NEF to DNG Conversion - What have I done!

[PhoebeG]

I just bought my first version of PS Elements (version 5.0 because it was cheap and so am I). At the same time, I have been convinced that all of my photos will become really good if I shoot them RAW (Nikon NEF). Well to my surprise, I could not open the NEF format files in PS.

So I did some research and found out that the files must be converted to PS's version of RAW which I believe is called Digital Negative format (is that right?). Adobe has a conversion plug-in to convert NEF to DNG, so I downloaded it. I got it figured out I guess, but it seems awfully cumbersome. First I have to download the file to my PC, then run this conversion file against the folder I downloaded to. The conversion process took about 10 minutes and I ended up with two versions of the images, one in NEF and one in DMG. These a pretty big files to be saving two of every one, and the download time seems excessive.

Am I going about this wrong or is there an easier way?

Thanks,

Phil G.

[mjs1973]

This sounds about right. I had the same problem when I first took some test shots with a camera I was thinking about purchasing. I wasn't able to open the native RAW files and had to first convert them to DNG's. I didn't like the process one bit. Like you noticed, it took too long, and then what do you do with your native RAW files? Before I purchased the new camera, I updated my version of PS to CS3. CS3 supported the RAW files but Adobe didn't update the camera RAW plug in for CS2, thus the need to convert to DNG first.

My suggestion would be to check the Adobe website to see if there is an update for the version of ACR you are using. If not, I would consider upgrading your version or Elements to a newer version that supports your RAW files if you don't want to have to convert them to DNG's before you can do anything with them.

[Frog]

I had to get the plug-in for pse5 and it was a pain to load and actually called adobe for help and they walked me through it step by step.
I don't remember anything about DMG files though so you might have clicked or not clicked something.
pse 6 already supports the nef files.

[WsW-WYATT-EARP]

you also have the ability to use the software that came with your camera to do your RAW processing - then save into a different format and go into photoshop ......

the dng conversion isn't that bad .... i was doing it until i upgraded. I would save my nef's though - media is cheap enough to keep them.

[PhoebeG]

Thanks all for the suggestions.

Phil G.

[Canuck935]

Try Adobe Lightroom 2. At least for me, it took all the hassle out of dealing with RAW files.

[mn shutterbug]

I have Elements 4 and downloaded a raw plugin for my Canon. I have had no problems and had to do no conversions.

[Hexnut]

You could always shoot in jpeg.

[OldClicker]

I just bought my first version of PS Elements (version 5.0 because it was cheap and so am I). At the same time, I have been convinced that all of my photos will become really good if I shoot them RAW (Nikon NEF). Well to my surprise, I could not open the NEF format files in PS.

So I did some research and found out that the files must be converted to PS's version of RAW which I believe is called Digital Negative format (is that right?). Adobe has a conversion plug-in to convert NEF to DNG, so I downloaded it. I got it figured out I guess, but it seems awfully cumbersome. First I have to download the file to my PC, then run this conversion file against the folder I downloaded to. The conversion process took about 10 minutes and I ended up with two versions of the images, one in NEF and one in DMG. These a pretty big files to be saving two of every one, and the download time seems excessive.

Am I going about this wrong or is there an easier way?

Thanks,

Phil G.

Are you sure that Camera Raw 4.6 (latest for Elements5) doesn't handle your NEF files direct? - TF

[California L33]

You could always shoot in jpeg.

And you end up with 8 bits of dynamic range and all the camera's post processing locked into the file :blush2:

[Ron Kruger]

I've had the same problem, and it is one of the reasons I stopped shooting RAW. I can process them with the software that came with my camera, and then take them into PS. It doesn't take me that long for each of these steps, but it's a lot of extra steps, and I shoot a lot of images. Nevertheless, everything about RAW images is a little slower, because my computer is dealing with much more information, so even the editing process (by that, I mean deleting similar images from dozens to narrow it down to a couple for processing) takes longer.
The biggest reason was that I found out that converting RAW to 16-bit TIFFs was overkill for my purposes, and each TIFF file was running about 80 MB each. So I started shooting everything in low-compression JPEG format (still around 10 MB each), but editing, processing and cutting them down to email size in PS was simple and fast. Besides, the photo editor at one of the magazines that regularly uses my stuff said he can expand the JPEG images I send and convert them to TIFF files. (I've heard similar things from catalog publishers.)
I'm still debating whether to shoot some images in RAW, because there are some publicatons that say they prefer TIFF files, but that only includes one that I deal with, and even they say they accept JPEGs.
Can anyone here advise me on all of this?

