I think I like the sense of obtaining a free converter for NEF to DNG files for working on. The other option of convertering to TIFF seems to me a more costly option in regard to memory (regardless of taking note that memory is quite cheap to buy).
That’s depends on whether or not you …
- immediately covert all NEF files, as opposed to first choosing the ones you want to work with and only converting them;
- keep the original NEF files alongside the converted ones (which I strongly recommend);
- actually go through Photoshop for every image you process (saving the Photoshop edits on a DNG file requires saving another file, as either TIFF or PSD, while saving them on a TIFF simply modifies the original—and you can do so non-destructively, so you can always go back to the TIFF you started with).
However, just to increase my knowledge my first question is to ask about TIFF files. In anyone's experience of using TIFF files, my previous understanding was they they are just highly detailed, high memory JPEGs. Or to put it another way, they are processed files (like jpegs/jpgs as opposed to RAW images). Can anyone offer better clarity on this?
The first thing you should know about raw files is that
they do not hold (contain) images; instead, they are
data files, that have to be processed/converted to become standard image files. Because they are data files, it means you need software capable of reading them to display them as images (basically like converting the file to an image in the background, without creating another file in the folder), and each software reads them differently, so the image they display may not be the same. It means you can’t share these files anywhere at their original state. DNG is just the same.
Both TIFF and JPEG are standard image file formats. They display the same image on all computers with whichever software. However, there is a key difference between them: a JPEG file is strongly compressed, and has only 8 bits per color channel (red, green, and blue), while TIFF files can be uncompressed, and have much higher bit-depths. In essence, a TIFF file can contain just as much information and “latitude” as a raw file, but in that case the file will be much bigger.
The suggestion I made about converting to TIFF, was not to convert it just as-is. Instead, it was to first do the essential processing of raw files—to use the benefits of the raw file—and then converting to TIFF to work with in Photoshop. Those tweaks to the raw file can be white balance, highlight/shadow recovery, sharpening and noise reduction (though they can be done just as well on an image file), etc. Basically, that’s preparing the raw file for Photoshop.
If you used a version of Photoshop that does read your camera’s raw files, the process actually wouldn’t be very different. You’d have to use Adobe Camera Raw first—the raw converter that Adobe makes—and then open the image in the actual Photoshop interface. It would basically do the conversion for you, yet without saving another file. (That file has to be saved afterwards, to have the adjustments you make in Photoshop.)
My second question relates to the converter option. My convertering NEF files to DNG, could there be any loss in quality using a free converter? Someone mentioned the Adobe free NEF to DNG converter. Is there any loss here?
The converter should perform a
lossless compression. That means it does compress the file slightly, but no data is lost. I think there is a selectable option there to do a lossy compression instead—so make sure that box is unchecked.
Finally, I have started to take photos using the D3300 for the first time. In fact, as mentioned, this is my first time with a DSLR and no prior experience. Just to get a handle of the various image types available with this camera, I took identical photos using a tripod choosing the settings for jpeg basic, jpeg normal, jpeg fine and NEF raw, maintaining the same 24Mp in each case. When reviewing back the photos on my computer, I actually didn't notice a difference between any of the jpegs.
The different JPEG settings (Basic, Normal, and Fine) are different compression strengths. Fine uses the weakest compression, which retains the most detail and has the largest file sizes, while Basic is the strongest compression, which shrinks the files the most, and throws out the most data in the process.
It is very normal that you can’t see a difference between them on screen, especially when you view them at the size that fits the screen. If you zoom in, you may see differences. You may also see differences in large prints.
The different compression strengths also have different results depending on the scene you’re shooting. If it’s a mostly smooth image, they will all be pretty much the same. But if it’s a highly detailed scene, and with different colors all around, jumping from pixel to pixel, the gap between the weaker and stronger compression options is a lot wider.
If you decide to use JPEG instead of raw, I recommend sticking to Fine. You may shoot a scene that the stronger compression options would crush, and not realize it until you see it on the computer.
Further to that, I actually found that the NEF images seemed much more underexposed (or higher in contrast is perhaps a better description). What I believe I found was that the JPEG highlights in the images were just as good (or nearly as good) as the NEF highlights but the darker colours came out too dark in the NEF files while being adequately balanced in the JPEGs.
Coming back to the point about raw files: they are not image files, and they are not meant to be seen as image files. They are made to look horrible, and you should do something with them to make them look good.
Generally, I found the NEFF darker tones were too dark as if someone had played about with the levels.
It’s actually the other way around: it looks worse to you
because no one has played with the levels! It’s up to you to do that. The JPEG were converted by the camera, with a certain “curve,” but the raw files are untouched.
There’s also the issue of different applications showing it differently. I presume you used your operating system’s default file browser and image viewer to view the NEF files, and it may show them a lot differently from how Adobe converts them.
Has anyone any thoughts on this and why it would seem the JPEGs were actually better images. My thinking behind this is that if I chose to work with my RAW images, many of the darker colours would start at too dark a level that brightening them would affect the quality of the image than if they had been correctly balanced from the start (as with the jpegs).
As a general rule, if you like how the JPEG files look, then there’s no need for you to use raw files. Just let the camera do all that work, and you’ll always get those images you like.
Ever since I got my first interchangeable-lens camera, which is the same one I use today, I’ve had it on recording nothing but raw files, except for one week when I tried out its JPEG conversions. I had read online about how amazing the JPEG images looked straight out of the Olympus cameras, so I had to try it myself. I found that indeed they were very nice, but I didn’t like having the same “treatment” applied to every photo I take. To counter that, the camera has different “Picture Mode” options, which are kind of like presets. Those include ‘Natural’, the one I used the most; ‘Vivid’, which offered very punchy colors when desirable; ‘Portrait’, which does a nice job at rendering skin tones; and ‘Monotone’, which does a decent job at converting to black & white. There’s also a curve adjustment available, which I believe is unique to Olympus. The results were pleasing, but switching between them wasn’t, even with a custom button assigned to that. I ended up having to desaturate colors when I accidentally left it on Vivid, and often one color channel had clipped, so that wasn’t even possible. I ended up with a ton of noise trying to recover shadows, when I had the curve set to darken shadows a bit too much. I could only think about how a certain image would have looked in color, if I had the camera set to Monotone at the time. You get the idea…
Don’t worry about the shadows being too dark in the raw file, while they are just fine in the JPEG. The camera itself basically starts with the same raw data you have in the NEF files, so you can get to the same image as the JPEG, if you so desire, in processing. The camera did the same thing. Or it’s just how the certain software you have chose to display the image by default.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32945-a29b33c040ad72e4b783ea5e431cec65.jpg?1734162786)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32812-c004ccede2969e280733ed1a4271ec1a.jpg?1734162500)
