The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Getting the most detail out of D700 NEFs

A

asabet

Guest
I've been playing with ISO 200 NEFs using C1 v4, Raw Developer, Aperture, NX2, and Lightroom. Three out of five of those applications seem to extract similar levels of detail. Lightroom lags perhaps a touch behind. The standout is Raw Developer. Significantly more detail than in any of the other apps. Has anyone else noticed the same thing?
 

robmac

Well-known member
Yes. Tested the same packages save for LR (using CS3 instead) and RD gave the best detail. NX2 SHOULD give the best, but may be needed to be tweaked for less NR and more detail.
 
A

asabet

Guest
Here's a quick example. Not the greatest example, but it's what I have on hand at the moment. Corner crops from a quick shot I did to test a 24/2.8 AIS last night.

Shot info: f/11, ISO 200, 0.8 sec, breezy night, so not a good test of the lens, but that doesn't matter since the same RAW file was used for all applications in this comparison.

Processing info: Noise reduction set to off or minimum setting in each app. I tried to sharpen each file to the same extent. Also tried to roughly match overall contrast.

Here's the whole frame with the yellow rectangle depicting the cropped region:



Here are the crops:



Here's the NEF for download in case anyone wants to give it a look -> http://www.box.net/index.php?rm=box_download_shared_file&file_id=f_187873776&shared_name=dsgtuyhbt7
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Amin when I tried the Nikon capture it certainly did bring out more detail than the rest but i wonder how much Nikon did on the back side of it to begin with. This is a hard test since we just don't know how much they are doing in all the programs with there profiles and algorithms for the D700 in different programs. Still nice to know what defaults in each are truly doing so the end user can apply the correct sharpening and such to bring out the detail. Turning the sharpening off in some programs does not mean it is truly off.

Things to watch for are the luminance and color values in the noise area. I know lowering the luminance in C1 will bring out a lot more detail than the default setting for my Phase back , same maybe true for other camera's as well. i think most raw processors the set the defaults for generally the best overall results at all ISO values, which maybe good for say a ISO 800 file but maybe not for a ISO 200 files. Defaults are somewhat deceiving. I recommend playing around in each and get them to what seems the best for each and than see what program works the easiest for you and most comfortable.
 
A

asabet

Guest
Thanks for the insights Guy. Just to clarify, I haven't been leaving things on default but rather playing with each app to determine settings for the maximum detail I can extract. Luminance and color were set to the minimum possible setting in each of the five applications. Sharpening was done differently in each app with a goal of matching the amount of sharpening amongst all of them.

It is likely that optimal sharpening in any given application will bring out more apparent detail than I am showing here. Ideally someone will take the NEF from the link I posted and tell me the settings by which to get detail from one of the other apps to match what I'm seeing in Raw Developer :).
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Yes did not mean to derail your tests far from it, just wanted folks to know what defaults really are or not really are. I do agree with you though some programs will produce more detail. Raw developer for a one man operation is very very good. Not sure how Brian does it but he does have a nice program.
 
A

asabet

Guest
Yes did not mean to derail your tests far from it, just wanted folks to know what defaults really are or not really are.
I couldn't agree more. It's too bad that many of these apps do significant baseline sharpening and/or noise reduction that cannot be disabled.

Raw developer for a one man operation is very very good. Not sure how Brian does it but he does have a nice program.
He also supports new cameras much quicker than Apple has been doing!
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Interesting comparison. To be honest, they all look pretty similar to me. Lightroom seems to smooth the detail a bit more, but it also has fewer "artifacts". Raw developer looks excellent, but the best to me is NX2. One interesting thing is how they handle the highlights -- in the right side of the crop where the light is coming through the trees, Nikon renders these just white without color aberrations while the other processors have varying degrees of colored spots. I suspect this is the integrated color fringe reduction built into NX2.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Amin
Thanks for this - definitely interesting.
Guy - I agree with your points too.

I can see differences in the different shots okay, but depending on what you're looking for, one seems better than the other.

However, this is one shot, with a lot of green foliage (my favorite). My personal feeling is that even if you could decide on a hierarchy with this particular shot . . . another shot in different lighting / ISO / colour / WB / etc. etc. would show off the best of another converter.

I've made my bed with this one, and it'd take a lot for me to go find another bed. Doesn't stop me being bugged by the time Apple take to support new cameras - they must be mad!
 
A

asabet

Guest
Interesting comparison. To be honest, they all look pretty similar to me.

You're right Stuart, "significantly more detail" was overstating it. I was a bit excited when I wrote that :rolleyes:.

Lightroom seems to smooth the detail a bit more, but it also has fewer "artifacts". Raw developer looks excellent, but the best to me is NX2. One interesting thing is how they handle the highlights -- in the right side of the crop where the light is coming through the trees, Nikon renders these just white without color aberrations while the other processors have varying degrees of colored spots. I suspect this is the integrated color fringe reduction built into NX2.

Yes, that shot has a decent amount of color fringing, and NX2 is the only one that cleans it all up by default.
 
A

asabet

Guest
However, this is one shot, with a lot of green foliage (my favorite). My personal feeling is that even if you could decide on a hierarchy with this particular shot . . . another shot in different lighting / ISO / colour / WB / etc. etc. would show off the best of another converter.
Hi Jono, I agree. It bugs me that I can't find one converter that seems to do everything as well or better than the others. With the Canon 5D, C1 v3.7 did that for me, or at least I thought that it did. With the D700, I'm probably going to settle in with Aperture, if only because it also does a very good job with Olympus files.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Why not stick with the one that is easiest for you to use, and then if you are in a situation where you need the bleeding edge of file quality, you can use the version that gives you the best file (if it is not the same as the easiest)? In 99% of cases, the differences you showed will not be visible in the final output, so it makes sense to use the most convenient processor unless you are going to need that last 1% of performance. For me, Lightroom is probably the most convenient (I am still on 1.4), so I would stick with that unless I was printing 16x20 or larger.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Amin, Stuart
I quite agree - choose the converter that works best with your workflow, then shell out to something else if you really need it.

