In camera vs PP

[phil_burt]

<p>Good Morning and a big "Thank You" to all that may read and hopefully have an answer.<br>

I guess that this is an understanding issue.<br>

I use a Nikon D90 and I use Nikon Transfer via a card reader. I do have Nikon Capture NX2 as well as Nikon View NX2<br>

- If I shoot JPG fine, my camera makes the conversion from what is see to a jpg<br>

- If I shoot Raw then I need to do this in PP<br>

I will use Nikon transfer to get to my Mac and then set up Nikon Capture NX2 to edit photos and convert to a jpg.<br>

Seeing these are all Nikon products does the NX2 convert differently than in Camera? I would think that they would be the same.<br>

What I am trying to do is get a good work flow going, but I don't understand the difference.<br>

Any tips on setting up Capture for an easy converting to jpg and can it do this in Batch.<br>

I know that there are several questions in this, hope that I got some of it clear.<br>

Thank you again ....<br>

phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Phil, your D90 digital camera is actually also a specialized computer for image capture and processing. However, the computer inside the D90 is tiny. Your Mac is a far more powerful computer and can potentially make much better JPEG coversion than (the little computer inside) the camera can.</p>

<p>Moreover, software continues to improve over time. If you capture raw now, potentially 10 years from now there is better conversion software to convert your raw to JPEG. That is exactly what is happening to the recent Adobe LightRoom 3 and PhotoShop CS5. You can make convert "old" raw files from several years ago with the new Adobe converter and get better results.</p>

<p>If you shoot JPEG, the camera makes that conversion immediately after the image is capture and you are locked into that JPEG forever. The original raw image that was captured is thrown away.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ahhh... workflow... the big mystery... Here's how I handle this with the D90.</p>

<p>I shoot all "quick and dirty" stuff with jpeg only. I've yet to have a problem with that. Sometimes I shoot that stuff with RAW + jpeg, and just throw all the NEFs away except for the best images.</p>

<p>I shoot all "serious" stuff with RAW + jpeg. I only edit the nef files I'm going to print big or use for some important purpose, everything else just gets filed, and if I need to send something to somebody over the internet, I normally just send the jpeg or crop/resize it and send it.</p>

<p>I've tested, and very few images need me to mess around a lot with the NEF file in Photoshop, but the ones that do get a LOT of attention... Also, RAW files are just as good, in my experience, for "fake HDR" as multiple exposures are, except for extreme dynamic range images of the kind I usually don't like anyway.</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>Any tips on setting up Capture for an easy converting to jpg and can it do this in Batch.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I hope I am understanding your question.</p>

<p>The answer is a resounding (yes and no).</p>

<p>Batch processing of images is great when you have a bunch of images where the lighting has not changed too much, such as in a studio shoot with one back drop. You might find the exposure was off a tad, or the WB was not quite to your liking. In these situations, batch processing rocks.</p>

<p>Conversely; if you are out doors doing a days shooting of various subjects, batch should not be used as WB, exposure, color, tonality etc..are all over the place. Perhaps you shot a beautiful bridge over the water type of scene at 10am...Then 4 hours later you shoot another bridge scene. WB will certainly be different...so applying a batch WB to all the photos would result in color casts you may not want.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Seeing these are all Nikon products does the NX2 convert differently than in Camera?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>JPEG=NO RAW=YES</p>

<p>The preview screen on your camera displays a jpeg image, not the RAW image.</p>

<p>I'm sure you may have observed, if you shoot RAW and look at the preview image, it looks pretty good. When you get home and view them on NX2, they look nothing like the preview. RAW is (un-processed)...JPEG is heavily processed.</p>

<p>If you shoot JPEG, the preview will be a good indication of how your final image will look before you post process.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What I am trying to do is get a good work flow going,</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Unless you're shooting in a controlled lighting environment or perhaps accidentally had +1 exp comp dialed in, batch processing defeats the power of shooting RAW.</p>

<p>The good news: If you shoot RAW and batch to JPEG; you still have the unmolested RAW file to re-work if necessary.</p>

<p>Lastly, if you batch, when you "APPLY" these new settings, always choose "APPEND" when copying the new data. By doing so, the changes you are applying are added to the edit list and can be un-done.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

[bmm]

