Nef vs JPEG files

[gk_sullivan]

<p>Newbie here, trying to understand quality differences between NEF and JPEG files.<br>

I took a picture today, saved it as NEF + basic JPEG. Camera is D40x with 18-135 lens. Camera was on a tripod, aperture mode set at F11.<br>

Brought the pics up while still in the camera with ViewNX and quickly flipped from one to the other. For the life of me I can't see any difference in the two at any magnification or area of the picture. The histograms were exactly the same, color for color.<br>

I must be missing something here. Shooting RAW is supposed to be better or have I got something mixed up?</p>

<p>Thanks, Gael</p>

[elliot1]

<p>ViewNX applies the in-camera settings to the NEF file so it will be identical to the JPG .The NEF file allows you to make adjustments to the image that would not be possible to the JPG file, especially if the exposure or white balance is incorrect. There are many, many threads on Photo.net about the advantages of RAW vs JPG></p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>You can compare a NEF with a expose udeveloped film, so you can adjust a lot of things(exposure, contrast etc) in post processing, but you need more than ViewNX, something like Capture NX2.</p>

 

[ken_kuzenski1]

<p>You'll find a lot written on this, Gael. Short version, MHO: If conditions are perfect and you're not planning much processing afterward, shooting a JPG is usually fine. If the lighting or other conditions are bad, and you are going to need to do a lot of editing to get a photo out of your shot, then you'll be better off shooting raw and editing the NEF file. Good luck!</p>

 

[gary payne]

<p>You will not see any difference between RAW and JPG on your camera viewer, or in View NX. The difference is much to involved to discuss here, but basically, it is simply that the RAW files, saved in your camera and your computer, allow you to have access in post processing to ALL the basic data captured at exposure for further processing and conversion, ultimately, to a JPG file for viewing. A JPG file as saved on your camera, or computer, has already been converted to JPG, and as a result, some of the data in the original RAW file has been lost. Your ability to post-process a JPG is greatly reduced, as contrasted to the origianal RAW file. If you use a post processing program such as NIKON NX2, PhotoShop or others, your RAW allows you to adjust such things as white balance, exposure, picture control options, noise reduction, etc. that are unavailable when your process a JPG. Play with your post processing program and your RAW files and the difference will become evident.</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>The search function is your friend.</p>

[whiggy]

<p>I am not sure about D40x, but if I shoot RAW with my D40 and then simply convert to JPEG using ViewNX, without making any adjustments the images contain more detail (are sharper). I am not making this up - I tested it on 3 separate ocasions, 3 different days (just couldn't believe it, so had to do it again...then once more), trying different lenses, processed on different computers, used tripod/timer every time, same ISO, shutter speed, aperture etc. i.e., did everything to eliminate any other variables... Every time the RAW images came out sharper, more detailed. I think ViewNX has more processing power than the processor(s) in the D40 camera.<br /> <br /> Not sure if that's the case with D40x, but I know I am shooting RAW only now, despite the fact that I do not do any post-processing but only a straight RAW-JPEG conversion.</p>

[jose_perez3]

<p>I photographed the space shuttle launching from Cape Canaveral last November with a Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR lens and a D700 camera. I always have the D700 set to shoot RAW+JPEG fine. A handful of my photos were way under exposed by the rocket's bright exhaust. So attached is what the JPEG original photo looks like. My next photo I will attach the Capture NX2 corrected for 1.7 exposure stops. Without the raw file, much of the info needed to correct the image is gone. So, it is alway a good idea to shoot RAW. Otherwise you could be stuck with the original JPEG.</p>

[jose_perez3]

<p>Orginal JPEG</p>

[jose_perez3]

<P>Orginal JPEG</P>

[jose_perez3]

<p>Original JPEG</p>

[jose_perez3]

<h2>Server Error</h2>

<p>The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server.<br>

I cannot seem to attach the photos. I keep getting the above message when I try.<br>

Sorry,<br>

Jose'</p>

[nordborg]

<p><a href="../learn/raw/">http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/</a> explains the differences between the raw and jpeg images.</p>

 

[gk_sullivan]

<p>Thanks for the quick responses! Thanks for being patient with me..... I actually did a search but couldn't answer my question I had from what I was able to find. Will go to the link that Nichlas provided and do some reading! The key in this case, as Elliott mentioned is that ViewNX applies the in camera settings to the NEF file.... so they <em>would</em> be the same!<br>

Ken gave me a bottom line answer which I guess is what I was really looking for.... This is a very interesting hobby for me (not a profession) and it really makes sense for me to use the JPEG fine format unless I have something that I suspect I'll be post processing to a high degree.<br>

Whiggy, try your suggestion. I'm all about sharp!<br>

Gael.</p>

 

[jose_perez3]

<p>Space Shuttle photo with only size reduction</p><div></div>

[jose_perez3]

<p>photo now with RAW adjusted for exposure and converted to JPEG</p><div></div>

[thomas_conolly]

<p>I was wondering what programs you can open the raw files in. Because i have tried opening them in photoshop and they will not work. So i ending up converting them to JPEG's and once I did that I was still able to edit all of the things that you said i would not be able to such as brightness and exposure and such. <br>

Thanks<br>

Thomas</p>