Airliners.net

Yesterday I ran a little test to compare softness with D100 images shot in JPEG vs. something shot in NEF.

Well, the NEF file, converted to JPEG through Nikon Capture 3 is quite a bit sharper than the JPEG fine shot. Guess that means I better start saving for more CF cards  

NEF > JPEG http://www.clickhappy.com/to_home/dsc_1461_nef.jpg

JPEG from the camera http://www.clickhappy.com/to_home/dsc_1462.jpg

Or use JPEG and use Unsharp Mask...saves on CF cards!

LGW

For being a close up, the Jpeg is horribly soft. UGH. What lens were you using and also, how big are the NEF's.

thanks and I enjoy your pictures

L

while it is not an action shot, nor is it with 2x converter, i must say Royal that your nef-jpg shot from the D100 is the best out of the camera output i've seen yet from anyone on these threads. It is quite good. My only problem is that your straight from the camera jpg is certainly lacking in the sharpness dept- granted, a good dslr raw/nef should look like your nef-jpg shot (slightly soft), not the straight jpg shot. This leads me to believe that there is a problem perhaps with your camera? not to belabor the D60 whichi ofcourse I tend to do, but when I shoot in raw or jpg fine, both outputs are exactly, I mean exactly alike. Perhaps our resident d100 gangsters maclaughlin or boreda can weigh in on this. I continue to believe that this ongoing dslr discussion is extremely beneficial to many folks here.

Joe

Or use JPEG and use Unsharp Mask...saves on CF cards!

Because you can't sharpen what isn't there!

I didn't buy a DSLR to compromise quality, I bought it to get the best shots possible. If that means more memory, so be it.

Can't help with the D100 at this level Joe because ah, I don't have a D100   I know my RAW slides from the F5 are perfect  

Are the straight from the camera .jpgs with or without incamera sharpening? or any kind of incamera post-shot processing?

Michael

I didn't buy a DSLR to compromise quality, I bought it to get the best shots possible. If that means more memory, so be it.

I'm not a digital (well, not DSLR i do own a 2mp digital) user but why in the world would anyone want to shoot .jpg instead of RAW? Maybe you digital guys could advise...

Michael

Joe, one of the hottest topics in the Nikon forums is the soft JPEG output.

Here is an excellent article:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/page11.asp

to quote: There is a noticeable difference in sharpness between JPEG Fine and RAW, the PC based RAW conversion software has much more processing power available and does appear to apply slightly more sharpening to the image before output (default settings were used to convert the RAW image).

Vaman - here are the "facts" on the NEF shot:

Royal writes:
"Joe, one of the hottest topics in the Nikon forums is the soft JPEG output."
================

Royal you dont actually want me to respond to that do you?

 

Mike, its a personal preference, I know Andy Hunt shoots in jpg only. Like I told him, to me, thats photographic suicide, but Switzerland, like the U.S. is a free country and you can shoot in whatever mode your little heart desires  

Joe

" but Switzerland, like the U.S. is a free country " - Correct Joe - free, shame UK is only half free being that we seemed to be ruled more by the EU than our own government!

Anyway, back to the topic, I shoot only in jpeg fine on my DSLR because I need the CF space! I dont find any problems with shooting jpeg so far I will give RAW a try soon but you loose so much space on those CF cards!


Ouch! I thought the D30/60's where meant to be soft but that jpeg D100 shot is as soft as a marshmallow!

Is that the standard D100 jpeg sharpeness? If so then Joe has NOTHING to worry about, when he says the D60 is best  

LGW

Joe,

Checking in......!

A couple of definition questions. I assume "raw" is a TIFF file. Correct or not?

How big is a raw file on the D60. For an S1 the highest setting is: Hi(RGB) Image size 3040X2016 and the file size is about 16MB.

Looking for claricification here!

Andrew

Have you guys thought about IBM microdrives? I am getting a 1Gb version with my D60, it fits about 140 pics in RAW mode and about 400 in Fine-Large jpeg.

Wietse

Andy,

A Canon D60 RAW is about 7,5mb. The largest and best quality is about 2.5mb I think.

RAW is not TIFF, it is just the image the sensor saw, without any alteration. You can later transfer it to a TIFF image, resulting in a file of about 35MB.

Correct me If im wrong here..

Wietse

A couple of definition questions. I assume "raw" is a TIFF file. Correct or not?

If I'm correct, RAW is not a tiff file. RAW is what the acutal sensors sees/records (untouched) and needs to be converted to a tiff/jpg/etc.

Wouldn't you (not direct at you Andy, more like everybody) want the best quality image possible and later reducing to whatever you need rather than taking a lower quality (while still very good) original?

Michael

Gentlemen, a most interesting discussion...

Canon RAW: roughly 6.5MB
when you take that RAW and convert to 16 bit TIFF, it becomes a 38MB file.
Technically, a RAW is not a TIFF, it is rather a compressed TIFF and as Colin has said in the past, permits you up or down a full 2 stops- thats TWO stops which is tremendous latitude which only a RAW offers in 16bit mode- something no jpg can give you, hence when I say that by shooting jpg you are committing photographic suicide.

