Nikon & RAW Conversion?

I'm in the market for a digital SLR to replace my Nikon N80 that bit
the dust last month. In doing my research, I've noticed a lot of
people complaning that Nikon doesn't include the software to do "full
RAW conversion". Something called, 'Capture NX' which costs another
$120 or so.

Forgive me if this is an overly simplistic question, but can someone
give me a quick overview of exactly what RAW is, and what the
advantage/necessity is of being able to do RAW conversions with a
digital camera?

Peter Gibbons wrote:

I'm in the market for a digital SLR to replace my Nikon N80 that bit
the dust last month. In doing my research, I've noticed a lot of
people complaning that Nikon doesn't include the software to do "full
RAW conversion". Something called, 'Capture NX' which costs another
$120 or so.

Forgive me if this is an overly simplistic question, but can someone
give me a quick overview of exactly what RAW is, and what the
advantage/necessity is of being able to do RAW conversions with a
digital camera?

In a nutshell, RAW is the digital negative - the data from the sensor
with very little interpretation (i.e., before the camera translates it
to JPEG). Shooting RAW means the JPEG conversion happens in your PC
instead of the camera. Nikon also supports a mode called JPEG+RAW that
generates both file types for every shot.

Some folks are pretty passionate that this yields better results (and I
agree), but it's not for someone who wants to click the shutter and be
done. It's also not that big of a deal to do. The advantage with RAW
is the level of image data that's retained (bits per color pixel); JPEG
has less image data, so adjustments become harder (e.g., exposure
corrections, color temp, etc.).

Yes, Nikon charges for Capture NX, but Nikon's RAW converter isn't the
only one out there. A lot of folks use Adobe's Camera Raw (ACR), which
is included with CS3 or Photoshop Elements. Also see IrfanView (freeware).

I recommend sticking your toe in the water by shooting JPEG+RAW - it's a
non-scary way to give RAW a try.

Cheers,
Richard

"Richard H." wrote in message
...
Peter Gibbons wrote:

I'm in the market for a digital SLR to replace my Nikon N80 that bit
the dust last month. In doing my research, I've noticed a lot of
people complaning that Nikon doesn't include the software to do "full
RAW conversion". Something called, 'Capture NX' which costs another
$120 or so.

Forgive me if this is an overly simplistic question, but can someone
give me a quick overview of exactly what RAW is, and what the
advantage/necessity is of being able to do RAW conversions with a
digital camera?

In a nutshell, RAW is the digital negative - the data from the sensor with
very little interpretation (i.e., before the camera translates it to
JPEG). Shooting RAW means the JPEG conversion happens in your PC instead
of the camera. Nikon also supports a mode called JPEG+RAW that generates
both file types for every shot.

Some folks are pretty passionate that this yields better results (and I
agree), but it's not for someone who wants to click the shutter and be
done. It's also not that big of a deal to do. The advantage with RAW is
the level of image data that's retained (bits per color pixel); JPEG has
less image data, so adjustments become harder (e.g., exposure corrections,
color temp, etc.).

Yes, Nikon charges for Capture NX, but Nikon's RAW converter isn't the
only one out there. A lot of folks use Adobe's Camera Raw (ACR), which is
included with CS3 or Photoshop Elements. Also see IrfanView (freeware).

I recommend sticking your toe in the water by shooting JPEG+RAW - it's a
non-scary way to give RAW a try.

I agree with you 100%. Just to add:
The Nikon camera´s DO include Picture Project that does convert to TIFF and
JPEG. Capture NX is much better and has much more possibilities, though.
Personally I work almost only with Adobe Lightroom. It recognizes NEF files
and is more easy and practical to deal with then Photoshop, unless you plan
some very extensive retouching or artwork. Besides: it´s much cheaper (I
believe they still have a special introduction price, but check their site).
If you still have lenses with CPU, you might be able to use them on most
DSLR´s from Nikon. Depending on the model you want to buy. I have the D40
that uses the AF-S or AF-I lenses. I belive the N80 is the almost the same?.
The quality is outstanding, however and the prices very reasonable.
If you happen to own the SB800, 600 or 400 flash, you´re very lucky, because
it also works perfectly with almost all DSLR´s.
I used to make pictures like Richard says: both JPEG and RAW, but now I only
shoot RAW: the possibilities are way better.
Check out my site with very dark church pictures and inside an old factory
ruin. Thanks to RAW and Lightroom I was able to "bring" the light back.
http://atlantic-diesel.com/Mafra/
What lenses do you have?

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 05:06:10 +0000, Peter Gibbons wrote:

I'm in the market for a digital SLR to replace my Nikon N80 that bit
the dust last month. In doing my research, I've noticed a lot of
people complaning that Nikon doesn't include the software to do "full
RAW conversion". Something called, 'Capture NX' which costs another
$120 or so.

Forgive me if this is an overly simplistic question, but can someone
give me a quick overview of exactly what RAW is, and what the
advantage/necessity is of being able to do RAW conversions with a
digital camera?

