Newby D90 question....help

[ray*j*gun]

Ok so I caved and bought a D90 for the faster sports family..... blah blah blah stuff we all know about. I have a stable of great Nikon glass for my Nikkormat and Fm3a cameras so the Nikon was the logical choice.

I have been poring over the manual etc and I have read here and elsewhere that digitals should be shot in RAW format then converted. I have tried that and I can't see any difference compared to the jpeg shots in fact they look worse. I used the software that came with the camera to convert...what gives what am I missing????

Thanks for any help I can get here...as always!

 

[kshapero]

Some like to use RAW, some don't. With Jpeg what you see is (for the most part) what you get, which is often quite good. With RAW you get lots of "second chances" to redo highlights, exposure, white balance, etc. Probably a good idea is to shoot both and if the Jpeg is fine, then keep the RAW file as the "neg". If it isn't then convert a RAW file to your liking.

My two cents.

 

[Pablito]

RAW can produce much greater quality, much more subtle colors, more exposure latitude etc. it just takes more work. If you are happy with the jpgs then no worries.

 

[ray*j*gun]

Ah....ok so I think I get it.....RAW files are more able to be "corrected" after the shoot. I'll do some experimenting....I like the idea of using the RAW as a neg....great idea!!

Thank you !!!!

 

[pvdhaar]

I rarely shoot RAW on the Nikons, as JPEG mostly gives satisfactory results, with one exception: shooting birds. That's when I switch to RAW. In addition to giving more exposure lattitude (they don't compress the 12bit info to 8bit required for JPEG), RAW files retain more very fine detail. This is especially with repetitive patterns like the barbs in feathers. The camera buiilt-in JPEG engine polishes those details away, it's as if it judges the feather patterns to be moiré that needs to be suppressed.

Even with Nikon's freebee software (PictureProject), when shooting RAW and converting that to JPEG on a PC after the shoot, the difference in detail with in camera JPEG is enormous..

Oh, even if I shoot RAW, I always shoot RAW+basicJPEG. Allows me to view what's on my memory cards on different cameras. The various models don't like each other's RAW, though they can preview & zoom each other's JPEGs..

 

[ray*j*gun]

Hi Peter,

Thank you for the comments! I didn't realize that jpeg compressed the data as you indicated. I will experiment with some low light shots using RAW.

You mention the software from Nikon......what is a better product to do conversions?

Thanks again,

 

[Frank Petronio]

You really need to use the better software packages (full version of Photoshop with Bridge/Adobe Camera Raw) to take advantage of RAW files. If all you want is to have files right out of the camera then shoot jpgs, they will save you a lot of hard drive space too.

I'll spend at least a few minutes per image making RAW adjustments before opening the image in Photoshop. Luckily if you have a series, you can apply the settings from the first conversion to the rest of the batch.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I am guessing that you are using NX View to look at the files. If you open a NEFF (RAW) file in NX View you initially see a JPEG version. If you click on the icon marked RAW at the top, the icon will go yellow and it will bring up the actual NEFF (RAW) file. You should then see a distinct improvement. I am a complete novice to this stuff so you may want to take what I say with a grain of salt but that is the way I understand it so at least try it. Even shooting RAW when chimping you are seeing the JEPG version. There is a JPEG embedded in every NEFF file. I use Capture NX 2 to work with the NEFF (RAW) files. It was not included with my camera and I had to buy it extra which sucks but it works well. A good JPEG will do the job most times but if you want all the possibilities to work on a Nikon digital file then NEFF is the way to go and that includes the very valuable second chance option.

Bob

 

[ray*j*gun]

Frank & Bob.....thanks for the input! Your right Bob, I have used the NX View to look at the raw files....I did figure out the icon to get the actual raw file to come up on the screen. I'm just not sure how far I want to go with digital....this is really my first serious digital camera. I currently use Elements Frank and the full program I hear is quit expensive and hard to learn. I'm feeling my way but I think I will use the format a while before I spend more money on digital. Bob, how much was the Capture NX2?

