Shooting RAW

coolbus18

coolbus18

Senior Member
So after years of habit--shooting in jpeg, I've finally gone to RAW and convert in NX2. I realized that for me it was the difference of listening to elevator music or a symphonic orchestra. So to those of you that are as noob as me and haven't tried it, go on! ;)
_DSC7023.jpg
from RAW to jpeg.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
You just have to remember that you must do sharpening and post processing if you shoot in RAW. That is not hard to do and it can make your photos much better once you learn how to process them.
 
Michael J.

Michael J.

Senior Member
I did this step one by myself and I feel good that I did it.

I started some photos RAW plus JPEG Fine. Loaded them in my LR and I tried to pp the RAW file to similar look as the JPEG. This was the way I learned (still learning) pp besides watching VDO's.

I tried JPEG pp as well but never got satisfied anymore since the RAW opened lots of possibilities creating a photo.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
siamthai1 said:
I did this step one by myself and I feel good that I did it.

I started some photos RAW plus JPEG Fine. Loaded them in my LR and I tried to pp the RAW file to similar look as the JPEG. This was the way I learned (still learning) pp besides watching VDO's.

I tried JPEG pp as well but never got satisfied anymore since the RAW opened lots of possibilities creating a photo.
Click to expand...

I liked the post, but still, we can also say that the camera raw settings are very similar to the camera settings. Raw is oriented to what cameras do and need. Same concepts (better than photo editors). So we can set the white balance, and set the color profile (like Vivid) there, the same as setting them in the camera. The big difference is we can see it then, and we know what we are doing, because we can see what the settings do, and can see it looks like we want it to look. In worst case, we can try a few things and see which is best.

Correction of exposure and cropping and leveling tilt is just done by eye, until it looks best. The raw tools are very easy and good and fast.

So I'm claiming, raw should not be any big deal, just do what looks right.
 
N

NIKONIAN_DREAMWEAVER

Senior Member
Don Kuykendall said:
You just have to remember that you must do sharpening and post processing if you shoot in RAW. That is not hard to do and it can make your photos much better once you learn how to process them.
Click to expand...

Not if you use Nikon's software. It will render all the in-camera settings exactly as you set them in the D7100. So, you can set your sharpening the way you want it in-camera, and shoot RAW, and bring it into Capture and then save as JPEG and you'll get exactly what you set your camera for.
 
N

NIKONIAN_DREAMWEAVER

Senior Member
coolbus18 said:
So after years of habit--shooting in jpeg, I've finally gone to RAW and convert in NX2. I realized that for me it was the difference of listening to elevator music or a symphonic orchestra. So to those of you that are as noob as me and haven't tried it, go on! ;)
View attachment 152123
from RAW to jpeg.
Click to expand...

Nice pic. I came to the same conclusion a few years ago. RAW is definitely the way to go. I had a great family picture that came out underexposed because I didn't wait long enough to let my speedlight refresh between shots. Because I shot RAW, I was able to fix that important picture. I looked great when I was done. In JPEG, I wouldn't have been able to fix it to my satisfaction.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
NIKONIAN_DREAMWEAVER said:
Not if you use Nikon's software. It will render all the in-camera settings exactly as you set them in the D7100. So, you can set your sharpening the way you want it in-camera, and shoot RAW, and bring it into Capture and then save as JPEG and you'll get exactly what you set your camera for.
Click to expand...

But that's pretty much the problem (same as the JPG problem). The settings we made in the camera a few months ago have no bearing about the exact scene in front of us right now. Even if we try to set them each time, the camera white balance settings are rather simple (crude, offering only a few fixed possibilities), but the scene lighting can vary all over. There are many colors of incandescent and fluorescent, and flash color varies with power level. Even daylight includes bright direct sun, sunset, cloudy, etc. One size does not fit all.

So the huge advantage of raw is to be able to forget about the camera settings (except exposure and focus of course), and simply make them after we can see the image, when we can know what is needed, and know what we are doing. :)

Auto WB is poor accuracy, but it is an approximation, and I use it with raw, just to see the rear LCD preview a bit better than not. It does not affect the raw data, but the rear LCD and the histogram are based on the camera settings from a JPG image also embedded in the raw file. But while knowing that it really doesn't matter what the WB was, I'll fix it right later, after I can see it. There are easy ways to approximate WB closely, and also easy ways to do it precisely. White Balance Correction, with or without Raw

The Nikon software does know how to access the camera settings in the Exif (of limited value, see above), but it loses the Adobe advantages of working on several/many/all of the images in the same one click (if in the same lighting). That's a very big deal for me. It really speeds things up.

I would offer Why shoot Raw? for anyone interested... esp the video near the top there.
 
