Who is shooting RAW on the 5700?

[Janco Tanis]

I have the camera for almost a year and have always shot jpeg on the lowest compression/best quality.

I just did a shot in jpeg and NEF and found the NEF a bit sharper/jpeg softer. It we're 2 handheld shots (with different exposure) so it does not say too much. But what I wonder is if there are a lot of people using RAW on these kinds of cameras. I find it almost unworkable as the storage time is quite long!

Aparts from a slightly improved imagequeslity I really like a losless format as NEF bacause it does not degrade the image if you just press save the orignal or rotate it.

--
janco
http://jancology.com/

 

[steinhans]

I have the camera for almost a year and have always shot jpeg on
the lowest compression/best quality.

I just did a shot in jpeg and NEF and found the NEF a bit
sharper/jpeg softer. It we're 2 handheld shots (with different
exposure) so it does not say too much. But what I wonder is if
there are a lot of people using RAW on these kinds of cameras. I
find it almost unworkable as the storage time is quite long!

Aparts from a slightly improved imagequeslity I really like a
losless format as NEF bacause it does not degrade the image if you
just press save the orignal or rotate it.

--
janco
http://jancology.com/

I use RAW only by mistake, like when i've pressed the button on the side of the lens accidentally and don't pay attention to what I'm doing.

--
steinhans

 

[Sandra Jackson]

.. for real "keeper" pics, pics where I need the dyn range for client work, etc.

--
Sandi http://www.pbase.com/sjackson
FCAS March Winner
We don't see things as they are, we see them as WE are.

 

[Uncle Frank]

I have the camera for almost a year and have always shot jpeg on
the lowest compression/best quality.

Me, too. Along with the speed issue, I can't see handling files of that size. Imo, the advantages of RAW are outweighed by the inconvenience.

--
Warm regards,
Uncle Frank, FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter
Coolpix fifty seven hundred and nine ninety five
http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/coolpix&page=all

 

[Codeman]

Up until the last few weeks I've been using raw almost exclusively. Being able to adjust EV and WB on the computer has helped me learn what I need to do to improve my shooting technique. I understand that both can be compensated for in other ways during processing, but being able to directly translate what it took to fix the image back to the camera's controls was a big help.

I've switched over to JPG, but I will still use raw anytime I think I might need to adjust EV/WB later or I know I will be putting real effort into tweaking the image.

I don't mind the wait, but most of my stuff has not been action or high-speed stuff.

--
Knowledge without understanding is knowledge wasted.
-5-7-0-0-

 

[tyoung]

I have the camera for almost a year and have always shot jpeg on
the lowest compression/best quality.

If you are careful to set-up your camera, lighting and exposure carefully as you are shooting, there's no question that using JPEG Fine can yield excellent results. Compression artifacts will be all but imperceptible (if they can be detected at all). The increased speed and reduced storage requirements can often mean getting a good shot that might have been missed completely if shooting NEF.

I just did a shot in jpeg and NEF and found the NEF a bit
sharper/jpeg softer. It we're 2 handheld shots (with different
exposure) so it does not say too much. But what I wonder is if
there are a lot of people using RAW on these kinds of cameras. I
find it almost unworkable as the storage time is quite long!

If you were to run further tests, it's probable that you'd find that when taken straight out of the camera the NEF and JPEG Fine images would be almost impossible to tell apart. When a JPEG Fine image is saved by the camera, all the camera is doing is taking the raw image data that the sensor recorded and applying the settings that were in use at the time. From there it converts the data to an 8 bit file format and applies minimal compression upon saving the resulting file.

When a NEF raw file is saved, the very same sensor data is used. The camera settings in use at the time are applied to the file, but instead of being applied directly to the image data, they are stored in a type of look up table in the files header that a RAW file viewer can use when displaying the image. The advantage here is that these settings can be adjusted in a RAW file editor after the file has been captured. Also, the file remains in it's original 12 bit format, though even that won't be immediately apparent when viewing the file since your computers display and your printer are themselves limited to 8 bits per channel.