RAW includes the 'raw' data from the sensors - it is not massaged into a
jpeg with compression and loss of detail. Also, raw data is usually
recorded at 12 bits per channel rather than the 8 bits in a jpeg. UFRAW is
a good utility for converting raw data to usable format. I shoot almost
exclusively in raw on my Kodak P850. This camera includes a jpeg version
in the raw file - my first step for all photos is to extract that jpeg
image. If I can see upon viewing that the image could be improved, then I
run it through ufraw - which allows me to do basic editing on the spot.

Peter Gibbons wrote:
I'm in the market for a digital SLR to replace my Nikon N80 that bit
the dust last month. In doing my research, I've noticed a lot of
people complaning that Nikon doesn't include the software to do "full
RAW conversion". Something called, 'Capture NX' which costs another
$120 or so.

That's not quite right. Depending on the country the Nikon DSLR is
produced for, Nikon will supply either PictureProject or Nikon View
software that will permit the conversion of Nikon RAW files (called
NEF's) to either jpeg or tiff files.

Capture NX is more than just a RAW file converter. It's a photo editor
more inline with Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements). It's does RAW
conversion, but it also does a lot more.

For basic RAW conversion of Nikon NEF files, the PictureProject (or
Nikon View) software included with the new Nikon DSLR will usually suffice.

- Peter

Peter Lawrence wrote:
Peter Gibbons wrote:
I'm in the market for a digital SLR to replace my Nikon N80 that bit
the dust last month. In doing my research, I've noticed a lot of
people complaning that Nikon doesn't include the software to do "full
RAW conversion". Something called, 'Capture NX' which costs another
$120 or so.

That's not quite right. Depending on the country the Nikon DSLR is
produced for, Nikon will supply either PictureProject or Nikon View
software that will permit the conversion of Nikon RAW files (called
NEF's) to either jpeg or tiff files.

Capture NX is more than just a RAW file converter. It's a photo editor
more inline with Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements). It's does RAW
conversion, but it also does a lot more.

For basic RAW conversion of Nikon NEF files, the PictureProject (or
Nikon View) software included with the new Nikon DSLR will usually suffice.

The new "ViewNX" is a vast improvement over PictureProject.
It's a free d/l from Nikon, supports new cameras including
D3/D300.

Peter Gibbons wrote:
I'm in the market for a digital SLR to replace my Nikon N80 that bit
the dust last month. In doing my research, I've noticed a lot of
people complaning that Nikon doesn't include the software to do "full
RAW conversion". Something called, 'Capture NX' which costs another
$120 or so.

Forgive me if this is an overly simplistic question, but can someone
give me a quick overview of exactly what RAW is, and what the
advantage/necessity is of being able to do RAW conversions with a
digital camera?

I agree with most of the replies to your question. RAW seems to have
more advantages than disadvantages. I found the easiest way to
understand the advantages of RAW is to know that inside every camera is
a little computer that works over the pixels captured by the sensor
based on the settings you made to the camera (auto, manual, portrait,
landscape, iso speed, etc). This "working over" of the pixels is
destructive, that is some pixels are thrown away (compression) and some
are changed irreversibly. With RAW, you get all the pixels captured by
the sensor with very little or no "working over" by the camera's built
in computer.

The disadvantage is that you have to have a way to either convert the
RAW file to TIFF and work on that converted file to make it look the way
you want, or use Adobe's Lightroom, a program that has many controls to
enhance and correct RAW images non-destructively. That is, the RAW file
stays just as the camera captured it, and the corrections are saved as
directions to be applied automatically to the RAW file.

On Oct 16, 1:12 am, David Azose wrote:
Peter Gibbons wrote:
I'm in the market for a digital SLR to replace my Nikon N80 that bit
the dust last month. In doing my research, I've noticed a lot of
people complaning that Nikon doesn't include the software to do "full
RAW conversion". Something called, 'Capture NX' which costs another
$120 or so.

Forgive me if this is an overly simplistic question, but can someone
give me a quick overview of exactly what RAW is, and what the
advantage/necessity is of being able to do RAW conversions with a
digital camera?

I agree with most of the replies to your question. RAW seems to have
more advantages than disadvantages. I found the easiest way to
understand the advantages of RAW is to know that inside every camera is
a little computer that works over the pixels captured by the sensor
based on the settings you made to the camera (auto, manual, portrait,
landscape, iso speed, etc). This "working over" of the pixels is
destructive, that is some pixels are thrown away (compression) and some
are changed irreversibly. With RAW, you get all the pixels captured by
the sensor with very little or no "working over" by the camera's built
in computer.

The disadvantage is that you have to have a way to either convert the
RAW file to TIFF and work on that converted file to make it look the way
you want, or use Adobe's Lightroom, a program that has many controls to
enhance and correct RAW images non-destructively. That is, the RAW file
stays just as the camera captured it, and the corrections are saved as
directions to be applied automatically to the RAW file.

Doesn't PS's HDR merging require RAW files?