Nisolow

Greetings as I have not posted here before but have followed many of the great discussions. My question is regarding RAW conversion. When I initially got my Nikon D5300, there were no NEF converters for it in Lightroom or ACDSee so I have been in the habit of converting all files to DNG via Adobe DNG converter and using that protocol. Of course, now NEF from that camera can be read in most programs. For the first time I actually compared the NEF and DNG files in Lightroom and ACDSee and see that they are a bit different with the DNG having a slightly different crop, more chromic aberations,more noise, and a subtly different histogram. I assume that the NEF file must have some processing unique to the camera and lens that does not come over to the DNG file. It seems to be more than just the JPEG rendition that is different. I suppose that I can correct all the DNG files to get them back to the NEF state but why bother? I think that the NEF file may make corrections for the particular lens but am not sure. I really can't quite get the DNG to match the NEF even with processing. Even with correction, the NEF files seem to look better. I had assumed that NEF and DNG would be identical RAW files but that is not correct. I have looked online and haven't found a satisfactory answer to this. I would prefer to use DNG and not be bothered with sidecars but I don't like the idea of having to correct chromic aberations on every image that I take. Should I just stay with NEF? Any help is appreciated!

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Very interesting question and one I would like the answer to as Im contemplating a new camera. Lets hope a Hog boffin can help on this.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

How about a relatively non-technical explanation.

Converting from Nikon raw to DNG and then to JPEG or TIFF is like translating Don Quixote to Russian and then to English. You are bound to lose something in the translation and you will probably never get it back.

Capture NX2 or Capture One 8 is probably the best way to get what you need.

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

When I purchased Lightroom I watched some tutorials of Lightroom on you-tube. Terry White did a great job of explaining how to use this processor. He said that when you import your photos to lightroom, convert them to DNG files and process from there. Is there a better way, or is this the way most all who use lightroom handle this?
Thanks!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

What program are you looking at the NEF files in?
If it is a Nikon program, then it will most likely be NEF files with all "in camera" settings applied.
I think your NEF files that you are looking at have in camera lens correction (CA and distortion), contrast, saturation, vivid, D-lighting etc all applied.
The DNG you are comparing them to are base raw images.
I would expect them to be different under these circumstances.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I don't use DNG but I have heard that it makes available some pixels on the edge of the frame that are normally used for setting black levels. That might explain the slight crop difference, although I thought you had to have a special program to actually recover those pixels. (See edge recovery software, http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user_page.jsp?upnum=1419 section XIV)

jeshaw2 Loc: Ohio

Your research is most interesting for I have not been as critical in my evaluations as you.

I normally stay with the NEF format to keep the number of hands in my 'soup' minimized. However, having several Terabyte USB drives, I also convert all my images to DNG as a backup against the marketing games the big guys play. I have both a NEF and a DNG directory (subdivided by date) for backup images, then copy out the ones I want to manipulate to topical directories. When I copy out a file for further work I usually rename the file, but I'm sure to include 4 numeric digits of the raw file's name (the remaining characters are redundant) so I can search for the original file in either of the nef or dng directories.

Works for me, but I'm not a commercial photographer. I just consider myself to be a pro-am.

Remember everyone, these TB drives only last reliably for 5 yrs, then you need to replace them.

HTH

Ranjan Loc: Currently Cyber-Nation!

Has someone who has used the Nikon software (view nx2/capture nx etc) as well as PS or PSE 11, 12 or 13 noticed any differences between Nikon vs Adobe software when they were unravelling the same NEF image?

NEF is just a sequence of data and both Nikon and adobe software translate those into an image. Are their translation routines identical, is what I am asking, I suppose.

Thanks!

Nisolow

Thanks for all the replies. I am viewing the images in lightroom and the latest ACD see. I was under the impression that RAW is RAW whether Dng or NEF but I now see that is incorrect! I like the comment about Russian translation. As I cannot seem to ever get the DNG to look quite as good as NEF, I guess I will ditch DNG. But now I have to deal with all the sidecar files...

Ranjan Loc: Currently Cyber-Nation!

Sigh! The 2/3rd full 3 TB Seagate died just two days after the warranty expiry date. Probably came with a little death-gene-timer built in! :-( Good thing I keep backups of backups! Also, using a automatic continual backup probably ran the motor aground faster. My other backups are done manually and intermittently and so have a low odometer numbers!

Toolking Loc: Pacific Northwest

Adobe maintains that the information in both files is the same. Because I'm on CS5 I must convert my NEF's from my 610 to DNG. I've converted a few of my earlier ones from my D7000 to compare and when everything is set to "as shot" I can't tell the difference.

I'm no expert but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

To answer your question - no, the interpreted raw file images made by different engines are not identical.

This is the difference between raw and the other digital image storage formats. Elsewhere, I made the analogy to word processing and spreadsheet documents, so let me try again here.

If I write a book using Google Docs and send you the file, and you open that file in MS Word, what you will see are the same letters/words/paragraphs etc. that I initially wrote. There is no "interpretation" of that data. Likewise with spreadsheets created in Excel and read with Apple iWorks - the numbers and formulas do not get changed.

However, understand that the data stream from the imaging chip needs to be interpreted. If you are familiar with how they work - each photo site in the matrix of 24 million sites (for a 24MP camera - and those are rounded numbers) is only sensitive to photons of any frequency (color). To achieve color imaging, an array of R, G and B filters is laid atop those photo sites - in the standard Bayer pattern that array is a 2x2 matrix with R-G in the top row and G-B in the bottom row (the overall uses 50% green because that's the light our eyes are most sensitive to). Anyway, there is no one god-given "rule" as to what it means if the upper left R reads 1000 photons and the upper right G reads 500 photos (again, whatever the true numbers would be - not germane for this concept) - it will be yellow of some kind, sure, but what exact hue and saturation is not a fait accompli. And of course, that only refers to two adjacent sites - mix in other surrounding photo site reading and you can begin to see what the raw engine needs to do - it's a lot of work! Oh, and the XTrans sensor is the same idea; it just uses a different pattern of R-G-B filters. As for Foveon, things might differ a little - I don't know.

So, unlike spreadsheet files, raw files truly need to be "interpreted" and the different engines that do this may well come up with slightly different looks. I mean, OS X won't turn a dog into a cat, but using it compared to ACR and Capture 1 and DxO to read the same initial raw file will show differences.

Nisolow

Excellent and thanks!

Toolking Loc: Pacific Northwest

From the Adobe's documentation:

It should be noted that the Adobe DNG Converter will not necessarily maintain all of the private metadata in certain camera-specific raw formats because this information is not publicly documented and therefore not available to Adobe. However, the Adobe DNG Converter will maintain all of the original image data as well as all of the metadata needed for a high-quality final conversion. Arguably, the private metadata is not really archival, regardless of the format used, simply because it is undocumented. Nevertheless, Adobe recommends that, when photographers use the Adobe DNG Converter for archival purposes, they should maintain both the resulting DNG file and the original camera-specific file. The DNG file offers greater assurance of longevity, but the camera-specific file may contain more metadata. This distinction does not exist, however, for DNG files created by camera manufacturers because they can include all
of the private metadata within the Digital Negative.


The link for the entire document:
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/digital-negative.html?promoid=DTEHA

Notice they did suggest keeping the original file; which I do.

Ranjan Loc: Currently Cyber-Nation!

Thanks! This is what I was looking for. Also, not sure if Nikon reveals their NEF configuration to Adobe or the latter has to reverse engineer and figure things out. Just as Tamron et al have to for figuring out any changes etc that Nikon (or Canon) has made to their mounts (electrical contacts etc.) without necessarily putting the details in public domain.