nikon d200 vs d70 and photoshop vs nikon capture

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Larry, Jun 22, 2006.

  1. Larry

    Larry Guest

    I currently use the Nikon D70 and have generally found when working in
    RAW that printing from nikon capture produces better results than from
    photoshop in the absense of exposure or color correction work. I was
    recently told by a photo retailer that this would not be an issue with
    the D200 as the RAW conversion in the D200 now takes place in the
    camera as opposed to the external software product. Is this true?
    Aside from the obvious hardware benefits offered by the D200 vs the
    D70, this alleged issue between the camera and photoshop re Nikon raw
    being resolved in the D200 would be very compelling. I would
    appreciate any clarification on this issue. Thanks.
     
    Larry, Jun 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Larry

    george Guest

    I believe that your dealer is either very confused or wishes very much to
    sell you a D200. The only "RAW conversion" that takes place in a D200 (or a
    D70) is if you tell the camera to save as a JPG. I have both the D200 and
    the D70 (and Capture and Photoshop CS2) and the D200 is considerably better,
    but not for the reason your dealer told you...I'd buy from a dealer that is
    either more knowledgeable or more honest.
     
    george, Jun 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Larry

    Rudy Benner Guest

    You might consider downloading the manual and get the real facts.
     
    Rudy Benner, Jun 22, 2006
    #3
  4. Every digital camera (except the Sigma DSLRs?) can do the raw
    conversion in the camera -- that's what shooting in jpeg mode does.

    The D200, I can tell you from my own experience, has a normal RAW
    mode, where the RAW file is put on the card and you do the conversion
    externally. That's the whole *point* of RAW mode -- you get more
    control, at the cost of more effort. It also supports shooting in
    jpeg mode.

    Sounds like the camera store guy is confused, or you misunderstood
    him. Many camera store guys *are* confused, in my experience.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 22, 2006
    #4
  5. Larry

    ttdaomd Guest

    George,

    Before I splurge on CS2, I gather from your comment that the problem
    (?encryption?) of Photoshop reading some Nikon NEF files has been
    resolved between these two companies?

    Tien
     
    ttdaomd, Jun 22, 2006
    #5
  6. Larry

    george Guest

    At least for the time being, there is no problem with PhotoShop CS2 and D70
    and D200 RAW files.
     
    george, Jun 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Then only encryption issues I am aware of are related to the white balance
    setting that is chosen in camera. This value is encrypted on the D200 (and
    perhaps the D70s?). It is not a big deal though as you can adjust the white
    balance setting freely in software with no fear of damaging the picture, so
    the value that camera used is nearly irrelavent. I have read that the white
    balance software in the D200 is quite superior to that of the D70 and maybe to
    that of Photoshop, and thus, the chosen setting that the D200 uses might be
    *better* than that chose automatically by the Photoshop software, but it is
    still up to the photographer to determine the optimum value for their final
    print.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Jun 23, 2006
    #7
  8. TIFF would be a raw conversion as well. You can shoot TIFF with the Nikon D2X
    and D2Xs. There are benefits to adjusting exposure BEFORE you do the raw
    conversion and this is one good reason to develop a decent RAW workflow and to
    shoot your images in RAW.
    A note; JPEG is an 8-bit color depth format and RAW in the D200 is a 12-bit
    color depth format, which is the difference between 256 and 4096 graduations
    of color for each channel (red, green and blue). Thus, we are talking an
    enormous amount of extra leeway in dealing with color, which means you can
    manipulate and correct your images more than you can with JPEG without
    significant damage to the image.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Jun 23, 2006
    #8
  9. Larry

    Paul Furman Guest

    This was a D2x issue, not D70 or D200.


    It is not a big deal though as you can adjust the white
     
    Paul Furman, Jun 23, 2006
    #9
  10. Larry

    Matt Clara Guest

    RAW conversion is not a reason to buy CS2. I have PhaseOne for that, and
    it's great. I thought RAW was a joke when I was only using Photoshop.
     
    Matt Clara, Jun 24, 2006
    #10
  11. Larry

    Father Kodak Guest

    Matt,

    I've just started to read Peter Krogh's DAM book, which gets universal
    praise and recommendations as a must-read book in this area.

    Krogh states early on that Photoshop is his image-editing tool of
    choice, including ACR and Bridge, in part because it supports good
    digital asset management. (By the way, I hate overblown terms.
    "digital asset?" How about "digital photographs." )

    Anyway, I keep reading that people seem to prefer other RAW convertors
    besides ACR. So how do you (and other readers) use Photoshop in your
    workflow but with a different RAW convertor? Plug-in? separate
    programs?

    Pere Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Jul 9, 2006
    #11
  12. Larry

    Father Kodak Guest

    Or more likely, the camera store guy thinks _you_ are _confusable_.

