Nikon D2X review

I just read this Nikon D2X review from Laurin Rinder and was pleased with the authors comments about shooting JPEG/Fine mode and sharpening in camera.

I’ve never been a big fan of Raw because of the lengthy work flow. I feel I pissed my money away buying Nikon’s raw conversion software .I could chisel it out of stone faster and didn’t see all that much difference. Seem like everyone here shoots Raw but might be interested in a different opinion.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipm...eview_note.html

Marc

Whilst there are a few people for whom in-camera processing of the raw data suits their requirements, there is absolutely no doubt that the raw file is far more flexible in terms of being able to extract every last nuance of quality from an image. In a talk I gave a year ago on digital underwater photography, I said that using a high quality digital camera (like the D2X) and shooting anything other than raw files is like buying a Ferrari and driving it at 30mph - perfectly possible but why would you want to?

Workflow can be speeded up in many ways (batch processing, etc.) but is the price paid for versatility. I use Photoshop's raw conversion quite happily and I believe that CS2 now supports the D2X. There is a lot to be said for having one piece of software which does everything to a pretty high standard (no doubt some will disagree, but at least using Photoshop for everything speeds things up a bit). Whilst I can understand manufacturer's desire to produce their own software, most does remain a bit clunky, is frequently slow and there are usually drawbacks in using it as a stand alone.

I agree with Paul, and I think that the other issue is that UW shooting is different from land shooting. On land I regularly shoot JPGs because I rarely have any need to adjust white balance. However in UW shooting we mix light of several colour temperatures (blue ambient light, well green in Paul's case, with white strobe light) and as a result I prefer shooting in RAW so that I can tweak white balance from what the camera estimated at the time.

All my D2X images that were published in the first half of the year were UW JPGs because ACR 3 wasn't out at the time. But all were shot as RAW + JPG and since I had the RAW converter I only shoot RAW.

Alex

I'm not sure about green at the moment - more a sort of dark brown!

There are some problems that even raw files can't deal with.

What might make a very interesting comparison is what differences the different cameras consider the colour temperature/cast adjustment to be in the same situations! I have my suspicions that different models see colour temperature differently (Ok I know that there are issues with software accessing this data sometimes, but I'm sure that this could be overcome). If anyone wants to post the different details of several cameras used with the same lighting whilst on a trip it would be fascinating to see this.

Even though I do agree that you can get very nice results with a digital SLR in JPG mode (it just means getting it all right in the camera instead of in photoshop , I dont really see why you wouldnt shoot in RAW and get the benefit of being able to save a lot more of your images. It's quite easy to set up a macro in photoshop to convert a whole directory of raw files to JPG, giving you virtually the same end result as with direct JPG shooting. The additional processing time is minimal relatively speaking. Then you can decide if you do or dont want to work on any of your images, and if you do, you have a RAW to work with.

Cor

A quote from the review:

"According to nikon there is a 4x loss in image quality shooting JPEG,"

I shoot both jpeg+raw, memory is cheap, hard disk space cheaper. On my last trip to Bali most of the files I used on web are the jpegs.. There are a few, however, that needed more finesse and I was happy to have the raw file to recover the image. I still think Nikon Capture does a better job with NEF file (red balance) but ACR is hard to beat for finer control.

M.

I know that there are people who contend that jpg is best but when I first bought a digital camera I had a conversation with Kurt (Amsler) who told me if I did not shoot RAW I was missing the whole point of digital photography.

I can shoot a roll of film and get every one of 36 pictures cottectly exposed (I have had enough practice) so I would be a major candidate for jpg mode. However, I am inclined to agree with Kurt. Why shoot compressed files if you have a camera that can use a big media card and has a fast file-writing time?

I have just scanned a lot of film for a PowerPoint presentation. I saved the images directly to jpg. However I now find the files are too small. If I had saved them to tiff as large files I could have made jpgs of any size to suit later. So now I have to start again.

It's the same shooting jpg in camera. You are deciding how you are going to use the picture at the moment of taking it. I still use pictures many years after they were first taken. I need the flexibility of an image on film or a big RAW file.

Can someone answer me this? What is the point of using an expensive D2X and risking it in the hazardous environment underwater, and then saving the pictures in jpg mode? I believe Charles Hood does but I am not quite sure of the point. Is it simply driving the Ferrari at 30mph or am I missing something? I am always willing to learn something new.

