Highest Quality Settings for the Nikon D200

[mbranciforte]

Hi everyone!

 

I wanted to know if someone could help recommend to me the best way to adjust

the settings on my D200 so that I completely maximize photo quality. I don't

quite understand the advantages of RAW and NEF formats yet and just want to

make sure that when I'm taking photos, I'm using the absolute best settings to

maximize image quality.

 

Thank you very much for your help and understanding!

 

All my best regards,

 

Michael

[phule]

If you're shooting RAW there's no reason to worry about the quality settings. The image is not compressed in any way that would remove information/data.

[franciscocpinto]

If you want the best quality, always use NEF (the Nikon RAW format), all other settings are mostly irrelevant. The RAW format has all the information captured by the sensor (12 bit color instead of 8 bit like JPEG or TIFF) unprocessed. On the D200 there's a setting for compressing RAW's. I can't see major differences between compressed and uncompressed, but I mostly use uncompressed RAW.

[ShunCheung]

Just shoot uncompressed RAW (NEF, Nikon Electronic Format). You can always worry about how to process it later on.

[joseph_smith3]

Shoot in uncompressed NEF or RAW and use the same techniques you did with film to get everything right in the camera at the time the exposure is made. The only thing I experimented with was my white balance setting for outdoor shots. I prefer to keep mine set at cloudy in that this setting gives me the look I like most of the time. With this setting I have minimal changes to do during processing. I shoot 99% of everything at 100 ISO, use a tripod, and try to make every pixel count. Joe Smith

[phule]

[[On the D200 there's a setting for compressing RAW's. I can't see major differences between compressed and uncompressed, but I mostly use uncompressed RAW]]

 

It's very likely the compression is lossless therefore, you won't see any differences.

[ShunCheung]

Nikon's RAW compression is not lossless. As far as I know, you lose a little bit in the highlight areas. However, in most situations the loss is not noticeable and therefore doesn't make any real difference, but that is in "most" situations.

[paul hofman - south africa]

Thanks for all of that. I shoot Raw for almost all of my work. Occasionally, I use the Fine setting, mainly for images I know will only be used for as "happy Snaps" or recordal.

 

Both give me good results. The most important comment made here is the one by Joseph stressing the attention to getting it right in the camera. IMO and from some of the work I have seen being presented in my town and country, there is too much reliance on photoshop and a lack of basic understanding on the basic elements of photography.

 

Anyway, thanks guys, I find all the input very interesting and helpful. Paul

[elliot1]

I know most will disagree, but I find virtually no difference in picture quality (sharpness) between RAW and JPG Basic.

 

There are minute differences in color intensity, mainly in the blacks, but overall, there is no picture quality. I have extensively tested the various settings with my previous camera, the D70, and my current camera, the D200 - same results.

 

I used to shoot RAW/BASIC but because the exposure is so accurate with the D200, I was never using the RAW files. I also have good post processing software that can easily adjust the exposure and white balance of JPG files, so I never use RAW anymore.

 

An interesting note... there is virtually no difference in picture quality from jpg basic to jpg fine, even though the jpg basic file is much, much smaller in size than jpg fine.

 

Don't believe the results? Don't blame you.. test it out yourself like I did.

[paul hofman - south africa]

Hi Elliot

 

I believe the difference in quality will be evident when you want to push the size of that image. Magazine publishing standard 29.7cm 300dpi. Most image banks will want somrthing around A3 300dpi in TIFF format. So I guess it boils down to what you are using that image for.

 

In addition, the integrity of the jpeg may (I stress may) break down over time. Raw is untouched, prestine and in effect your digital negative. Think film - lose negative/tranny - you lose the fundemental source of your image. Any further reproductions are thus automatically inferior, IMO.

 

Regards

[joseph_smith3]

I agree with what Elliot just posted. If you get it right in the camera, the results will look great whether you shot it in NEF or JPEG. The beauty of NEF is that you cana usually fix things if you do not get everything exactly right in the camera.

 

When I got my D 200, I shot in NEF/JPEG mode. I deliberately made exposure, white balance, etc mistakes to see what would happen to both images and what it would take to fix them, if they could be fixed. I use Nikon Capture to do my post processing. I do not use PS very much in that I rarely make prints. My tolerance for processing is about 30 seconds per image. If it takes longer than that, toss it.

 

The most obvious examples were storefronts with mixed lighting. Auto white balance did not produce good results, nor did picking one particular light source. In these situations, NEF was the only answer. Take it and tweak the Kelvin scale later.

 

Another example came from images I took last week in colorado. Aspens with fall colors with snow on the ground. Some of the NEF images required tweaking of exp comp to let in more light to lighten up the snow. Other snow shots required some minus exp comp. If I had applied my old exp comp rules from slide film days with JPEG images, I would not be able to make those minor adjustments. With NEF, I shot less images, not more, in that I do not have to take all of thoe extra shots for these tricky lighting conditions. If I shot JPEG, I would be bracketing, etc. IMO you cannot rely on looking at the LCD to determine if the image is really good enough in these critical lighting situations, like aspen leaves in the snow.

 

Another advantage of NEF is that if technology changes, you can process the RAW iamge again and make it better. You cannot do that with a JPEG.

 

That being said I can think of situations where JPEGs would work just fine. The key is to understand how to use your camera to get exactly what you wnat when you trip the shutter.

 

Joe Smith

[paul hofman - south africa]

Hi Joe

 

It was me that said that, Elliot said the other thing...ha ha..All that snow, it's making you blind mate.

 

Regards

[twmeyer]

"<i>The beauty of NEF is that you can usually fix things if you do not get everything exactly right in the camera."</i><p> Or, as you later implied, if the qualities you want in the print, didn't even exist in the scene that was photographed, or cannot be captured in one jpg exposure. Multiple conversions of nefs provide tonal and color possibilities completely unavailable from jpg captures. <p>I also suggest you compare nef and jpg for basic sharpness, and do it from simultaneously captured files. I routinely res my d200 images up to 17 or 18 inches at 300ppi and print them on a Epson 2200. I see a big difference when comparing jps and tifs from nefs that are from the same simultaneous capture and were processed with identical post production and resizing protocols. One big advantage to nefs over jpgs is they are rendered (by NX) as 16 bit rather than 8 bit files. Here's the main reason tonal gradations are smoother with better "edge" and cleaner color. You might not see these quality differences at 4x6 or 8x10, but at 12x18 and up, there's no question regarding the advantages of raw`capture... t<p>oh yeah, for maximum potential and the greatest control over your image quality, I suggest you never use any "Auto" settings.

[shineofleo]

Now the problem becomes 'how to adjust the RAW from camera'...

[elliot1]

You guys must have defective cameras! (attempt at humor only) I get virtually perfect exposures and white balance 99% of the time with my d200's.

 

When I had my d70, I shot RAW/jpg and used the RAW files to correct exposure and white balance issues, typically about 5% of the images I took. I shot the same way when I upgraded to my d200 but found I virtually never needed the NEF files because exposure and white balance were right on the money.

 

Keep in mind, when you open a NEF file, you have to convert it using setings you choose. If the file's expsoure and white balance are correct, you don't change the default settings. So you end up with an image virtually identical to the jpg file.

 

I am not suggesting anyone stop using NEF files. In response to the original question, I agree, RAW is best. I am just saying that for many, you can get and be perfectly satisfied with and get virtually identical results with JPGs.

 

The main reason for using a NEF file is to be able to correct exposure and white balance. Considering a jpg basic file is about 1/10th the size of a NEF, jpg format offers numerous advantages over NEF files (mainly in time savings). If you are getting proper exposure and white balance, you may not need to use NEF. If you shoot thousands of pictures at a time like I do, NEF files add hours and hours of time to post processing.

[paul hofman - south africa]

Hi Elliot,

 

Like I mentioned in previous correspondence, you must decide what you are going to do with that image or series of images. If your application is small scale- "6x4", web, recordal, then no problem on the jpeg. I would still always shoot fine not basic and run abatch to resize. If you are going to work that file, then Raw.

 

Regards

[jim hall]

Camera settings are important. But most instructional techniques that I have read talk about two things - RAW & exposure. Unlike film, use the histogram to "expose to the right side" in the histogram without clipping the highlights. There was an article (can't find it right now) that discusses that you have the most "data" available when you are "exposing to the right."

 

Good Shooting.

 

Jim

[mbranciforte]

Thank you all so much for your help and for taking the time to address my question. You have all been very helpful. I really appreciate it and I wish you all the best!

 

Warm regards,

Michael

[twmeyer]

"<i>I shot the same way when I upgraded to my d200 but found I virtually never needed the NEF files because exposure and white balance were right on the money...The main reason for using a NEF file is to be able to correct exposure and white balance.</i>" <p>This opinion is fine for you. You want your pictures to appear as you remember the scene at the time of the exposure. Great. Sometimes I do, too... but sometimes I want something different. That's when I use NEFs and NX. Make yourself happy, but yours is not the only way... t<p>(and my camera is not defective (attempt at humor only))