Hi there, I have a few problems that I am hoping someone will be able to help me with. I have taken some photos in Raw and want to be able to develop them. The files are showing as Nef files, I went to my local camera shop and they said just change the name of them to jpegs. I have done this but they are tiny and unable to be uploaded on to snap fish to be developed. I am worried that I may not be able to get them developed now. Any advice would be much appreciated, I have over 300 pics from Christmas and my sons birthday and will be devastated if I have lost these! Thanks!
Problems developing Raw files
- Thread starter Finscar
- Start date
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
First of all, relax... If you have the .NEF files, you're in good shape. Second, the person that told you to rename them with ".jpg" is an idiot.
Now then, download View NX2 from Nikon. You will use this to open your .NEF files and convert them to JPG files which you can then upload to Snapfish, or whatever, to have prints made.
Also, you should probably go ahead and install this Microsoft Camera Codec Pack as well. It will just make life a little easier all the way around.
...
Last edited:
randyspann
Senior Member
Don't rename them! They should be .NEF ! What you need is software that can read a NEF file. Nikon has free software called ViewNX2, available on their website under support. Other alternatives: Lightroom from Adobe (not free), Apple Aperature (not free), Rawtherapee (free). There are others, just start with ViewNX2, it works!
randyspann
Senior Member
Horoscope Fish - Had an interesting thing the other day, my wife loaded some of my NEF files on her MacBook Pro, clicked on them and viewed without software install. Don't have any idea how that worked!
You cannot just change the file name to JPG. Raw NEF files do contain a small embedded JPG, sort of for thumbnail viewing, but what you have to do is to use some Raw software to process them and output usable JPG for other purposes. It is a conversion, Raw to JPG, but it is more than a conversion. Raw files have not been processed (white balance, etc), and they must be processed and then converted. It is easy, and good, and fun, but it is NOT zero work.
Adobe Lightroom is one very popular Raw editor, which you can buy.
Nikon offers a free ViewNX2 which will do it too.
Nikon | News | Free download of ViewNX 2 available today
ViewNX2 is rather minimal (it is free) but it will do the job. It just does not provide great convenience.
One other solution (definitely NOT recommended - mentioned only to point out its difference). Some simple and Free photo editor programs (for example, Irfanview or Faststone) can read Raw NEF files, and then you can edit and save as JPG. However, there is a huge difference, in that they are NOT raw editors, and they do not offer the advantages of Raw (which is lossless editing, great and easy camera oriented tools, etc). But it is a way to get something.
Nikon ViewNX2 would be a much better try (free), and Lightroom probably best of all (not free, but very popular).
Adobe Lightroom is one very popular Raw editor, which you can buy.
Nikon offers a free ViewNX2 which will do it too.
Nikon | News | Free download of ViewNX 2 available today
ViewNX2 is rather minimal (it is free) but it will do the job. It just does not provide great convenience.
One other solution (definitely NOT recommended - mentioned only to point out its difference). Some simple and Free photo editor programs (for example, Irfanview or Faststone) can read Raw NEF files, and then you can edit and save as JPG. However, there is a huge difference, in that they are NOT raw editors, and they do not offer the advantages of Raw (which is lossless editing, great and easy camera oriented tools, etc). But it is a way to get something.
Nikon ViewNX2 would be a much better try (free), and Lightroom probably best of all (not free, but very popular).
Last edited:
You should rename them back to be NEF again. Renaming does not do anything in the file (did not hurt or change anything inside, but did not help anything either). The right name just makes it be compatible with the proper software. The name should be .NEF and that should be fine.
Magic!
I think you're confusing what a RAW file actually is. White balance etc. has already been applied in camera when you took the photo. Whatever settings you had set in camera that has been applied to the RAW file. Nikons RAW file format is called NEF and all this means is that it is exactly what your camera took with no data loss. The file has not been compressed in any form and contains all of the original information from when you took the picture and this includes white balance, exposure, contrast, saturation etc. What you do in post processing is not adding this stuff to the image, but instead, correcting for any errors that you made in camera when the picture was taken. This is why not all pictures need to be processed. You do not have to post process a RAW file if it is to your liking. However, when converting to JPEG there will be data loss. There can be very little data loss if you convert to a high quality JPEG or a lot of data loss if it's low quality.
Your wife's MacBook Pro has a program called Preview. It lets you open and view just about any file, from RAW camera files to PDFs, and just about any other file type. It's a very handy program that comes with OS X. It has spoiled me because, when I use my work laptop, which runs Win 7, I forget that it does not have that same "preview" application.
? Sorry, I really don't want to get into this.
Do you even shoot Raw? Which Raw software? We have extremely different views about that. I cannot imagine your view.
All lines are wrong, but this line "Whatever settings you had set in camera that has been applied to the RAW file." is 180 out and absolutely incorrect. Raw is Raw, and absolutely zero camera settings have been applied. Raw is Raw.
Most settings probably are in the Exif data, but are not applied to the Raw image. Raw is Raw.
There are two cases that might be causing confusion.
