| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Eric wrote:
Robert wrote:
Just passing...
I have notice with alarm that you keep saying you save as JPEG, "it will be 'good enough'" If I may say so it WON'T be 'good enough', you are complaining about IQ, use the highest quality NEF's you can lay your hands on just for starters, and leave the noise reduction for the computer. The available choice of NR software is far greater and infinitely more controllable than what the camera has to offer. Use layers and masking, you are the expert in that department yet you seem to be missing it.
OK you are fed up with using computers but if you want the good results in my view it's the only way.
Off to the tip!
Not sure if that remark was addressed to me or Jeff?
I HAVE been shooting raw on recent images and there's no difference in the outputted image quality to computer. There is nothing wrong with saving files as JPEGs.
The whole publishing industry demands the supply of images in JPEGs format. Send a NEF file to a magazine and they will reject it.
In fact these days they frequently want png files.
The whole point about raw files is they enable YOU to make whatever corrections you think need doing ....corrections that you or the camera didn't do at the time of the exposure. My point is ...the captured images are not good enough irrespective of file format.
The risk with compressed files is the degree and repeated application of this compression by repeated resaving.
In my early years of supplying digital artwork I did repeated and exhaustive test on the effect on quality of the degree of jpeg compression and multiple circles thereof.
I fear the jpeg is not the bogeyman many would have us believe.
Of course it's not good practise to save part processed WIP images in any compressed format. But there's nothing wrong in saving finished files in jpeg. Arguably thts what the camera assumes you require...a finished jpeg.
Just my experience
Sorry about the delayed response, yesterday was a non event.
By "save as JPEG" I meant saving in camera, not on computer, or elsewhere.
Comparing an NEF with a JPEG WILL show EXACTLY the same image. No surprise, the NEF contains a basic JPEG for viewing purposes, that is what you are viewing and comparing when you open an NEF. (Which, to me, rather negates the process of saving JPEG and NEF in camera.)
The advantage of saving as NEF is the entire data set provided by the sensor is available for processing. That means you have far more latitude in the processing, better highlight and shadow adjustment, more range to adjust noise and a greater freedom to adjust colour or any other image parameter, because the required data is in the NEF, having adjusted the image you are free to save as a TIFF, JPEG or DNG or any other image file format you wish EXCEPT NEF, only the camera can save as NEF.
If data storage space is an issue, the NEF's can be thrown away once processed, although I bet you kept negatives even after you printed them to paper, which seems to me analogous to creating JPEGs.
A JPEG image file does not contain sufficient data to make the range of adjustment available from an NEF, fact. To get the most from an exposure, especially one which contains bright background or fine detail it is better achieved from an NEF.
If I want a good image I use a tripod or monopod and save as NEF, if I just want a snapshot I use the D3300 handheld on auto and save as JPEG, good enough.
Having spent a small fortune on a good lens and camera to obtain high quality images, a zero cost methodology of using tripod and NEF's seems to me worth the effort. I carry my tripod or monopod to the tops of mountains, around large gardens, race circuits and across boggy moors. I use NEF file format to allow me to get that extra ounce (gram?) of image quality which I would otherwise throw away but can just make the difference between a good exposure and an outstanding exposure.
I feel it's worth the effort and it keeps me fit, the NEF's don't weigh anything and don't cost anything except initial disk space, which is cheap enough nowadays, especially compared with the cost of cameras and lenses, your ideas may be different, I'm just trying to help improve final IQ?
I THINK we are talking at crossed purposes...slightly.
There is no doubt using a tripod will give you sharper images especially at slower shutter speeds.
There is no doubt that saving a file in raw format will enable the computer operator to make finer adjustments.
There is no doubt using the wrong settings (when on a tripod or not) will lead to the need for a raw file in the hope the fine detail can be recovered.
Having been in this situation MANY MANY times with awkward interior lighting I am fully aware of the potential of raw processing...but also it's limits.
No disrespect to anyone but I've seen lots of images over the years on this forum that have been taken in NEF for better processing...only to see glaring exposure, composition, cropping, distraction errors that, to me, destroy the whole notion that processing a raw file was worth it. I hasten to add I myself have also posted images that fail similarly.
The point I am making is that if your intention is to produce large exhibition/sale prints as opposed to merely viewing them on screens (be that 55" plasma, 32"Eizo, MacBook or IPad) then you need to squeeze out best practise at every corner.
But if the final resting place is Flickr, Instagram, Forums or just Photos on an iPad, then I don't believe the extra contortions of processing nefs on computers have any more merit than using the jpeg out of the camera...even if that needs a few tweaks.
It's all about being 'fit for purpose†to my mind.
Last edited on Fri Dec 28th, 2018 07:09 by Eric
____________________
Eric