D300 and noise with TIFF convertions

<p>I just found out something that I have never noticed before. (Banging head against wall a couple of times...) I am using Nikon ViewNX2 to convert NEF files to TIFF files. Now I can see that a lot of noice is added to the files in the convertion process, and that goes for both the 8 bits and the 16 bits convertions. It is particularly noticeable at high ISO's in for example dark clothing.</p>

<p>So there is the reason for my complaint about D300 not being so good at high ISO values.....what do you know...</p>

<p>I hope someone can do something about this quite quickly. It can't just be my files that are being affected. Nikon, please?</p>

<p>If there's noise it's because it's already there. If you're using the occasion of writing out a TIF file to also boost the exposure (or otherwise impact the shadows, especially), you could of course be <em>increasing</em> the visibility of the noise. You are not <em>creating</em> any noise during the conversion process.<br /><br />More to the point, this has nothing whatsoever to do with TIFF files, except that it's possible you're using lossless (or no) compression, so you're preserving all of the details, including the noise that's already there. When you write out to a JPG, you're introducing smoothing and compression that can mask details (noise and "real" details alike).<br /><br />Remember that when you're looking at a RAW/NEF file in View NX (or anything else), you're never looking at the RAW data. You're looking at rendering based on it, generally in the form of the embedded (and thus smoothed, compressed) JPG - just like the JPG you're seeing on the camera's LCD. You can't actually look at the RAW file, per se.<br /><br />All of this is true of the D300 and <em>every other digital camera</em>. If you like the way JPGs look (because they've had noise reduction routines, smoothing, and compression applied), stick with those. Or, if you really want to work with TIFF files, do your own noise reduction after the fact when you render the final JPG you're going to actually display, print, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So there is the reason for my complaint about D300 not being so good at high ISO values.....what do you know...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You've said before that you think Nikon could have made the D300 better. Leaving aside that strange take on on things, relative to financial reality, any conclusion you've come to about high-gain shooting with cameras of that vintage aren't connected to TIFF rendering one way or the other.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hope someone can do something about this quite quickly</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon and dozens of third party software authors already <em>have</em> done something about it. It's called noise reduction. You already see it being applied to your JPGs, and you just have to do the same to your TIF-format files if you want to see it there, too.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You've said before that you think Nikon could have made the D300 better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I am very satisfied with my D300. Always have been. It is a good camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You already see it being applied to your JPGs, and you just have to do the same to your TIF-format files if you want to see it there, too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Everything else in the TIFF files is the same as in my corrected NEF files. Why would they suddenly introduce the noise in this step of the process? Maybe the sharpness is not the same, I have now noticed that the files loose sharpness too. I am not sure if this happens every time. What is the point of having a RAW converter if you suddenly loose some of the data in the convertion process? Is it technical impossible to get the same result?</p>

<p>In ViewNX2, click the RAW button in the upper left corner to preview how the actual rendered output will look. Until you press that button, you're actually looking at the in-camera stored preview JPEG, not the processed RAW (if you edit in ViewNX, it will automatically update, though). So, in case you do not edit in ViewNX2, that should help assessing the noi<strong>s</strong>e level.</p>

<p>And for somebody who complains excessively about noi<strong>s</strong>e, it is remarkable you spell the word wrong every single time you use it ;-)</p>

<p>Which RAW button? I don't have any in the upper left corner as far as I can tell? Noi<strong>s</strong>e it is :-)</p>

<p>I do have the button that shows the jpegs and the nefs separately, if that is what you mean. It is not located in the upper left corner, though.</p>

<p>I'm referring, Ann, to just the other day when you said you thought Nikon could have (but by implication, chose not to) made the the D300 "have had better high ISO properties (IMO)." You never did explain what you thought they should have done differently, or why that was your opinion of the decisions they made when they released that generation of camera.<br /><br />Regardless, Wouter is referring to this:</p>

<p>Woops, better screen shot:</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>You never did explain what you thought they should have done differently, or why that was your opinion of the decisions they made when they released that generation of camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wanted to upgrade to a camera with better high ISO properties, that is all, Matt. That sentence there does not make sense to me.</p>