Essentially what seperates the two kinds of file formats is the degree of processing that can be applied after the image has been captured without degrading the quality of the image. Basic camera settings such as exposure compensation, white balance, saturation, etc. can be "re-applied" to the image in post processing as if they were being applied for the first time. Being able to edit settings at the sensors original 12 bit per channel depth allows much finer control over the adjustments. An 8 bit file format such as JPEG provides 256 levels of gradation between the lightest and darkest values for each color channel (Red, Green & Blue). NEF's 12 bit format offers 4096 levels per channel to work with. It's true that when saved, the final result will be an 8 bit per channel image, but the values that have been arrived at were built from the full pallette of tones that the sensor is capable of delivering, rather than just what was left over after conversion to an 8 bit file format at the time of capture.

Aparts from a slightly improved imagequeslity I really like a
losless format as NEF bacause it does not degrade the image if you
just press save the orignal or rotate it.

That is a good point, but if you are working with JPEG's, it is possible to do simple 90 degree rotations without degrading the image do to further compression. Lossless JPEG rotation is available in several viewers and editors. One good viewer that supports this is IrfanView which is available free for non-commercial use.

--
Tom Young FCAS member
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

 

[Janco Tanis]

Aparts from a slightly improved imagequeslity I really like a
losless format as NEF bacause it does not degrade the image if you
just press save the orignal or rotate it.

That is a good point, but if you are working with JPEG's, it is
possible to do simple 90 degree rotations without degrading the
image do to further compression. Lossless JPEG rotation is
available in several viewers and editors. One good viewer that
supports this is IrfanView which is available free for
non-commercial use.

--
Tom Young FCAS member
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

true but lately I've seen a warning ain a program saying that the image's aspect ratio could not be lossless rotated. I think it was in Windows XP but I'm not 100% sure...
--

janco
http://jancology.com/

 

[Ed MacDonald]

You might be interested in going to the site listed below. It is a discussion on using Nikon Capture Editor with NEF, but it is a good explanation of the advantages of using NEF. Also, you are not just limited to using Nikon Capture. There is a plugin for Photoshop 7.0 that will handle the files as well. The next upgrade of Photoshop due out son will incorporate the plugin. I hope that this helps.

http://www.captureuser.com/captureuser/content.jsp

--Ed--

I have the camera for almost a year and have always shot jpeg on
the lowest compression/best quality.

I just did a shot in jpeg and NEF and found the NEF a bit
sharper/jpeg softer. It we're 2 handheld shots (with different
exposure) so it does not say too much. But what I wonder is if
there are a lot of people using RAW on these kinds of cameras. I
find it almost unworkable as the storage time is quite long!

Aparts from a slightly improved imagequeslity I really like a
losless format as NEF bacause it does not degrade the image if you
just press save the orignal or rotate it.

--
janco
http://jancology.com/

--
--Ed--

http://www.pbase.com/edmondm
PBase supporter
Member FCAS

 

[Marty Scher B]

Ridulously slow for a $1200 camera.

I shoot a lot of sunsets and usually just have minutes to work the good light.

Jpeg fine works for me.

Besides, 4,000 RAW images will take a bit of disk space.

Marty

I have the camera for almost a year and have always shot jpeg on
the lowest compression/best quality.

I just did a shot in jpeg and NEF and found the NEF a bit
sharper/jpeg softer. It we're 2 handheld shots (with different
exposure) so it does not say too much. But what I wonder is if
there are a lot of people using RAW on these kinds of cameras. I
find it almost unworkable as the storage time is quite long!

Aparts from a slightly improved imagequeslity I really like a
losless format as NEF bacause it does not degrade the image if you
just press save the orignal or rotate it.

--
janco
http://jancology.com/

 

[tyoung]

true but lately I've seen a warning ain a program saying that the
image's aspect ratio could not be lossless rotated. I think it was
in Windows XP but I'm not 100% sure...

Was the JPEG in question edited or cropped before you attempted to rotate it? If so, it's possible that could have accounted for the error.

--
Tom Young FCAS member
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

 

[tyoung]

Ridulously slow for a $1200 camera.

I shoot a lot of sunsets and usually just have minutes to work the
good light.

Therein lies the tradeoff. Of course the color balance of that sunset is also changing continuously during those precious few minutes. I'm not sure which would be faster, writing a RAW file to CF or having to continuously adjust the cameras WB settings just before each shot.

--
Tom Young FCAS member
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/