Ben, get a 1gig microdrive and you can fit plenty of RAW's in there

Like I always say- I didnt just spend almost 4 thousand dollars to shoot jpg....

Joe

How's that for you Andy, 3 explantions of RAW in less than a second  

Michael

I do plan to shoot in RAW, and for the reason you said.. Michael. No compromise in the beginning.. It may be the worst mistake you ever made... What if you need the best possible quality or what when those 2 stops are exactly what you need to save the pic.

Wietse

Andy wrote: How big is a raw file on the D60. For an S1 the highest setting is: Hi(RGB) Image size 3040X2016 and the file size is about 16MB.
==============

Andy, thinking about this some more- the D60 produces an image similar to your 3040 wide, but with a bit more than twice the MB at 16bit. What does Don's wonder machine do, I think its like 4000 wide with like 50mb in 16bit.

Joe

The D100 with an IBM 1GB microdrive gets 107 pictures in RAW format. TIF RGB image quality large 59 pictures. JPEG Fine Large 318 pictures. I fill the 1GB microdrive, plug it into the PC to download and have several CF cards to carry me over until it downloads. So far I've only shot RAW, no JPEGs to send as samples.

Art

Mike goes to show you how interested people are in this, there are still alot of prospective dslr buyers here reading these words (including you and cairless, mike) and they are very very interested in output, thats why again, i'm very dissapointed that more folks are not showing off what their cameras can produce in order to help others make decisions. We've seen the DAS DC10 and Royal's offerings- we would like to see more.

Joe

So guys, (agreed very interesting discussion, the learning curve gets steeper!)

TIFF is better than RAW...as RAW is a compressed TIFF file? This is slightly confusing.

Joe: WHat exactly is my disadvantage with jpg? The photos look fine, they print fine, the magazines accept them fine. Agreed, RAW/TIFF is better, no question, but is it like comparing a BMW (RAW) with a Mercedes (jpg) or a BMW with a Subaru???

Thanks for the help and advice.

Andrew

Mike,

The advice is coming faster than I can say THANKS!!!! 

Andrew

How come my name keeps getting involved in this?? I'm not a DSLR shooter... just a future prospective buyer of one also.

~Carlos

>>Mike goes to show you how interested people are in this, there are still alot of prospective dslr buyers here reading these words (including you and cairless, mike) and they are very very interested in output, thats why again, i'm very dissapointed that more folks are not showing off what their cameras can produce in order to help others make decisions. We've seen the DAS DC10 and Royal's offerings- we would like to see more.

Joe<<

RAW is not a compressed TIFF as joe mentioned. RAW is just that, a RAW capture of the sensor, untouched. Anything other than a RAW requires the camera to "work on" the image to convert it to TIFF/JPG. With RAW, you have the power to "work on" it yourself.

Michael

Then it looks like the S1 has no raw mode. Methinks..................

Andrew

Yes, Joe people are very interested. But unless you have a fair test it's tough to view examples from a.net users to base your final purchase on. I know I would NEVER do it. The best way is for the same photographer, shooting the same setting and the exact same scene to view the outputs of different cameras they are interested in and base it on that.

Michael

Carlos- because you are very strongly opinionated, frequently making comments about dslr output quality and hence that makes you involved.

Andy- a TIFF is not a RAW and a RAW is not a TIFF, a RAW is just a compressed file which turns into a TIFF, or JPG or BMP or whatever you want. While you can certainly get away with jpg for mags, prints etc, here's where you'll be crying your eyes out if you have a jpg and not a RAW:

a very contrasty or "difficult light" shot where heavy manipulation will have to be made via levels/curves/etc.

an 11x17 print if you should ever need one- you want all the data you can get in a photo and whats better, a 3MB jpg or a 38MB TIFF from a RAW??

Joe

OK, Joe, Mike et al,

Thanks for the advice, much appreciated.

Ok back to some screening, time to reject all of your photos 

Andrew

I disagree Mike, I think alot of people have already made up their minds by seeing some of the output in this thread- whether you want to believe that or not im afraid. Thats why im saying, Don, show us some S2 examples and Sam, show us some action shots straight out of the D100. Where are the D100 and S2 guys?

Joe

Well, if it's true Joe then they are fools of it's based only on photos viewed at a.net. Yes, i said fool because if you are going to buy a $2000 DSLR and base it on a few shots here thats exactly what you are. A true photographer would base the purchase on HIS test of the equipment and "real" tests and examples done professionally. Also, his "feel" for the camera(s) and other aspects that are important for that person. Luckily, I don't know any "fools" on this forum because no one I know here said they purchased a D60 just on these few "test shots" displayed.

Michael

sorry, I actually had to do some work!

Microdrives are sketchy. I don't know that I trust them. It would suck to loose that many shots all in one "bang."

Here is the JPEG info:


Nikon Capture allows you to go straight from a NEF file to a JPEG file.

Joe, why won't you comment on the soft JPEG comment?

Mike i think you're dead wrong. People here who are about to buy a dslr are far from fools by seeing whats being offered on ainet- especially out of the camera- to see an airplane in action is a much much better test than some controlled inhouse test done by some obscure japanese paid for by fuji test that compares two barbie dolls to each other, one taken with d60, one with s2 one with d100.