[Canuck935]

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Lightroom 2.

Lightroom 2 takes all the hassle out of dealing with RAW files. No extra steps!! It loads and treats all supported files the same. RAW, DNG, JPEG.. Doesn't matter, the interface is the same no matter what file type you are dealing with.

Worried about RAW files taking forever to load? Lightroom 2 takes care of that too!! You can choose to only make minimal previews when you import your photo's, only when you want to view an image larger does it load a larger preview. This allows you to quickly go through your images to make your picks, compare similar images, or trash the ones you don't want.

I'll say it one more time. Lightroom 2.

[Ron Kruger]

Thanks, Can. I've been debating whether to buy the latest version of PS, but I'm going to check out Lightroom 2. You seem to know quite a bit about this stuff, so let me ask you this.
I "sharpened" some pix with a Nero Snapviewer program one time, and they looked great on my screen, but when I sent them off, they arrived at the publisher with a heavy greenish tint and were unusable. I also noticed when they came up on my Google Desktop thingy on the side, they had this awful greenish hue as well. I've since trashed Nero and went back to using PS exclusively. What up with that?
And do you think I would have any similar problems with Lightroom 2?
The thing is, most publishers are set up with PS, and it seems not all photo editing software communicates equally.

[Canuck935]

Not sure what caused your green tint, and I have never used Nero before. It may have been some filter or something that got set in Nero at the time? Lightroom is part of the Adobe Photoshop Family, and it works hand with the other Photoshop products. Lightroom doesn't have some of the more advanced tools like layering and masking etc of Photoshop, so you can send an image from Lightroom to Photoshop, edit it in Photoshop, and once you save it and close it in Photoshop it shows up in Lightroom again with your edits. I don't have much need for those tools, so personally I spend about 95% of my time in Lightroom and only rarely ever need to send anything to Photoshop.

[Ron Kruger]

Thanks a bunch, Can. Lightroom 2 (I believe 2.1 is the newest version) should be compatible with all my markets and probably just the thing for me.
I try to focus all my attention on getting the shot right at the time of the shutter release and don't do a lot in PS either.

[drg]

Thanks a bunch, Can. Lightroom 2 (I believe 2.1 is the newest version) should be compatible with all my markets and probably just the thing for me.
I try to focus all my attention on getting the shot right at the time of the shutter release and don't do a lot in PS either.

Ron,
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom is now at release 2.2. I seriously recommend it to all LR 2.x users. The quirky bugs that had plagued users of certain features have been smoothed out.

Adobe also added native RAW support for more cameras and features to let the JPEG conversions be like what the manufacturer built in originally. As an example, with LR2.2 Canon Camera Styles are now included as a menu feature for photographs originally made in the RAW mode. So that option is also available!

The real strength of LR lies in how it lays out workflow capabilities for the photographer shooting lots and lots of photos either at one time or over a longer duration. All kinds of methods of tagging sorting and even geo-tagging from one's GPS are enabled.

I have several LR posts in the works (or ready to go in two cases) and if I can offer any suggestions don't hesitate to ask.

Color problems are almost always a calibration or post-editing problem. LR does have 'limits' built in that prevent too much damage (there are techniques I have been playing with to get around some these) being done to the image prior to conversion/export.

Some programs can sharpen with color as well as edge contrast and halos. It's very tricky to do well and is rarely ever needed. A click on the wrong option can really mess up a photo with some software.

The publisher's you work with regularly should be easily able to give you 'specifications' as to the type of standardized color they use or if they are willing/capable of post processing your files. If they want print ready/camera ready imagery you will eventually need Photoshop CSx(3 or 4 with LR is recommended).

As a beginning step for an Editor to use with Lightroom, the Photoshop Elements (latest version or a previous one) programs are very powerful tools.

The final step to making your photos more widely acceptable is to buy a calibration tool. There are several ranging from the Huey Pantone to the X-rite tools or others as well. The initial idea is to get your monitor in a standard range for the application intended for the photographs you produce.

