RAW file format

[MICKEY88]

as others have already stated,, jpeg or tif is pretty much the standard for uploading to hosting sites and for printing..

zenfolio is a great hosting site and you can order your prints from there via MPIX which is agreat lab..

you can save 5 dollars on zenfolio by using this discount code XE1-C1X-2JF

or you can just upload direct to mpix for printing..

 

[pjacobi]

If you are willing to spend time to shoot Raw format and post-processing the images, why not print the images on your own printer?

Don't use the "free" printer that came with your PC! Go out and buy a specific printer just for photos from Canon or Epson. You can easily get a nice proto printer for a couple hundred dollars.


-Paul

 

[thomas998]

If you are willing to spend time to shoot Raw format and post-processing the images, why not print the images on your own printer?

Don't use the "free" printer that came with your PC! Go out and buy a specific printer just for photos from Canon or Epson. You can easily get a nice proto printer for a couple hundred dollars.


-Paul

Generally it is more cost effective to use a printing service than to do it yourself. Not to mention when I use a service like adorama I can get blow up way beyond what I can get on a home printer... not to mention I have the flexibility of using different types of paper... yes I could go buy a box of metalic papers but since I only need/want to print a picture on metalic once in a blue moon the majority of the papers would probably be lost before I got around to using them all.

 

[MICKEY88]

I agree 100% with thomas998

20 years ago when I took a course in photography I received some advice that made a lot of sense to me, granted it was in regards to film and the darkroom, but it carries over to digital as well..

I was told that a photographers time is better spent behind the camera, to leave printing to trained professionals, unless you want to do it for the enjoyment..

with my average shoot{500-800 photos} I can batch process my raw files, once I've started that process I'm free to do other things, then I upload, order and relax until the prints arrive

it's one of those to each his own kind of things..

I'd rather be shooting or doing some fun editing of photos, than printing for hours..

 

[webshark3]

it's pretty cost effective at home if you stick to matte paper. Otehrwise, I have it done elseware if I want good (or large) prints.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I do almost all of my printing at home. I think it's crazy. Unless you are a control freak , you really want to learn about printing, or you aren't patient, printing at home makes no sense.

 

[handicap18]

Ok its been 6 months since we got back from our last Disney trip. I took about 3,000 images. I've already done a trip report and posted pictures and all that jazz.

In the time since coming home I've changed my post processing work flow. I've been shooting RAW for over a year and all the pics from the last trip were in RAW so for the last few months I've been re-processing them. I used to always shoot in VIVID mode and was happy with the results. Sometime back in Feb or Mar I started using a different Nikon software program, ViewNX. It does a little more with the RAW images though not everything like CaptureNX or even Lightroom does. I was having issues with Lightroom and didn't like the way it made automatic changes. I haven't tried Lightroom since switching to NORMAL, but I'm guessing that it wouldn't make no way near the changes it made before. I haven't really needed all the extra features yet, but I'll try Lightroom again, but I'm leaning towards getting CaptureNX.

Anyway. Now I shoot in NORMAL mode (also only use AUTO white balance) then in post processing I change all the images to NEUTRAL. I like this a little better and its also one of the options in-camera on the D300 (its not an in-camera option on the D50). It seems to lighten the images by about 1/2 a stop or so and gives the image a slightly softer and more natural look, but overall IMO gives it a better look.

I also went though and changed the white balance on a lot of images.

Here are a few before and after images:

Before (no PP done, shot in VIVID):

After (changed to NEUTRAL):

Before (no PP done, shot in VIVID):

After (changed to NEUTRAL and adjusted White Balance):

Before (shot in VIVID):

After (changed to NEUTRAL and adjusted White Balance)

Before (shot in VIVID):

After (changed to NEUTRAL):

Some of the changes are subtle others are very pronounced. Its really not all that much work to make the changes I made. Batch processing is really simple Not all images get a white balance change, usually the ones that need WB change are obvious. I also will add some Exposure Compensation and thats ab out it at this point. I've recently found that I may need to get CaptureNX sooner than I thought. I took some pics at my DS last t-ball game and the shadows were very harsh even real late in the day. There are features in CaptureNX that will help this (I've used the trial version). I have some gift cards coming to me from work so I may use them to buy CaptureNX ($100 program).

To some of you this may be old news. You've been doing it like this for a while, but maybe for some others especially those new to dSLR's it might show the options available to them that they were unsure of. It really isn't that much more work when shooting RAW.

 

[DVC Jen]

this is just what it looks like to ME - may not look like this to someone else

to me it looks like you are just going from a warmer tone to a cooler tone and that is what you like.

*I* kinda like the cooler tones better - but I think I have noticed that most people around me like the warmer tones. Or maybe it is just the hubster that likes the warmer tones more and he is the most verbal.

I am very envious that you go to do extra magic hour at animal kingdom. We were planning on going - but the only night we could fit it in was our first and Kylie wasn't feeling too well - so it didn't work out.

Beautiful EE photos.

 

[DueyDooDah]

I have to agree that the change is for the better. The tones look much more natural.

 

[thomas998]

Before you buy the Nikon CaptureNX software... I would suggest you give DxO Optics Pro a try... you can get a free demo for 14 days on their site... I used to be a Capture fan... but I've converted to the Optics Pro... it also has some lens correction that isn't available with Capture... the only down side is the number of lenses that it is set up for isn't extensive, just covers the major ones.

 

[handicap18]

this is just what it looks like to ME - may not look like this to someone else

to me it looks like you are just going from a warmer tone to a cooler tone and that is what you like.

*I* kinda like the cooler tones better - but I think I have noticed that most people around me like the warmer tones. Or maybe it is just the hubster that likes the warmer tones more and he is the most verbal.

I am very envious that you go to do extra magic hour at animal kingdom. We were planning on going - but the only night we could fit it in was our first and Kylie wasn't feeling too well - so it didn't work out.

Beautiful EE photos.

Thats a good observation Jen. Maybe over the course of my dSLR picture taking my eye has changed. For the longest time I really liked the results from VIVID. Since making the change I look at them now and think they are slightly over saturated. So I guess I'm now more of a cooler tone guy.

This is the beauty of digital. Your ability to change, even slightly, is pretty easy.

 

[NostalgicDad]

Kyle......Those are nice shots and I also like the changes you made. I've used Capture NX for some time now and really like it. Although you can still purchase it online and through retail stores, the Nikon Mall only has Capture NX2 available for $180 for the full version or $110 to upgrade existing licensed copies of NX.

The changes made in NX2 are significant. There is lens correction as well as the new selection control points. You can now selectively edit NR, USM, and D-Lighting instead of editing the entire image. I think the control points are the coolest feature in both versions. Nikon also bit the bullet and included a retouch brush for getting rid of distracting elements such as dust spots, etc. No need to open up PS to clone something out anymore.

I'm currently doing their 2 month trial and so far it's getting my approval. Just keep in mind that it requires a lot horsepower to operate smoothly. I think that's one of the main dislikes when people complain about this program. If you want to try it out, you can also run it simultaneously with NX. In other words, no need to uninstall your existing copy.

 

[jann1033]

i like number 2 better by far...funny how we try something different and then don't like what we did before not sure about lightroom 1 but with 2 you can set it so nothing is done automatically or set stuff to be done automatically. i have nothing done cause i don't care for the auto tone etc.
it does look like the neutral must somehow be exposed slightly differently than the vivid..i notice the boat light, esp bottom tier are a little more exposed and not as sharp...maybe it sharpness and i just see it more in the light areas

 

[handicap18]

Kyle......Those are nice shots and I also like the changes you made. I've used Capture NX for some time now and really like it. Although you can still purchase it online and through retail stores, the Nikon Mall only has Capture NX2 available for $180 for the full version or $110 to upgrade existing licensed copies of NX.

The changes made in NX2 are significant. There is lens correction as well as the new selection control points. You can now selectively edit NR, USM, and D-Lighting instead of editing the entire image. I think the control points are the coolest feature in both versions. Nikon also bit the bullet and included a retouch brush for getting rid of distracting elements such as dust spots, etc. No need to open up PS to clone something out anymore.

I'm currently doing their 2 month trial and so far it's getting my approval. Just keep in mind that it requires a lot horsepower to operate smoothly. I think that's one of the main dislikes when people complain about this program. If you want to try it out, you can also run it simultaneously with NX. In other words, no need to uninstall your existing copy.