    They are paid on commission, and that explains a lot of sales people's
    behavior. A sales guy once told me, "We're coin-operated. If you
    want me to raise my hand, put a quarter into my shoulder!"

    Abu Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Jul 9, 2006
    #12
  13. I have access to pretty well any raw converter (at least for Mac) I
    like, as a tech journalist, and have full C1 Pro, Aperture, etc. Guess
    what I use - Photoshop ACR. Main reason is that ACR is not channel
    clipping limited when it comes to recovering dynamic range by altering
    'exposure', and it uses quite subtle and effective exposure and
    brightness controls - not just adding values or multiplying values. It
    also gives the lowest artefact levels and has intelligent sharpening,
    based on analysis of the export file enlargement or reduction size and
    the provided camera data. I use zero sharpening, but even this is a
    'setting' since zero is not possible when deBayering a raw file. It is
    best thought of as no USM component only a frequency enhancement.

    'Digital asset management' is a valid term, and means control of the
    metadata, colour management and file format. Adobe DNG conversion
    (provided by the SAVE function), metadata entry, exported file resizing,
    varying bit depth, rating via Bridge for your own sorting purposes,
    etc - all this is DAM stuff. All's that's really missing is catalogue
    file creation. For this, I use iView Media Pro, and actually nearly all
    the DAM stuff (captions, copyright, keywords, metadata) ends up being
    handled by iView.

    Other raw converters generally have better colour conversion. The
    default camera profiles of ACR 2.4 to 3.x are a bit dodgy and the WB
    conversions can be strange. C1 Pro has superior skin tones, but often
    less dynamic range. Most makers' own converters are extremely slow (C1
    Pro is not fast) but adhere closely to in-camera JPEG colours and gamma
    for their conversions. ACR does not. It is entirely different. I can
    live with that in return for its convenience, speed, and interpolation
    to larger final file sizes directly from raw.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jul 9, 2006
    #13
  14. Never rely on a single source. Many such sources get paid for having a
    specific opinion.
     
    Jeroen Wenting, Jul 9, 2006
    #14
  15. Larry

    David Kelson Guest

    AND... what is your take on Aperture? Regards, David
     
    David Kelson, Jul 9, 2006
    #15
  16. I only have a humble 2 gig ram 1.8 ghz single processor G5, and I tend
    to run most of the Adobe CS2 at once all the time, so Aperture is like
    treacle but as far as dynamic range recovery goes, it has the right tools.

    Interestingly, its definition of what constitutes correct exposure and
    what a 'stop' of exposure correction is beats ACR any day. ACR tends to
    want to start with minus loads if you set it to auto. I've been checking
    out some difficult Nikon D70S files and Aperture handles these better
    than C1 Pro, and with a more natural look close to colour clipping o/ex
    level than ACR.

    Downside is that despite its ability to batch a set of conversions, if
    you are into major tonal corrections different on each shot, the process
    is still too slow to make it commercially acceptable. It's not even that
    hot on our twin 1.8 machine.

    I'd have to rate its colour rendering superior to ACR, its sharpness and
    detail with noise suppression superior, but then there's a load of other
    stuff missing. I am looking forward to seeing the new DxO Optic Pro
    release, which they have pre-announced although it won't be shipped
    until after photokina. This has all the other controls needed.

    We were using the Aperture/core services raw converter on a laptop today
    to view raw files via PREVIEW - tedious but good full screen
    conversions, not over slow, singly or a slide show. Another laptop was
    running the same images using iPhoto (again, with the core service new
    raw convertor) as a lightbox, with Fn+PageDown neatly moving between
    views of twelve pix at a time. A second or two for the sharpness to build.

    I'd say the default Apple core conversion for these files - Canon 300Ds
    mainly - was looking almost as good as in-camera JPEGs. All that
    Aperture is adding is a considerable level of conversion control. I
    wonder whether other developers will be able to access the same core raw
    support, and add controls?

    And of course new Intel-based Macs may remove some of the sluggishness
    of the G4/G5 generation which we are sticking with for at least a year
    or two more.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jul 9, 2006
    #16
  17. Larry

    Father Kodak Guest

    Jeroen,

    I agree with you 100%. That's why I'm asking this question.

    For everyone else: I have read other postings saying that the overall
    speed and workflow convenience of ACR outweighs other factors, like
    greater color fidelity from the manufacturers' own RAW convertors.

    Is it possible to write a script that batch-converts (overnight?) RAW
    files using the manufacturer's own software?

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Jul 30, 2006
    #17
  18. Larry

    Bill Guest

    The better software programs should have batch conversion built-in.
     
    Bill, Jul 30, 2006
    #18
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.