Last edited:
N

NIKONIAN_DREAMWEAVER

Senior Member
WayneF said:
But that's pretty much the problem (same as the JPG problem). The settings we made in the camera a few months ago have no bearing about the exact scene in front of us right now. Even if we try to set them each time, the camera white balance settings are rather simple (crude, offering only a few fixed possibilities), but the scene lighting can vary all over. There are many colors of incandescent and fluorescent, and flash color varies with power level. Even daylight includes bright direct sun, sunset, cloudy, etc. One size does not fit all.

So the huge advantage of raw is to be able to forget about the camera settings (except exposure and focus of course), and simply make them after we can see the image, when we can know what is needed, and know what we are doing. :)

Auto WB is poor accuracy, but it is an approximation, and I use it with raw, just to see the rear LCD preview a bit better than not. It does not affect the raw data, but the rear LCD and the histogram are based on the camera settings from a JPG image also embedded in the raw file. But while knowing that it really doesn't matter what the WB was, I'll fix it right later, after I can see it. There are easy ways to approximate WB closely, and also easy ways to do it precisely. White Balance Correction, with or without Raw

The Nikon software does know how to access the camera settings in the Exif (of limited value, see above), but it loses the Adobe advantages of working on several/many/all of the images in the same one click (if in the same lighting). That's a very big deal for me. It really speeds things up.

I would offer Why shoot Raw? for anyone interested... esp the video near the top there.
Click to expand...

I find that, on the D7100, auto white balance is excellent. For me anyway. I don't fuss with it at all.
Actually, the Nikon Capture NX2 software can do batch/mass changes very well. I prefer to work on
one picture at a time though, and give individual attention to each image.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
NIKONIAN_DREAMWEAVER said:
I find that, on the D7100, auto white balance is excellent. For me anyway. I don't fuss with it at all.
Actually, the Nikon Capture NX2 software can do batch/mass changes very well. I prefer to work on
one picture at a time though, and give individual attention to each image.
Click to expand...

Fuss is about the right word, WB can be difficult. The tools are easy, but without help, sometimes it's hard to know what's right. Which is really not the same thing as not caring what's right. :)

I'm thinking maybe you are just not very critical of Auto WB yet. :) All it can know is what actual colors it sees in the scene, but it has no way to know anything about the light, or what color they should be. But if there is a wide range in an average scene, including white, it can often get close then. Other times, it can't. Easily fooled, like a picture of all green foliage... My notion is (maybe excepting bright direct sun), that WB generally always needs human attention.

I would suggest getting a good White Balance card (Porta Brace brand, $5 at B&H), and try including it in a few scenes (try a few different lighting situations, outdoors, and incandescent and flash, etc), and then clicking it with the WB tool, to see the difference that correct WB can make (compared to Auto or other camera settings). You only include it in the first test shot, and correct the rest in the same light from it.

My only experience with Capture NX is that it came free with a D300, so I tried to like it once. Just couldn't though, Adobe is just too strong. Others seemed to like Capture, but I concluded they just didn't know better. :) (this obviously reflects my strong bias). Don't have to overtly copy settings to other files (extra steps) - you can, but you can also simply select all the files and then make the setting. This is wonderful when you have a hundred pictures in a studio session, all in the same light. You don't want to repeat the same work a hundred times.

Capture was created by NIX, which was bought by Google, and so no more Nikon product. However, Nikon has a new one now, Capture NX-D. I don't know who makes it, but it is free, as of now.
Nikon Capture NX-D RAW Processing Software | Software for Nikon Digital Cameras
 
Last edited:
J

J-see

Senior Member
bikeit said:
Does it give better colours and quality, sorry but only just got my Nikon D7100 and am looking at shooting Raw.
Click to expand...

You won't see a drastic difference until you start pulling shadow detail in post.

Here's an article that has done some comparison.

NX101 -- Capture NX - 12-bit vs 14-bit NEF

Unless you need to save space for some reason, always maximise the quality of your NEF. You can always lower the quality afterwards. On average you'll be increasing exposure more in post than you'll be decreasing it and that's when 14 bit makes the difference.

Just try it; shoot an underexposed shot at 12 and the same at 14 and then process them both identical in post. You'll notice if it is worth it.
 
Last edited:
coolbus18

coolbus18

Senior Member
14 bit. And I too use AW1 and then make adjustments to the setting. So I know when I'm using a 180 f/2.8 and a TC-201 that my exposure will be dark on the metering but I keep being amazed at how much can be regained (I'm still a newbie to this). And yeah I do adjust in camera settings. I'm still learning and experimenting but thanks to many here I've learned a ton.

_DSC7905.jpglike this one
 
Top