NEF in CS5

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I didn't know that I can open NEF file directly in Photoshop CS5. Till now I have been using DNG converter to convert NEF in DNG and opening the later in Photoshop.</p>

<p>If I can open NEF in CS5 for editing then why convert into DNG?</p>

<p>Pardon my ignorance, but please let me know the usage of NEF and DNG.</p>

<p>Thanks in anticipation.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Riz</p>

<p>The NEF files are Nikon's proprietary format for RAW files. DNG is a file conversion utility from Adobe. Many people think that Nikon's NEF files contain more info than files converted to DNG. Many people use DNG as they are concerned that NEF files might not be supported sometime in the future. They convert the files to DNG as they feel that Adobe will be around longer than Nikon (I guess). Some users convert NEF to DNG as they are completely hung up on anything Adobe comes out with. People also us DNG to convert RAW files to usable files when the camera manufacturer comes out with a new camera that creates files that Adobe cannot yet read. You most certainly do not need to convert to NEF to DNG but sometimes it might help as mentioned previously (or in other ways that I'm sure someone will mention).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I can open NEF in CS5 for editing then why convert into DNG?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here are a few reasons: <br>

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200709_adobedng.pdf<br>

And anytime now, we’ll have a word about the evils of DNG from Mr. K.... <G></p>

<blockquote>

<p>They convert the files to DNG as they feel that Adobe will be around longer than Nikon (I guess).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually if <em>both</em> disappear from the planet, those using DNG will be in better shape because anyone can decode the raw data for no cost and do so easily, where decoding the NEF would be costly since someone has to hack the proprietary format. </p>

<p>Good answer, Dan.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Some users convert NEF to DNG as they are completely hung up on anything Adobe comes out with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, agreed. And doing so is short sited in my opinion.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If I can open NEF in CS5 for editing then why convert into DNG?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a great question that most have been asking for the last couple years. There is none really, and for many it was a brief trend. There's more minus than pluses to converting to DNG. If you convert to dng, you are locked out of NX2. Today, it's not that great of software and you might not use it, but what about tomorrow and NX3 or NX6?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Actually if <em>both</em> disappear from the planet, those using DNG will be in better shape because anyone can decode the raw data for no cost and do so easily, where decoding the NEF would be costly since someone has to hack the proprietary format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is false and already makes no sense. The sky isn't falling. Raw data is super easy to backwards engineer and is why there's already more software choices (many free) that can open and use a NEF than there are for a dng. Becareful of terrorist words like "proprietary formats" as an argument in favour of converting to dng by those that fly Adobe's flag.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Raw data is super easy to backwards engineer and is why there's already more software choices (many free) that can open and use a NEF than there are for a dng.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess you yourself can do this? I suppose its so easy, that we all have to wait for support for new cameras and raw formats for months and months after release for our 3rd party converters for what reason? OK, its a conspiracy from Adobe and all other 3rd party converters. They can hack the new data format in an hour, but they wait months to release support because they have an agenda to push DNG (which produces zero income and a lot of engineering work). </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Becareful of terrorist words like "proprietary formats" as an argument in favour of converting to dng by those that fly Adobe's flag.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, so an NEF or CRW from a just released model isn’t proprietary? Anyone can access OUR data out of the camera? You’re being an idiot to suggest that the data isn’t proprietary. It most certainly is. The JPEG out of the camera, not at all. Its an open and fully supported file format. I can and others can access that data, <strong>the day the camera is released.</strong> The raw? Not so. Do you think about what you write about DNG or does this dribble just flow naturally from your keyboard? </p>

<p>See, Rizwan? But things are looking up. He usually includes name-calling while putting words in the mouths of people that he disagrees with.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Name calling, where? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. So it was the other Garrision K. who wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Speaking of making pennies, a pro Adobe mag and someone like Andrew that makes their living waving Adobe's flag, is the last resource I'd seek for an objective opinion on DNG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I pointed out, I’m not on the Adobe payroll not that facts about proprietary formats which you intent to continue to ignore again in this thread, makes a difference.<br>

The points above are facts. The day Nikon or Canon comes out with a new camera system, anyone can access the JPEG but no one but those manufacturers can access the raw (our raw) data. Every other raw converter on the planet has to hack the format for access. Yes or no? How then do you differentiate the difference between JPEG (an open format) and NEF/CRW etc, a proprietary format, or how on earth do you write with a straight face, nonsense like <em>Becareful of terrorist words like "proprietary formats" as an argument in favour of converting to dng by those that fly Adobe's flag? </em>So if the camera also output a DNG, it would or would not be as accessible from the get-go as that JPEG? Yes or no?<br>

Terrorist? Are you kidding? You should be ashamed of writing such dribble! <br /><br /><br>

Rizwan, don’t expect an answer from Mr. K. He’s all over the PhotoNet forums knocking Adobe (and Apple) or any other company he finds to his disliking despite capabilities anyone but himself finds useful and totally ignores any salient points presented. He will however provide tens of thousands of poorly generated Google searches to back up his so called claims. </p>

