Comment re D800 from Nikonians

On 29/02/2012 3:32 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:46:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 27, 4:49 pm, Eric wrote:
http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...ic&forum=190&t...

"A couple of posts up, Per and Marvin have asked to elaborate on the
statement “the extremely high resolution requires different
handling of the camera and also demand much more from post
processing (hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this.”

What I mean by this roughly twofold:

1. The higher the resolution the more every little mistake/fault
gets visible. I'm talking about lens quality, slight miss focus,
camera movement, mirror slap, etc. To prevent all this requires you
to think more about your shots and also use a tripod (with good
tripod technique) even more.

2. Files will be much much larger, demanding extra memory and
computing power. Example, an uncompressed NEF will be around 75MB
(!). A 16 bit tiff without layers is already 200MB, and even when
just using 8 bit tiffs, we're still talking about 100MB files…"

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of
storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now?

In theory TIFF has the ability to carry images with multiple layers
without requiring that they be merged or collapsed. Unfortunately the
whole issue is so complicated that many applications lack either the
ability to construct such files or to read such files compiled by
other applications. In fact some applications cannot read even simple
16 bit files.

Yes, but it's more (file size) efficient to retain the original, and
save edits to the original not as "layers", but reversible steps either
saved as a sidecar file, or as metadata in the file. Also avoids the
need to convert formats to tiff, which may or may not cause other problems.
A very heavily edited raw file (*nef) seems to grow to at most only
about double original (lossless compressed) raw file size using Nikon
Capture. I don't use other raw file software (perhaps I'm a masochist -
who enjoys pain) so can't comment on the size sidecar files used by
other raw editing programs typically grow to.
Much of what I used to need layers for, doesn't need layers using
CaptureNX, gradient blends ("digital ND filter" effect), brushing out
masks, selective sharpening or NR with opacity adjustment and/or
feathering when blending down etc.

"Me" wrote in message
...
I was asked to submit some files for publication in a brochure, the
publishing dept sent me their strict requirements for minimum file size,
16 bit tiff format.
So I emailed them about 30 jpegs from the shoot, resized to about
1800x1200, asked them to choose the ones they wanted, and I'd send them
the tiffs. (No way was I emailing them 30 16 bit tiffs). Sure enough,
next thing I'm presented with a hard copy of the brochure - after they'd
printed over 100,000 copies using the jpegs. They looked okay (largest
photo about A5 size, perhaps a bit more, on a4 sheets) but not brilliant.
These were printed on a 4 colour offset press on inexpensive coated art
paper (about the quality of paper/printing as the inside pages of a glossy
magazine - not the cover) - 16 bit tiff was overkill, as is the insistence
on 300dpi. I suspect that there are a lot of people working in publishing
who learned what the minimum requirements for print should be, without
understanding what's behind it. But rules are rules.


Obviously not since they were quite happy to print from Lo-Res Jpegs despite
demanding 16 bit Hi-Res Tiff files!
So they not only don't understand their requirements, but don't care, and
can't read.
Maybe time to find another printer?

Trevor.

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:49:15 +1300, Me wrote:

On 29/02/2012 3:32 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:46:20 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Feb 27, 4:49 pm, Eric wrote:
http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...ic&forum=190&t...

"A couple of posts up, Per and Marvin have asked to elaborate on the
statement “the extremely high resolution requires different
handling of the camera and also demand much more from post
processing (hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this.”

What I mean by this roughly twofold:

1. The higher the resolution the more every little mistake/fault
gets visible. I'm talking about lens quality, slight miss focus,
camera movement, mirror slap, etc. To prevent all this requires you
to think more about your shots and also use a tripod (with good
tripod technique) even more.

2. Files will be much much larger, demanding extra memory and
computing power. Example, an uncompressed NEF will be around 75MB
(!). A 16 bit tiff without layers is already 200MB, and even when
just using 8 bit tiffs, we're still talking about 100MB files…"

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of
storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now?

In theory TIFF has the ability to carry images with multiple layers
without requiring that they be merged or collapsed. Unfortunately the
whole issue is so complicated that many applications lack either the
ability to construct such files or to read such files compiled by
other applications. In fact some applications cannot read even simple
16 bit files.

Yes, but it's more (file size) efficient to retain the original, and
save edits to the original not as "layers", but reversible steps either
saved as a sidecar file, or as metadata in the file.

That's a propietary file format. What happens if you are not using
software which uses that format?

Also avoids the
need to convert formats to tiff, which may or may not cause other problems.
A very heavily edited raw file (*nef) seems to grow to at most only
about double original (lossless compressed) raw file size using Nikon
Capture.

It's all very well using NEF but how do you manage with a NEF file
which contains editing information if you want to load it into an
application which can't read it?

I don't use other raw file software (perhaps I'm a masochist -
who enjoys pain) so can't comment on the size sidecar files used by
other raw editing programs typically grow to.
Much of what I used to need layers for, doesn't need layers using
CaptureNX, gradient blends ("digital ND filter" effect), brushing out
masks, selective sharpening or NR with opacity adjustment and/or
feathering when blending down etc.

I think you will find they are still there. Its just that they are
being hidden from you.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 29/02/2012 9:37 p.m., Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:49:15 +1300, wrote:



I don't use other raw file software (perhaps I'm a masochist -
who enjoys pain) so can't comment on the size sidecar files used by
other raw editing programs typically grow to.
Much of what I used to need layers for, doesn't need layers using
CaptureNX, gradient blends ("digital ND filter" effect), brushing out
masks, selective sharpening or NR with opacity adjustment and/or
feathering when blending down etc.

I think you will find they are still there. Its just that they are
being hidden from you.

