Nikon .NEF (RAW) How to?

[imaxcatchx22]

I am new to working with .NEF pictures in Photoshop CS3, and I am looking for some guidance.

The issue I'm having is getting the pictures to look more natural. The images usually look overexposed or underexposed, and the colors don't pop. I am trying to get the images to look more like what I took. I can't quite figure out what I am missing. Any tips suggestions would be appreciated.

Also, whats the best process for merging these photos into an HDR? Should I edit the photos with the CS3 RAW editor, or should I just move right into the photo merge? Tips suggestions would be great.

Thanks,
Catch22

 

[Garbz]

For HDR work with the originals, and edit the final image. Don't mess with the originals as it may disturb the HDR algorithms.

As for getting your photo to look more natural. Realise that every RAW converter renders photos differently, and every RAW converter is often infinitely configurable. If you're trying to duplicate what the JPEG looks like then shoot in JPEG + RAW. Open up the JPEG and then open the RAW converter in CameraRAW. Twiddle with the sliders till you get the image right. I think in CameraRAW you can then save the settings as some kind of a default just like in Lightroom.

Play with all the options, lots of them look like they do something similar but have a very different effect. (Exposure + Brightness for instance). If you're an expert twiddler and still can't get it right with the sliders then you're either not an expert or should look into the Adobe DNG Profile editor to create a custom colour profile for your camera.

By the way play with the options in the calibration section of CameraRAW too. Adobe handily provides some profiles that try to mimic the washed out silly looking results of Nikon cameras in JPEG mode (my opinion).

 

[Silverpenguin]

CS3 and CS4 in my experience are very poor at reading Nikon NEF files. I have always used Nikon Capture NX (and now View NX2 as well) to open my images and save off as tiffs to then open in Photoshop.

The trouble with Adobes camera raw plugin is that it doesn't render colours as well as Nikons own software. Try it out. Download View NX 2 (it's free), open a NEF file, save that as a tiff or jpeg and take that in to photoshop. Then re-open the same NEF directly in Photoshop and compare the two side by side.

For the record, CS5 seems to read NEF files better than the older versions so they may have improved the raw plugin now.

 

[clanthar]

The trouble with Adobes camera raw plugin is that it doesn't render colours as well as Nikons own software. Try it out. Download View NX 2 (it's free), open a NEF file, save that as a tiff or jpeg and take that in to photoshop. Then re-open the same NEF directly in Photoshop and compare the two side by side.

I find this a fascinating topic. You'd want to think that different RAW processors would all start from the same place and open the same file the same way -- then let you begin to adjust the image. HOWEVER this is clearly not the case. I've had the same experience and then tried to open the same file in as many different programs as I could (Photoshop, DPP, LR, Aperture, Raw Therapee, etc.). There were fairly substantial differences. That means the software is interpreting the data up front before you get a chance to work with it. Hmm....

 

[Silverpenguin]

I find this a fascinating topic. You'd want to think that different RAW processors would all start from the same place and open the same file the same way -- then let you begin to adjust the image. HOWEVER this is clearly not the case. I've had the same experience and then tried to open the same file in as many different programs as I could (Photoshop, DPP, LR, Aperture, Raw Therapee, etc.). There were fairly substantial differences. That means the software is interpreting the data up front before you get a chance to work with it. Hmm....

Frustrating isn't it! However, Nikons own software renders the colours as you see them on the back of the LCD, or close enough to it that you wouldn't notice a real difference. So when working with NEFs I'd always use their software. having said that, I've just got CS5 and from brief use it does appear to be more accurate as I said in my previous post

 

[Garbz]

I find this a fascinating topic. You'd want to think that different RAW processors would all start from the same place and open the same file the same way -- then let you begin to adjust the image.

Wrong, but right! Read below.

Frustrating isn't it! However, Nikons own software renders the colours as you see them on the back of the LCD, or close enough to it that you wouldn't notice a real difference. So when working with NEFs I'd always use their software. having said that, I've just got CS5 and from brief use it does appear to be more accurate as I said in my previous post

You're assuming that Nikon's interpretation of colour is right. I'm sure Canon and Leica users would disagree, and that in itself is the prime reasons for the differences. No camera manufactures seem to accurately render a basic colour chart. Just switch the Nikon Cameras between Mode I and Mode II output to see that even the same camera from the same company has two completely different ways of tonally determining colour. The problem is that colour is very rarely absolute and people have a strong preference for colours that stretch reality a bit.

