«

Nikon D70 RAW (.NEF) File Format

Thanks to those who replied to my posting regarding the Nikon D70's RAW
..*NEF files. As I mentioned in my original post, I would like to try editing
..NEF files from the D70 in both my current Nikon Capture software and my
Photoshop CS and see if I want to go the more complex digital SLR (D70) /RAW
route (instead of getting a cheaper Coolpix and just shooting in JPEG).
Could someone with a D70 possibly email me an unedited D70 .NEF file
and if possible, tell me what settings they used in Capture or Photoshop to
edit and save it as a TIFF, JPEG, or Photoshop file? I'd like to experiment
with the software first to see what the leaning curve is like before I invest a
lot of money and time into going the digital SLR / RAW route.
Also, I found websites with different opinions on what the RAW files
should be rendered, printed and archived in. I'm thinking about rendering,
printing and archiving in the Photoshop format because it's a smaller file size
than a TIFF, can be edited without a quality loss unlike JPEG, and the format
should be around a long time. Does anyone in this newsgroup disagree with
this? (It does scare me that just today I read a Nikon news release stating
that they're pushing for a new universal RAW format in the industry...I'm
thinking that 10 years from now, I might not be able to render the RAW to
another format.)
Thanks in advance.

On 27 Sep 2004 23:32:39 GMT, in rec.photo.digital (Xtx99)
wrote:

>Nikon D70 RAW (.NEF) File Format
>
> Thanks to those who replied to my posting regarding the Nikon D70's RAW
>.*NEF files. As I mentioned in my original post, I would like to try editing
>.NEF files from the D70 in both my current Nikon Capture software and my
>Photoshop CS and see if I want to go the more complex digital SLR (D70) /RAW
>route (instead of getting a cheaper Coolpix and just shooting in JPEG).

FWIW, you don't need to go the dSLR route to shoot NEF. The higher end
Coolpix have the ability to save to NEF as well, 5000, 5700, 8700, etc.
They may not be able to write it anywhere near as fast as the D70, but they
have this capability. For example my 5700 takes ~22 sec to write to NEF,
the buffer will hold up to three, then you have to wait for the last one to
finish writing before being able to take another.

> Could someone with a D70 possibly email me an unedited D70 .NEF file
>and if possible, tell me what settings they used in Capture or Photoshop to
>edit and save it as a TIFF, JPEG, or Photoshop file? I'd like to experiment
>with the software first to see what the leaning curve is like before I invest a
>lot of money and time into going the digital SLR / RAW route.

Given the size of the file I don't think e-mail is a viable conduit. A 5MB
file encoded is above most providers allowable e-mail size. Do you have an
ftp site?


__________________________________________________ ______
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com

I keep wobbling between Nikon D100 jpgs and nefs. The problem is that
the D100 writes nefs very slowly and this has caused me to miss images.
Also, whilst I'm constantly told that nefs are better, I can't see any
quality difference between nefs and D100 jpgs. The only advantage
I can see in using nefs is that they give extra exposure latitude for
poorly exposed shots but this can be overcome by bracketing difficult
situations. I therfore shoot jpgs and save to tiff before doing any
editing.

Graham


"Xtx99" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Nikon D70 RAW (.NEF) File Format
>
> Thanks to those who replied to my posting regarding the Nikon D70's
RAW
> .*NEF files. As I mentioned in my original post, I would like to try
editing
> .NEF files from the D70 in both my current Nikon Capture software and my
> Photoshop CS and see if I want to go the more complex digital SLR (D70)
/RAW
> route (instead of getting a cheaper Coolpix and just shooting in JPEG).
> Could someone with a D70 possibly email me an unedited D70 .NEF
file
> and if possible, tell me what settings they used in Capture or Photoshop
to
> edit and save it as a TIFF, JPEG, or Photoshop file? I'd like to
experiment
> with the software first to see what the leaning curve is like before I
invest a
> lot of money and time into going the digital SLR / RAW route.
> Also, I found websites with different opinions on what the RAW
files
> should be rendered, printed and archived in. I'm thinking about
rendering,
> printing and archiving in the Photoshop format because it's a smaller file
size
> than a TIFF, can be edited without a quality loss unlike JPEG, and the
format
> should be around a long time. Does anyone in this newsgroup disagree with
> this? (It does scare me that just today I read a Nikon news release
stating
> that they're pushing for a new universal RAW format in the industry...I'm
> thinking that 10 years from now, I might not be able to render the RAW to
> another format.)
> Thanks in advance.
>

Did you make sure you set your D100 for UNCOMPRESSED NEF files? The default
is COMPRESSED which is really, really slow.