One, there is an embedded JPG in the Raw file, and that JPG does have the camera settings performed on it. This allows the camera to show the histogram, and to show the JPG image on the camera rear LCD, since Raw is not usable for either purpose. The camera settings however are not necessarily the same as we will do later in raw. We quickly discover when we open the Raw file that we do not have those JPG settings. Raw is Raw.
And Nikon Raw software is one case that might be causing confusion, probably most likely here ?
To most Raw editors, this Exif data means largely "unavailable" and we are on our own to process the Raw file (not really any disadvantage, it is why we shoot Raw, to make our own settings later, after we can see the image, to know what it needs).
Nikon Raw software is the exception. It knows how to access the Nikon Exif, and yes, Nikon can add most of the camera settings at the later time (if desired). Only true of Nikon Raw software however (which IMO has other disadvantages).
Adobe Raw for example, can attempt to retrieve White Balance (only WB, and just somewhat at that), but no other camera settings are retrieved from Exif.
However, even WB is a problem, because color temperature degrees K is NOT in the Exif. There is color data but which is Nikon proprietary. Adobe makes a good try at it, but it is never right on. It is necessary (at least better) to do White Balance ourself in post processing. Even if we could get WB, the camera WB is crude and most likely wrong (does not match the light present). This is why we shoot Raw.
Sorry, but that is the extent that I care to argue the point. Just not worth it.
I will try to answer any questions, and help any way I can, but I don't care to spend time debating this notion.
Last edited:
? Sorry, I really don't want to get into this.
Do you even shoot Raw? Which Raw software? We have extremely different views about that. I cannot imagine your view.
All lines are wrong, but this line "Whatever settings you had set in camera that has been applied to the RAW file." is 180 out and absolutely incorrect. Raw is Raw, and absolutely zero camera settings have been applied. Raw is Raw.
Most settings probably are in the Exif data, but are not applied to the Raw image. Raw is Raw.
There are two cases that might be causing confusion.
One, there is an embedded JPG in the Raw file, and that JPG does have the camera settings performed on it. This allows the camera to show the histogram, and to show the JPG image on the camera rear LCD, since Raw is not usable for either purpose. The camera settings however are not necessarily the same as we will do later in raw. We quickly discover when we open the Raw file that we do not have those JPG settings. Raw is Raw.
And Nikon Raw software is one case that might be causing confusion, probably most likely here ?
To most Raw editors, this Exif data means largely "unavailable" and we are on our own to process the Raw file (not really any disadvantage, it is why we shoot Raw, to make our own settings later, after we can see the image, to know what it needs).
Nikon Raw software is the exception. It knows how to access the Nikon Exif, and yes, Nikon can add most of the camera settings at the later time (if desired). Only true of Nikon Raw software however (which IMO has other disadvantages).
Adobe Raw for example, can attempt to retrieve White Balance (only WB, and just somewhat at that), but no other camera settings are retrieved from Exif.
However, even WB is a problem, because color temperature degrees K is NOT in the Exif. There is color data but which is Nikon proprietary. Adobe makes a good try at it, but it is never right on. It is necessary (at least better) to do White Balance ourself in post processing. Even if we could get WB, the camera WB is crude and most likely wrong (does not match the light present). This is why we shoot Raw.
Sorry, but that is the extent that I care to argue the point. Just not worth it.
Sorry my mistake, I guess I confused the fact that programs like photoshop and lightroom attempt to load the in camera white balance settings when the image is initially displayed on the computer. I did not know that it wasn't actually applied to the file itself. Thanks for clearing that up.
Sorry my mistake, I guess I confused the fact that programs like photoshop and lightroom attempt to load the in camera white balance settings when the image is initially displayed on the computer. I did not know that it wasn't actually applied to the file itself. Thanks for clearing that up.
Adobe Raw does try to retrieve white balance from the Exif (calls it As Shot WB), but Nikon does not make that easy. There was the day (less than ten years ago, era of first CLS models, like D70) that Nikon encrypted Exif WB and declared it their private property and off limits for any access but Nikon. They were going around and around with Adobe, and had to reconsider this, and they relented, and it is not encrypted now, but Nikon still does not release information about how to interpret it, so it is all backyard reverse engineering. It is sort of a guess. I love the cameras, but Nikon does several things I could do without.
But so what? The camera WB setting probably was not close to precise anyway.
You will want to give WB closer attention. There are many colors of flash, or or daylight, or or incandescent, and the camera's "one size fits all" settings just can't do it well enough. We do have to deal with WB anyway. There are a few ways, but best hint I can offer: Get a good white card for the white balance tool if you don't have one. WhiBal brand is a good one, but relatively expensive, probably overkill, but more than fine. A small one seems sufficient to me. The Porta Brace White Balance card, $5 at B&H, is just about as good in practice, more than good enough. Not fancy, just a known color. For only $5, we might quibble about the last couple of degrees K
but it really simply does not matter that much. WB definitely matters, but we are looking for hundreds of degrees K, and the $5 card is more than fine too. Even lots of white things naturally found in our pictures work pretty well, far better than nothing or the camera settings. It is a pretty easy process.I don't much bother with the white card for snapshots and routine sunlight stuff (only for more important or difficult stuff). There are tricks we can do with white things found naturally in the images, and we also develop our skill to handle it ourselves. Or we can use the white card once for a living room bounce flash session, and just use the same degrees K numbers for reference in similar settings next time. Involves some judging by eye, but the card helps teach us what's what. For sure, we can at least see what correct color looks like.
