Nikon D3300 RAW images

[dowlers44]

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.

Thanks for your in-depth reply. I wanted to pick up on this point above. Actually when I referred to seeing no difference it wasn't just in relation to viewing them at full screen but when I zoom in on the pictures. I had my camera angled down my road, picking up rough, textured brickwork in the near foreground and vegetation in the background. When zooming in on the brickwork on all jpeg cases, I didn't notice any loss in the brickwork detail. It made me wonder how much detail we really need to capture if the naked eye can't pick out the differences in detail and would I be just taking up unnecessary memory space taking and storing such large file types.

 

[Ysarex]

How are you viewing the NEF files?

Joe

Through windows viewer (picture viewer?)

In that case you're not seeing the raw files. Windows Picture/Photo Viewer is showing you the embedded JPEG. A copy of the camera generated JPEG is stored in the raw file and used for preview purposes.

It is possible to actually view a raw file as a photographic image but it doesn't look too good. Here's an example:

They look very dark and very green because you're seeing the CFA (color filter array) that's still in place on the image and no correction for the linear tone capture has been applied. There's no real point to displaying a raw file other than to understand and as an amusement.

Here's an enlargement of part of the above raw file so that you can see the CFA:

In terms of understanding, here's the important point: If at any time you've opened and are looking at a raw file and it doesn't look like the image above on your left (very dark and very green) then what you're seeing is a processed interpretation of that raw file. Stress that term interpretation. A team of software engineers have written a whole lot of code that processes your raw image data into an RGB photo and they in fact spent lots of time and lots of effort making decisions about how that code will make your photo look.

When the software in your camera creates a JPEG the raw file is similarly processed. You're shooting a Nikon camera and so the JPEGs that your camera creates result both from your efforts controlling the camera as you take the photo as well as the processing efforts coded by a bunch of Nikon software engineers.

The point of having the raw file is so that you can interpret the data as you see fit without having to start out relying on those Nikon engineers. However when you first open a raw file to work with it you're still going to run into a software interpretation of the data. In the case of raw photo processing you start with an interpretation handed to you by the engineers at Adobe or Phase One or DX0 or whatever company created your raw processing software. They all show you a processed image to start -- no real point in showing you the raw file. So they do a "first pass" processing the raw data and they basically hand you a toolset that lets you take it from there.

Here's an example. I took this photo yesterday and posted it here at TPF as my first photo of 2016.

Joe

EDIT: In defense of Fuji, I exclusively shoot and save only raw files and as such I only make adjustments on the camera that matter for that raw file I want. My camera has controls that I could have used in the field to influence how the camera software generates the JPEG photo and I could have used those controls to influence creation of a better JPEG. I don't bother to do that.

 

[Ysarex]

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.

Thanks for your in-depth reply. I wanted to pick up on this point above. Actually when I referred to seeing no difference it wasn't just in relation to viewing them at full screen but when I zoom in on the pictures. I had my camera angled down my road, picking up rough, textured brickwork in the near foreground and vegetation in the background. When zooming in on the brickwork on all jpeg cases, I didn't notice any loss in the brickwork detail. It made me wonder how much detail we really need to capture if the naked eye can't pick out the differences in detail and would I be just taking up unnecessary memory space taking and storing such large file types.

If you're saving the raw NEF files then it doesn't really matter what you do with the JPEGs. I don't save them at all and yet I can't stop the camera from creating them -- I still get a JPEG embedded in all my raw files. A new JPEG at any quality level and resolution can always be re-generated from the raw file. Get your free copy of Nikon NX-D and you can create all three: Basic, Normal and Fine JPEG as often as you like. JPEG quality from the camera is really only an issue for photogs who don't save raw files.

Joe