No one who ever learned something from a trusted source is a fool- no one.

Joe

Joe, then you are truly a fool if you believe that. I know you don't. Show me one person who said "I purchased a D60 based ONLY on the few pics I saw at a.net" Ah, I don't think so.

Michael

Joe: I think Mike was more alluding to people making their own opinions based on testing the camera themselves. And why is the Japanese person obscure??? Perhaps hired by Canon!

Andrew

Andy, don't worry about Joe. He's just blowing smoke to get me (us) worked up. I just like to keep it going for a while but EVERYONE knows that only a fool would believe that trash.

Michael

Andy, you are not 100% but 1000% right- maybe it was canon sponsored- youve proven my point- that you trust shots from every day people, shooting the same stuff you do, not a "test" done by "someone" who can be sponsored by "anyone"

i think you see my point...

Joe

Joe you seem to think that everyone else out there lives on their PC's and reads the forums at a minute by minute pace every single day, day after day (like you do). Some people have real lives to live... work, family, kids etc etc and don't have the time like you do to read the forums on here.
Don Boyd is one of those...
Not every single photog on a.net belongs to the forum chatter here.... and not every forum member has immediate unlimited access to the web like some of us. In some parts of the world internet access is billed per minute!

Myself, I'm off from work this week so I have plenty of time to surf the web... come next week and till the end of December my on-line life will be a little less limited due to our upcoming peak season at work. Unfortunately... like some of you I don't have access to the web while I'm working. So don't think and assume that the D100/S2 shooters are avoiding you request for raw shots.

~Los

Joe writes:

>>Thats why im saying, Don, show us some S2 examples and Sam, show us some action shots straight out of the D100. Where are the D100 and S2 guys?

Joe<<

Conclusion: You're both right. A win / win scenario. perfect. Now we just need you two to agree! 

Andrew

Ok, Joe so lets say you are in the market for a new D60 (you don't have one right now) You come to a.net for your idea of a review/test. You see these shots, are you gonna to run right out and say..oh, yeah I'm gonna buy that D60...ah, no. So, please EVERYONE out there base your purchase choice on YOUR experience/tests/wants/needs and true tests not the stuff you see here.

*** these shots ***

Insert the lower-quality D30/60 shots here, you know which ones I'm talking about.

Michael

Mike this is why i put up that CO737 shot- for you to see what the D60 can do in tough conditions- 2x converter, full 640mm. If the camera can handle that like a champ and with no IS even, then what does that show you?

Joe

What does it show? It shows me that the D60, D100 and S2 raws look so similar that to me in the end my purchase decision would be based on aspects other than photo quality.

Michael

You're 100% right Mike, the CO737, DAS DC10 and the Thai 777 nose- they all look exactly alike. I need new glasses I guess.

 

tough conditions? joe...please, it was sunny, clear and the temp was nice. lets get real, that was far from tough conditions. lets see blizzard shots of polar bears in -20 temps and icy wind, thats tough conditions.

Michael

You're 100% right Mike, the CO737, DAS DC10 and the Thai 777 nose- they all look exactly alike. I need new glasses I guess.

I see you left out the BA 757 shot because that was pretty much similar to the CO737 and in my eyes a bit better but certainly not a deciding factor in which brand to go with. I didn't see the DAS shot (wouldn't load for me) and the Thai 777 was not the right conditions and wasn't RAW if I remember correctly.

Guys, let's be honest..Joe might say the D60 is better and the D100/S2 sucks but you can bet that if you base your purchase on what you see here you've got a lot to learn in this business.

Michael

OK, Joe, here's one to tear apart. Shot yesterday. Sorry it's not full bore, but it's from NET to TIF to JPEG and not post processing.

The details ...


and the pic ...



In my defense ... it's only the 154th pic with the D100 I've taken. Still learning and playing, and I know it needs a firmware update.

Art

I think this shot is quite good Art, best "out of the camera" D100 ive seen so far on this thread- though I still think that if you examine your 757 with my 737, you'll see where the CMOS chip makes the difference- making the D60 output closer to medium format than its competition. Nontheless, this scan is not bad at all. Good for you.

And did you say firmware? Mike said that the D100 doesnt need it- so you dont need it, dont bother.

Art, THANK YOU BUDDY! Goes to show, the D100 is very much up to par. GREAT SHOT!!! and yes, I actually think it's better than the CO 737 shot.

But again, certainly not that much better where I'd sell all of my canon equip to go to nikon if i was a canon shooter.

Great shot!

Mike

That one looks great Art... great job! And your shot is in exactly the same spot that Joe took his beige CO 737 shot from. Only difference is that yesterday's morning weather conditions when you took the shot where a little more hazy than when Joe took his shot in perfect clear hazy free skies.
And on Art's shot I see that the white on the 757 looks WHITE... whereas on Joe's 737 the white looks beige/cream colored. And mind you that Art had to shoot his at 200asa... Joe at 100asa.

~Los

Mike while its good, its far from CMOS smoothness- not even close in that regard- go look at the CO737 again, like medium format.