Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 356330" data-attributes="member: 12496">I've never tried the uncompressed file, but I did buy a faster computer for Raw.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; Compression is a computer operation on every pixel, it can take more time.&nbsp; And the megapixels are growing too.All this stuff has been endlessly debated, Nikon NEF compression for several years, and 8/16 bit editing for much longer.&nbsp; Seemingly not so much anymore, I think everyone is tired of it.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />My own opinion is that the consensus is that there is very little quality difference between Nikon Compressed and Uncompressed NEF files, and in 12 and 14 bit data files.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can't say I have ever seen it (lossy and lossless), so I don't worry with it.&nbsp; Others seem to think &quot;What if it might matter&quot; and they plan accordingly.&nbsp;&nbsp; Compression is not necessarily a bad word, and the lossy NEF compression is NOTHING like JPG, better than even the better JPG.&nbsp; Raw is really important of course (for the benefits it offers), but I am happy with 12 bit lossy NEF files.The 16 bit thing was back in the later 1980s, when scanners became inexpensive, and everyone had one like they have digital cameras today.&nbsp; It is hard to show clear evidence, but I do think 16 bit editing is theoretically good for the extreme tonal shifts, without any reason to risk doing without it.&nbsp; Scanners and cameras all do it, and Raw software of course.&nbsp; But after we have done that step, 8 bits is plenty.&nbsp; We have no way to see more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 356330, member: 12496"] I've never tried the uncompressed file, but I did buy a faster computer for Raw. :) Compression is a computer operation on every pixel, it can take more time. And the megapixels are growing too. All this stuff has been endlessly debated, Nikon NEF compression for several years, and 8/16 bit editing for much longer. Seemingly not so much anymore, I think everyone is tired of it. :) My own opinion is that the consensus is that there is very little quality difference between Nikon Compressed and Uncompressed NEF files, and in 12 and 14 bit data files. I can't say I have ever seen it (lossy and lossless), so I don't worry with it. Others seem to think "What if it might matter" and they plan accordingly. Compression is not necessarily a bad word, and the lossy NEF compression is NOTHING like JPG, better than even the better JPG. Raw is really important of course (for the benefits it offers), but I am happy with 12 bit lossy NEF files. The 16 bit thing was back in the later 1980s, when scanners became inexpensive, and everyone had one like they have digital cameras today. It is hard to show clear evidence, but I do think 16 bit editing is theoretically good for the extreme tonal shifts, without any reason to risk doing without it. Scanners and cameras all do it, and Raw software of course. But after we have done that step, 8 bits is plenty. We have no way to see more. [/QUOTE]

Verification