. I still need that margin of error, so I will stick to the digital equivalent of B&W film, and plan to have fun in the process.
Why? Because I am an idiot, as I proved last weekend, and apparently again when I started this post...
--
GT Hervey
The more I learn, the less I know.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum