NEF/RAW, ACR and Picasa

[peterafle]

<p>Colleagues --<br>

I am wrestling with how best to handle RAW/NEF files with my current setup. I shoot NEF files with my D90, because I like having the flexibility to make WB and other adjustments in PP while maintaining maximum image quality. I use Google Picasa to organize and share my images, along with PhotoShop Elements 6.0 for more involved RAW processing and editing. I also use Picasa for basic image adjustments. I have calibrated my monitor using a Spyder3 Pro.<br>

However, I am puzzled by the following situation:<br>

1) I take a photo, and look at the image on the camera's LCD -- the image looks pretty good to me. Saturation, contrast, exposure, etc. all look like what I was trying for.<br>

2) I D/L the images to my computer. For an initial look I pull them up in Picasa (it is much faster to load and view images than Elements/Organizer is). What I see in Picasa matches what I see on my camera's LCD. All good so far. <br>

<em>[On a side note, anyone else out there use Picasa? I find I can do basic edits very quickly and easily in Picasa, and it has some really nice features, including a "filtered B/W" option that lets you simulate the effect of a colored filter on B/W film, selecting any color for the filter to five the desired effect...It reads and displays NEF files, and it's free.]</em><br>

3) BUT... when I open one of the NEF images through Elements, the images often look *<strong>dramatically</strong> * different, as if all the custom WB, contrast, saturation, and apparently even certain exposure comp data has been thrown away. Because the version of ACR that comes with Elements lacks many of the features of the full version that ships with CS4, my options for saving camera profiles are limited, and it takes me a considerable time to bring the image back into line with what I see in Picasa. Yes, I have the latest ACR update that includes the D90.<br>

Is there anything I can do about this? Why is Picasa -- a free downloadable program -- capable of processing all the settings data in my NEF files, while ACR can't/won't? Am I doing something wrong? Are my expectations out of line?<br>

I'd prefer not to have to shell out more $$, and CS4 would break my budget, but the limited version of ACR in Elements is really annoying. Would Capture NX be a better bet for me? Are there other options I haven't considered?<br>

Lots of questions, I know, but thanks in advance for any help you can offer.</p>

[peterafle]

<p>Here's a link to this weekend's shots from my daughter's soccer game. These are essentially un-altered from the camera, uploaded by Picasa directly. I'm not at home now, so I can't post a file for comparison straight from ACR, but I will try to do that tonight.</p>

[robert meier]

<p>I think what Picassa shows you is the JPEG, not the NEF file.</p>

[ryan_tsang]

<p>What the camera LCD shows you is the jpeg also, including any in-camera post processing (WB, picture modes like standard, neutral, vivid, sharpening, Active D-lighting, contrast). The RAW file won't have any of that. </p>

[howard_m]

<p>the NEF file *contains* a JPEG 'preview' image. That is what you're seeing.</p>

<p>The 'why does my RAW image su*k compared to the JPEG' is *THE* most asked question on the InterWeb.</p>

<p>if you dont want to spring for full Photoshop, you can get outstanding results from Nikon Capture NX2 ($$) or the free Nikon View NX utility although Nikon software tends to be 'clunky'. The View NX path may well be your best and least expensive bet. It will output a JPEG or TIFF and you can pull that into Elements or whatever.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>i used picasa until i got a D300 and it couldn't read lossless compressed NEF files. since i didn't have time to wait for picasa to get fixed (i don't think it happened until version 3), i grudgingly adopted ViewNX as my viewer/organizer. at first i didn't feel it was as easy to use as picasa, but in time i found that for NEF files, it was far better suited to the task. while its editing capabilities are limited, they are powerful -- exposure comp, WB, picture control. also sharpening, highlight and shadow protection and D-lighting HS. apply to one photo or a folder at once; ditto with output. if you need quick processing of RAW to TIFF or jpg, you can move a lot of images in a short time. it can be quirky, and new versions aren't automatically an "improvement," but it is well worth the time to get familiar with. of particular interest to the OP, its output is predictable and accurate.</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>>I think what Picassa shows you is the JPEG, not the NEF file.<br>

No, I think Picasa does include a sort-of raw converter, all automatic, but it normalizes exposure. It is NOT the same as what the camera shows. Try bracketing exposure; most shots will look the same, except for the blown ones.<br>

I think this is an issue of presets/defaults in ACR.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Peter,</p><p>This is a well-known issue. You might want to search on NEF ACR or RAW ACR or RAW Lightroom. Reportedly, the next version of Lightroom will improve raw processing to match the profiles of popular cameras.</p><p>Until then, consider using Nikon's View NX to view your RAW files as Nikon intended them to be viewed. The color/contrast/etc. will look as you expect them to. You can export a JPEG (or TIFF) to Picasa, and everything will look right. Or you can edit your file in PE6/ACR until it looks like the Nikon version.<br /><br />Sorry, there are no easy answers here, and we're all struggling with this issue. Welcome to the wonderful world of digital photography.</p><p>P.S. PS-CS4 is NOT going to fix this problem.</p><p> </p>

[peterafle]

<p>Thanks for the quick responses -- I guess I was under the impression that the NEF file also included in the EXIF data or elsewhere the color temp settings, saturation tweaks, etc. that went into making that preview JPEG, so that ACR or another viewer would start by displaying an image that looked like that when you opened the file. I guess I was mistaken. I'll also give ViewNX another try, and consider CaptureNX as well.<br>

PR</p>

[alan_olander1664878205]

<p>The NEF file does include all the metadata, but not all programs can read it.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Although there are Nikon-specific metadata fields that Adobe software etc. does not read, there's a more fundamental reason why your images look different. In-camera jpegs (and tiffs/jpegs output from ViewNX or Capture NX) use Nikon's own camera profiles. Third party raw converters, including Adobe's, use independently generated profiles that will give a significantly different 'look' by default. Recently, Adobe has started to provide alternative profiles that more closely match the Nikon look:<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/dng-profiles.shtml<br>

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles<br>

Not sure if these are accessible from ACR when used with Elements. If not (or if you still don't like the look), I'd agree that ViewNX is a good place to start:<br>

http://nikonimglib.com/nvnx/</p>

 

[pjahans]

<p>I still like to use Picasa for managing jpg albums and uploading to the web, primarily for friends and family. Picasa can read and display raw files, but I never found it reproduced them the same as the camera's jpg output. I hate ViewNX for it's clumsy UI and very slow performance -- but it does seem to closely reproduce the in-camera jpg processing. Editing raw files in Picasa then saving them resulted in jpgs. I used to do a lot of basic image post processing in Picasa (it's not bad for simple fast edits), however more recently I've come to appreciate the power and smarts built into Lightroom, particularly for handling raw format. All image editing is saved into the database or as xml files. You can create DNG, TIFF or JPG output formats if you wish.<br>

I now shoot only raw, import into Lightroom, organize/catalog, and select images into collections for further post processing. Even on my modest setup, Lightroom is pretty responsive, like Picasa but much, much more powerful. But of course, it's not free.<br>

Lightroom lets you control a little or or a lot, you can import your camera profile, you can target your final images for screen, web, or print (including support for printer color profiles) -- in short, it handles 95% of my needs. Rarely do I ever go to Photoshop and only for complex edits requiring layers or other advanced features. To upload pics online, I export jpgs from Lightroom then use Picasa to sync albums online.</p>