Above it's mentioned that you'd think that RAW processors start from the same place. In reality what they try and do is END at the same place. Nikon's RAW processor duplicates the Nikon JPEGs, since it's the same algorithm. Canon DPP makes Canon RAWs look like Canon JPEGs. Ultimately Photoshop tries to make all cameras (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, whatever) look like Adobe's interpretation of colours. These have changed in the latest version of the Adobe Profiles slightly due to complains about how Adobe handles skin tones by default. (lots of people thought they were purple).


The reality is neither of you will truly appreciate how very wrong ALL of these solutions are till you spend a few hundred bucks on a calibrated colour target and do a software calibration of your camera. Then you'll see how very "interpreted" all the colours you were seeing actually were. Then you'll also come to appreciate how with Nikon you're stuck with Nikon's world view, yet Adobe provides the tools to do calibrations, and adjustments to all of their DNG profiles for their cameras.

There really is no such thing as "Program X is poor at rendering colours". The only true answer is "User Y is poor at getting his software to do what he wants."

 

[clanthar]

Let me re-phrase that into color management language:

You'd think that the different RAW converters out there would adopt a set of camera manufacturer supplied standard input profiles (and that the camera makers would support this) so that whatever converter you were using you'd be starting from the same default that was established by the camera maker (who better?).

ACR reads my camera CR2 files which suggests they've at least talked to Canon. But ACR won't use Canon supplied input profiles. I know I can create my own DNG input profiles for my camera. In lieu of that I'd still like a same first page start from Canon, Adobe, etc.

The whole point of RAW file processing is to let me make the decisions. I understand that the raw data has to be processed even to be displayed, but given that caveat, shouldn't there be a minimal (camera maker supplied) standard processing for that camera's raw files? I know there isn't and I think I understand why ($$$$) and I resent that.

Joe

 

[Silverpenguin]

There really is no such thing as "Program X is poor at rendering colours". The only true answer is "User Y is poor at getting his software to do what he wants."

Think you miss understood - maybe partly my fault for the way I worded things.

You're assuming that Nikon's interpretation of colour is right. I'm sure Canon and Leica users would disagree, and that in itself is the prime reasons for the differences.

Well yes, colour management is a huge can of worms and Nikons colour interpretation might be wrong or different. But Nikons software gives me the image looking how it looked in camera, with the saturation and contrast as per my exposure.

I think you may be confusing the desire to have properly calibrated colours vs having an image open on screen so it looks how it looked in camera (regardless of if the camera is calibrated to be accurate or not).

That's what I want, so it makes sense to open that image in Nikons software rather than in Photoshop and then have to play about with the RAW settings to get the contrast and colour back to how it looked in camera. I like to spend more time in front of the camera and less on the processing, as I'm sure most of us do.

That's all I was saying

As Clanthar said, it would be nice if various software RAW plugins had the correct profiles so that they interpreted the RAW files accurately to the individual model. But the latest ACR does seem to do a better job so that can only be a good thing and a step in the right direction

I actually remember way back when, during the D100 days, they updated Nikon View one time and the colours were really washed out when they did. They had to issue an update as it seems they managed to lose the profile for their own camera (and back then, there were only 3 DSLRs in the range! lol).

 

[Garbz]

adopt a set of camera manufacturer supplied standard input profiles (and that the camera makers would support this)

There's the problem with all of this. Canon and Nikon both sell RAW converters. Why would they give their "formula" for colour out to a competitor? Nikon actually went one step worse about 6 years ago which nearly made me switch to Canon when I went digital. They encrypted the whitebalance info in their RAW files making it nearly impossible for other RAW converters to work. Fortunately I can't remember why (hacking or consumer backlash) but it's not the case anymore.

