codeninja wrote:
Here is the dilema. I want the maximum possible IQ out of D300, whiile not having to tweak every single photos one by one individually. That leaves the option of batch processing RAW, and I'm not 100% if that is still better than JPG out of D300. Sure, I can do special processing on some photos, but there is no way I would do it all...

You're hung up on the notion that RAW requires you to process each and every shot to get something usable, whereas JPG naturally and magically comes out "pretty good" with no effort on your part. That notion is both silly and incorrect, but it's often stated by people who don't know any better. It's just wrong.

Look at it this way: RAW is like a film negative, JPG is like a Polaroid or a simple set of 4x6 prints from the corner drugstore. You take the shots the same way, and you take your "film" into your developer the same way... but in one case, you get the negative and a set of prints, while in the other case they throw away your negatives and give you only the prints, whose limited quality will limit you forever.

For every shot, you set white balance in the camera (even if you set Auto, the camera chooses a white balance). For every shot, you set exposure, ISO, and so on. You can tell the camera you want vivid colors, you want high/low/no sharpening, and so on. JPG takes all of those ingredients, "cooks" them into a pretty low-quality image (good enough for many purposes, but low in relation to a RAW file quality as discussed previously). RAW will go into the computer with every single bit of data the sensor recorded, and the RAW file has all those ISO/WB/IP settings coded into it too... so LR, ACR, NX, or whatever RAW converter you use, will do the "cooking" for you and still give you a usable image immediately.

You do not have to do any extra processing to RAWs compared to JPG. You just take the shots, import them into the computer, and you're done in both cases. If you just want what the camera would have done, you do the six-second process I described before and you can get all the JPGs you want, without any additional real work. But you also have the flexibility to tweak, change, and process to your heart's content on each file, or by batches, without losing anything.

Do you see what I'm saying? This whole idea that you have to process a RAW is just wrong... all the camera image settings are in the file, and it's just as ready to print or send as a JPG the instant you get it into the computer. The only cost to you is a larger file, which does take a couple of seconds more to process... but you get benefits from those couple of seconds which last forever. You have the option to do more work on the files, but you do not have any sort of requirement to do so.

Besides, don't underestimage the power and benefit of batch processing. Ever had a day when the camera's WB decisions were just off? You can (destructively) alter all your JPGs at length and with some work... but RAW, it's just a function of selecting them and changing the white balance number. All edits are non-destructive, too, so your images are safer.

What software do you use? Let me show you the exact workflows required, and you'll see what I mean. There is no extra work in RAW, really... no real cost except for file size, but lots of benefits.

I can try to download the trial version of NX2, but thinking of using LR. Thanks for the kind advice, Rodolfo. And, I'm interested in finding out which handles the noise better especially the ones in low ISO with D300

What noise in low ISO with D300?

Love LR2. Some things could be better, but it sure makes most of my life waaaay easier. Haven't gotten real skilled at NX2 yet, but it definitely does get that little extra bit of "wow" out of a file, so I re-process my best shots with it now. Everything else stays in LR2.

For those who are using other converters than NX2, and want a reference JPG, there is a freeware program called; ta da - previewextractor.

Can be found here : http://drchung.new21.net/previewextractor/

Exif is unfortunately not kept - but he's working on it.

:edit:

Also available, but untried by me :

Instant JPEG from RAW : http://www.rawworkflow.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw-utility/
by the Raw workflow guys.

and

RAW-Extractor 2.0 : http://www.idimager.com/?page=freeware
by idimager.

For a relative beginner jpeg compresses 8 pieces of information into 1, and is 8 bit colour i.e. a maximum (assuming no post processing) of 256 shades of blue, of green and of red.
jpeg is good enough for many purposes where ultimate quality is not needed.
RAW does not compress any information. Also 9 bit is 512 shades, 10 bit 1024, 12 bit 4100 shades and 14 bit is 16000 shades. It goes without saying for top image quality RAW is the best option.
As this is a Nikon discussion board shooting Nikon RAW (NEF) and adjusting camera settings in NX2 results in less loss of image information than adjusting in other software which does not process camera settings.

