Raw Conversion: Arguably Photoshop (CS6 in my case) is the ultimate image editor but in my opinion the camera's naïve raw converter does it better. I base this on NEF and ORF files.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Arguably Photoshop (CS6 in my case) is the ultimate image editor but in my opinion the camera's naïve raw converter does it better. I base this on NEF and ORF files.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

joer wrote:

Arguably Photoshop (CS6 in my case) is the ultimate image editor but in my opinion the camera's naïve raw converter does it better. I base this on NEF and ORF files.

Here is an image processed in Olympus View 3.

(Download)

MtnMan Loc: ID

joer wrote:

Arguably Photoshop (CS6 in my case) is the ultimate image editor but in my opinion the camera's naïve raw converter does it better. I base this on NEF and ORF files.

You might try Lightroom for this purpose. It is very easy to create presets that are applied during import of the files to your computer.

If you do I recommend Jeff Shewe's book, "The Digital Negative" for what matters most when using Lightroom for RAW images.

GTinSoCal Loc: Palmdale, CA

Glad you posted this, I was just asking another Nikon shooter about this.
I find ACR MUCH better than Canon's RAW converter.
Both in results and UI.
A friend of mine has a new Nikon, and I cannot really speak to the Nikon software.

GT

amehta Loc: Boston

joer wrote:

Arguably Photoshop (CS6 in my case) is the ultimate image editor but in my opinion the camera's naïve raw converter does it better. I base this on NEF and ORF files.

Would it make sense to use Nikon/Olympus software to produce 16-bit image files (tiff, dng, etc), and then do further image editing in PS/CS6?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

amehta wrote:

Would it make sense to use Nikon/Olympus software to produce 16-bit image files (tiff, dng, etc), and then do further image editing in PS/CS6?

The process of converting the raw image is pretty straightforward. Almost any raw converter will work so long as you can get it to produce a 16-bit TIFF. What might make one better than another is greatly subjective and really has more to do with ease of use than with quality.

But if you want to go from raw directly to JPEG, you should use a raw editor that is not only intuitive and easy to use but also one that allows you to make all of the subtle overall brightness, contrast, clarity and color changes while you are still working with the raw image.

In fact, there are so many things you should not do after a file is converted to JPEG (or PNG) that you are really better off converting to TIFF and only converting to JPEG (or PNG) as the last step.

Sorry if all of this sounds too freaking obvious to those that have been around for a while, but this bears repeating since it will be new to others.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

MtnMan wrote:

You might try Lightroom for this purpose. It is very easy to create presets that are applied during import of the files to your computer.

If you do I recommend Jeff Shewe's book, "The Digital Negative" for what matters most when using Lightroom for RAW images.

I won't use cataloging programs.

amehta Loc: Boston

selmslie wrote:

In fact, there are so many things you should not do after a file is converted to JPEG (or PNG) that you are really better off converting to TIFF and only converting to JPEG (or PNG) as the last step.

I am curious why you group png with jpeg, not with tiff?

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

amehta wrote:

Would it make sense to use Nikon/Olympus software to produce 16-bit image files (tiff, dng, etc), and then do further image editing in PS/CS6?

I use CS6 when I need major editing but most of my PP consists of crop and sharpening. I don't normally try to save an image that needs a lot of adjusting.

amehta Loc: Boston

joer wrote:

I use CS6 when I need major editing but most of my PP consists of crop and sharpening. I don't normally try to save an image that needs a lot of adjusting.

Then Capture NX-D and the Olympus equivalent might be worth trying.

MtnMan Loc: ID

MtnMan wrote:

You might try Lightroom for this purpose. It is very easy to create presets that are applied during import of the files to your computer.

If you do I recommend Jeff Shewe's book, "The Digital Negative" for what matters most when using Lightroom for RAW images.

BTW, contrary to Shewe's suggestion, but I think in line with Kelby, I copy as dng's on import. Most say the files are a bit smaller and I'm hoping, since it is an open source format, it has a better chance of still being readable 100 years from now.

I only export to jpeg when I'm going to do something with the image; e.g. post or print. Most of my images stay as dngs.

In order to keep the revision info in case I someday stop having and Adobe product to open them I have the preferences set to save the xmp sidecar file with the dng. For some reason that isn't the default in Lightroom, though many think it should be.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

amehta wrote:

I am curious why you group png with jpeg, not with tiff?

Because I have only seen PNG as 8-bit just like JPEG.

amehta Loc: Boston

selmslie wrote:

Because I have only seen PNG as 8-bit just like JPEG.

Thanks, that makes sense. 16-bit png seems less common.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

amehta wrote:

Thanks, that makes sense. 16-bit png seems less common.

Just as an 8-bit TIFF is not common. It exists, but what's the point?

pete-m Loc: Casper, WY

amehta wrote:

Thanks, that makes sense. 16-bit png seems less common.

That was my question too, amehta. I have been converting to 16bit png, which I assume puts it alongside TIFF.

Pete :D