Charlie7

Sorry to put you out Longshadow. I did not expect you to "play" with my photo. I'm Sure you have been at this much longer than I. This was my first post. I must say I did not expect such a condescending attitude.

Thanks for taking the time.

Charlie7

Thank you, brucewells.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You not inconveniencing us, but it's also not clear what you want. Do you have a specific question you'd like us to answer or were you just practicing uploading a raw file? Referencing an earlier thread that you found confusing is of no help to us if we don't know exactly what you need us to clarify.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Getting the hang of post-processing can seem daunting sometimes. Think things through, and if you want, send me a PM (Private Message) with your questions, if you'd like.

Charlie7

Thanks,no. I was trying to understand responses to my post this AM. I do not want to start the discussion again.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I'm sorry you inferred it as condescending, it wasn't meant that way. I simply stated that I don't download and try to open raw files. Especially nef because I have no way of viewing them.

Charlie7

Thanks, brucewells. I understand raw files vs. JPEG. I use PSE, Lightroom and Affinity. I simply asked if I am missing anything using Photos on my Mac to post-process. I think I received many comments from folks who have never bothered to see what post processing in Photos has to offer.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

You did and you didn't.....Tiff and other raw files cannot be opened 'outside of' a raw processing programme. However the steps you took will allow you to post a jpg image to UHH that will open in a larger format than 'the usual' image posted without ticking the download box.

To try to answere your thread....The original raw processors allowed you to alter a few things like white balance, crop, straighten and exposure, curves etc - you were then expected to save the changes as a jpg in order to manipulate the individual parts of the image, spot heal, clone and copy and working with layers and all the rest of the tools. PSE and early versions of PS worked in this way. Only later was the range of tools available to do much more in raw. To view the image or print the raw file it had to be converted into another format, such as jpg, tiff etc.....(mainly for outside printing as few people had a home printer). That being the case a whole raft of jpg only manipulation was created as small digital cameras did not support raw.
Times have changed.....PS, Lightroom, the new Darktable etc has many more tools available within the raw process. Some people only ever use these tools because they allow a greater 'flexibility' than the tools within a converted image... Even some of the smallest cameras support raw in some form.

The argument for and against using raw isn't about 'Can you see the difference'. It is about do I need the extra abilities offered by raw...? Some photographers arn't interested in all of the advantages (for a variety of reasons) and others use few or all of the raw capabilities as part of a their worklow plan with some or every image they take.

There is little or no cost consequences with which-ever workflow you use. At some point we all end up with a jpg or similar format for our images. This is because the file size is huge, download time is long and most outside printers still will not print a raw file.

Unless you are earning a living from your camera - photography is a fun hobby.....some people like to expand their skills to the n'th limits and others prefere to do the minimum work to get an acceptable result. Some flit between the two extremes........

Photography, since digital, has exploded into a cultural phenomena.....people use cameras daily for comfirmation of work done, 'look what I am doing/eating/buying' every hour.. to scientific inquiry 'just because they can'. to suggest one is right and another is wrong is completely senseless. But because the range of use is very broad.....post processing is squeezing the 'last drop' out of what our cameras produce. Hense the common advice to shoot raw.

I hope this gives you a non judgmental, non scientific or geeky overview of why the raw v jpg argument is about as well used as the canon v nikon debate continues.

Have fun (or work hard and hope to get rich)

Charlie7

Thanks G Brown. I understand raw files vs. JPEG. I use PSE, Lightroom and Affinity. I simply asked, in my morning post, if I am missing anything using Photos on my Mac to post-process. I think I received many comments from folks who have never bothered to see what post processing in Photos has to offer.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Charlie. I converted your RAW .nef file to .jpg. Excellent shot. I also did some light processing on the file (second version below) in Photoshop. All I did was clck on the Image/ auto color, auto contrast, and auto tone buttons. You can see the processed image shows a bit more detail than the unprocessed image.

To answer your question, a file ending in .NEF is a RAW file. It is not a .jpg file. Most viewing programs can't display .NEF files. When converted to .jpg (either with or without processing) the .jpg files will display in all display programs.

P.S. I set my cameras to produce both fine jpg and raw (NEF) files for each image. I view the jpg files to pick the images I want to process. I then process the .NEF file, and then convert them to .jpg. The processed raw files often have more detail than the .jpg out of the camera.

.NEF file converted to .jpg - no post processing

(Download)

.NEF file converted to .jpg - used auto tone, auto contrast, and auto color in Photoshop to lightly process the file.

(Download)

Charlie7

Thank you for your effort, Bobspez. I understand raw files vs. JPEG. I always shoot in raw. I use PSE, Lightroom and Affinity. I simply asked, in my morning post, if I am missing anything using Photos on my Mac to post-process. I think I received many comments from folks who have never bothered to see what post processing in Photos has to offer.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Here's the thing most folks determine when faced with these decisions. The tools that are typically provided to us 'for free' are usually not sufficient to properly process the raw files we produce. I know Windows has a Photos app, and I believe that Apple operating systems do, as well. They allow for some creativity to the typical JPG files, but are not complete for full-fledged raw file processing that most folks think of. However, they are attractive to users because they are typically very intuitive in doing what they do. Professional grade processors are not so intuitive.

But, last I checked, it's still a free country and we can use the tools that we like best.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I understand you want to understand responses from your earlier thread, but you need to specifically ask us what it is you want. It's still unclear. You need to specifically ask us a well-thought-out question or questions if you want responses that will be helpful.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Sorry I misunderstood your question Charlie. I use windows and Photoshop. Never heard of Photos, so I can't answer that question.

Charlie7

If you get a chance, check out IOS Photos for Mac. You will be surprised. It does offer "complete for full-fledged raw file processing that most folks think of". If I do not like the results I can take the photo from Photos to Affinity, Lightroom, or PSE.