I shoot JPG's in 'Basic' resolution. What I'd like to see if 256 colour GIF's straight out of cam.

nikt wrote:
I shoot JPG's in 'Basic' resolution. What I'd like to see if 256 colour GIF's straight out of cam.

Man, that out to give you a lot of images on a 16Gb card! If Nikon would quit going for the high resolution stuff we keep asking them for they could probably get us up to 30fps with autofocus! The heck with HD - give me fast, fast fast!

Okay, so maybe HD at 30fps with AF would be nice too...

Well, maybe just give us great IQ and I'd be happy - oh wait, we already have that!

David

codeninja wrote:
Here is the dilemma. I want the maximum possible IQ out of D300, while not having to tweak every single photos one by one individually. That leaves the option of batch processing RAW, and I'm not 100% if that is still better than JPG out of D300. Sure, I can do special processing on some photos, but there is no way I would do it all...

First, maximum possible IQ includes ETTR, and you can incorporate a 1/3 of a stop of positive EC adjustment shooting RAW and pull the conversions back by that much in conversion with absolute impunity; you cannot do that with out of the camera JPEGs. For even more image quality, you can often go as high as one stop of positive EC in RAW, but you will need uni-WB and custom settings to safely accomplish that.

Also, there is a middle ground between never touching a file and intensive post processing. You can set up default conversion settings in your RAW converter and Actions in Photoshop (both based on tweaking files to your individual tastes), and with these you can go from a RAW image to a finished JPEG in a couple of minutes with no more effort than pushing hotkeys.

I shoot raw most of the time and use LR to convert. I shoot JPG when I shoot sports though due to the number of shots.

Dave

eaglewolf wrote:
nikt wrote:
I shoot JPG's in 'Basic' resolution. What I'd like to see if 256 colour GIF's straight out of cam.

Man, that out to give you a lot of images on a 16Gb card! If Nikon would quit going for the high resolution stuff we keep asking them for they could probably get us up to 30fps with autofocus! The heck with HD - give me fast, fast fast!

Okay, so maybe HD at 30fps with AF would be nice too...

Well, maybe just give us great IQ and I'd be happy - oh wait, we already have that!

David

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
codeninja wrote:
I guess my question on RAW before making the leap of faith is this. Isn't it true that the whole point of RAW is so that you can custom process individual photos? If you are simply batch processing all your photos with LR2 or NX2, would the IQ be still superior to D300's JPG?

Yes, most of the time. A low-noise, perfectly-exposed, perfectly-white-balanced JPG may do better with the camera's processing than with LR2. Not better than NX2, which can duplicate all the camera's processing with the far greater horsepower of the computer CPU. But, in most cases, the shot will not be absolutely perfect. And for all of those shots, which are most shots, then RAW is uncontestably superior.

Bayer interpolation and other technical issues aside (because they affect any recording of the image regardless of format), a 12-bit camera RAW records 4,096 levels each of red, green, and blue. 14-bit records 16,384 levels of each color. JPG is only 8 bits, which means the most important 256 shades of each color are selected. From 12-bit to 8-bit, you lose 15 out of every 16 shades of RGB the sensor captured... you throw away 94% of your data.



Rodolfo, I agree with everything you have posted so far on this subject and I indeed shoot RAW but just wanted to mention the 8bit JPEG isn't as bad as what your stats infer.

Raw is 12 or 14bit LINEAR whereas JPEGs are 8 bit non linear, log, and/or gamma corrected files taken from the 12 bit linear file. If you grew up shooting film, shooting JPEG would seem quite natural in the way you prepped and "developed" your picture.

There are pluses for either camps of thought.

JPG is just fine as an output medium: for most situations, even many great prints, 256 shades per color is enough. But to get the best results, they need to be the right 256, and not a mutilated and mistreated 184 that's left over after the file has been put through the wringer.