The companies don't talk to each other. The fact is that the data is RAW, straight from the sensor. It is reverse engineered by various companies to make the cameras work. This is the reason why initially support for Compressed NEFs for Nikon wasn't available in some RAW converters.

I think you may be confusing the desire to have properly calibrated colours vs having an image open on screen so it looks how it looked in camera (regardless of if the camera is calibrated to be accurate or not).

If that's all that you're after and you're not willing to play with another RAW converter just once to make it's default look the way the camera will spit it out then Capture NX is exactly the program for you. I was just trying to say don't assume that another program can't give the same results, and don't assume that you need to do this more than once, and then with 2 clicks make it the default future import.

As Clanthar said, it would be nice if various software RAW plugins had the correct profiles so that they interpreted the RAW files accurately to the individual model. But the latest ACR does seem to do a better job so that can only be a good thing and a step in the right direction

Adobe actually introduced such camera profiles for ACR "Camera standards, Camera Vivid, Camera Portrait, etc", but IMO they suck. I'm not sure how they compare to the Nikon results since I haven't compared them side by side, so my idea of suck may just be prejudice against the result which I never did like to being with

 

[Silverpenguin]

If that's all that you're after and you're not willing to play with another RAW converter just once to make it's default look the way the camera will spit it out then Capture NX is exactly the program for you. I was just trying to say don't assume that another program can't give the same results, and don't assume that you need to do this more than once, and then with 2 clicks make it the default future import.

I've been using Photoshop since before my D100 days. And in the past I've tried (oh lord how-I-have-triiiiied) to get ACR to represent the colours how I would like them, but I just cannot get it to do so, something always looks 'not quite right'. And I know several togs who have all struggled with it as well. But as I said above, the latest ACR seems a huge improvement!

But, given you said...

There's the problem with all of this. Canon and Nikon both sell RAW converters. Why would they give their "formula" for colour out to a competitor?

It does make sense that it's been a struggle lol

Adobe actually introduced such camera profiles for ACR "Camera standards, Camera Vivid, Camera Portrait, etc", but IMO they suck. I'm not sure how they compare to the Nikon results since I haven't compared them side by side, so my idea of suck may just be prejudice against the result which I never did like to being with

lol fair enough :mrgreen:

P.S. Good debate!

 

[brianT]

If that's all that you're after and you're not willing to play with another RAW converter just once to make it's default look the way the camera will spit it out then Capture NX is exactly the program for you. I was just trying to say don't assume that another program can't give the same results, and don't assume that you need to do this more than once, and then with 2 clicks make it the default future import.

Good point, however I will change the settings in the camera for every image if it's appropriate for the shoot. So if I was using a non-Nikon RAW converter I'd have to 'tweak' each image. I try to get as much as I can "correct-in-camera", which means using all the camera settings. So when I come home and look at my photos I want them to be the same as shot. And, no I don't want to use jpg.

 

[Garbz]

Good point, however I will change the settings in the camera for every image if it's appropriate for the shoot.

Yeah so you're tied into the camera. For me it's the opposite. I don't trust my cheap $2 camera LCD, and I don't have the patience to work through camera menus to get it right "in camera" (a statement which doesn't really apply as such here, not to the extent as getting exposure and cropping right).

I guess it comes down to if you like your results and your workflow then stick with what you have. I don't like the results in camera, so I don't use those tools.

 

[Mike_E]

As far as converters go, for a newbie it doesn't get any easier than Nikon Imaging | Global Site | Capture NX 2 Trial Version - Download

I'd also tell you that Nikon's settings are usually pretty bland out of the camera so that you will have the greatest leeway in further processing them and if you wanted them to pop out of the camera you would have to search for the word "vivid" in the menu. Except that it's been six days since your one and only post that is.

 

[brianT]

Yeah so you're tied into the camera. For me it's the opposite. I don't trust my cheap $2 camera LCD, and I don't have the patience to work through camera menus to get it right "in camera" (a statement which doesn't really apply as such here, not to the extent as getting exposure and cropping right).

I guess it comes down to if you like your results and your workflow then stick with what you have. I don't like the results in camera, so I don't use those tools.

I still process my photos beyond the camera settings. The camera settings are just a starting point.