RAW vs JPEG comparison for D70
paul
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=3>
It's just a wierd ugly picture in dim yellow light but shows the
differences pretty clearly.
Bob
Given the big difference in file size, I see no reason to always shoot in RAW
mode... jpg is good enough for most things.
I think you need a reason to shoot in RAW... most pictures ultimately don't
benefit...
If you have to zoom in to see a difference - why bother? Unless you need a small
crop zoomed!
bmoag
enormous and you are fooling yourself if you think there are no differences
or else you do not understand the differences.
If you want high quality snapshots why burden yourself with a camera as
complex, big and heavy as the D70? There are far better alternatives for
that purpose.
The difference in color fidelity, artifacts and every other technical and
aesthetic quality of the image is so enormous that the only reason to use
jpeg with the D70 is if you do not have enough room on your storage card for
anything but jpeg.
paul
to be a pain to change. I have been dissapointed with the sharpness of
the images I'm getting though so I did this little test. I was suprised
to see much more noise in the RAW at the same settings (no sharpening or
adjustments on the JPEG (except saturation) and interestingly the RAW is
more saturated.
We'll see how I like the real results. One thing is the parallel port CF
reader in the side of my laptop slows down the system and I nearly
filled my CF card today so it's taking 22 minutes to download to an
external drive (no room on my laptop HD) and the computer is dragging
like a snail as I type.
You will notice on the test that there is shadow detail revealed after
applying a strong curve which is nearly absent in the jpeg. I think it's
fair to zoom in to 400% for the side by side comparison because you can
see the real difference. I actually did the comparison at 800% & it was
real easy to see exactly what was different... nothing subjective, you
can count the number of picels it takes to cross a sharp edge & see
highlights that were completely absent in the JPEG. Bare eyes are just
not good at picking that out but the added shadow detail is really
significant. I may want to crop macros and may want to make large prints
where it would be noticeable. Even small prints appear to have more
information like the missing shadow detail.
Bob
>The differences between shooting raw/NEF and shooting jpeg with the D70 are
>enormous and you are fooling yourself if you think there are no differences
>or else you do not understand the differences.
Oh I know about the differences... but I have taken great shots in both.
>If you want high quality snapshots why burden yourself with a camera as
>complex, big and heavy as the D70?
Because it takes better pics then any of my other cameras... including my Dimage
which cost the same new... a crappy snapshot is crappy regardless of the
camera... I found I needed the dynamic range of the D70, which can come out on
the jpeg if you're lucky!
> There are far better alternatives for
>that purpose.
ummmm no, there aren't, actually... I've tried lots of 'snapshot' cameras,
Kodak, Olympus, Minolta... give me a big sensor!
>The difference in color fidelity, artifacts and every other technical and
>aesthetic quality of the image is so enormous that the only reason to use
>jpeg with the D70 is if you do not have enough room on your storage card for
>anything but jpeg.
Or if you want good pictures all the time, regardless of whether or not you are
taking snapshots, product shots, or ( level crossing safety reference shots for
the railway, which I do ), and don't have a 'hard' shot to take, which requires
raw. Most important shots I take end up cut down for my web site, and I only use
raw if I have a very wide light range in the photo. But I imagine some folks
would need raw all the time.
But I agree, the raw is much better for important photos (as I said in my last
post). But for everyday use, the D70 takes awesome jpegs.
Roger
>I have not used RAW until today because JPEG is pretty good & it's going
>to be a pain to change. I have been dissapointed with the sharpness of
>the images I'm getting though so I did this little test. I was suprised
>to see much more noise in the RAW at the same settings (no sharpening or
>adjustments on the JPEG (except saturation) and interestingly the RAW is
>more saturated.
What your are seeing I don't really call raw as the NEF does use in
camera processing such as color balance, sharpening, and even dark
frame subtraction.
It's really a tiff that has been compressed using Nikon's lossless
compression into an NEF. I just don't see the NEF as a truly RAW file.
In addition there isn't that much difference in size. NEFs run
between 5 and 6 megs with the majority running in the mid 5 range.
JPGs run just about half that. Considering the cost of the camera,
after about 400 shots a 1 gig CF card is cheaper than film.