<p>No such button here.</p>

<p>I found the button. It is not in the 'thumbnail grid' viewing. It shows in the 'image viewer' viewing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is not in the 'thumbnail grid' viewing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, because its while you're viewing the larger image that you have to decide if you want to see the JPG that's embedded in the RAW file, or a new on-the-fly rendering based on your current edits/changes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That sentence there does not make sense to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It didn't make sense to me, either, which is why I asked how you came to form the opinion that they (Nikon) could have done better "IMO" (I presume you're using "IMO" to mean "in my opinion" - perhaps it means something else, and that's where the problem is).<br /></p>

<p>View NX2 isn't particularly useful, even as a freebie. I use it only as an image viewer to check my Nikon photos against other viewers and editors, not for editing. It's slightly more convenient than Irfanview because meta data is visible in the sidebar.</p>

<p>If you want cleaner files, download trial versions of Noiseware, Noise Ninja or other utilities with good noise reduction capabilities. Better yet, download the trial version of Lightroom and try it for a month. You may not want to bother again with any other program, other than for extensive manipulations. Lightroom 4 offers excellent noise reduction and can faithfully render typical Nikon files as well as Nikon's own software.</p>

<p>And if you're seeing significant noise at anything below ISO 800, your monitor probably needs to be recalibrated.</p>

<p>Also, there's no particular need to convert to TIFF unless you're using an editing utility that cannot directly handle raw files, or as a lossless output file for printing. I stopped converting Nikon raw files to TIFF after switching from Noise Ninja's original standalone utility, which couldn't handle raw files.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Right, because its while you're viewing the larger image that you have to decide if you want to see the JPG that's embedded in the RAW file, or a new on-the-fly rendering based on your current edits/changes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I use the combined raw+jpeg viewing. I open a file, correct it and save it. I then convert it to TIFF. It is the NEF file that is being changed. Automatically. (Or to put it more correctly, it is not being changed, but it appears to be changed...)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm referring, Ann, to just the other day when you said you thought Nikon could have (but by implication, chose not to) made the the D300 "have had better high ISO properties (IMO)." You never did explain what you thought they should have done differently, or why that was your opinion of the decisions they made when they released that generation of camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In which discussion did I say that, Matt?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is the NEF file that is being changed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But while you're working with it, the embedded JPG (which is part of the NEF file, and the only way to "see" the NEF file) isn't updated - and you're usually just seeing the JPG that the viewer/editor has cached, anyway. So by explicitly hitting that toggle in ViewNX, you're telling the software that you don't mind making the trade-off between the speed of the cached/embedded preview file, and the more faithful, but CPU-intensive real-time rendering of the RAW file.<br /><br />Mostly, remember that you never really change the NEF file (other than by updating the embedded JPG and some rendering instructions that ride along, and some IP data). The RAW file's image data is never changed/edited, in the way that a TIFF or JPG is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In which discussion did I say that, Matt?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just on the 30th. <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bHOe">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bHOe</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is nothing wrong with the D300/D300s, except that they could have had better high ISO properties (IMO). They are capable of nailing fast action with good colors, and they use the current CLS system.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This sentence was written in the context of whether or not to buy a D300/D300s today as opposed to a new camera. Newer cameras do have better high ISO properties, well most of them, as far as I know.</p>

<p>The context being that Shun said the following:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would say the D300s is still using electronics that are two generations behind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just to make myself clear again:<br>

I AM VERY HAPPY WITH MY D300! LOL</p>

<p>That being said, I still want a newer FX body :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want cleaner files, download trial versions of Noiseware, Noise Ninja or other utilities with good noise reduction capabilities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do they work with TIFF files, Lex? I still will have the problem that my TIFF files are softer than my NEF files, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Better yet, download the trial version of Lightroom and try it for a month. You may not want to bother again with any other program, other than for extensive manipulations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know what Lightroom is capable of now, it is a long time since I have tried it. Does it do levels, curves, layers and filters?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And if you're seeing significant noise at anything below ISO 800, your monitor probably needs to be recalibrated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, don't think I do. But I will look out for it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, there's no particular need to convert to TIFF unless you're using an editing utility that cannot directly handle raw files, or as a lossless output file for printing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't print much. I need the TIFF files to be able to use Gimp. Nikon ViewNX2 isn't enough for the processing.</p>

<p>Noiseware and the standalone version of Noise Ninja work with TIFFs. I tried a Photoshop compatible plug-in version of Noise Ninja which worked with raw files, but I didn't care for the Photoshop workflow enough to buy it after the trial version expired. I haven't used either in over a year and don't recall whether the current versions work with camera raw files.</p>

