Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 24, 2003, 5:01 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 659
Default RAW, TIFF and JPEG

Adobe Photoshop Elements version 2.0 allows me to open NEF (RAW) files from my Nikon D100, and allows me to change exposure and white balance. However it then tells me that the bit depth isn't supported.

Does this mean that I'm loosing a lot of information from my NEF file - and would be better sticking with TIFF or (for speed of processing) JPEG ?

I also see very limited EXIF information against the NEF file in Elements....
checklg is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 24, 2003, 12:59 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Klaus DK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,216
Default

Hi Graham

Why don't you use Nikon Capture 3.5.1 for .nef ?
(you can also use Nikon View, but Capture is much better!)

Regards
Klaus
Klaus DK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2003, 4:19 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 659
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaus DK
Why don't you use Nikon Capture 3.5.1 for .nef ?
(you can also use Nikon View, but Capture is much better!)
Klaus,

Thanks for this. I did try using Nikon View and saving the NEF file as TIFF, but looking at the functionality in View I wondered whether I'd be better just using TIFF on the camera and cutting out a step in the workflow.

I've now installed Capture 3.5.1 but it's on a 30 day free trial. Can I ask -

1) What steps in the workflow do you use it for ?
2) Do you save from NEF to something else at some point (bearing in mind my use of Adobe Photoshop Elements) ?
3) What does it cost to buy (my plastic is feeling punished !) ?

Regards,
Graham.
checklg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2003, 8:10 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Capture 1 is quite expensive at around $500USD (At least at adorama.com.)

Although I can't specifically answer your 1st question (as I don't have a Nikon workflow) when I looked at buying a D100 the workflows that I read translated from NEF to TIFF right away (after backing things up, of course.) Then a move to photoshop and do as much in 16 bit as possible before being forced to 8-bit for the things which are 8-bit only (layers?)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2003, 8:20 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 659
Default

Thanks Eric. I still wonder how much information we then lose going from 16 bit to 8 bit.
checklg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2003, 9:55 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Klaus DK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,216
Default

Hi Graham

I save the best nefs as nefs for storing. But for viewing I save as TIFF for viewing.
In Nikon Capture I use the curvesmenu, colorbalancemenu, advanced RAW and white balance. Some times I batch process, but not often. Capture cost here in DK about 140 euro or a hundred british pounds.

Graham, I wan't to talk to you in private about some of your earlier shots. Please go to my website and mail me your address from there, I've lost it since our last corresponance.

Regards
Klaus
Klaus DK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 25, 2003, 3:44 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

checklg

I think the loss is operation dependent. This is rather rough, if Lin is out there, I'm sure he can correct me or fill in the blanks.

The problem is compounding errors. Rounding errors in floating point math in the processing of the data introduce errors into the data. So some operations can introduce errors into your picture where color isn't *exactly* right for a given pixel. If you have these problems when using 16-bit data, it is less severe because a one bit change isn't significant. And you'll eventually reduce it to 8-bit any ways, and those slight differences will be reduced away.

If you have the same problem with 8-bit data, each bit of data is more significant. So being off by a little bit is more noticeable. And its not minimized by reducing the data down.

Personally, in my short time doing digital editing and photoshop, I haven't seen the difference between working all in 8-bit and doing as much in 16-bit first. I'm sure that my bad workflow completely overwhelms any such errors. Would someone with a good, properly ordered workflow see the problem? It's probably there, but I'd be surprised if anyone but a real stickler for the highest quality picture would see it. This is just a guess, though.

I'd be interested in what others have to say about this. I hear about this 16 vs. 8 bit things as being bad, but I've never seen anyone demonstrate it with examples. I put it more into the "it's easy to do it right, so why not just do it?" category instead of "it's so bad, you'll drop dead the instant you do it wrong."

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:04 AM.