<p>Read the DNG article, look at the facts and see if they format is useful to you or not. In the end, unlike Mr. K (whoever he is, whatever he actually does for a living, its all non transparent), it makes zero difference to me if users stick with proprietary formats or use DNG. But understanding the actual differences is useful and the reason you will not see me and others make blunt and blatant simplistic statements of “fact” that Mr. K is so famous for on this forum. </p>

<p>I don't think either Nikon or Adobe will disappear overnight, and even if they do, the program on my computer that can convert one file type into the other will not. At the moment, I can do more with NEF than DNG. The moment I can do more (or things that are more useful to me) with DNG than NEF, I will convert my files (but will probably still keep a copy of the originals). I have no sentimental connection whatsoever to either Nikon or Adobe, whatever is more convenient is what I will go with.</p>

<p>Well said, Oliver. I'm also not interested in backing up both dng and nef and then having edits only applied to the dng as my nefs sit collecting dust. Its a total work-flow nightmare keeping both.</p>

<p>Rizwan, here's a recent thread that pretty much sums it all up in a balanced and adult manner with PN's most active and experienced photographers. As well as the great wisdom, keep track on the posts for those in favor and those against and clearly DNG, and Andrew, are 2:1 in a minority.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00X0B7</p>

<p>Heck, argumentum ad hominem included.</p>

<p>Thank you all for the valuable feedback. I have one question:</p>

<p>I opened the NEF in CS5, did adjustments. Now when I want to save a copy of NEF. But, Adobe is not allowing me to save in NEF. Its providing DNG, PSD, JPG, TIF. Why is that so. How would I preserve the original and keep (the adjusted one as) copy?<br>

Also please let me know what is the purpose of .XMP file that is created while saving (note I saved as DNG).</p>

<p>Looking forward,</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Riz</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think either Nikon or Adobe will disappear overnight, and even if they do, the program on my computer that can convert one file type into the other will not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well in my case they did twice. Take Kodak PhotoCD of which I had many. The Kodak Acquire module was a plug-in for Photoshop, it could not run Intel native and in fact, only under PPC chips or OS9. That means that as modern hardware becomes more common, I have to keep a very old machine, OS and version of Photoshop if I want to even access this <strong>proprietary</strong> data. Kodak as we all know is<strong> still in business</strong>. The same is true of the raw files from captures I took with Kodak DCS cameras and backs. They don’t make the software any more and what exists can’t run on modern hardware despite captures that are only 10-15 years old. Rendered TIFFs or even TIFFs from scans I had made in 1990, saved in the first version of Photoshop I can open today in CS5 and a slew of other applications. That’s the huge difference in proprietary raw files (data that isn’t rendered like PCD) and rendered images in an open and non proprietary file format. </p>

<p>I have film that’s vastly older than that which I can print or scan if I so desire. So it has nothing to do with a company evaporating, they can be quite healthy and producing new products. You can (and some have) been burned by proprietary software. The digital camera you purchase today should not hold you hostage in terms of getting to your data tomorrow. As raw converters improve, you can revisit rendering that data just as your skills in the darkroom improve you can reprint from your neg. But as I pointed out, an Mr. K will ignore, the day you buy that camera, you have access to the JPEG in probably hundreds of possible applications. You have one and only one that can access the raw data. And everyone else who wants to provide a method of accessing the data has to spend time and money while you wait for them simply because the camera manufactures force you into this silly proprietary data structure or don’t provide a simple switch on the camera to write the DNG if you the user wish. </p>

<p>Rizwan, you cannot save NEF from Photoshop or Camera Raw. The only application I'm aware (there could be others) that can save NEF is Capture NX / NX2<br>

Regarding the XMP file, it saves all the parametric editing that you do in Adobe Camera Raw, so they are companion to the corresponding NEF file. So all edits you perform in ACR are saved there and you keep the original NEF intact.</p>

<p>I don't get a dime from Adobe, Nikon or Canon , but believing that converting to DNG is "short sited (sic)" is as his wrong as his spelling of "short sighted".</p>

<p>"I opened the NEF in CS5, did adjustments. Now when I want to save a copy of NEF. But, Adobe is not allowing me to save in NEF."</p>

<p>That's right. Adobe's policy is not to touch your raw data. that is why raw development steps are written to .xmp format side car files. So if you want to save your NEF with those processing decisions to a new location you'll have to copy both files over. DNG does have an option for saving both the original proprietary raw format file along with the dng archival raw in the same envelope. The other thing in the .xmp side car files are other metadata changes like captioning, rating, etc.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=695896">Oliver Racz</a>: At the moment, I can do more with NEF than DNG.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can give us some examples of this?</p>

<p>Just a clarification, only parametric editings or raw development changes are written to the xmp file. Edits performed in Photoshop cannot be saved in xmp. You have to convert to another format.</p>

