Quick question about file formats

Discussion in 'Through-the-Lens Club' started by jmg, Mar 28, 2007.

  1. jmg

    jmg UCantFixStupid

    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Location:
    swimming in Carls pool
    Hey, all. I got a D200, and have been shooting in large, JPEG. I understand RAW retains more detail (less compression of data). I tried to use InfranView to open a RAW file--no luck---something about the NEF extension?

    Thinking about buying Photoshop Elements--can Elements open NEF/RAW files?

    PLEASE advise on file formaats!--I have a Lexas 2 gig professional CF card.

    Thanks!
     
  2. Laramie In MT

    Laramie In MT

    Messages:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    MT
    I have no idea about the bundled software than came with your Nikon but my Canon came with software that would open/edit .raw images.

    I personally use Photoshop CS2 but it should come with at least something.
     

  3. nipperwolf

    nipperwolf

    Messages:
    3,809
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Location:
    IN
    yes. Elements 5 is great for the price.

    in the meantime, download 'Nikon View' from Nikon. its free. its very basic, but its what many have started with when it comes to RAW.

    while I mostly use Elements to process RAW, I use View to 'browse' my NEF files.

    this is the browser

    [​IMG]

    the viewer

    [​IMG]

    the editor

    [​IMG]
     
  4. ponykilr

    ponykilr Off The Porch

    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    Smithfield NC
    YUP, NikonView6 is free and works well for the basics...exposure comp. and WB.
     
  5. sjfrellc

    sjfrellc CLM

    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Location:
    Novi, Michigan
    Stick with JPEGS until you get more familiar with the camera. In your camera, there is quality to spare in them there JPEGS.The reason you got such a nice camera was for it to do the work of taking great pictures. Not for you to have to mess with Raw files.Use Raw files for artistic stuff, use Jpegs for pictures of the kids and "snapshots". Im sure I would be in the minority in this forum. But I would only use Raw when you get to the level that you are using Photoshop CS2. Then Raw makes a difference.
    The D200 is better at which balance than most other cameras (a major reason to shoot in raw).

    Picasa can open Raw files.You can also choose what types of files it can read (if for example you want it to ignore loading raw files) Its photediting is rudamentary but good.

    I shot raw at a basketball game last week to check out how much improvement I could make with color balance, but the normal 350 pictures end up being 6 gigabytes. That'll choke your storage space pretty quick at 10 mb for each raw file.

    It's hard to convince most that JPEGs are good enough. Just like who wants to believe that a Nikon D40 is adequate at 6 MP instead of a Nikon D40x at 10 MP.
    Check this link
    The link here is not meant for professionals.

    Someone said it better than I:
    "I would guess that many of Ken's readers are amateurs. And I think his advice is actually quite sound. Most amateurs would benefit from taking more photographs than they would from having fewer photographs that they could tweak more fully. Personally, I do a lot of my shooting in JPG simply because it gives me more of an opportunity to experiment with no fears at all about the space in my memory cards.

    I use RAW for commercial or more serious "art" work. I think Ken's advice is sound. All sorts of amateurs can't extract the full value of RAW. Many wouldn't even want to. Many amateurs would be thrilled with a bunch of "very good" over a few "very, very good" images. Clogging up the harddrives of people who don't even bother batch processing their images is kind of silly. There are plenty of very good amateurs who rarely print larger than 8x10 and only use photoshop for re-sizing images to email to friends and family."
     
  6. nipperwolf

    nipperwolf

    Messages:
    3,809
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Location:
    IN
    6MP IS adequate compared to 10 MP. don't fall victim to "The megapixel Myth"

    LINK

    LINK

    quote from your buddy, KR "One needs about a doubling of linear resolution or film size to make an obvious improvement. This is the same as a quadrupling of megapixels. A simple doubling of megapixels, even if all else remained the same, is very subtle. The factors that matter, like color and sharpening algorithms, are far more significant.

    The megapixel myth is also prevalent because men always want a single number by which something's goodness can be judged.

