DSLRUsers.com

Hi all

I’m interested in some feed back on peoples experience with what RAW mode they shoot in on the D300.

Whether I am shooting for either consignment or freelance, I have only ever used RAW mode. My D300 offers me 6 different RAW modes. On paper, the obvious choice for quality is to go with 14-bit uncompressed. However after numerous tests, I am unable to determine any visible difference between 14-bit uncompressed and 14-bit compressed. To that end, even the 12-bit modes are producing a quality so high I am unable to see "much" difference.

I do not shoot at continuous high speeds and really, storage aint a problem. So I guess I will stick with the best mode available....

What do you use and why?

I use 12-bit lossless compressed raw.

I haven't got around to evaluating if I get anything better out of 14-bit. I use lossless compressed because I don't want to lose any information and compressed because of this comment in the manual: "NEF Images are not compressed. Recording time increases slightly."

ATJ wrote:I use 12-bit lossless compressed raw.

I haven't got around to evaluating if I get anything better out of 14-bit. I use lossless compressed because I don't want to lose any information and compressed because of this comment in the manual: "NEF Images are not compressed. Recording time increases slightly."

OK cool. So for yourself its more of a speed issue than one of storage?

12 bit lossless should be more than adequate for most people and most applications.

As I understand it, 14 bit gives a slight advantage in the realm of permitting the storage of a greater depth of the detail. This manifests as slightly greater dynamic range, but will only be evident when you're right at the edges of 12 bit capabilities.

File sizes are significantly larger, and for the needs of most users, there will not be any practical differences seen in the observed IQ.

Putting all this another way, I tried it, I didn't see any differences (probably the lousy IQ behind the VF) and I'm now shooting 12 bit lossless plus jpg.

Escapism wrote:

ATJ wrote:I use 12-bit lossless compressed raw.

I haven't got around to evaluating if I get anything better out of 14-bit. I use lossless compressed because I don't want to lose any information and compressed because of this comment in the manual: "NEF Images are not compressed. Recording time increases slightly."

OK cool. So for yourself its more of a speed issue than one of storage?

Nah, it is more that what I have works and I would rather spend the time taking photos that see if I can maybe tweak something I don't need.

Thanks folks...both interesting replies.

Would you both stick with your settings if you knew your next outing was to shoot for a publication with a possible cover shot resulting?

I know this isn't quite what was asked, but I think it's relevant to the discussion.

When I was shooting with my D200 I used raw (compressed) plus jpg. I was finding the jpgs were just not up to scratch with what I could get out of the raws (but were handy for a quick look).

I've had my D3 for about 2 weeks now and I believe it uses the same internal processor as the D300 (so the comments should be relavent to the thread). The jpgs that come out of it are unbelievably good. In my opinion they are better than the raws particularly in the area of chromatic aberation. For a long time I have been a strong believer that you start with the best (the raw) and work from there, but now I am challenging that belief. I have now switched over to jpeg fine large with no raw image as my normal setup. I'm not saying I'll use this setup forever, but if the jpegs are as good or better (in some respects) to the raws, are half the size and a simpler workflow, why would I bother with raws? I know I'll probably be using raws again in the future when I find something that's not working well with just jpgs, but until I find it, no more raws for me.

Cheers
John

Hi John

I am actually finding the exact opposite on my D300. Currently shooting RAW + JPEG Fine and on pretty much every shot, the JPEG lacks depth whilst the RAW file has far greater punch.

Having said that, Im not concerned with how either image looks direct from camera (to a certain degree). My main purpose for shooting RAW is two fold...firstly to capture as much information as possible so that...secondly, I have the highest possible output file available should it be needed by a paying client.

At this stage Im not confident that a JPEG can provide that.

Another consideration I must face is that one publication I am in contact with actually requires RAW files for submission, not JPEGs.

Escapism wrote:Thanks folks...both interesting replies.

Would you both stick with your settings if you knew your next outing was to shoot for a publication with a possible cover shot resulting?

Yep.

johnd wrote:..... The jpgs that come out of it are unbelievably good. In my opinion they are better than the raws particularly in the area of chromatic aberation. For a long time I have been a strong believer that you start with the best (the raw) and work from there, but now I am challenging that belief. I have now switched over to jpeg fine large with no raw image as my normal setup........

Cheers
John

That's very interesting, what you're saying is that the in-camera processing is better than what you can achieve on the PC.

Are you using NX for your PC conversions? Aside from using your camera settings, it will also do a pretty good CA correction.

Cheers

Escapism wrote:Would you both stick with your settings if you knew your next outing was to shoot for a publication with a possible cover shot resulting?

Yes. Every outing for me is to shoot for a possible cover shot. I haven't had one in a long time, but I always try to shoot my best.

digitor wrote:

johnd wrote:..... The jpgs that come out of it are unbelievably good. In my opinion they are better than the raws particularly in the area of chromatic aberation. For a long time I have been a strong believer that you start with the best (the raw) and work from there, but now I am challenging that belief. I have now switched over to jpeg fine large with no raw image as my normal setup........

Cheers
John

That's very interesting, what you're saying is that the in-camera processing is better than what you can achieve on the PC.

I also find that interesting. By default, any raw images you look at will have the exact same processing performed on them as what the camera would do. Most of the settings in the camera (white balance, contrast, etc.) apply to the jpegs in the camera and are the default for viewing the raws.

ATJ wrote:Most of the settings in the camera (white balance, contrast, etc.) apply to the jpegs in the camera and are the default for viewing the raws.

Only with NX though, which was kind of my point. The Adobe converter doesn't apply most camera settings as far as I know, only white balance, although I've (unfortunately) got no first-hand experience with D3 files.

Cheers

digitor wrote:

ATJ wrote:Most of the settings in the camera (white balance, contrast, etc.) apply to the jpegs in the camera and are the default for viewing the raws.

Only with NX though, which was kind of my point. The Adobe converter doesn't apply most camera settings as far as I know, only white balance, although I've (unfortunately) got no first-hand experience with D3 files.

Some other tools do, too. I used PaintShopPro 9 for a long time as my raw converter (it was actually very convenient) and default looked the same. Also, in ViewNX, the raw is no different from the jpeg.

I fully agree with Johnd regarding JPEG quality.
I have a D300 and find the Large Fine JPEGS to be sensational.
Exposures are usually spot on when using D-lighting and the in camera sharpening and CA removal are fantastic.
I now find I`m hardly using RAW at all and saving so much time it isn`t funny!!
A little levels and curves in PS and the results are fantastic...

digitor wrote:

johnd wrote:..... The jpgs that come out of it are unbelievably good. In my opinion they are better than the raws particularly in the area of chromatic aberation. For a long time I have been a strong believer that you start with the best (the raw) and work from there, but now I am challenging that belief. I have now switched over to jpeg fine large with no raw image as my normal setup........

Cheers
John

That's very interesting, what you're saying is that the in-camera processing is better than what you can achieve on the PC.

Are you using NX for your PC conversions? Aside from using your camera settings, it will also do a pretty good CA correction.

Cheers

No I was using Adobe DNG Converter, maybe thats where I went wrong. However DNG converter does know about D3 raw files. I have Capture NX so I'll do a comparison between the two. However my point still stands that the jpegs out of the camera are brilliant.

One other point. I didn't mean to imply that the jpegs from the camera were better than could be achieved from a raw. Just better than I could achieve from raws without a lot of work on a PC. For the first time since goiing digital, I feel freed from the computer. (Well almost freed).

Cheers
John