<p>My suggestion, once you edited your file in PS, save it in 16 bit tiff.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This is false and already makes no sense. The sky isn't falling. Raw data is super easy to backwards engineer and is why there's already more software choices (many free) that can open and use a NEF than there are for a dng. Becareful of terrorist words like "proprietary formats" as an argument in favour of converting to dng by those that fly Adobe's flag.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I am curious. Can you please tell me what third party programs can read NEF files? Thanks.</p>

<p>Adobe couldn’t save an NEF or a CRW if they wanted to (and they don’t), again, its a proprietary format. Nikon can’t save a PSD unless they pay Adobe to do so (its a proprietary format). </p>

<p>Rizwan, you could save the raw data as a DNG. But the idea is that proprietary raws are read only, the edits are saved as XMP which along with the raw data is used to render an image in something like a TIFF, JPEG etc. Adobe has zero problem writing the XMP data inside a DNG because its not proprietary. Just like ACR or Lightroom can write this data into a JPEG or TIFF. </p>

<p>As to “<em>I can do more with NEF than DNG</em>” its only true in the manufacturers processor and the do more is of questionable necessity (its good and necessary if you feel those features are). Again, there is proprietary metadata in the raw. The raw itself is just that, raw. The proprietary metadata may be used in the manufactures processor only to do something users may indeed find useful, like producing a close match of raw to the in-camera JPEG (because the proprietary process for both is known and described). Now say noise reduction or lack of lens correction, or Vibrance etc isn’t available in the manufacturers converter. Or you prefer the demosaicing in a 3rd party converter better. Well pick your converter, you are not going to get both. Either that proprietary metadata is worth sticking with the manufacturers converter or the 3rd party capability is more important and you can forget the advantage of the native NEF vs. DNG. Raw is raw. You pretty much pick the converter and render. IF your converter of choice, even a 3rd party converter can’t deal with DNG, then DNG is a deal breaker (although the company could support it with very small engineering cost and time, always ask). </p>

<p>About programs that read NEF Files:</p>

<p>There are several programs that can read the luminance data for each color channel in the NEF Files. It may require those third parties to do some reverse engineering to be able to do that, and it takes some time before those programs can handle files from newer cameras.</p>

<p>What has not been easy is to access or decode some metadata, like focus point, active lighting, etc.</p>

<p>Even the way the picture controls work is propietary. The camera profiles you find in the adobe applications are result of reverse engineering and trial & error.</p>

<p>Note: The previous information may not be 100% accurate</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I opened the NEF in CS5, did adjustments. Now when I want to save a copy of NEF. But, Adobe is not allowing me to save in NEF. Its providing DNG, PSD, JPG, TIF. Why is that so. How would I preserve the original and keep (the adjusted one as) copy?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In this case you would want to save the adjusted file as a PSD if you plan on working on it later, this will leave your original raw image intact, and give you a copy of the edited version you could go back to. Once you have made changes with Photoshop your file isn't in NEF format anymore.</p>

<p>NX2 shows me the focal point on an NEF file. DNG, I believe doesn't or at least I don't recall seeing how to get that. So there must be some loss of info in the conversion?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>NX2 shows me the focal point on an NEF file. DNG, I believe doesn't or at least I don't recall seeing how to get that. So there must be some loss of info in the conversion?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The loss is the proprietary metadata that one converter can use as I thought I made clear. If you find seeing the focal point useful in rendering the raw file, then by all means you want to retain that data and use that converter. In terms of the captured raw data, no, its again raw. DNG can’t use or read the proprietary metadata but then I don’t think any converter other than Nikon’s can either. <br>

Yes, there is loss of data in the conversion. The data is separate from the raw data and if the loss of this proprietary metadata is something you find useful, you will not want to convert to DNG (or use any other raw converter). </p>

<p>as noted, the DNG conversion (like any other 3rd party conversion) is not going to pickup oddball metadata like focus point.</p>

<p>I would think the proprietary metadata adds will remain in perpetuity as they give the camera manufacturers a few minor advantages if you use their s/w. [Music formats are also horrendous in sharing of tag information.]</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't get a dime from Adobe, Nikon or Canon , but believing that converting to DNG is "short sited (sic)" is as his wrong as his spelling of "short sighted".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The best you can do is a spelling mistake? I'm all ears, how am I wrong, Ellis?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Can give us some examples of this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nef's open in NX2. Dng's do not. You might want to NX2 or 3 or 5 down the road. We're in the infancy of digital, it's asinine to paint your self into a corner with dng.</p>

<p>The wise are waiting until DNG becomes a recognized ISO standard and then have the large manufactures like Nikon and Canon output as dng.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am curious. Can you please tell me what third party programs can read NEF files? Thanks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think they all do, Douglas? ACR, Raw Therapee, Bibble, Capture, Picasa, DxO, If you google 'raw converter' you can find more.</p>