I'm sure I've just brought more questions for you so we will look forward to hearing more and seeing some photos (I'll look and see what you've posted elsewhere at PR).

Best Wishes!

[Ron Kruger]

Hey, DRG, you're just the guy I've been looking for. I'm currently testing PSE 7.0 and Lightroom 2.2. (Have used PSE 2.0 for years.) Maybe it is because I'm unfamilar with Lightroom, but I find PSE much easier to use for cropping, resizing and most other things.
But I took some underexposed JPEG images into LR and was amazed at how easy it was to change exposure--and how great the images looked. It seems to me that the auto commands (loved the "autotone") in LR do a better job than those in PSE. But I couldn't find a "save as" command in LR, and the thing I liked least about it is the small size of the imported images. I really couldn't tell what a great job LR did until I put them back into My Pictures and veiwed them full screen. PSE has a much bigger image to work with.
I'll continue to play around with LR for the next 30 days or so and try to figure more out about it.
I often thought about calibrating my monitor, but I'm not shooting for National Geo, and all of my present markets are more than happy with my work (mostly smaller magazines and newspapers), so I've put it off. I'll check out the ones you listed. Thanks.
Everything I send out is camera ready, although one photo editor told me he coverts all JPEG images scheduled for publication into TIFF images and then processes them himself.

[California L33]

Besides, the photo editor at one of the magazines that regularly uses my stuff said he can expand the JPEG images I send and convert them to TIFF files. (I've heard similar things from catalog publishers.)
I'm still debating whether to shoot some images in RAW, because there are some publicatons that say they prefer TIFF files, but that only includes one that I deal with, and even they say they accept JPEGs.
Can anyone here advise me on all of this?

It's always possible to convert a JPEG to a TIFF, and if the picture is perfect a publisher may not mind. JPEG is a lossy 8 bit file format. TIFF is a lossless 16 bit file format. The reason the publisher might accept a JPEG (without much compression) is that when it's finally published it has less than 8 bits of dynamic range. However, if the picture is anything but perfectly exposed you could have a problem. If you had blown highlights or dark shadows for instance, in theory the publisher could reduce the contrast and 'find' details in a TIFF file with software that would just be gone in JPEG. I think you're better off saving files in TIFF (or better, DNG) and archiving them on DVD or external hard drives.

[Ron Kruger]

I appreciate the imput, CA, but all my business (or most of it) is done via email, which has a 10 MB limit. My 16-bit TIFF files are a minumum of 80 MB (I'm shooting 14.6 megapixels). In fact, I just created a TIFF file testing a new software this evening, and it was 156 MB.
Most of my photos are illustration that accompany articles, but I also have had three covers published since going digital in June of 08, and I have promises (no pay yet) of a few more this year. All of these covers were submitted as low-compression JPEGs, and even though when I was informed they would be used as covers, I told each of the three different editors that I could submit larger files in TIFF format, and they all replied that what I sent was fine. They looked good on 8X10 covers too. That's when I stopped shooting RAW.
I have been impressed with the dozens of image submitted in this manner and published inside publications since going ditital as well.
One thing I've figured out, and you mentioned, is that the most important thing is sharp focus. Without that, it doesn't matter much what file you save it with.
I was asked recently, however, to submit a bunch of images for possible use in catalogs and other promotional materials by a state agency, and they said they preferred TIFFs, but would accept low-compression JPEGs, so I'm wondering whether I should at least expose and save a few RAW images when I think I'm going to get something special. All I have to do is push a button.
I'm curious to see if this stage agency buys any of my images, and plan to contact them in a month or so to see if the JPEGs I sent were good enough. If they buy some, I may never mess with RAW again.

[California L33]