No I don't think so - at least not in the same way layers are saved in
Tiff, PSD, etc.
If I do a gradient blend in photoshop with two layers, and save (tiff)
before merging down, then file size (more than) doubles.
If I select the entire image, adjust levels (ie on what would be
equivalent to a "layer"), then use the gradient tool in Capture (to
achieve the same effect merged down, but 100% fully "reversible" in
steps on reopening the saved file), and save as an *nef, then file size
increase is negligible - almost unnoticeable.
I believe that the "edits" are saved as metadata within the *.nef file
as vectors, instructions etc - not bitmap layers.
The advantage is file size, and in the case of CaptureNX, portability
between systems able to read/edit *nef files (as a "sidecar" file isn't
used, the nef file on it's own can be opened on a different machine,
with all edits intact and reversible).
The disadvantage is that rather than just opening bitmap layers, the
application has to process and render the edits to the image each time
an "edited" file is opened. Hence it can be as slow as molasses to open
heavily edited files - or batch convert them to another format.

*.nef files aren't (strictly speaking) raw files, as even unedited ex
camera nef files contain a compressed jpeg image as well as the raw
data. That jpeg is used for review of raw files on the camera LCD -
which is sometimes not so good, as compression artifacts can sometimes
be seen at 100% view. Also the jpeg is rendered using the "picture
control" which is set in the camera, so visual review, as well as the
histogram, highlight warning etc is affected by contrast, saturation
settings etc in camera. This is significant in assessing correct
exposure, but few Nikon users who shoot raw seem to understand at all -
that especially if using something like a "vivid" picture control, even
though the raw file is unaffected, they'll think they're getting blown
channels, adjust exposure accordingly, with the result that they may end
up under-exposing significantly. Best to use "neutral" picture control
seeting in all Nikon dslrs when shooting raw.

On saving an edited *.nef, the "internal" jpeg is overwritten with a new
one from the edited version of the *.nef. Proper *.nef (so-called)
Codecs (which Nikon took an inexcusable number of years to finally
release for 64 bit systems) enables the system to generate thumbnails
using this jpeg, so icons/thumbnails show the edited nef - not the
original. This is good (IMO).
It all works brilliantly, except when it doesn't (crashes, and slow as
mollases) but from a workflow POV, the concept is (IMO) the right one.

On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote:


snip


Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of
storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now?


I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already
accepted that for a fact.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2


--
Peter

On 2/29/2012 8:33 AM, RichA wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:49 pm, Eric wrote:
http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...ic&forum=190&t...

"A couple of posts up, Per and Marvin have asked to elaborate on the
statement “the extremely high resolution requires different
handling of the camera and also demand much more from post
processing (hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this.”

What I mean by this roughly twofold:

1. The higher the resolution the more every little mistake/fault
gets visible. I'm talking about lens quality, slight miss focus,
camera movement, mirror slap, etc.

This is where DSLR's, particularly Canon and Nikon DSLRs, are weak.
Not only do they lack in-body I.S. which means every lens without it
is more likely to result in image blur, but mirror slap and large FF
shutter slap are definitely apt to cause image blurring. Case in
point, using a long lens with a D800 body will demand flawless
technique and a monster of a tripod to avoid blur. It's time to
update the old cliche of shooting at a shutter speed "1/camera lens
focal length" with this one because it's not going to get the job done.


The last time I looked, that formula was for full frame film. Also, the
shutter speed as a reciprocal of the focal length should not be "LESS
THAN" 1x the focal length.


--
Peter
Some people insist on proving their ignorance.

On 3/1/2012 12:04 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 2/29/2012 8:33 AM, RichA wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:49 pm, Eric wrote:
http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcbo...ic&forum=190&t...

"A couple of posts up, Per and Marvin have asked to elaborate on the
statement “the extremely high resolution requires different
handling of the camera and also demand much more from post
processing (hardware)… Not everyone will be up to this.”

What I mean by this roughly twofold:

1. The higher the resolution the more every little mistake/fault
gets visible. I'm talking about lens quality, slight miss focus,
camera movement, mirror slap, etc.

This is where DSLR's, particularly Canon and Nikon DSLRs, are weak.
Not only do they lack in-body I.S. which means every lens without it
is more likely to result in image blur, but mirror slap and large FF
shutter slap are definitely apt to cause image blurring. Case in
point, using a long lens with a D800 body will demand flawless
technique and a monster of a tripod to avoid blur. It's time to
update the old cliche of shooting at a shutter speed "1/camera lens
focal length" with this one because it's not going to get the job done.


The last time I looked, that formula was for full frame film. Also, the
shutter speed as a reciprocal of the focal length should not be "LESS
THAN" 1x the focal length.



Oops left off the link:
http://www.marietta.edu/~mcshaffd/macro/telephoto.html

--
Peter

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:51:22 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote:


snip


Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of
storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now?


I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already
accepted that for a fact.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2

One reason why I would use TIFF instead of PSD (or PSB) is that I have
no Adobe applications. I have a number of others which can use TIFF,
although I find some will not recognise all aspects of TIFF.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 3/1/2012 4:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:51:22 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote:


snip


Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of
storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now?


I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already
accepted that for a fact.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2

One reason why I would use TIFF instead of PSD (or PSB) is that I have
no Adobe applications. I have a number of others which can use TIFF,
although I find some will not recognise all aspects of TIFF.


I have always suspected that PSD is a proprietary form of TIFF.


--
Peter

PeterN wrote in news:4f4fa922$0$18676
:

On 2/28/2012 4:46 PM, RichA wrote:


snip


Boo hoo. They spend $3000+ on a body and worry about the cost of
storage...BTW, who uses TIFF now?


I don't understand why you keep proving your ignorance. We have already
accepted that for a fact.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=18965.15;wap2



Unless you are a moron, you'll just store the raw files.