Going RAW

[frontal_lobe]

I started off with using Jpegs when I bought my D70 about 3 years ago. Since then I gradually transitioned to using RAW, to the point that for about the last year I've adopted an all-RAW workflow.

I ran a comparison of the same files 'developed' in NX, Capture One and Adobe Camera Raw. All three do a fine job, but by a whisker in each case my preference was for the files from NX. NX also boats a bunch of really great tools - the U-point colour/brightness/contrast management is excellent, adequate built-in noise reduction (prob not as good as Noiseware etc, but plenty good enough for the very occasional use I make of it), levelsl/curves, sharpening etc. The only routine tool I miss from Photoshop is the spot healer for dust bunnies - but since I've bought a rocket blower even they are not much of an issue. The U-point tricks pretty much let me get away with local adjustments that I would otherwise have to apply through layer masks in Photoshop - and that usually takes a lot more time.

Once you've got NX set up, it is actually no more effort for well exposed 'normal' RAW images getting to say a 800pixel wide JPG to put up on a web site or to prepare a file for a standard print than using an all-JPG workflow. I now have a bunch of presets that I've developed or taken from Jason Odell's site that with a single click will apply sharpening/colour profile/resizing to my taste. No different than I'd have to do with JPG.

One more thing - about NX being buggy. I run the latest verion (1.2) on a Macbook Pro - I've not had any problems at all.

But the advantage of using RAW really comes out if you either have a picture where you've got the exposure off by anything up to a stop or so, or where you want to bring out the shadow detail, for instance. Whether you use ACR, C1 or NX a RAW file will help you out in a way that a JPG can't. With RAW you have access to pretty much all 12 bits of data recorded by the sensor. JPG uses a standard algorithm to convert those 12 bits to 8 bit - that is fine for many purposes, but if you've messed up the exposure, or just want to recover some detail, you may have lost the 4 bits of information that would help you out.

I strongly recommend getting demo versions of the software you like the look of and giving it a go.

HTH,

Anthony.

--
http://www.pbase.com/anthony

 

[Glaudus]

Just try DXO (Tipa and Eisa awards for the best photo software !!!!). It is in my opinion the easiest tool and I find that the results are great.
You can download the trial version.

 

[D Knisely]

The general consensus is that Capture NX is the best program for
Nikon Raw.

Capture NX is definitely worth a look. It does a lot of things very well. The glaring hole in NX's feature set is the lack of even the most basic cloning/healing tool. I hope that Nikon will take a look a the current ACR and see that they are woefully deficient in this area.

Because I'm a tightwad and refuse to pay the crazy price for PS CS3, I use Capture NX for RAW conversion and most adjustments, and I use Gimp (open source and free) for cloning/healing, perspective adjustments, and more complex multi-layer adjustments. Unfortunately, it means going through an extra JPEG conversion with the resultant loss of quality. Also, as is the case for PS, the learning curve for Capture NX is steep, and for Gimp, it is even steeper. I've used Gimp for years, so it is no issue, but I think it would be very overwhelming to a novice to image processing. PS CS3's adjustment layers and smart objects are way better, but you have to pay for the luxury.

Gimp also lacks 16-bit mode, HDR, and panorama support, all of which are outstanding in CS3. It is just way too expensive for personal, non-commercial work (IMHO). I'd much rather have a new lens for $500+ and deal with s/w inconvenience!

PSE is good for novices, but it is intentionally crippled (chiefly, no levels adjustment without hacking) and you will quickly outgrow it. It is far less useful than Gimp, in my opinion. If it has the current ACR with all of its capability (which I doubt), it might be worth it, though. The latest ACR is just outstanding.

I should also mention there is a very good open source RAW converter that also works with Gimp called ufraw, if you want to go the fully open-source route.

Doug

 

[cosilver]

Tundracamper,

I use NX 1.2 and PSE5, I'm not sure what bugs you are referring to, but I really haven't noticed any, in fact, 1.2 is faster than 1.1.

As you said, you can install the 30 trial and check it out for yourself. I think you'll really like the RAW conversion it does compared to ACR, and the u-point technology is great.

Cheers! (no, I'm not from the UK ;-) )

I have Elements 5 and have been seriously thinking about adding NX.
They have a 30 day trial that you can use for free. Why haven't I
taken the plunge? I just can't seem to force myself to buy software
that has so many "issues." Unlike their cameras, I personally think
Nikon has done a poor job in implementing their software. Over on
another forum site, I see plenty of posts about what I consider
serious bugs in the newest version of NX. I refuse to spend that
kind of money on a product that I know has such issues only to end up
having to pay AGAIN when they come out with version 2.0. Maybe if I
knew a purchase now would guarantee a free upgrade to the next big
version jump, I'd go ahead and bite. Perhaps I'm just pessimistic!

--
Albert-O
http://www.berto.zenfolio.com

 

[egrivel]

From my personal experience, two thoughts:

1. Consider the RAW+JPEG combination. It takes up a little bit more space, but I find it convenient. Most of the time I'm perfectly happy with the JPEG I get, and I don't need to do any PP. But when I DO want to do something to the photo, I have the RAW format available.

One thing you will need to consider with the RAW+JPEG option is to make sure you keep both versions of the photo together. This depends on what you do with the photos after shooting. I have a separate folder for every day, and just move the photos in there together.

2. Try out the GIMP, which is free, and has plugins for RAW format. Personally I'm yet to be convinced that the price difference between Photoshop and Gimp is worth it. Unless you do a LOT of PP (and you say you're not interested in that), I think that Gimp probably gives you 95% of what you need for a lot, lot less.

Disadvantage of Gimp: it doesn't support 12-bit colors. The URFaw plugin, which imports the RAW images into Gimp, does its processing on the full 12-bit color values, but once imported Gimp only works with 8 bit per color channel.

Good luck!

Eric
--
http://www.lumenssolutions.com/photography/

 

[Tech1961]

I used to shoot raw all of the time and now I don't bother with it any more. I have learned to do my best to get the settings right when shooting. I now save alot of time in post processing and I save space on my memory cards as well.
--
See more Photos here. All exif info is on my site.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80469099@N00/?saved=1
If it looks good shoot it.

 

[Arrowman]

You are right, I did overstate the case.

When I first acquired my D80 I experimented with the different settings and I did see a difference, admittedly only at the pixel peeping level and only a slight difference.

Let me put it another way:

The only reason to use a jpg setting other than Fine is to create smaller image files and save storage space. Although the difference in quality is minimal and usually imperceptible, storage is so cheap that it seems to me that there is no strong reason to take even a small risk with image quality for the sake of a saving in storage space.

Which is the logic I used when I came to know my D80.

--