<p>Phil, View NX2 is a good way to convert to JPG if you only want to do some basic tweaks and the conversion quick and easy. I agree with Shun in terms of it being far better to shoot RAW and convert in your PC, and this may be a good 'intermediate' solution - short of going into Capture NX2 - for stuff you don't need to work on a lot. Indeed its exactly what I do for all my 'snapshot' type stuff.</p>

<p>Peter / Phil - interesting question to ponder is whether you can know what is 'quick and dirty' stuff and what is 'serious' stuff up front. The B/W portrait of my (now) wife is a case in point; taken not deliberately at all, but as a cheeky shot while I was taking quick hair and make-up reference pics for her to remember choices for our wedding. The kind of thing that, if I wasn't an all-NEF guy, I would have probably been using JPG for - and would thereby have lost lots of flexibility to play with.</p>

[bmm]

<p>Kevin - regarding your comment :</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sure you may have observed, if you shoot RAW and look at the preview image, it looks pretty good. When you get home and view them on NX2, they look nothing like the preview. RAW is (un-processed)...JPEG is heavily processed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless I'm horribly wrong, in my experience NX2 recognises in-camera settings when you use it with Nikon cameras and so does a pretty good job of replicating those when you open a file, obviously with all of those settings then changeable in post.</p>

<p>I do understand what you are saying thought but I think it would apply more to Lightroom and other software that would not 'carry' the in-camera settings to the initial interpretation of the RAW file, and would instead display it as a 'flat' interpretation with no pre-selected enhancement.</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>Seeing these are all Nikon products does the NX2 convert differently than in Camera? I would think that they would be the same.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, and your thought is correct.<br /> <br /> All cameras shoot RAW (what's captured by the sensor), but cameras without RAW output take the RAW information from the sensor and immediately convert it to another file type, typically jpg, before saving it to the memory card. Nikon cameras embed those on-board camera settings in the RAW file, and NX2 reads that information and converts the RAW file accordingly. Nikon camera RAW conversions rendered to the camera settings are <em>exact</em> with NX2. The in-camera settings are closely approximated by other RAW converters, but they are inexact.</p>

<p>That said, IMO it's better to shoot RAW for the reasons already mentioned. IMO, rendering a RAW file to the exact on-board camera settings is a Rube Goldberg idea. IMO, The whole point of shooting RAW is twofold; a) to get rendering that is <em>unavailable</em> in-camera; and/or b) to gain 'headroom' for post-processing adjustments without digital artifacts degrading the image. As noted, keeping RAW files is a good idea - as you get better with post (or as software improves), you'll probably want to revisit some of your images and process them differently.</p>

<p>As for getting images from the camera to the computer, I think it's best and fastest to drag & drop from the memory card using a card reader, and make backup copies on an external drive right then and there. YMMV.</p>

[bmm]

<blockquote>

<p>IMO, rendering a RAW file to the exact on-board camera settings is a Rube Goldberg idea.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting... without knowing exactly what a 'Rube Goldberg Idea' is, this links closely to something I've been wondering so I am about to start another thread on it (so as to not hijack this one).</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Phil -- I shoot a D300s RAW + JPEG. Here's my workflow:</p>

<p>Download all images, (RAW and JPEG) to a folder on my desktop and to an external hard drive. I use Nikon Transfer to do this simultaneously with a batch re-name.</p>

<p>Browse JPEGs in Lightroom and get rid of all the blatantly poor images, (OOF/motion blur primarily).</p>

<p>Once images are "culled" I then go through the images with a finer eye looking for the "best" images. These get a star and color coding based on "good out of camera" and "needs work, but is a great image" so they are easy to find in the future.</p>

<p>The images that don't need work are moved, as JPEGs, to a folder designated for final batch processing.</p>

<p>Images that need work are moved, as NEF, to another folder designated "processing" These images are processed in Capture NX for color, tone, and lens distortion. They are then converted to JPEG and moved to either the final batch processing folder or, if more work is needed, opened and edited in PS.</p>

<p>Once all images are processed and in the final folder, they are batch processed with PS actions and renamed to what the client gets on Disc.</p>

<p>I then burn two copies of the final images, (one for the client and one for my archives), and move the final images to an external hard drive with the original images for storage.</p>

<p>Depending on the shoot, this process takes anywhere from a few hours to a few days.</p>

<p>Hope this helps,<br>

RS</p>