Thanks!!!!

 

[kuzano]

Put simply....

Put simply....

1) RAW brings home all the data (per Nikons interpretation of such)
2) Jpeg discards data at the time of the write to the memory card, in varying degrees according to the quality setting you choose.

Every manufacturers interpretation of both RAW and Jpeg differ slightly, as formats are proprietary (not standardized).

Bottom line... shooting only Jpeg may be entirely suitable, but you are not bringing home all the data from the scene shot.

Lastly, a prime tenet in the design of Jpeg originally was to create a "first save" image where the loss of the discarded data is not visible to the naked eye. The designers (Joint Photographers Experts Group-JPEG) did a very good job.

Successive editing and repeated saves of Jpegs increasingly deteriorate the image however.

If it's an important image.. Shoot RAW and archive the original RAW before editing or converting.

If you are satisfied with the first Jpeg out of the camera (also jpg) That's fine. Still a wise idea to archive the first one out of the camera and not overwrite it with future "saves". Save with different file names, so as to NOT overwrite the original or edits you want to keep intact.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Raymond

I see a respectable improvement when the file changes to NEFF in NX View. I take it you are not seeing the same thing?

Bob

 

[sockeyed]

Most of the newer DSLRs produce really good jpgs straight out of the camera. I know some very good photographers who only shoot jpg. In most cases I prefer to shoot RAW, however, as it give me must more flexibility to adjust the image once I'm back on my computer - it's like having a digital negative. For me, the most valuable adjustments are usually exposure, highlight recovery and white balance (particularly in difficult light - I carry a WhiBal grey card and use the eyedropper tool to get the balance correct). I would recommend a good RAW processing program, however. I personally use Adobe Lightroom which not only does a good job processing RAW files, but also does great non-destructive edits on jpgs. It's also a useful program for tagging, organizing and outputting your images.

 

[ray*j*gun]

Hi Bob,

I haven't used the raw setting enough to conclude that. My reason for this thread (like most of my threads) is to learn from the MANY experts that frequent this site. I was sure I was missing the boat on the subject and now I can see that is the case.

My take away so far is: First I will begin to shoot raw plus jpeg and archive the raw file. Next I will look into the different programs that modify the raw data.....currently all I have is Nikon View NX and Photoshop Elements. And, finally I will use the D90 more and more to determine if I feel the final print quality can compare with my highend film cameras. For example I generall shoot medium format with a Mamiya RZ67.

However, as always, I am astounded at the level of expertise here and the wonderful willingness of all to share their knowledge.

Thank you!!

Raymond

I see a respectable improvement when the file changes to NEFF in NX View. I take it you are not seeing the same thing?

Bob

 

[Nikon Bob]

Ray

I forgot to say the Capture NX 2 was $200 IIRC and probably cheaper in the USA. I don't think a DSLR can compete with your RZ67 but let us know if you think it can after you work with the DSLR awhile. I don't use MF film cameras so I would be interested on your take on that.

Fred

I did not mean to imply I did not save the original JPEG or RAW files, I do for the most part. After I have worked an original file I save it as a copy in TIFF format and the original stays. I can then open the TIFF file and work on it some more if need be, opening and saving it numerous times without any degradation that may occur when doing the same with a JPEG file. No I don't compress TIFFs when I save them and as far as degrading when resizing them goes, I guess that would be true too. Not being an expert, or making a living selling large prints, I just rework the resized files to get acceptable to me prints for home use. Everyone's work flow varies with consideration as to what is acceptable to them personally.

Bob

 

[Merkin]

I shoot raw+jpeg fine. I use the in camera picture controls (which work with the jpeg) to make color images, and I use the raw file when I want to make the image black and white. For color, assuming I (or the camera) nailed the white balance, the camera does a better job than I could. For black and white, however, I tend to use simulated filters, and adjusting the raw file allows me to vary the filter effects to a much greater degree. For me, the best digital black and white image does not come from the best color black and white image. In fact, before I send many of my images in to silver efex pro, they are quite ugly in color.