>
>We'll see how I like the real results. One thing is the parallel port CF
>reader in the side of my laptop slows down the system and I nearly
>filled my CF card today so it's taking 22 minutes to download to an
>external drive (no room on my laptop HD) and the computer is dragging
>like a snail as I type.
I have an old USB 1 card reader. It downloads a 1 gig card in about 10
to 12 minutes and doesn't even put a load on the computer.
I can and often do find I'm running word, Firefox, Thunderbird, Agent,
Photoshop CS, and downloading a large file all while transferring
images from the CF card.
Now it gets more complicated as this computer serves as a gateway for
my other computers so my wife may be surfing the Internet, sending and
receiving e-mail, doing searches and transferring files through this
machine in addition to what I'm doing at the same time.
The system does not slow down until running Photoshop CS AND my film
scanner. Then it's not only scanning, but processing up to 5 60
megabyte files. Then it starts page file swapping, but until that
happens the computer shows no sign of being sluggish.
It has one gig of DDR RAM and three HDs with a total capacity of about
half a terabyte as do two of the other three machines.
>
In its next incarnation the computer is going to have 1.5 or 2 Gigs of
ram and 3, or 4 serial 250 Gig HDs in a RAID.
<snip>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Graham Holden
<Delete-Invalli...@tm.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:58:12 -0800, paul <pa...@not.net> wrote:
>
>>I have not used RAW until today because JPEG is pretty good & it's going
>>to be a pain to change. I have been dissapointed with the sharpness of
>>the images I'm getting though so I did this little test. I was suprised
>>to see much more noise in the RAW at the same settings (no sharpening or
>>adjustments on the JPEG (except saturation) and interestingly the RAW is
>>more saturated.
>
>What your are seeing I don't really call raw as the NEF does use in
>camera processing such as color balance, sharpening, and even dark
>frame subtraction.
From what I've read (e.g. Thom Hogan's eBook and other places), the NEF
itself _doesn't_ have these affects applied (expect possible the dark-frame
subtraction[**]). It _records_ the camera's settings for them at the time
the shot was taken, but you're free to use or discard these when you
process the file.
>It's really a tiff that has been compressed using Nikon's lossless
>compression into an NEF. I just don't see the NEF as a truly RAW file.
A D70's NEF stores the raw-ish [see below] sensor data in a TIFF wrapper,
but it isn't _really_ a TIFF image file in the sense most graphics packages
would mean by "TIFF file".
[*raw-ish] The D70's NEF storage _does_ involve some loss compared to the
ultra-raw sensor readings, though according to Nikon, none that you would
see. Roughly (according to Thom Hogan), all 12 bits are saved for shadow
and low mid-tones; high mid-tones and highlight values are split into a
number of different sized groups (i.e. a certain amount of rounding takes
places within a number of intensity bands). This is (supposedly) done in a
non-linear way that mimics the way our eyes work.
[**] and you can stop this happening (apparently) by turning the camera off
after it has taken the "real" photo but before it's taken (and subtracted)
the dark-frame.
Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
Owamanga
<Delete-Invalli...@tm.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:58:12 -0800, paul <pa...@not.net> wrote:
>
>>I have not used RAW until today because JPEG is pretty good & it's going
>>to be a pain to change. I have been dissapointed with the sharpness of
>>the images I'm getting though so I did this little test. I was suprised
>>to see much more noise in the RAW at the same settings (no sharpening or
>>adjustments on the JPEG (except saturation) and interestingly the RAW is
>>more saturated.
>
>What your are seeing I don't really call raw as the NEF does use in
>camera processing such as color balance, sharpening, and even dark
>frame subtraction.
All of which can be switched off during import, so it can't be using
in-camera processing, can it?. These settings are merely recorded into
the NEF so the importer (that truly does the processing) can apply
them if wanted. Depending on your workflow, NEF is RAW.
No dark frame subtraction is done unless you specifically request the
noise reduction feature - which slows things down considerably.
>It's really a tiff that has been compressed using Nikon's lossless
>compression into an NEF. I just don't see the NEF as a truly RAW file.
This isn't true at all. A NEF is a RAW that's been compressed. There
is nothing TIFF like about it. The compression isn't actually
lossless, but the differences are minor and definitely worth the
double capacity you get on the CF card. You can't say that for JPEG,
albeit half the size again, the differences are no longer minor and
permanent color balance, sharpening, exposure damage have been
built-in to these 8-bit quantized images.
