Will RAW give me the abilities a JPEG does?

The newer Nikon cameras have 1,005 or 420 area RGB color information in their light metering, and have color-aware focusing, color aware light metering, and measure distance to the subject, and are from the company that invented multi-area, computer-analyzed light metering back in 1984 with the Nikon FA. Most other companies field entire lineups of cameras are color-blind,and can only measure simple reflectance values. Most other companies have d-slr bodies that do not have the automatic D-Lighting ability, which is in-camera tone mapping of the data, based on simple measurements like "oh, that big area is blue and is in to top sector and has interspersed bits of bright,irregularly shaped white objects and is at Infinity--that must be a blue sky with white clouds," and "small, round orb displaying at +10 EV over main exposure=bright sun in image, upper top left", and then measuring the entire bottom 3/4 of the frame as being EV 12 with lots of green grass a the bottom...along with two Caucasian heads, recognizable by computer simply due to their flesh tone RGB range readings, and the fact that the focus is locked on one of them with a left hand side AF point at 10 feet. TO a computer with a 100,000 + photo database, plus several really obvious clues like focus point and distance, green and blue expanses, this scene is a dead-simple one for a Nikon D90's computer to process.

When people who shoot color-blind cameras withiut D-Lighting image analysis and they flick you sh*+ about using in-camera JPEG's ability to color-analyze the data better than automatiic color print making machines were able to do over their 35 year development cycle, simply smile and continue enjoying the benefits of a very modern,advanced d-slr with a metering and image processing system that the other companies have been unable to figure out how to implement.

It's all quite simple,and it's why the very newest Nikon cameras have s many happy, satisfied customers. Better metering, with color awareness, and in-camera tone mapping of sensor data based on both reflectance and color and distance JPEG. This tech was invented by Nikon in 1984, had major upgrade by 1995 with the F5, and has been getting better rapidly since 2007. D-Lighting is in effect, "curves in photoshop", plus hand-done black point setting and white balance evaluation and contrast fine-tuning.

Older Nikon cameras do not produce the same types of OOC JPEGS however. So, to answer your question, NO a RAW will not necessarily give you the same type of image you can get from a directly made JPEG in your D90; unless you have a good deal of post processing skill, you very well might NOT be able to make a final image as good as the D90's advanced metering and D-Lighting can make. Why? Nikon's engineers know the sensor and the imaging system parameters very well,and the D90 has been designed to be sort of their ultimate amateur's d-slr camera. Like, with the Noise Reduction enabled, the D90 will determine how much NR is needed at varying ISO settings--you as an 'end user' might go overboard. Try shooting RAW + JPEG in extreme or critical situations, and see for yourself if you can do better with the RAW than the camera's JPEG processing software. Chances are, unless you're very skilled, the OOC image might look better.

When someone uses the Nikon View NX to convert the image to jpeg, doesn't it use the same "technology" as the camera would use to make the conversion via software?
 
When someone uses the Nikon View NX to convert the image to jpeg, doesn't it use the same "technology" as the camera would use to make the conversion via software?

I heard that D-lighting is applied at the time of taking the photo, therefore can't be applied afterwards. Anyone know if that's true?
 
When someone uses the Nikon View NX to convert the image to jpeg, doesn't it use the same "technology" as the camera would use to make the conversion via software?

I heard that D-lighting is applied at the time of taking the photo, therefore can't be applied afterwards. Anyone know if that's true?

Did you read your manual and understand what D-lighting actually does?
 
I shoot raw plus jpeg that way I'm good either way. I just carry a big card and dump after each use.
I have found that when opening the .raw file I am tKen back by what appeEs after seeing the jpeg the D90 produced. It does take work to get it as good/better.
 
When someone uses the Nikon View NX to convert the image to jpeg, doesn't it use the same "technology" as the camera would use to make the conversion via software?

I heard that D-lighting is applied at the time of taking the photo, therefore can't be applied afterwards. Anyone know if that's true?