It's vaguely like CD's and MP3's. MP3 music is, in nearly all situations and in nearly all stereos, good enough for enjoyment and listening. But because it's a lossy format, you want to keep an MP3 copy of your music... you don't (ideally) want to just convert all your music over to it and throw away the originals.

Which reminds me: JPG uses lossy compression, so each time you edit and save you lose more information and more quality. Still makes it a perfectly useful and convenient output format for final results, and yes it can also be used with pretty good quality in most cases without ever going through RAW. But it's going to be "pretty good quality" and not "the best possible quality" ever... that, you get from RAW.

Just in case it seems like I'm still arguing with you... I'm not. You are entirely correct, and the non-linear logarithmic distribution of the tonal shades really does make those 256 values look a lot better than the simple numbers would seem to imply. You are entirely correct; the reason I'm still rephrasing, explaining, and offering examples is that not everyone is already aware of the differences in color spaces, gamma linearity, and other more-technical differences in digital vs film. Heck, I'm just starting to understand all that crap myself.

Where's André when you really need him?

I'm an amateur in that I don't do this for my living how I shoot depended on what I wanted for the outcome..

I had a small Olympus stylus that I would use for casual shooting. Shooting JPEG for me was like shooting film with the Stylus. Film from the Stylus was processed at one of the one hour processing Kiosk and returned with 4x6 prints that I then kept in the little paper envelope with the negatives or if ambitious put in a scrap book.

Shooting raw is more more like the way I shot film with my SLR or 4X5. First deciding whether I needed to push, pull or normal process the film. For b&w this was done at home for color or chromes always sent to a pro lab where I had then process only and leave the film uncut. @ home I would then cut and file the negatives and print out a contact sheet. From the contact sheet I would then select a negative that I wanted to print. It wasn't uncommon to then spend 5 to 6 hours in the darkroom to produce the image that I had envisioned and with which I was satisfied.. Later after reviewing the image for a couple of days the next decision was could I make it better , what was missing, I would go back to that same negative and reprint , maybe altering the time that I dodged one part or burned in another area. Once developed and dry again review it over the next couple of days and decide at that point was this an image that I wanted to mount and frame.

I shoot 100% RAW but don't like NX2. I love the workflow of LR2 and I'm purchasing the full version tonight. I had reservations about the conversion compared to NX2 but the workflow is well worth it. For those worried about work, LR2 makes ANY sorting/editing/cataloging simpler.

I'm not that familiar with DNG but had a photographer this weekend (fireworks shoot) say she converts everything to DNG as her first step in LR2. What is the opinion here? I saw one reference to DNG.

luminosity wrote:
One thing RAW+jpeg is great for is comparing the same shot as shot in each format.
...
The difference can be astounding.

As this is in a Nikon forum, isn't it the case that Nikon only provides for
RAW + JPEG-Basic/Large? Whereas a JPEG-only shooter is likely to use
either the camera's (well, a D40's) JPEG-Normal/Large default or -Fine/Large.
And that's a difference of a (for D40) 0.8mb vs 1.5/2.9mb file (5? mb RAW)).
So, not quite a great grounds for comparison, as far as that goes.

-drofnad

I don't have my camera with me (it's packed up and ready for shipping since it's being sold), but I got curious and downloaded the manual from Nikon to check. According to the D300 manual, page 56 and thereabouts, you can definitely choose from basic/normal/fine quality levels for your JPG image when shooting NEF+JPG.

I would guess you can choose both the size and quality of the JPG, but I've never shot that way so I can't rely on memory. And this is as far as my personal curiosity goes.

As I had my D300 within easy reach while reading, I checked for myself and I can confirm that the full range of jpeg options are available with RAW.

Also, Rodolfo, my regards to your D300. I know it served you well.

Ah, thanks... much appreciate the thought behind that phrase. It has indeed, and I am grateful beyond words for what it's taught me and the images it's given me. I can but pray that its next owner will be as blessed, and will get even more from it.