insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

We all know the P900 has a major draw back in that it does not shoot in RAW. But it does have a Picture Control setting labeled "NL Neutral" which is described "Minimal processing for natural results. Select for images that will later be processed or retouched."

Anyone have a feel for, or know, how close to shooting in RAW this NL setting might be?

Thanks.

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

Just by the description above I doubt very much that it would even come close to RAW. Since .jpg is a "lossy" format, you will never retrieve any further information than is provided by the .jpg image straight out of the camera (SOOC). It sounds like the NL setting will strip out any sharpening, color saturation, and light balancing the processor may have performed, and that you will then have to make all those changes in Post Processing. I use a predecessor to the P900, the Nikon P600, and I use the "Standard" setting which has always worked very well for me.

Bob Yankle Loc: Burlington, NC

Dual post - please disregard.

Searcher Loc: Kent, England

If you could take 2 shots of the same subject, one in NL Neutral and one as normal, post both in the Post Processing section and see what those guys and gals come up with.

Click here to come in and look around
Click here for the Tutorials and Tips index page
Click here for the Free software index
Click here to subscribe to the Post-Processing Digital Images section, click on "All Sections" and scroll to the fourth-to-last item:
Post-Processing Digital Images and click to subscribe in the appropriate box.

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

With minimal in-camera processing, the photographer can use layers and masks to apply adjustments to portions of the image that need it rather than globally. For example, heavy noise filtering could be applied to the sky and dark areas, and less heavily to the critical subject to preserve detail.

If editing is not to this level then little benefit might accrue.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

If I were you I would take Searchers advice, the rest are speculation.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

I'm going to try to run a test today.

The Watcher

How do the file sizes compare when you shoot the same subject at each setting? Wouldn't a larger file show less processing?

But then again, my sister has a Coolpix with a higher setting that shows the same file size as the default setting.

This is according to the manual.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

The file sizes with NL seem to be slightly larger.

The Watcher

Just noticed and visited your photo site.

I would say; you have the skills to discover if the setting is worth using.

I enjoyed looking at your photos.

JPL

You are wrong about this. We all know the P900 does not shoot RAW. But it is not a draw back at all.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

Well, I sure wish I could report that shooting in NL is akin to shooting RAW, but I can't. I'm going to post the PP images, but first let me tell you what I did in the way of a test. If you see any flaws in my process, don't be shy about pointing them out. I'm a photographer, not an engineer.

Here's what I did: 1. I mounted my P900 on a tripod; 2. I shot three setups, with one exposure in STD and one in NL; 3. I compared the "out of camera" results by opening the files in Bridge and visually checking them; 4. I opened both files of each setup, one setup at a time, and using the NL (pretending it was a RAW file) file as a guide, maximized the appearance of both image together, using the exact same setting for both; 5. Scurried over to UHH to report what I found.

Here's what I found: 1. NL files and STD files differ in size, but not in a linear fashion, and not in a consistent way. Sometimes the NL file is bigger, sometimes it's smaller. 2. Un-postprocessed NL images are flatter, less-contrasty than un-postprocessed STD files; 3. Postprocessed NL files are slightly (5%?) more saturated than post processed STD files. 4. This may well have been the biggest waste of my time, not to mention the fact that I had to stand in a drizzling rain to take the shots, ever.

For the life of me, I can't see why both options are provided. There, I said it and I'm glad. Please don't judge my photography by the shots I'm providing. Here are the images. (I'm having trouble uploading the originals, so if you want to see them let me know.)

Setup 1, STD


Setup 1, NL


Setup 2, STD


Setup 2, NL


Setup 3, STD


Setup 3, NL

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

I don't know how you can say that the inability to shoot RAW isn't a drawback. It's a considerable drawback.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

Thank you very much. You made my day.

Nikonista Loc: England

No it isn't. A well created jpeg is fine for hobbyists and amateurs. Not so for you professionals and huge power users of course, but then why would you want this camera?