I appreciate the imput, CA, but all my business (or most of it) is done via email, which has a 10 MB limit. My 16-bit TIFF files are a minumum of 80 MB (I'm shooting 14.6 megapixels). In fact, I just created a TIFF file testing a new software this evening, and it was 156 MB.
Most of my photos are illustration that accompany articles, but I also have had three covers published since going digital in June of 08, and I have promises (no pay yet) of a few more this year. All of these covers were submitted as low-compression JPEGs, and even though when I was informed they would be used as covers, I told each of the three different editors that I could submit larger files in TIFF format, and they all replied that what I sent was fine. They looked good on 8X10 covers too. That's when I stopped shooting RAW.
I have been impressed with the dozens of image submitted in this manner and published inside publications since going ditital as well.
One thing I've figured out, and you mentioned, is that the most important thing is sharp focus. Without that, it doesn't matter much what file you save it with.
I was asked recently, however, to submit a bunch of images for possible use in catalogs and other promotional materials by a state agency, and they said they preferred TIFFs, but would accept low-compression JPEGs, so I'm wondering whether I should at least expose and save a few RAW images when I think I'm going to get something special. All I have to do is push a button.
I'm curious to see if this stage agency buys any of my images, and plan to contact them in a month or so to see if the JPEGs I sent were good enough. If they buy some, I may never mess with RAW again.

The main reason to _SHOOT_ in RAW is that it can save you if you get that one in a million shot and it's over/under exposed. If editors want JPEGS, fine. But if you shoot JPEG and end up with an exposure error you're pretty well cooked. If you shoot RAW there's a good chance you can tweak it so that nobody will ever guess. At Christmas I took a beautiful snapshot of a family member. I forgot I had the camera on manual- just raised the camera and clicked when I saw it. I under exposed it by 3 stops. The camera saved in both JPEG and RAW. The JPEG was hopeless. With the RAW I just boosted the exposure 3 stops in PS and it was fine.

[Ron Kruger]

Thanks, CA. Good point, but I'm finding with the newer versions of software, exposure and white balance can be adjusted in JPEG format as well--maybe not with the same latitude or to such a high degree, but well enough to fit any of my mistakes. Whether to shoot RAW or not really is coming down to a cost/benefit ratio (cost being file size and processing time).
Which leads into another question I would like you and DRG to consider:
I'm experimenting with trial versions of Lightroom 2.2 and PSE 7. What I'm finding is I can do everything with PSE (plus a lot more) than I can with LR. It's just that LR's features are a lot more simple and automatic, sort of like the difference between point-and-shoot and DSLRs.
Even though I put most of my effort into getting the shot right at the beginning, I can almost always improve shots a bit in software with cropping and minor adjustments, the same way I usually improved B/W images in darkrooms years ago.
But I shy away from doing very much, because many of my markets ask photographers not to alter pix much in software. (My goals are much different than the guy trying to get the best image for prints, create special effects or post to the net.) I take a lot of shots of most scenes, then delete down to the best image or two to process. They all need to be cropped to standard sizes and within the maximum range of dpi that allows a file size small enough to email. Occasionally I come up with an image with perfect composition and focus, but not exposure. But 99 percent of the time, I do little more than crop and and sometimes click "auto contrast."
I'm coming to the conclusion that PSE 7 is the best choice for me, because it has a much larger image view, it's built for cropping and offers many more features and latitude for "fixing" photos, if the need arises.
I also believe that full versions of PS, at least for me, are overkill, and are more suited to design artists than regular, old photographers.
What do you you guys think? Or anyone else that wishes to chime in.

[Canuck935]

Actually, most of what you say leads me to believe that Lightroom would be best for you. I think that you are having difficulties because the work flow in Lightroom is a lot different that PS. It's a bit of a learning curve, but once you figure it out, you might wonder why you ever used PS in the first place.

To get a larger view of your image in Lightroom, you can toggle the sidebars on/off by hitting the tab key. Also, keyboard shortcut L will let you toggle through "Lights Out" mode so you can focus more attention to the image.

For quickly narrowing down a set of photo's to just the keepers, Lightroom has several tools. There's more than one way to do it, but any photo's to be deleted just select the photo and use keyboard shortcut X to flag the image as a 'Reject'. The image will grey out and once you have all your rejects flagged, you can delete them all in one step. As for any images that are keepers, you can flag them as a "Pick" by using keyboard shortcut P.

There's a couple ways to help you compare images to narrow down your picks as well. Keyboard shortcut C will put you into compare mode, and keyboard shortcut N will enter survey mode.

Once you've done your edits and you're ready to send them off, select them all and hit the export button. Set the dpi/pixel count you want, and it will automatically apply it to all the images.