No. That's not true.
You can shoot RAW or JPG then apply after the shot in camera, in ViewNX or in CaptureNX2. In Adobe Camera RAW you can use the fill light slider but it doesn't work nearly as well as D-Lighting.
 
When someone uses the Nikon View NX to convert the image to jpeg, doesn't it use the same "technology" as the camera would use to make the conversion via software?

I heard that D-lighting is applied at the time of taking the photo, therefore can't be applied afterwards. Anyone know if that's true?

No. That's not true.
You can shoot RAW or JPG then apply after the shot in camera, in ViewNX or in CaptureNX2.


That's true but you can't apply "active D-lighting"...D-lighting you can, "active d-lighting" you can't. That might be what they were talking about. Regardless, you can still come up with the same results after the fact with fill-light or d-lighting anyway.
 
Not sure about other models, but my D90 has the abilty to do it either when the shot was taken or after the fact.

Pretty sure anyway :lol:

I leave it on 'Auto' and never really messed around with the in camera editing much I guess.
 
I heard that D-lighting is applied at the time of taking the photo, therefore can't be applied afterwards. Anyone know if that's true?

No. That's not true.
You can shoot RAW or JPG then apply after the shot in camera, in ViewNX or in CaptureNX2.


That's true but you can't apply "active D-lighting"...D-lighting you can, "active d-lighting" you can't. That might be what they were talking about. Regardless, you can still come up with the same results after the fact with fill-light or d-lighting anyway.

Actually... we're both partially right. CaptureNX2 has the ADL and DL adjustments where ViewNX has just the DL adjustment. I just read an article where the author felt that ADL was superior... I've never actually compared them.
 
The big reason I asked is because I shoot raw and thought the nikon software did the "same" process. I usually just convert all the photos to jpeg and save the raw files in case I want to edit them later.

If I understood correctly, the camera will do a better job creating the jpeg than the software.
I am a total noob when it comes to Photoshop and lightroom, so I guess I should start shooting raw and jpeg.
 
The big reason I asked is because I shoot raw and thought the nikon software did the "same" process. I usually just convert all the photos to jpeg and save the raw files in case I want to edit them later.

If I understood correctly, the camera will do a better job creating the jpeg than the software.
I am a total noob when it comes to Photoshop and lightroom, so I guess I should start shooting raw and jpeg.

NX2's Active D-Lighting is the only computer based software feature that will do the same processing as the in-camera dynamic light processing.

I think very few people shoot exclusively RAW or exclusively JPG. One may be more useful than the other given the scenario. If you are experienced with post processing then no... the camera will not do a better job. The compression methods are the same in camera as they are in NX2 and ViewNX so your data/quality loss should be equivalent.

If you aren't very good with post processing then chances are the camera will do a much better job with the in camera tools and using one of the camera profiles you've selected like vivid, or standard and applying the correct level of ADL.

Additionally... if you don't have time or don't care for post processing and your shots are well exposed and well composed then using a custom or standard in camera profile will be sufficient to go from camera to print.
 
Actually... we're both partially right. CaptureNX2 has the ADL and DL adjustments where ViewNX has just the DL adjustment. I just read an article where the author felt that ADL was superior... I've never actually compared them.

I didn't make my point very clear: you cannot apply "active D-lighting" to .nef files if it wasn't already turned on in the camera. The option in NX2 will only be available if ADL was switched on when the image was created.
 
I just wanted to shoot raw in case I get that once in a lifetime type shot that would "make" me learn how to properly post process. In raw, I thought I would have the most flexibility with no loss on quality, but I see now that 99% of my shots would likely be better off with thi in camera jpeg processing.

I will switch to raw+jpeg immediately.
 
If I understood correctly, the camera will do a better job creating the jpeg than the software.
I am a total noob when it comes to Photoshop and lightroom, so I guess I should start shooting raw and jpeg.