>In addition there isn't that much difference in size. NEFs run
>between 5 and 6 megs with the majority running in the mid 5 range.
>JPGs run just about half that. Considering the cost of the camera,
>after about 400 shots a 1 gig CF card is cheaper than film.
I get 150 NEF to a 1 gig card. Solution - a second $69 1Gig CF card.
(oh, and I had to get a $200 portable 40Gb hard-disk gizmo with CF
reader built in for use when I go on vacation - or a laptop is an
alternative).
>>We'll see how I like the real results. One thing is the parallel port CF
>>reader in the side of my laptop slows down the system and I nearly
>>filled my CF card today so it's taking 22 minutes to download to an
>>external drive (no room on my laptop HD) and the computer is dragging
>>like a snail as I type.
>
>I have an old USB 1 card reader. It downloads a 1 gig card in about 10
>to 12 minutes and doesn't even put a load on the computer.
You should upgrade to USB 2.0, Just go buy a $20 card and whack it in
your PC. Delays are frustrating, add stress, and stress is what kills
people.
--
Owamanga!
Owamanga
Can anyone else throw some light on this dark-frame issue?
<g>
From the info I can find, D70 dark frame noise reduction isn't done
unless you switch on the painfully slow noise-reduction option
(usually reserved for long-exposures).
From the sketchy info I can find, the trick above [**] is used to get
the D70 to do a slow-sensor read (as part of the noise reduction
option) but interrupt it from doing the dark-frame reduction
(something astronomers don't want it to do).
--
Owamanga!
J...@no.komm
Bob <Flint...@Valve.Amps> wrote:
That is really a rather weak and incomplete demonstration of the
benefits of RAW, IMO. It is really just comparing in-camera conversion
to conversion somewhere else, and with noise-reduction.
The biggest benefits of RAW are the increased dynamic range, and the
one-step ajustment of color, contrast, brightness, etc.
With the camera that I currently use, the Canon 20D, a in-camera JPEG
taken in daylight with normal contrast literally throws away 1 stop of
green highlights, about 1.5 stops of blue highlights, and almost 2 stops
of red highlights when making the JPEG! That means that under daylight,
you could increase the exposure a stop and get twice the number of
levels representing the subject, and half the noise, for superior image
quality. Or, you could expose as normal and capture the details in
specular highlights better. When shooting red flowers, they often get
destroyed in JPEG mode because they clip almost two stops lower than
they would in a RAW file.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
paul
I'm also real unclear on the dark frame noise reduction thing. Does it
actually take another picture? I don't hear the shutter go off again.
You do have to wait for the same time exposure again for bulb shots. I
have mine set for auto noise reduction for 'long exposures' and this was
close to a second but at ISO 200 so maybe the jpeg got noise reduced.
One thing I noticed in this test and yesterday's shoot with RAW is that
RAW has a LOT MORE NOISE! I worked with the basic jpegs mostly but if I
was having trouble stretching the exposure with curves or wanted extra
detail I'd go back & open the RAW then paste it ontop of the jpeg but
below the curves and the noise was really bad in some cases though yes
it was sharper. With both in there, I could click the layers on & off &
see obvious differences. Adding sharpening to the noisy RAW images
tended to emphasize that noise even more.
I think I tend to prefer the noise reduction the jpeg processing creates
unless I'm dying for sharpness or there is some subtle & critical
dynamic range requirement. Nikon Capture noise reduction destroyed
detail, maybe other programs could clean up RAW better?
the test again:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4>
The jpeg looks natural and smooth, the RAW looks splotchy, noise reduced
is too simplified though it does have more dynamic range than jpeg.
Notice the brush strokes on the wall at the left and the reddish band at
the right.
In this one, notice the bright spot center-right that is almost gone in
the jpeg:
<http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=3>
and the reddish dark background detail that is lost in the jpeg.
J...@no.komm
paul <pa...@not.net> wrote:
>I have not used RAW until today because JPEG is pretty good & it's going
>to be a pain to change. I have been dissapointed with the sharpness of
>the images I'm getting though so I did this little test. I was suprised
>to see much more noise in the RAW at the same settings (no sharpening or
>adjustments on the JPEG (except saturation) and interestingly the RAW is
>more saturated.