Danny,
Thats good info on CNX2. I used the trial version of CNX and like it a lot, but money is tight so I've held off on the purchase. Now that I have about $150 is gift certificates I thinking of making the leap. Maybe I'll go for the CNX2. I also need 2nd camera bag and thats about $60 oh yeah and I'm "saving" up for the D300.

I agree with you about the control points. I really liked using them. It took a while to get used to it. I've done 2 trial versions of CNX and the first time it had a hard time getting around it. The 2nd time it went better and I had a lot more success.

If its a 2 month trial for CNX2 I may do that then go from there. I'm not worried about its computer needs. I'm running a Intel quad core with 2.4 gHz processor, 3GB ram and plenty of HD space. This thing flies.

Thomas, I checked out Optics Pro and that is out of my price range. $299 after the 14 day trial. Thanks for the info though.


Jan, sometimes we have to make the plunge and change before we know that what we did before we really didn't like otherwise we didn't know we didn't like it. Is that a Yogi'ism?

 

[Code]

Just a quick note, in-camera settings like vivid vs neutral, brightness, contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc.. only matter with RAW when using the manufacturer's RAW developer. Take the same shot in vivid and neutral and load them into Lightroom with the same settings and they will be the same.

 

[SWDopey]

Hold off on your decision until Lightroom 2.0 is released - it's worth the wait! (And no, not all features are in the beta)

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Neat to see the differences. I like both versions, it would be hard for me to pick which I prefer.

 

[Steve's Girl]

I haven't tried Lightroom since switching to NORMAL, but I'm guessing that it wouldn't make no way near the changes it made before. I haven't really needed all the extra features yet, but I'll try Lightroom again, but I'm leaning towards getting CaptureNX.

Hey Kyle -

I, too, have been struggling with the colors of my Nikon RAW images. I have been using Lightroom for about a year now, and still can't always get the colors to look right.

One thing I have learned, is that the imported image will look the same in Lightroom regardless of the in camera settings. Lightroom disregards all in camera settings. However, the Nikon RAW converters are capable of reading the in camera settings. I get really frustrated when I will see an image on the LCD screen of the camera and then import it into Lightroom and the colors look totally different. I use all Normal in camera settings. For some of my images, I have been converting them to TIFF using Nikon's Picture Project and then importing them to Lightroom to make other adjustments, catalog them, etc. It is a really cumbersome process, but it is the only way I can figure out to get the colors I want and still be able to take advantage of Lightroom's organization. I keep going back and forth on purchasing Capture NX. I think it is now $111.00 on Amazon since NX2 was released. I really didn't care for NX when I had a trial awhile back, but I don't know how else to get the colors I want from my NEF files.

 

[Groucho]

Some camera benefit more from tweaking of the actual camera settings than others in Lightroom. My 6mp Pentaxes needed some tweaking to get decent, solid reds (not orangey), and this is, from what I've read, a common complaint for owners of most DSLRs. (Just look at the comparisons in DPReview reviews of the Gretag MacBeth color charts from ACR vs other methods.) I am pretty happy with their K20D settings, but each camera varies slightly. But color out of the box is definitely an issue with LR and ACR. If only you could get the LR library and develop controls with different raw processing plug-ins...

Bibble seems to do a much nicer job at producing pleasing colors, but it lacks the library and keywording features.

With the posted shots... the night ones certainly are benefiting most from WB adjustment IMHO, the vivid vs natural is probably just your eyes becoming more "trained" - kind of like the way that cameras that output bright, punchy, oversaturated colors are considered "consumer friendly". The colors pop but they're often unrealistic. (How often in the real world do colors "pop" at us?)

 

[ChrisinNJ]

I have to admit I have used my Rebel as a high end point & shoot until recently, and this board is showing me just how much I don't know! So sorry if these are stupid questions, but I am trying to improve my photography.

Why shoot in RAW? What are the advantages?

If you shoot in RAW, what format do you save in for printing? (I don't print at home is that makes a difference)

I have just shot & printed in jpeg so far, but is there a better format? tiff?

Also, if you use the canon software to download photos from your camera, can the RAW files be saved as printable files within that software, or does it need to be done through a program like photoshop?


Thanks!