It's been answered and I know you're not using NX2 but... just as an example, these are all show RAW+JPG from three different Nikon cameras. I uploaded the .jpg created by the camera, then using NX2 I loaded the .nef version and saved it as a .jpg with no editing or changes. There are minute differences but certainly nothing overwhelming. This isn't always the case. Some images might look slightly different coming out of NX2.

Point is, if you open an .nef in NX2 you're seeing pretty close to what the camera-generated .JPG would look like.

D200 (I did have the saturation, etc, cranked back in the camera)-
.JPG:
697379844_BimoU-M.jpg


.nef in NX2:
697380905_tM4cN-M.jpg




D300 simple aerial -
.jpg:
697399443_LRZAz-M.jpg


.nef in NX2:
697401509_MkoDd-M.jpg




D70 (color auto-1)-
.jpg:
697391808_3sNqV-M.jpg


.nef in NX2:
697392449_GX4KJ-M.jpg


I think the color is terrible on the original. It was early morning, the hangars to the right (out of view) were splashing some yellow light, and the color is just wrong anyway. Just to illustrate the point about a simple correction that doesn't involve much skill (at least where NX2 is concerned) I made a couple of changes with really just a couple of clicks and no fiddling. First, I used Nikon's "picture controls" (not available on this camera originally but available in NX2) and made it a "standard" picture control with the stock set-up for that setting. Finally I put a "neutral control point" on a white part of the airplane so the overall color balance shifted to make the white neutral - then saved. This might be just slightly on the blue side but again, it's just an example that took all of a few seconds to change.

697431455_NMBPC-M.jpg



I'm not trying to argue for or against NX2 - it just happens to be what I use right now.
 
Comparing PJ's to "artists" is what's off base here.

Photojournalists can not, by mandate of many of their employers and for commonly held ethical beliefs, edit images after they are taken. Many PJ's can (and are) fired for even cropping an image after it's taken. As such, they are often required to shoot everything in JPG.

Here's an article on PJ ethics:
Photojournalism Ethics: Chapter Six

[SIZE=+0]Hal Buell of the Associated Press said, "I don't think your ethics can be any better or any worse using electronic methods than they are using the classical methods. Ethics is in the mind. It is not in the tools you use" (Bossen, 1985, p. 30). There are two approaches that one can take about the use of computer technology: absolute or relaxed. Either computer manipulation should never be performed for news/editorial images, or changes are allowed. Robert Gilka, former director of photography for National Geographic magazine, articulated the absolute viewpoint. Gilka said that manipulating images is "like limited nuclear war. There ain't none" (Ritchin, 1984, p. 49). Jack Com, director of photography for the Chicago Tribune said manipulations are "ethically, morally and journalistically horrible" (Reaves, 1987, p. 3 1). [/SIZE]
Artists who view an image captured by a camera as a starting point and not the final product shoot in RAW. It allows them to play with the image in a non-destructive manner whereas this would be impossible with a JPG.

It depends on what you intend to do with your camera and images. If you're a happy snapper and like pics of your kids, car shows, air shows, etc. that require no additional editing once captured - shoot JPG. Your life will be easier most likely.

If you shoot more artistic stuff and plan on playing with exposure, curves, colors, and other more advanced edits, shoot in RAW as most photographic artists do. Here's an example of the stuff I like to do, and I shoot in RAW.

562542789_zNcru-L.jpg


My images are often heavily edited after being shot. I shoot my images knowing that what comes out of the camera is a starting point for editing. Even when I'm shooting pictures of my son like this:

685893292_YWinx-L.jpg


I shoot in RAW. I often times will play with the images as I don't often care for ho-hum shots. I could have shot this in JPG with sharpening, bumped saturation and contrast and called it a day, but I wouldn't have been happy with it.

So, figure out what type of shooter you are and use what works for you. If you're undecided, shoot both until you figure it out.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top