About why Lightroom does Import/Export instead of Open/Save like PS. In Lightroom, when you import a set of images, it just puts it in a catalog. Any edits you do will not actually affect your original images. This is a HUGE argument in favor of Lightroom. It will not allow you to screw up the original files. So this is where export comes in. When you are ready to commit your edits, you export from Lightroom. During this process, Lightroom makes a copy of the original, applies the edits, then saves them. Your original files remain untouched!

[California L33]

Thanks, CA. Good point, but I'm finding with the newer versions of software, exposure and white balance can be adjusted in JPEG format as well--maybe not with the same latitude or to such a high degree, but well enough to fit any of my mistakes. Whether to shoot RAW or not really is coming down to a cost/benefit ratio (cost being file size and processing time).
Which leads into another question I would like you and DRG to consider:
I'm experimenting with trial versions of Lightroom 2.2 and PSE 7. What I'm finding is I can do everything with PSE (plus a lot more) than I can with LR. It's just that LR's features are a lot more simple and automatic, sort of like the difference between point-and-shoot and DSLRs.
Even though I put most of my effort into getting the shot right at the beginning, I can almost always improve shots a bit in software with cropping and minor adjustments, the same way I usually improved B/W images in darkrooms years ago.
But I shy away from doing very much, because many of my markets ask photographers not to alter pix much in software. (My goals are much different than the guy trying to get the best image for prints, create special effects or post to the net.) I take a lot of shots of most scenes, then delete down to the best image or two to process. They all need to be cropped to standard sizes and within the maximum range of dpi that allows a file size small enough to email. Occasionally I come up with an image with perfect composition and focus, but not exposure. But 99 percent of the time, I do little more than crop and and sometimes click "auto contrast."
I'm coming to the conclusion that PSE 7 is the best choice for me, because it has a much larger image view, it's built for cropping and offers many more features and latitude for "fixing" photos, if the need arises.
I also believe that full versions of PS, at least for me, are overkill, and are more suited to design artists than regular, old photographers.
What do you you guys think? Or anyone else that wishes to chime in.

As far as software goes, if PSE works for you for most things, why not use it? I use PS. I've used PSE. The truth is I don't like either of them. (I've never used LR). PS lets me do what I need to do. That's why I use it. The only reason PS and PSE are so popular, in my opinion, is that PS was first to market. I find the interface inflexible and non-intuitive. You can do almost anything with it; it's powerful, but it feels so dang kludgy.

I used to use something that was intuitive and fast. It was a 'home' product with high quality professional features. I could do almost everything in it I can do in PS now, but it couldn't handle anything but JPEGS and I needed to go with a better format. I can't think of the name right now.

I still say that if your camera can shoot both RAW and JPEG simultaneously do it. I don't buy the argument about storage. You can get a 2GB class 6 SD card for $7 now if you shop around. That's 100 or so 12 megapixel images stored in both data formats. Compare that to film and processing for a single roll of 35mm. I just bought 200 recordable DVDs (Sony, not some off brand) for $30 on sale. That's a LOT of storage for a very small price.

At the very least shoot both. If at the end of the day you find your JPEGs are fine, then delete the RAWs if you don't want to mess with storage. It's true you can play with exposure in software with JPEG, but it's not even in the same league as doing it in RAW. Every time you add a bit in digital you're _doubling_ the dynamic range. So the 14 bit file doesn't have roughly twice the dynamic range of the 8 bit file. It's 2x2x2x2x2x2 (36 times) the dynamic range. So if you start having to make adjustments near pure black or pure white you'll find a lot more detail there. And if you don't need it you don't have to use it. I just have a feeling if you set that camera to shoot JPEG only one of these days there will be a very loud, "Dang!" coming from Kentucky.

[jetrim]

I see quite a few people pushing Lightroom in this thread, and I'm curious if any of you have taken a serious look at ACDSee Pro. I've D/Ld the 30 day trials for both, and from what I can see so far ACDSee does everything Lightroom does, a few things it doesn't, does them better, and at less than half the price.

[Ron Kruger]

Man, I can't get over the knowledge and willingness of people on this site to help.
Can, you've given me good reasons and incentives to investigate LR further, and, CA, you've convinced me. My camera can shoot RAW and JPEGs simultaneously, and that's what I'm going to do, as soon as I get a 4 MB card. On many of my shoots, I would go through a 2 MB card in a hurry shooting both. In fact, I did that once already.
Thanks, guys. Don't go anywhere. Knowing me, I'll need further help.