The JPEG from the camera *COMES* from the same data that is in the RAW
file. If the RAW conversions you are doing outside the camera have more
noise, then the JPEG converter in the camera is likely smoothing away
detail. RAW image noise reduction of any quality takes too long to do
in-camera, so you can be very certain that in-camera loss of noise is
also loss of detail.
paul
Maybe faster than fine jpegs in irfanview. It is still a pain going
through another step though.
J...@no.komm
paul <pa...@not.net> wrote:
>maybe other programs could clean up RAW better?
Any clean-up performed in the camera during JPEG conversion happens too
quickly to not also "clean up" image details as if they were noise,
also. Almost any noise-reduction program that takes a little bit of
time to clean up an image will preserve detail as best it can while
cleaning up noise.
Of course, if the lens is so soft or out-of-focus, or the camera-shake
blur is strong enough to obscure fine image detail, it isn't there to
begin with.
Owamanga
Of course, for the noise reference picture, it wouldn't need to open
the shutter again (in fact, it wants the sensor to be dark to do the
scan).
>One thing I noticed in this test and yesterday's shoot with RAW is that
>RAW has a LOT MORE NOISE!
Yes, the jpeg is masking this in it's murky algorithm.
>I worked with the basic jpegs mostly but if I
>was having trouble stretching the exposure with curves or wanted extra
>detail I'd go back & open the RAW then paste it ontop of the jpeg but
>below the curves and the noise was really bad in some cases though yes
>it was sharper. With both in there, I could click the layers on & off &
>see obvious differences. Adding sharpening to the noisy RAW images
>tended to emphasize that noise even more.
Beware when working with RAW to visit every preference of the importer
and make sure it's not doing something you don't want it to, such as
(this is the Photoshop RAW importer BTW):
* Sharpening.
* Introducing a 5% shadows (clipping the dark end of the histogram)
..and typically you'll want to do a bit of:
* Anti vignetting.
* Choosing the right color temp.
* Exposure modification.
* Saturation boost.
* Color noise reduction.
* Chromatic Aberration if using Sigma lenses. :-p
>I think I tend to prefer the noise reduction the jpeg processing creates
>unless I'm dying for sharpness or there is some subtle & critical
>dynamic range requirement. Nikon Capture noise reduction destroyed
>detail, maybe other programs could clean up RAW better?
Well, you can always make a JPEG from the RAW, with the right quality
settings, you'd loose that noise too.
Without a doubt, external algorithms (and I'm talking Photoshop here)
are going to be superior to any in-camera ones. They don't have speed,
memory or processor limitations that the camera firmware does.
But realistically, so what if you can see it at 400%? The important
thing is which one prints better.
>the test again:
><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=4>
>The jpeg looks natural and smooth, the RAW looks splotchy, noise reduced
>is too simplified though it does have more dynamic range than jpeg.
>Notice the brush strokes on the wall at the left and the reddish band at
>the right.
I'd prefer it if you had made a 100% version, for a more natural
comparison. At 400% they all look shit to me.
>In this one, notice the bright spot center-right that is almost gone in
>the jpeg:
><http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-vs-jpg&PG=1&PIC=3>
>and the reddish dark background detail that is lost in the jpeg.
Yep.
--
Owamanga!
J...@no.komm
Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Without a doubt, external algorithms (and I'm talking Photoshop here)
>are going to be superior to any in-camera ones.
Photoshop doesn't really have any intelligent noise-reduction, though.
It basically only filters out noise-like things, which may actually be
detail.
Owamanga
>In message <fp9ou0h7547gu49ks...@4ax.com>,
>Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Without a doubt, external algorithms (and I'm talking Photoshop here)
>>are going to be superior to any in-camera ones.
>
>Photoshop doesn't really have any intelligent noise-reduction, though.
>It basically only filters out noise-like things, which may actually be
>detail.
True, there are plenty of third-party photoshop plugins that
(apparently) do a good job in this area. DSLR noise hasn't been an
issue for me - I usally light stuff up before photographing it.
<g>
--
Owamanga!
DoN. Nichols
Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 03:50:26 -0500, Roger
><Delete-Invalli...@tm.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>It's really a tiff that has been compressed using Nikon's lossless
>>compression into an NEF. I just don't see the NEF as a truly RAW file.