    Unfortunately, it's all a myth because the number of megapixels (MP) a camera has has very little to do with how the image looks. Even worse, plenty of lower MP cameras can make better images than poorer cameras with more MP."

    for many years, shooting film, I had more than one camera body. got used to having two bodies. good for backup, not having to switch lenses, etc......

    been using my D50 for a year and half now. I want another camera body. been kicking around two options;

    1. getting another D50 while I can, since they're drying up.

    2. getting a D80

    so, I rented a D80 over the weekend.

    while the difference in control functions warrants double the cost is another thread, what I learned, backed up what months of research proved. the difference of 6MP vs 10MP is neglible to the naked eye.

    I've compared enlargements from both bodies under the same conditions, lenses, settings.

    I, nor any one I've shown them to, can tell a diiference. ;)

    another drawback to "more megapixel myth" is "more noise" at higher ISO settings.

    valid.
     
  7. sjfrellc

    sjfrellc CLM

    Messages:
    720
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Location:
    Novi, Michigan
    I do think the 6 MP is adequate DSLRs, as I can witness by my 15,000 pictures taken with my D70--none of them lacked enough pixels.
    My point was you can't convince others that this is true. A neighbor is going to get a D40x and I'm not going to waste my breath convincing him that the D40 is fine and the extra $200 is better spent on a lens.
     
  8. ponykilr

    ponykilr Off The Porch

    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    Smithfield NC
    The quality of pixels is far more important than the number. Most printers (I use Exposure Manager, Fuji frontier)) have awesome resample capabilities and want my prints cropped but not resampled. I have made 20x30 prints that you can look at with a strong magnifying glass with no loss of quality.

    Ken is right on, he could kick our collective butts as a photographer, and he invented the worlds first color space conversion chip. He aint no dummy(in my best southern accent)
     
  9. nipperwolf

    nipperwolf

    Messages:
    3,809
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Location:
    IN
    oops, my mistake. ;)

    :supergrin:
     
  10. madecov

    madecov book em' Danno

    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Location:
    Great State of Confusion
    If you want a decent FREE RAW converter to play with
    Do a google search for Silkypix.
    The basic free version will get you started.
     
  11. jmg

    jmg UCantFixStupid

    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Location:
    swimming in Carls pool
    Thanks to all those that have responded. I'm sure I'll hassle you with lots of other questions!


    Man! I loves my D200
     
  12. 10mm4ME!

    10mm4ME! Guest

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    I don't know nearly as much as many of the folks on this thread (I am quite the amateur) but I reacently purchased elements and thought I would give Raw a try. I found just what everyone else here has said.

    It just turned out to be more work (since I don't know how to batch process, or if you even can with elements) trying to replicate what the D70 does all by itself, because I am confident I don't know how to edit correctly.

    Then there is the memory issue. I take a third the number of pics for three times the memory and effort. I ended up converting everything to jpeg anyhow so I could share it.

    Just my 2 not-so-knowledgable coppers
     
  13. ponykilr

    ponykilr Off The Porch

    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    4
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Location:
    Smithfield NC
    The thing with RAW is a double edged sword. I have made many great pics and prints in fine/jpg and really find in some cases that FJ creates a more pleasing overall image. For snaps and vacation and whatever rec. shooting, I see no reason at all to use RAW.

    I know I have been harping it lately, but DxO 4.2 is so good at enhancing jpgs that it almost makes shooting RAW for pay work seem silly. But...

    There is that chance that something will not be exposed right or the color will be waaayyy off and RAW gives a little more latitude for corrections without quality loss. DxO is very good though at jpg mods and unless there is a huge problem, FJ is fine. I check my histogram when shooting constantly. I check my highlight loss constantly when in contrasty light. I look at the image really close to see if i need to reshoot if i have the time...sometimes you don't. I will reshoot if it isnt in the zone I know it needs to be in. If you follow this process religiously, FJ is easier to deal with, takes up less space and is quicker to process. For serious stuff though, it's worth the hassles to be safe. Once in a lifetime is just that, once. Seems a shame to blow it on a chance bad exposure or crazy color.

    This is just a personal thing we all must deal with til plasma wave hyper imaging comes out... :)