<p>Lightroom 4 handles all basic one-layer photo editing tasks very well: curves or sliders, whichever you prefer; highlight and shadow clipping and levels; easy HSL adjustments for hue, saturation and luminance; noise reduction; sharpening; basic retouching using heal or clone brushes; and a few basic special effects, such as vignetting and faux film grain.</p>

<p>While LR4 doesn't do layers, it does offer very good selectively customizable control of brushs and graduated filters. These can all be re-edited or undone completely without affecting the global image adjustments underneath the brush/grad filter overlays.</p>

<p>If you prefer working with free or more affordable software like Gimp, but want more control over converting raw files to TIFF, try Raw Therapee as well. It's free/share/donor ware. Very powerful, maybe a bit more complex than it needs to be due to the large number of fine tuning controls. It could use an easy/quick mode for new users, but many of the advanced features can be ignored. The noise reduction utility in Raw Therapee is as good as Lightroom 4, with lots of room for fine tuning as desired. RT is a bit more resource intensive than Lightroom, but works okay on my low end laptop with some occasional lags.</p>

<p>Ann, you have to remember that the D300 came out in 2007 and the D300s which I have came out in 2009. When the D300 hit the market the high iso was as good as it gets for high end DX cameras. Cameras today have better high iso's, that's because of improvements to the imaging sensor and the cameras ability to process files better. I love my D300s but iso 3200 looks terrible compared to my D700. Is the D300s a dog? Absolutely not, it's as good and iso 100 -800 as the D700 and iso 1600 - 3200 and higher isn't that bad, it's just not as good as FX or newer DX camera bodies.</p>

<p>Mark, I agree with what you are saying, exept that I don't own a D700 (yet?). But you are confirming what I have been reading about it. That being said, the TIFF convertion makes the noise considerably worse than it appears to be on the NEF files. So I would have to try out another TIFF converter. Maybe I should give Raw Therapee a go. I wonder if that was the one I tried some years ago. I am not sure. If it is the one I tried, I couldn't figure out all the controls at that time. They were too complex for me. I didn't find the user interface to be self explanatory. And everything about a DSLR and post processing was new to me then. Maybe I would do better today.</p>

<p>It sounds like LR4 is basically doing the same things as it did when I tried it out, Lex. Is LR4 working with the NEFs, and can I convert the files to TIFFs from LR4?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That being said, the TIFF convertion makes the noise considerably worse than it appears to be on the NEF files.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ann: you're not listening. You <em >cannot see the NEF file.</em> Ever. You are either seeing the embedded JPG (which has been subject to in-camera processing, including noise reduction routines), or you're seeing your editing program's on-the-fly rendering of the NEF's data, using (again) considerable processing. The TIFF file is <em >also</em> a rendering of the RAW data, and either does, or doesn't have noise reduction applied (that part is up to you). And again, remember that the JPGs you're seeing - especially the embedded ones that are what you're thinking of as the NEF file when you go to look at it - have been subject to detail-suppressing lossy compression.<br /><br />If you're looking at these things using Nikon's software, remember that the default display is of the embedded JPG, and the default rendering is based on your in-camera settings, <em>including the noise reduction settings you've chosen</em>. </p>

<p>This is funny hehehehe!</p>

<p>I highly recommend Imagenomic's <a href="http://imagenomic.com/nw.aspx?f=features">Noiseware</a>. It is very good and they just came out with Version 5. </p>

<p>I only paid once several years ago. So far, the upgrades are free. </p>

<p>I highly recommend Imagenomic's <a href="http://imagenomic.com/nw.aspx?f=features">Noiseware</a>. It is very good and they just came out with Version 5. </p>

<p>I only paid once several years ago. So far, the upgrades are free. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Is LR4 working with the NEFs, and can I convert the files to TIFFs from LR4?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. So can Raw Therapee, 8 or 16 bit.</p>

<p>However there are disadvantages to converting from raw to TIFF, primarily in terms of a smooth workflow for multiple photos per session. This may not be a hindrance if you work only on one photo at a time and do extensive editing in a pixel level editor.</p>

<p>Regarding Gimp, I may be incorrect but check to see whether the Ufraw plug-in will enable working with DNG or other raw format. If so, it may be worth your while to convert your D300 NEFs to DNG rather than TIFF, especially if you foresee ever switching to Photoshop. Be sure to archive the NEFs, though, as some contests and most news media outlets may require the original camera raw files to determine whether edits were in conformance with their standards.</p>