>
>This isn't true at all. A NEF is a RAW that's been compressed. There
>is nothing TIFF like about it. The compression isn't actually
>lossless, but the differences are minor and definitely worth the
>double capacity you get on the CF card. You can't say that for JPEG,
>albeit half the size again, the differences are no longer minor and
>permanent color balance, sharpening, exposure damage have been
>built-in to these 8-bit quantized images.
O.K. I'm not really *sure* what is the case in the Nikon NEF,
but it appears to be similar to the images saved by the Kodak/Nikon
NC2000e/c which I used prior to my D70. It was built on a Nikon N90s
body (whose autofocus seems faster than that of the D70), with a back
which includes a heavy and large sub-base to contain the PCMCIA disk
drive, the RAM, the CPU and the batteries.
I spent some time trying to analyze the format, so I could
(perhaps) avoid having to use the Kodak plugin in PhotoShop Elements,
and be free to work with my unix machines instead.
Based on what I could see, the image format (which had a ".TIF"
extension) in that camera had:
1) A TIFF wrapper around both the raw image and a raw thumbnail.
The TIFF wrapper allowed the structure to save the camera
information and the two images in a known standard format.
2) The raw images were truly that. The individual pixel
information from the sensor. Note that one pixel will be
viewing through a particular combination of filters, and the
adjacent pixels will be viewing through other filter
combinations. The filters seem to be two bar patterns at right
angles, so some pixels have one filter, some have the other,
some have both, and some have none. In any case, no pixel has
full color information.
Each pixel was saved as though it were a B&W Pixel (8 bits on
the NC2000e/c, 10 bits on the D70 apparently), and it is up to
post-processor programs to convert that into three-color pixels.
As a result, there is a growth from a single byte of information
(8 or 10 bits per pixel) in the raw, to three or four bytes per
pixel (8 or 10 bits per pixel per color). Thus processing the
RAW image into an uncompressed TIFF file results in a growth
in size of at least a factor of three -- before the final TIFF
trims off the extra two bits per pixel.
So -- the plugin from Kodak, (and the software from Nikon for
the D70) knows the pattern of the filters, and how to combine the
information from adjacent pixels to make a proper three-color pixel in
each location. (I suspect that there is something a bit marginal in the
processing of the edge pixels, but they seem to work around it pretty
well.) Of course, the in-camera JPEG processing does the same in the
D70, but it was not available in the NC2000e/c
Now -- I have finally found that both the D70 NEF images and the
NC2000e/c images can be processed by the dcraw program, which will
compile nicely on any of a mix of unix machines, much to my pleasure.
Included in the documentation with that program is a detailed
examination of the pixel color format on one of the other cameras which
it handles, which is similar to the NC2000e/c and the D70.
I don't happen to have a NEF file in my computer at the moment,
so I can't easily repeat an earlier test, but IIRC, the unix "file"
command decided that the ".NEF" file was truly a variant of a ".TIF"
based on internal evidence. (The file command is quite useful for
analyzing strange files.)
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnic...@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Owamanga
wrote:
Okay, I stand corrected. Approximately 0.01% of the file is TIFF like,
in that the NEF's compressed RAW data and thumbnail is wrappered in a
TIFF structure.
Beyond that, all similarities end.
The D70 NEF is basically RAW as you saw, because of the fact that you
need to de-bayerize the data before you can see the picture. I am not
aware of the NC2000e, but if it's like the D100, the difference would
be that the RAW data is not compressed. (You should be able to tell
based on file-size).
--
Owamanga!
DoN. Nichols
Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 17 Jan 2005 20:57:48 -0500, dnic...@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
>wrote:
[ ... ]
>> O.K. I'm not really *sure* what is the case in the Nikon NEF,
>>but it appears to be similar to the images saved by the Kodak/Nikon
>>NC2000e/c which I used prior to my D70. It was built on a Nikon N90s
>>body (whose autofocus seems faster than that of the D70), with a back
>>which includes a heavy and large sub-base to contain the PCMCIA disk
>>drive, the RAM, the CPU and the batteries.
>>
[ ... ]
>Okay, I stand corrected. Approximately 0.01% of the file is TIFF like,
>in that the NEF's compressed RAW data and thumbnail is wrappered in a
>TIFF structure.
>
>Beyond that, all similarities end.
Agreed. I spent some time trying to find something for unix
which would display the image without processing through Kodak's plugin.