The advent of the Nik plugins for Aperture (outrageously expensive though they may be) seems to me to be another good reason for staying.
 

woodyspedden

New member
Amin, Stuart
I quite agree - choose the converter that works best with your workflow, then shell out to something else if you really need it.

The advent of the Nik plugins for Aperture (outrageously expensive though they may be) seems to me to be another good reason for staying.
Jono

As you well know, the Nik plug in's are for CS3 as well.

I think one of the interesting questions is how much to process in the raw converter vs going to CS3. Lightroom has substantially improved selective edits with its new retouch brush in Version 2. This allows selective edits of exposure, brighteness, sharpness, shadow, highlight etc. It is a very powerfull tool and perhaps the one main reason to choose Lightroom as your converter..................if you want to do your selective edits inside the raw converter as opposed to CS3.

I think there is a case to be made for simply "developing" the digital negative inside a good and fast raw converter (e.g. Raw Developer) and then bringing the really good files you want to work on into CS3 for the final edits. CS3 is still the most powerful selective editor on the market and with the advent of these new plug-ins e.g. Viveza, The Nik Suite, Alien Skin suite etc increasing in power every day. I may be wrong but i think that expecting to get the best raw conversions plus the edits in one program is a bit much to ask. I know that CS3 opens ACR 4.x and is a full featured raw converter but frankly I find C1 and Raw Developer better. So I choose my raw converter based on which is the best (IMHO!) and then on to processing.

Just my thoughts on the matter

Woody
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
To me workflow is the key element for me too get my work done on deadline and get off the damn computer. But i do agree if you need that extra whatever out of a certain converter they maybe slightly better than just use when absolutely needed. Myself i am in the c1 camp but mostly because of the Phase back and it's files that also give me lens corrections as well that no other converter can. LR for me just flat out sucks at default with the Phase files unless i set up some pretty serious presets on import of them. Aperture is not supporting my Phase back and I wish I had that option also. Raw Developer will though. So for me i am a little backed into a corner with C1 although I do love the program anyway. To me find your best workflow converter , this way you know exactly what you need to do or may want to do easily. There all pretty close and you can really achieve similar results although some maybe harder to get there than others. The good news is there are no real dogs between them. They all work pretty darn good
 

robmac

Well-known member
The difference in terms of resolving detail between the NX2, RD, C1V4 and Aperture 2, when in printed form would likely be splitting hairs - and the CA control and integrated Nik/U-pointy software (which can be worked on ANY TIFF from any DSLR within NX2) are big pluses in NX2s favor.

That said, I am in the camp that no one software package, as yet, offers an all-in-one solution - IF you want speed, the Nth degree of detail and ultimate control.

Guess that's why I have Aperture 2, C1V4, CS3 and may upgrade my RD copy from the trial version if I make the move to Nikon this fall.

I guess the upside is at least we have some choices....
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Woody
Jono

As you well know, the Nik plug in's are for CS3 as well.
Of course - I wasn't implying anything else

I think there is a case to be made for simply "developing" the digital negative inside a good and fast raw converter (e.g. Raw Developer) and then bringing the really good files you want to work on into CS3 for the final edits. CS3 is still the most powerful selective editor on the market and with the advent of these new plug-ins e.g. Viveza, The Nik Suite, Alien Skin suite etc increasing in power every day. I may be wrong but i think that expecting to get the best raw conversions plus the edits in one program is a bit much to ask. I know that CS3 opens ACR 4.x and is a full featured raw converter but frankly I find C1 and Raw Developer better. So I choose my raw converter based on which is the best (IMHO!) and then on to processing.

Just my thoughts on the matter

Woody
I think we just think really differently about this - I've lived with the convert/touch up/create 4 different output files / catalogue workflow for several years, and I never want to go back there again.

Maybe it's epitomised by the fact that you decided to go medium format . . .and I decided not to. if I'm to be brutally honest with myself, perfection is not my aim . . . the best is the enemy of the good and all that.

I still feel that nobody cares if an image is technically perfect if it's interesting, and if it isn't interesting, nobody cares anyway!

For me, the difference between one converter and another, although significant, is never likely to be enough to change the mind of a viewer.

If I have an event, or a wedding, or a holiday, or whatever, and I've got 500 shots, I don't want to spend 250 hours processing them.

Aperture allows me to get the job done to a decent standard and onto the net or to a DVD or a book or printer within a few hours. If a particular shot needs something extra, then of course I have CS3 or Nik plugins or C1 or Bibble come to that. But to start from somewhere else . . . no thanks.

Everything's easier - backup, cataloguing, printing, websites - everything.


I think I'm just admitting to being a kludger!
:ROTFL:
 

woodyspedden

New member
Hey Jono

No offense buddy but if you feel this way then why are we wasting so many words on this thread topic.

We all have different priorities and workflows and i agree that any of the modern converters get the job done. The point the OP was working at was whether there was one converter which would do it all. The rest of the discussion I believe was trying to elaborate on that premise.

If it doesn't matter at all to you to go for what you call technical perfection then so be it, but others here apparently do care.

Just trying to clarify

Woody
 
Top