Tom
"gsum" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I keep wobbling between Nikon D100 jpgs and nefs. The problem is that
> the D100 writes nefs very slowly and this has caused me to miss images.
> Also, whilst I'm constantly told that nefs are better, I can't see any
> quality difference between nefs and D100 jpgs. The only advantage
> I can see in using nefs is that they give extra exposure latitude for
> poorly exposed shots but this can be overcome by bracketing difficult
> situations. I therfore shoot jpgs and save to tiff before doing any
> editing.
>
> Graham

Yes, I have an AOL account and I regularly get email attachments over 10 MB in
size. Thanks in advance.


> Could someone with a D70 possibly email me an unedited D70 .NEF file
>and if possible, tell me what settings they used in Capture or Photoshop to
>edit and save it as a TIFF, JPEG, or Photoshop file? I'd like to experiment
>with the software first to see what the leaning curve is like before I invest
a
>lot of money and time into going the digital SLR / RAW route.

Given the size of the file I don't think e-mail is a viable conduit. A 5MB
file encoded is above most providers allowable e-mail size. Do you have an
ftp site?

(Xtx99) wrote:

>
>Given the size of the file I don't think e-mail is a viable conduit. A 5MB
>file encoded is above most providers allowable e-mail size. Do you have an
>ftp site?

AOL's mail system is different from standard POP3 accounts. Their
mailbox allocation is based on number of messages (around a thousand,
I think), not their size.



Scott Peterson

--
Even if you're on the right track,
you'll get run over if you just sit there.
- Will Rogers

451/594

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:24:51 -0700, in rec.photo.digital Scott Peterson
<> wrote:

> (Xtx99) wrote:
>
>>
>>Given the size of the file I don't think e-mail is a viable conduit. A 5MB
>>file encoded is above most providers allowable e-mail size. Do you have an
>>ftp site?
>
>AOL's mail system is different from standard POP3 accounts. Their
>mailbox allocation is based on number of messages (around a thousand,
>I think), not their size.

Please what your attributions when editing, you've attributed my initial
reply to the OP.

You are failing to also recognize that many ISPs limit the size of outgoing
mail messages as well. So the message must be within the size limits
imposed on both ends. My ISP is Cox and it is not possible for me to send
any mail through their mailserver greater than ~6MB in size. An ASCII
encoded NEF is bigger than this. That's why I asked if he had an ftp site
set up. While I may or not have other avenues at my disposal, I feel the
onus should be on the requester.
__________________________________________________ ______
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 and D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004, Ed Ruf wrote:

[Snip]
> encoded NEF is bigger than this. That's why I asked if he had an ftp site
> set up. While I may or not have other avenues at my disposal, I feel the
> onus should be on the requester.

A sample NEF (and RAW file converter/RAW file library written in Java) is
available from:

http://www.through-the-lens.net/index.php?page=6

--
Jose Marques

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:24:31 -0400, Ed Ruf <>
wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:24:51 -0700, in rec.photo.digital Scott Peterson
><> wrote:
>
>> (Xtx99) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Given the size of the file I don't think e-mail is a viable conduit. A 5MB
>>>file encoded is above most providers allowable e-mail size. Do you have an
>>>ftp site?
>>
>>AOL's mail system is different from standard POP3 accounts. Their
>>mailbox allocation is based on number of messages (around a thousand,
>>I think), not their size.
>
>Please what your attributions when editing, you've attributed my initial
>reply to the OP.
>
>You are failing to also recognize that many ISPs limit the size of outgoing
>mail messages as well. So the message must be within the size limits

If he has the ability to have an Internet site through his ISP AND the
ISP allows anonymous logins, then just save the file to the public
directory. The other then logs in using the account name anonymous
with their e-mail address as the PW.

Programs like WS-FTP (the free version) make this a snap, but not all
ISPs allow the anonymous log in. It's also a whale of a lot faster
than most mail readers when it comes to large files.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>imposed on both ends. My ISP is Cox and it is not possible for me to send
>any mail through their mailserver greater than ~6MB in size. An ASCII
>encoded NEF is bigger than this. That's why I asked if he had an ftp site
>set up. While I may or not have other avenues at my disposal, I feel the
>onus should be on the requester.
>_________________________________________________ _______
>Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
>See images taken with my CP-990/5700 and D70 at
>http://EdwardGRuf.com

Ed Ruf <> wrote:


>You are failing to also recognize that many ISPs limit the size of outgoing
>mail messages as well.

No. Simply not part of my answer. But you are correct that it is a
limit for some people.

Scott Peterson

--
It is by the goodness of God that in our
country we have those three unspeakably
precious things: freedom of speech, freedom
of conscience, and the prudence never to
practice either of them.
Mark Twain

16/594