(I now have that, thanks to "dcraw"). But the best that I could do with
"the GIMP" (without dcraw) was to view the thumbnail in B&W, and one
other program allowed me to view the full sized image in B&W -- and in
either case, the image looked *way* too dark.
>The D70 NEF is basically RAW as you saw, because of the fact that you
>need to de-bayerize the data before you can see the picture. I am not
>aware of the NC2000e, but if it's like the D100, the difference would
>be that the RAW data is not compressed. (You should be able to tell
>based on file-size).
The size of what comes out of the NC2000e is approximately 1/3 of
the size predicted on the number of pixels and 3 byte/pixel. Slightly
larger, to allow for the camera data and the thumbnail. Kodak opted to
keep it in that format in the camera and convert it only when it reached
the computer where it was to be processed to benefit from the smaller
file size, as it was using PCMCIA disks, not compact flash cards. The
biggest that I have found for it is a 340 MB drive, IIRC.
That camera was originally produced in 1996 for the AP, so it
had a couple of other features of use to a reporter:
1) A built-in microphone for voice annotation.
2) The ability to connect it to a cell phone to send the
images and sounds back to the office.
When first introduced, the price was around $14.4k, which cured
me of wanting it at the time. :-)
However, when I found one at $700 at a hamfest, the thought of
all of my old Nikon glass waiting caused me to buy it then. (only 1.3
MP, but lots more flexible than the CP 950 which I used for a while.)
I've gotten a lot of use from it -- but I do find the D70 better for
most of what I do -- and especially like the ability to review the shots
on the LCD display, instead of having to wait until I get to the
computer. And the D70 is a *lot* lighter (and quieter, since it doesn't
have the N90s body winding the non-existent film with each shot. :-)
Roger
<snip>
>I'm also real unclear on the dark frame noise reduction thing. Does it
>actually take another picture? I don't hear the shutter go off again.
Yes it does.
>You do have to wait for the same time exposure again for bulb shots. I
>have mine set for auto noise reduction for 'long exposures' and this was
>close to a second but at ISO 200 so maybe the jpeg got noise reduced.
If it was a long exposure it did. If short, it did not.
>
Dark Frame Subtraction is not the same as software noise reduction and
is an entirely different process. It removes the individual pixels of
noise. How it handles replacing each of those individual pixels can
be done a number of ways.
The simplest would be to take each pixel removed and replace it with
an average of the 8 surrounding pixels. It could also perform a fast
Fourier transform, but probably doesn't have the computing power.
>One thing I noticed in this test and yesterday's shoot with RAW is that
>RAW has a LOT MORE NOISE! I worked with the basic jpegs mostly but if I
comparing RAW and JPGs in apples and oranges. I'd at least compare
RAW and TIFFs.
At normal exposures and ASA you shouldn't even be able to see the
difference. Dark frame subtraction is for long exposures.
>was having trouble stretching the exposure with curves or wanted extra
>detail I'd go back & open the RAW then paste it ontop of the jpeg but
>below the curves and the noise was really bad in some cases though yes
>it was sharper. With both in there, I could click the layers on & off &
>see obvious differences. Adding sharpening to the noisy RAW images
>tended to emphasize that noise even more.
Sharpening does not get rid of noise! It emphasizes differences and
that means it will emphasize the noise.
But...pasting the RAW on top of the jpg? Why do things the hard way?
If you have RAW, convert to TIFF and do your processing. THEN change
it to JPG if you feel the need.
Working with out and out RAW images is not for the faint of heart and
can be discouraging for the beginner. If the information is there as
it is with the NEF, photoshop CS will give you control of the
conversion to TIFF and a real head start to saving a lot of work..
>
>I think I tend to prefer the noise reduction the jpeg processing creates
>unless I'm dying for sharpness or there is some subtle & critical
>dynamic range requirement. Nikon Capture noise reduction destroyed
>detail,
Noise reduction does that.
> maybe other programs could clean up RAW better?
It's a steep learning curve.
Nikon Capture is not one of the best programs out there for one.
If the noise is due to long exposure you aren't likely to find a
better way of elimination than dark frame subtraction.
It just occurred to me to ask if you are shooting in the NEF/JPG mode
where you get both an NEF and JPG? If so those are not full resolution
JPGs.