But for critical studio flash work, the white card is extremely worthwhile, mandatory, and so simple. See White Balance Correction, with or without Raw. And you possibly might be interested in Why shoot Raw?But this lack of setting stuff should NOT be considered any disadvantage. We do need to get exposure into the ballpark, but otherwise, there is no setting in the camera (done before the picture is taken, perhaps before we even arrive to see the scene, perhaps last year sometime) ... no setting in the camera that cannot be done better by us after we actually see the image, and KNOW what it needs.
And judge how it worked. Raw allows us to do it, with full range, and with easy camera oriented tools. These are the beauties of Raw. And also the lossless editing, we can change it many times, back and forth, losslessly (no compounded mess). Good stuff.
Last edited:
Adobe Raw does try to retrieve white balance from the Exif (calls it As Shot WB), but Nikon does not make that easy. There was the day (less than ten years ago, era of first CLS models, like D70) that Nikon encrypted Exif WB and declared it their private property and off limits for any access but Nikon. They were going around and around with Adobe, and had to reconsider this, and they relented, and it is not encrypted now, but Nikon still does not release information about how to interpret it, so it is all backyard reverse engineering. It is sort of a guess. I love the cameras, but Nikon does several things I could do without.
But so what? The camera WB setting probably was not close to precise anyway.
There are a few ways, but best hint I can offer: Get a good white card for the white balance tool if you don't have one. WhiBal brand is a good one, but relatively expensive, probably overkill, but more than fine. A small one is sufficient. The Porta Brace White Balance card, $5 at B&H, is just about as good in practice, more than good enough. Not fancy, just a known color. For only $5, we might quibble about the last couple of degrees K
I don't much bother with the white card for snapshots and routine sunlight stuff (only for more important or difficult stuff). There are tricks we can do with white things found naturally in the images, and we also develop our skill to handle it ourselves. Or we can use the white card once for a living room bounce flash session, and just use the same degrees K numbers for reference in similar settings next time. Involves some judging by eye, but the card helps teach us what's what. For sure, we can at least see what correct color looks like.
But this lack of setting stuff should NOT be considered any disadvantage. We do need to get exposure into the ballpark, but otherwise, there is no setting in the camera (done before the picture is taken, perhaps before we even arrive to see the scene, perhaps last year sometime) ... no setting in the camera that cannot be done better by us after we actually see the image, and KNOW what it needs.
Why does Nikon make such a fuss about the white balance data? Does it benefit them to be so secretive about it? Thanks for the tips though, I'll have to pay closer attention to the white balance during post processing then. I assumed as shot was what I meant to capture and was correct but I didn't know it could be off.
I don't know why, just did. They said protecting trade secrets, but they sell Raw software, this could have made theirs more important I suppose. Inscrutable.
Photographers sort of thought they owned their own images though.There is lots to read about that episode
nikon encrypted white balance - Google Search
And just play with the White balance some, esp with the white card to know what's correct to compare, and it soon becomes much easier.
I don't know why, just did. They said protecting trade secrets, but they sell Raw software, this could have made theirs more important I suppose. Inscrutable.
There is lots to read about that episode
nikon encrypted white balance - Google Search
And just play with the White balance some, esp with the white card to know what's correct to compare, and it soon becomes much easier.
That makes a lot of sense. Encrypt it so your software becomes the proprietary software and you make more money. Greed at play.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification. This post should probably get back to the original topic at hand.
1. rename the files back to .NEF
2. Download ViewNX2 from the Nikon site
3. Open the Files in ViewNX2 and convert them to JPEG if you do not want to do any further processing.
In case you want to process the RAW files, you have a lot of options. If you have never used any such program, then you can use the Nikon's own software Capture NX-D. The beta version is free and, at least for me; works beautifully. Here you will be able to manipulate the 12/14 bit image data, recover shadows, blown highlights (to some extent), reduce noise, correct distortions and a whole lot of other things. Nikon | Capture NX-D
2. Download ViewNX2 from the Nikon site
3. Open the Files in ViewNX2 and convert them to JPEG if you do not want to do any further processing.
In case you want to process the RAW files, you have a lot of options. If you have never used any such program, then you can use the Nikon's own software Capture NX-D. The beta version is free and, at least for me; works beautifully. Here you will be able to manipulate the 12/14 bit image data, recover shadows, blown highlights (to some extent), reduce noise, correct distortions and a whole lot of other things. Nikon | Capture NX-D
Englischdude
Senior Member
I can do that on my linux ltop also. Just had to install a free library which will enable to browser to preview .NEF files.
Viewer (Mac) will open nef files if the software has been updated (newer model of cameras are not always covered). You can also save them in Tiff of jpeg if you wish.