Converting RAW files to JPEG or TIFF is something that takes time. If you put some thought into how you do it, it doesn't take a LOT of time, but then some people never invest in that thought process and plug along taking 1 minute per file x 1,000 files from a dive trip... you get the point.

IMO shooting JPEG takes a lot less time and effort, so is better for folks that just don't care, or see the difference.

Cheers

James

Photoshop CS2 comes with a batch conversion option. Start it before you go to bed, and when you wake up you're all set with 1000 JPGs as if you had shot JPGs during your trip. No need to stare at the conversion process. Only now you have 1000 RAWs in case you ever want to go back to an image and try to rescue it. You may not care now, but you may care 2 years from now when you've become better at this whole process and wished you had shot RAW 2 years ago

Cor

It is less of an issue now - but in as RAW converters improve so do your pictures.

Whereas JPGS are locked into the conversion parameters available in your camera when you pressed the shutter. When I first had my D100 ACR was not available. And RAW conversion was fairly basic. When ACR was released and other converters became available suddenly those same shots were greatly improved. It is worth shooting RAW because we don't know what is round the corner software-wise.

I get the feeling that we are all on the same side of this debate! But RAW vs JPG is a common question so I hope that this is of some use. I've added a sub-title about it.

Alex

In case its of any interest, I know of no professional photographer (above water) shooting digital who does not shoot Raw (there will of couse be some, but I personally don't know them) unless there is a very good reason (sports photography or where speed is of the essence). Although none of them drive Ferraris (being mere photographers like myself), I'm sure that if they did they wouldn't drive them at 30mph!

If a camera supports it, it is well worth shooting both Raw and jpeg if only to indicate what the camera thinks that the processed file should look like. Often this is different to how PS thinks it should look even based on the camera's settings. And of course it also depends on what you are shooting and why. If everything is under the same lighting then a batch process is brilliant, but for underwater where there is so much potential for variation, and, perhaps more importantly, where the camera is operating in lighting conditions for which it probably wasn't designed, I can't imagine shooting anything other than Raw - it simply too versatile.

There will of course be more Nikon versus Canon debates (a healthy market is one where there is choice), which housing is best, and which raw converter works best. I very much doubt that the jpeg vs. Raw debate will survive as long as the others though.

I think the Ferrari analogy isn't a good one. I think the RAW-VS JPEG debate is actually an opposite situation.

With some cameras, they perform like a Ferrari when shooting JPEG, but like a Yugo when shooting RAW! :-)

Cheers

James

You have a point James. If I remember correctly my S2Pro wasn't the fastest of cameras when writing Raw files, and as for tiffs............

In case its of any interest, I know of no professional photographer (above water) shooting digital who does not shoot Raw (there will of couse be some, but I personally don't know them) unless there is a very good reason <snip>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I shoot RAW + jpg. I review in jpg with Photo Mechanic, and make the first pass in Photoshop on jpg. Usually that's what gets passed up to the city desk or sports desk.

It is very rare when I resort to RAW; it just takes too much time that can be better spent in the bathroom or eating pizza.

I keep the RAW for portfolio, photo illustrations or stuff that will be blown up big. Every journalist I know does the same, and my habits (because they're, well, habit) extend into underwater.

Of course, it's all relative. If you aren't pushed for time and want every speck of detail, why not shoot just RAW? It's all good.

All the best, James

This makes good sense - I don't know many photojournalists and most photographers (but not all) I know shoot stock - where the market is increasingly competitive and where every advantage has to be pursued.

We get a lot of beautiful pictures sent in to Diver Mag but most of them are shot in jpg. The art editor often contacts the author to see if it is possible to get a bigger file but alas no - not if that is how it's shot. He often asks if they have the original RAW files and the answer he gets back is often "Huh?". This limits the size to which these pictures can be reproduced with quality. I know one professional who shoots in jpg and says he cannot tell the difference. I am looking at a November copy of the mag that he works for (our deadly rival) and, blimey, I can certainly see a difference (see p60 if you have it). It is a lovely shot but the quality is grim. I would be gutted if I only had such shots in a compressed format.

I used to be a real photographer (ie with £50,000 commissions). I recently checked with some of my old contemporaries and I am sorry to tell you they all still shoot film. I find I can just about get a good quality dps from my digital. OK, tell me I should get a Canon!!!