saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

On my Nikon D3 I normally shoot in fine which only gives me around 2mb to 6mb depending on the content of the photo, But to me this feels too small and such a huge step up if I go tiff which are too big. With my Nikon D2x In fine I get around 6 to 8mb files why is the D3 giving me smaller MB files? Can I make them bigger without going tiff? How big can you print up a 2mb file?

ephraim Imperio

Shoot RAW nef as lossless 12-bit compressed file will give you 13.3 MB in D3 camera

saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

Thanks Ive never shot in Raw I guess a bit scared of all the work or manipulation to do. What do you mean lossless? cheers

ephraim Imperio

From what I understand, a lossless compressed Nef raw file is a file that you can de-compress the image as it was written in the camera without loosing any data during post.

saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

I tried some test shots with shooting jpg and lossless NEF and although the nef files are nearly twice the mb the jpgs look slighty better and not as dark so what do I have to do with the NEF files to get them looking as good if not better than the jpgs. Are they still compressed once downloaded on the computer? Thanks

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Process them in a program such as Photoshop or Lightroom. With experience, you should be able to fine tune the photos and possibly get better results than you did when you shot jpegs.
Your files will stay compressed when on the computer. After processing, you decide what format to save them in. Then you'll have the original raw file and the new one you created.
There are a lot of resources on the net to learn how to manipulate the raw files...Lynda.com seems like a popular one mentioned here. I belong to NAPP, National Assoc of Photoshop Professionals which includes a monthly magazine and access to hundreds of tutorials on-line.

saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

I do have photoshop cs6 and aperture which I use mostly. In aperture though they just stay in the folders and there is no where to change the photo to a jpg or tiff or png or what unless I export them. Would I have to do this all the time? And with aperture and photoshop do these programs automatically do some processing for you?..Cheers

saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

I just exported a raw file to jpg out of aperture being over 11mb and imported it back and it was only 1.6mb Why is it so small? How do I keep the files the same size or near it?

ephraim Imperio

After processing the NEF raw file, save it as "processed Nef Raw file" which I do in Capture NX2. I don't know if you can do this in aperture.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide

This explains how much better raw is. The D3 camera body was the finest body money can buy a year ago. Everybody knows how much they cost. So why don't you get everything you can out of your camera. Shoot raw and always shoot in the largest picture format the camera can produce. Don't worry about size of the files. If you have an awesome camera, you need good lenses, and you need a powerful computer and large monitor(s) to go with it. A point and shoot can produce as good an image the way you're using your D3.

saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

Is there much difference with lossless compressed raw files which give around 10mb to uncompressed raw files which are about 18mb? Do they uncompress when uploaded to the computer software? I couldnt imagine shooting a wedding with 18mb per shot. Could probably get away with 10mb which is about 40% more storage taken up over jpg at around 6mb per shot.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Raw files are not compressed. Raw files for the most part are proprietary files created by the camera that the cameras manufacturer has developed. There are dng raw files that are Adobes raw format. They should be about the same size. Adobe might (not sure because I don't use that format) have a lossless compression scheme. Adobe, and other software manufacturers reverse engineer image files for each camera, but they don't have all the secrets of every raw image for every camera make and model. Therefore, most every camera that shoots raw will come with software you can put on your computer to view, edit, print, batch process, and then save in a more common format i.e. jpg, tif, psd and pdf. Those four formats have compression schemes that will reduce the file size but only the jpg will drastically reduce the file size. With this drastic size reduction comes loss of data. The other 3 file formats have compression schemes that are lossless but they don't save a lot of space.

Some estimated examples for my 18 mega pixel cameras would be:
raw - 24mb file size xxx.cr2
raw converted to dng - 24mb file size xxx.dng
tif - 21mb file size xxx.tif
tif LZR compression - 18mb file size xxx.tif
psd - 21mb file size xxx.psd
jpg - largest saved one time 8mb file size xxx.jpg

I'm not sure if any of this mumbo jumbo is helping you. I get the feeling that you aren't asking the question the way you want and therfore I'm not able to give the answer you are looking for. For some reasion I'm thinking that maybe you need to send these files over the internet or to DVD/CD to share with other people. If this is the case, you still should shoot in raw, use a raw editor to view and edit then 'save as jpg'. You definitly don't want to post raw on the net, nor do you want to provide raw images to your friends or clients. Raw is for you to get the most out of your image data before you send to friends, upload and print. Most professional print labs require a format other than raw i.e. jpg or tif.

saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

Thanks for your help. My D3 has in the shooting menu NEF ( RAW ) recording which shows Lossless compressed, compressed, or uncompressed. I put it at lossless compressed which gives about 10mb files. Ive only tried the other uncompressed option which is 18mb. Way too big for most stuff I shoot including portraits and weddings. But I have shot jpg for so long now and this raw thing is new to me. So once the image has been manipulated, which I use aperture mainly as I find it simple and still trying to suss photoshop cs6 out, I have to change them to jpg or other. I cant seem to see how I can do this in aperture unless I export them... Cheers

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I heard that Aperture is simular to Lightroom and if this is the case, LR doesn't have a 'save as' feature either. It's a bit confusing to some that are used to going to File>Save as to get their jpg or tiff files. It sounds like Aperture uses Export, as does LR, to save the raw image in the tiff or jpg formats after you have done all the non destructive editing to your raw image.

I just did a search and on the Ken Rockwell site it says this:

NEF (RAW) recording top

This lets you chose many raw options.

Type

Lossless Compressed

I don't use this, which is the default.

Compressed

I use "Compressed." You get full raw quality, range and options, however the file sizes are kept much smaller with no visible loss.

Uncompressed

Forget this. You get the same data and image quality as the other options, but with many times the file size. This option exists only for conspiracists who thought Nikon was cheating them when this option wasn't on other cameras. Ask your math professor; you get exactly the same data in Lossless Compressed and exactly the same images and adjustments in Compressed, but with none of the bloat.

NEF (RAW) Bit Depth

I use 12 bit. I can't see any difference with 14-bit, but 14-bit wastes my valuable time and file space which I can see.

Bit depth refers only to the precision, not range or accuracy, with which brightness levels are defined. The number of bits is completely unrelated to the brightness range described by these digital values.

JPG is log, not linear, so its 8 bits perfectly render the entire visual range from bright to dark.

NEF is a linear, not log, format. Because the levels (quantization steps) between digital values are the same at bright and dark, we have to use a lot of bits to get enough precession at the dark end. The log nature of JPG means that the q-steps become far finer at the dark end, so 8 bits is plenty.

Since NEF can't tailor the q-steps with brightness, we need to use 12 bits so that we have enough precision in the darks. This leaves us wasting bits at the bright end, where 12 bits gives far more precision than needed.

With 14-bit systems, it helps in the dark end, but is a complete waste at the bright end of the range.

When you select 12-bit, you're still getting 14-bit performance in the dark where you need it. All that changes is that the 12-bit position merely uses a look-up-table to skip between values at the bright end, where we far more precision than needed anyway.

Few photographers have Ph.Ds in mathematics, so they understand none of this, and waste valuable time and disc space by shooting in the more bloated modes like 14-bit, lossless or uncompressed, or shooting raw in the first place.

Photo books are written by laypeople who have forgotten anything past 9th grade math, so they misinterpret this to imply that 14-bit covers a wider range. Nope, it's just more precision where we don't need it.

saxkiwi Loc: New Zealand

Thanks you have been a great help. I will try compressed Raw