DSLRUsers.com

I was quite surprised to find that Photoshop 7.0 on my PowerMac G4 can read NEF's directly from the card reader in its 16 bit mode, since I don't even have a plugin for Raw. I was under the impression that it was not a recognizable file format without a plugin.

Does anyone have experience with this and know if there are any disadvantages to this direct import as compared to using a plugin, NC or other conversion programs to import a Raw image into Photoshop?

Thanks!

Ah but you do have a plugin Steve - deep within the plugins folder is a file called NEF - that’s what opens the files. Would recommend getting the RAW plugin as it gives much greater control of over opening the RAW files.

There is no real disadvantage to what you are doing but I would still recommend the Adobe Camera RAW plugin

Thanks!

Do you have any idea where (or link) where I could still get a plug in for PS 7? Everything I see on Adode's site is for CS.

SoCal Steve wrote:Thanks!

Do you have any idea where (or link) where I could still get a plug in for PS 7? Everything I see on Adode's site is for CS.

Steve pm me - I use mac too

After doing some research on this matter the following applies. It should be the same for PC users.

Camera RAW version 1 that was originally applicable to PS7 will NOT handle D70 RAW files.

Camera RAW 2.3 is specific to PSCS and will handle D70 RAW files.

Camera RAW 2.3 will not work in PS7.

Hope this helps

Gotta love Adobe's policy of automatically discontinuing support for superceded programs.

sirhc55,

I noticed something the other day. I've previously used the NEF plugin to open NEF files in Photoshop CS.

After installing the Camera Raw plugin I noticed when I open the NEF images they look different. (I did a test and took 3 images, all with slightly different WB settings)

When opened using the NEF plugin they tend to look the same as if opened using Nikon Capture 4.2. You can see the difference in images on screen.

You do get a whole bunch of settings to play with when using the Camera Raw plugin...but I didn't think you would need to change anything, just hit OK. Am I doing something wrong ?

naasif wrote:sirhc55,

I noticed something the other day. I've previously used the NEF plugin to open NEF files in Photoshop CS.

After installing the Camera Raw plugin I noticed when I open the NEF images they look different. (I did a test and took 3 images, all with slightly different WB settings)

When opened using the NEF plugin they tend to look the same as if opened using Nikon Capture 4.2. You can see the difference in images on screen.

You do get a whole bunch of settings to play with when using the Camera Raw plugin...but I didn't think you would need to change anything, just hit OK. Am I doing something wrong ?

Interesting question - I have recently tried a test between NC 4.2 and ACR 2.3 (by the way 2.4 has been released). Because you are basically working with different parameters between the two methods it is hard to get a direct comparison and final images do look different.

If you use the NEF importer in PS you only have the choice of WB and exposure adjustment. When using ACR you have a lot more parameters that can be changed prior to PS opening the image. In a perfect world, and to answer your question, you should be able to hit the apply button without making any adjustments - but we do not live in a perfect world and that is why we have the choice to alter parameters prior to opening the image in PS.

I'll have to get my friend to send me the link again to an article I was reading in France of a comparison I think between either NEF or ACR plugin compared to NC. The results were quite startling, I think color and image quality differences. So from now on I've stuck to using NC for conversions. Like I said, I'll get the link again to have a really good read of it because I just skim read it before. It might of been just an old version of the plugin that was compared, not sure.

kipper wrote:I'll have to get my friend to send me the link again to an article I was reading in France of a comparison I think between either NEF or ACR plugin compared to NC. The results were quite startling, I think color and image quality differences. So from now on I've stuck to using NC for conversions. Like I said, I'll get the link again to have a really good read of it because I just skim read it before. It might of been just an old version of the plugin that was compared, not sure.

Hi kipper - I do like NC but it is far too slow. When I am processing pics for clients and have, say 50 or 60 shots to evaluate, I have to use PSCS and ACR for speed purposes.

But, after having used PS since it first came on the market, I find myself at home with it and have learned a lot of its idiosyncracies.

One thing to note also is that although ACR is quite good - the NEF format is propriety, and it had to be reverse engineered. (ACR uses code from dcraw). NC would know the true native NEF and probably be able to extract the most out of the NEF format - although whether there are any image differences in detail etc I'm not sure I would care that much about it, they're both equally good in my eyes.

The nice thing about NC is the ability to change the in camera processing options in Advanced RAW.

As a side note, has anyone used Bibble Pro 4.1 before ? I find it quite a fast application (faster than NC is for sure) but haven't had a chance to play with it much.

Gidday guys,

The difference that you see in the image when opening an NEF image in ACR is primarily caused by ACR ignoring tone compensation curves (including the Nikon curves). ACR uses it own curves.
There is certain exposure info that is tagged to a NEF file; ACR ignores all but WB, replacing the ignored values with its own values. ACR should be calibrated to get best results. In fact it is possible to do multiple calibrations for various tone curves, saving them, and choosing which set of adjustments to apply to images.
There is a calibration script out there that for PSCS/ACR that utilises the MacBeth colour chart. The trick is to find a calibrated chart.

The Nikon plug-in for PS uses all of the info available. If only Nikon would do something with it, to turn into something decent.


Cheers

Matt

Mattc wrote:

Gidday guys,

The difference that you see in the image when opening an NEF image in ACR is primarily caused by ACR ignoring tone compensation curves (including the Nikon curves). ACR uses it own curves.

Funny you should mention tone curves. In my test when loading with both plugins I found this to be the difference. I had loaded a custom tone curve into the D70 when I shot the test images.

Naasif