Nikon's NEF (RAW) Format

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 3, 2003.

  1. I currently have a Coolpix 775. I'm looking at some point to move up to,
    say, the 5000 or its successor the 5400. I'd LOVE the 5700 but have to stay
    in the 5000 or 5400 series.

    One thing, though. Apparently the 5000 doesn't save in Nikon's NEF RAW
    format. (Not sure if the 5400 does.) How much effect does this have on the
    potential picture quality.

    Meanwhile, I do notice that the 5000 can save in TIFF format as well as JPG.
    Any point to doing that?

    LRH
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Sep 3, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mike Graham Guest

    Given that you have TIFF as an option, not much.
    TIFF is slow. TIFF is big. Other than that, it's good. To me, it all
    comes down to your intentions for the picture... are you planning on doing a
    lot of post-processing? If you're going to be editing it heavily, then save
    in TIF (RAW, if it was available) and don't save in JPG until you reach the
    finished product after editing. If you're taking snapshots, or don't have
    huge plans for the pictures, then save in JPG.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 3, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Ed Ruf Guest

    5400 is supposed to get a firmware upgrade in the future to add raw
    support. No raw for the 5000. Yes they both save in tiff. However in terms
    of raw of tiff, the time to right the image to the CF card is way longer.
    In 10,000+ images with my 990 I took maybe less than 300 in tiff. I stayed
    with full/fine and am doing pretty much the same with my 5700. Using Qimage
    for printing to an Epson 1270 I can't sea a any real discernable
    differences in prints to 8x10 and must really try hard at 13x19 were the
    jpeg compression and abrupt edges might show limited artifacts.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
     
    Ed Ruf, Sep 3, 2003
    #3
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    stubby Guest

    the 5000 you can get latest software from Nikon that will give you the NEF
    RAW format
     
    stubby, Sep 3, 2003
    #4
  5. The 5000 with firmware 1.7 does indeed have RAW format. The 5400
    doesn't have it YET but is supposed to get it later with the promised
    firmware upgrade from Nikon.
     
    Andrew McDonald, Sep 3, 2003
    #5
  6. RAW allows the same quality as a TIFF at about a third the size.

    RAW allows you to use the cameras settings for sharpness, color, and
    contrast, or to change them to another setting after the fact.

    In most cases the software that does the RAW conversion allows more
    precise control than the cameras's choice one, choice two , or choice
    three settings.

    RAW files are more like digital film and they allow you to increase or
    decrease exposure after the photo has been taken.
    This is my favorite feature. I like being able to pull detail out of
    blown-out highlights of overexposed pictures.

    I've had my camera almost a year but I mostly didn't bother shooting
    RAW until about two months ago.

    It's like having a new camera.

    Larry
     
    Larry Miracle, Sep 3, 2003
    #6
  7. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Yes, brain fade early in the am before coffee. In fact the 5400 is
    following in the footsteps of the 5000, released w/o RAW, then added with a
    firmware update.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
     
    Ed Ruf, Sep 3, 2003
    #7
  8. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Maybe it varies for different Nikon models, but for my 5700:

    RAW = 7.35 MB
    TIFF = 14.1 MB

    stored on an NTFS partition. But this compressed RAW also takes much longer
    in the camera to write to CF than TIFF.

    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
     
    Ed Ruf, Sep 3, 2003
    #8
  9. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mike Graham Guest

    Good point.
    Well, yes and no. You get something, but not as much as you *should*.
    The info coming from the CCD is 12-bit. 16-bit storage is a waste of four
    bits. So you have a choice between losing information and losing extra
    space. 8-/

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 4, 2003
    #9
  10. Larry R Harrison Jr

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    RAW size is a function of noise. The higher the ISO, or the noisier the
    sensor, the larger the RAW file; at least that's how it works with Canon
    RAW. Same for the embedded JPEGs.
    --
     
    JPS, Sep 4, 2003
    #10
  11. I am pretty sure that's because Canon compresses their RAW files. Noisy
    data is harder to compress. On my D100 uncompressed RAW files are
    always very close to the same size regardless of ISO.
     
    Andrew McDonald, Sep 4, 2003
    #11
  12. Larry R Harrison Jr

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
     
    JPS, Sep 4, 2003
    #12
  13. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Not with the Nikon 5700. 7.35 MB regardless of subject, exposure, iso, etc.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
     
    Ed Ruf, Sep 5, 2003
    #13
  14. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mike Graham Guest

    It's a number. It's a value from 0 to 4095. That can be stored just as
    accurately in 12 bits as it can in 16 bits.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 5, 2003
    #14
  15. Larry R Harrison Jr

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Yes, although that's not one of the options available in current
    cameras.

    RAW is more efficient, and is losslessly compressed in Canon cameras.
    --
     
    JPS, Sep 5, 2003
    #15
  16. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Mike Graham Guest

    That's why I said that 16-bit TIFFs are imperfect insofar as you lose
    four bits of space per pixel.
    This is fine and dandy if you have the option of saving in RAW.


    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Mike Graham | Metalworker, rustic, part-time zealot.
    |
    <http://www.metalmangler.com>| Caledon, Ontario, Canada

    Lousy photographer with a really nice camera - Olympus C3020Zoom.
    <http://www.metalmangler.com/photos/photos.htm>
     
    Mike Graham, Sep 5, 2003
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.