9 replies to this topic

[dragon49]

So, in anticipation of shooting in RAW with my soon to arrive P1000, I installed NX studio on my Windows 10 laptop, and found a sample *.NRW file on the web.  When I load up the file and export, either to highest-quality JPG, or TIFF, lots of colors are lost!  

Look at the first image which it a snippet of an exported JPG.  (I can't upload NRW files to Imgur, but this gets the point across.  The exported TIFF looks exactly like the exported JPG, missing the same details.

Not too hard to see the red streaks on the old doors on the first picture, and the missing details on the second picture.

 

I then downloaded some sample Nikon *.NEF files, and the export trashes the colors the same way.  Look how it dulls the Red-winged Blackbird's red spot.  Again, the TIFF export looks exactly the same as the JPG export.

I'm using the default settings.  Is the software really this bad, or can I fix it with some tweaks?

I'll of course test with my camera before next weekend's planned long birding hike, but if I can't sort this out by then, I'm going to shoot in JPG.

You have to admit a lot is lost with the exports.

What the heck!  
 

 

 

 

[Merco_61]

What colour space do you export to? AdobeRGB usually looks desaturated in browsers that don't recognise colour space. It is always safest to keep to sRGB, both for web publication and for having prints made.

[dragon49]

What colour space do you export to? AdobeRGB usually looks desaturated in browsers that don't recognise colour space. It is always safest to keep to sRGB, both for web publication and for having prints made.

The default was using Nikon NTSC RGB 4.0.0.3001.  I switched to sRGB Iec61966-2.1, but it didn't make a difference.  Getting weirder though.  I just noticed that when opening the *.nef Red-winged Blackbird in NX-studio, the wing colors are just as dull as when I open up the exported *.jpg with Windows Photos, or any other Windows app, however, when I open the *.nef with Windows photos, for less than a second, it shows dull colors, but then something happens and the colors morph to the correct brightness when the photo fully opens.

So, I then opened the Red-winged Blackbird *.nef with Adobe Photoshop Elements 9, and it does a better job of exporting to either a jpg, tiff, or bmp, however, the colors are still less bright than the original *.nef. 

I'll have to play around with some more settings, but my best guess is that this has to do with how Microsoft Windows is interpreting colors.  Please see the improved Photoshop Elements exported jpg but notice how it did lose some color intensity from the original nef.

 

Original nef:
 

 

Photoshop Elements exported jpg:

 

 

Worse Nx Studio exported JPG:

 

 

 

An ideas on how to perfect the output with either program.

[Merco_61]

I wish I could help, but I ditched Windows back in the NT 4.0 days.

[dragon49]

Np - I'll add to this thread if and when I figure out the best solution.  Reminds me of the old days when I did some basic web page creation.  Companies who advertised WYSIWYG html editors should have had their staff incarcerated, as what you saw on their GUI preview often wasn't what the browsers rendered.

Sorry for any off-topic rant, but this brought up frustrating memories and I can't help myself.

[dragon49]

Getting weirder.  I emailed myself the highest quality Red-winged Blackbird *.nef file, and when I open it on my iPhone, the colors are just as dull as the exported *.jpg does on my PC.  I'll have to test printing next.  However, since I mostly share photos for PC viewing, the digital versions are more important to me. 

[Ron]

RAW files will always be less saturated then JPEGs. They are raw data directly from the camera with no in camera processing. JPEGs, on the other hand are processed to enhance color, white balance, and sharpness... among other things. That's why JPEGs often look better than RAW files when viewed side by side, and before processing. It's up to the photographer to process RAW image files to his or her liking... the data is there. Nothing has been lost. With the right software, you can do far more with your RAW files than you can with JPEGs. You just have to do the work. The camera has given you the complete palette... how you use it is up to you. 

 

I don't mess with Nikon Studio software very much... no biases... I'm just not that familiar with it, although I do have it installed on one of my machines. However, I've seen some amazing photos from Peter, who does use Nikon Studio. So, the software is capable, if perhaps not all that intuitive. I use Adobe CC and I can tell you that things have changed quite a bit since Adobe Photoshop Elements 9 came out. I would suggest that you find a more current post processing application than PSE9.

 

I know a number of people who like Affinity Photo which is very inexpensive for what you get. Around $55US for a perpetual license. You may want to look into that. 

 

--Ron

[Merco_61]

RAW files will always be less saturated then JPEGs. They are raw data directly from the camera with no in camera processing. JPEGs, on the other hand are processed to enhance color, white balance, and sharpness... among other things. That's why JPEGs often look better than RAW files when viewed side by side, and before processing. It's up to the photographer to process RAW image files to his or her liking... the data is there. Nothing has been lost. With the right software, you can do far more with your RAW files than you can with JPEGs. You just have to do the work. The camera has given you the complete palette... how you use it is up to you. 

 

I don't mess with Nikon Studio software very much... no biases... I'm just not that familiar with it, although I do have it installed on one of my machines. However, I've seen some amazing photos from Peter, who does use Nikon Studio. So, the software is capable, if perhaps not all that intuitive. I use Adobe CC and I can tell you that things have changed quite a bit since Adobe Photoshop Elements 9 came out. I would suggest that you find a more current post processing application than PSE9.

 

I know a number of people who like Affinity Photo which is very inexpensive for what you get. Around $55US for a perpetual license. You may want to look into that. 

 

--Ron

Ron, a small correction… I used Capture NX-D, but have gone back to using Photo Ninja to be able to use the same software for Nikon and Leica raw files.

[dragon49]

Ron, a small correction… I used Capture NX-D, but have gone back to using Photo Ninja to be able to use the same software for Nikon and Leica raw files.

I got the camera and took some scenery and Iguana pictures, using the JPG (fine) + RAW settings.  I don't see the jpgs exported from the RAW files as being better quality than the original jpgs.  So, maybe when more skilled at tweaking RAW files before export, I'll use the extra SD card space, but I'm shooting in jpg mode now.

I use Adobe CC and I can tell you that things have changed quite a bit since Adobe Photoshop Elements 9 came out. I would suggest that you find a more current post processing application than PSE9.

 

I know a number of people who like Affinity Photo which is very inexpensive for what you get. Around $55US for a perpetual license. You may want to look into that. 

 

--Ron

 

I paid once for Photoshop Elements 9, and it has been well worth it.  I've done lots of other editing with the software, but now I mostly just use the Auto Smart Fix feature.  I'd get a CC license, if I could just pay for the damn thing once.  I object to Adobe's new subscription based recurring payment model.  I'll check out affinity photo.

Mark

[Ron]

 

I got the camera and took some scenery and Iguana pictures, using the JPG (fine) + RAW settings.  I don't see the jpgs exported from the RAW files as being better quality than the original jpgs.  So, maybe when more skilled at tweaking RAW files before export, I'll use the extra SD card space, but I'm shooting in jpg mode now.

 

 

Well, sometimes this may be the case. Most cameras do a pretty good job of processing images in camera. Editing on your own still gives you more control. But if you're happy with the results you get with JPEGs, then that's all that matters.

 

 

I paid once for Photoshop Elements 9, and it has been well worth it.  I've done lots of other editing with the software, but now I mostly just use the Auto Smart Fix feature.  I'd get a CC license, if I could just pay for the damn thing once.  I object to Adobe's new subscription based recurring payment model.

 

I totally understand. I've been using the Adobe Photography Plan for a few years now and it's been better than i expected. I get the latest versions of Photoshop, Bridge, and Lightroom (both cloud based and desktop) for $10US a month. For me, it's been worth it. YMMV

 

--Ron