I agree that there are inherent dangers to the RAW format. Because
of these exact things, I currently take my RAW files and one of the
first things I do is to batch process them to the highest quality
JPEG I can, and store them in a separate directory.
I look at the photos in JPEG, and at that point I decide whether or
not they need more work than the out-of-camera settings (which I
continue to tweak to my liking). If they do, I go right back to
the NEF file and start from there.
Basically it's the best of both worlds, IMHO. I have the original
RAW/NEF data, but it's immediately batched and archived in JPEG,
the more universal format. I'm currently trying to decide if I
should batch them in TIFF instead, but I think that would be
unnecessarily anal and add an extra step to my workflow. Most of
my decent photos get put on my smugmug website, and for that they
need to be JPEG ultimately.
For what it's worth, Phil mentioned in his review the superiority
of using a computer to convert NEF to JPEG, rather than letting the
camera do it. I was a bit skeptical of this claim until I ran the
same tests myself. It does seem that the in-camera fine JPEG
setting produces slightly inferior images to my using NC to batch
process the images to JPEG. This is pretty subjective and very
slight, it may or may not matter to you.
Anyway, back to your original question to ponder. I shoot RAW
because it retains the greatest amount of detail and information
image possible. I immediately batch to JPEG as a more useable (and
accepted in 'the future') format, but retain the option to work on
the full-info NEF if I would like.
Thanks for the disucssion, I'm enjoying this immensely.
-Eric K
Joe,
I too, am new to being able to use RAW format. Definitely opens up
some new doors to photo manipulation. However, one could manipulate
Jpegs in Photoshop to basically get the same results as in Nikon
Capture with NEF photos. In fact, I tried with the photo of the
girl and with just some levels work, came out to almost exactly the
same results you did. Now I wouldn't do that with the original,
only a duplicate. So, I have to admit I am confused when you say
jpeg's can't be worked on. They definitely can be. One thing that
does worry me about the NEF format is that it is propriety to
Nikon. From a archival standpoint, is saving a NEF format the best
way to go? How do we know in 10 years there will be software
available to open those files. At least with jpeg, I am somewhat
confident they are so universaly used, that they will be able to
opened in the future.
Just some thoughts to ponder.
Ken
--
*****
Eric K
{D 7 0 + lenses, F - 7 1 7, N 8 0, S 2 1 0, E - 1 0, C P 9 5 0}
NC takes 2-3 minutes and PS 2 minute. It will be even quicker once I develop some actions in PS to combine my steps.
