Why one should use DX mode on an FX camera

One shouldn't. Not always anyhow. But there are some moments.

As a reminder, a camera with a big sensor to capture the photo is called FX in the Nikon world. Most FX cameras can take photos using only part of the sensor in "DX mode". There are plenty of good reasons to use DX mode.

1. A photo taken in DX mode is smaller, so it takes up less space on your memory card, so you can shoot longer without changing card, and you can get away with smaller cheaper cards.
2. You can fit more DX photos on your harddisk, so when you travel you have more photos to show your grandma or prospective employer.
3. The smaller size of DX photos means they take less time to transfer to your harddisk or tablet.
4. The smaller size of DX photos means that synchronisation with any cloud site you use to store photos is quicker and takes less bandwidth from other people on the same network - like your grandmother if she uses your WiFi.
5. DX photos are quicker to edit and display in post-processing software. You will be able to edit more DX photos in one day than FX photos.
6. With most cameras, shooting DX allows more fps (frames per second) than FX.
7. Shooting DX does not fill up the buffer and allows you to shoot for a longer time with your camera, when you hold down the shutter button in continuous shooting mode.
8. If you "crop" a photo shooting in DX mode, you still get a full RAW file, but smaller. If you crop an FX photo in post processing, you either simply hide part of the photo, which means the file is as big as it was to start with, or you have to save it as jpg or some other format, and you lose the advantages of having shot RAW.

Then there are of course moments when FX mode is better. Why would you otherwise have paid for it?

1. You can get a more narrow depth of field.
2. You get more detail.
3. You can get a wider angle of view with the same lens.

Sometimes the FX advantages matter. Sometimes they do not matter at all. Sometimes they matter a lot.

If I one day take 99 photos in DX mode with my camera and just one in FX mode, and the subject in FX mode absolutely deserved it, I will be happy that I brought an FX camera instead of a DX camera.

How do I extract an embedded JPEG from a RAW file?

Short answer:

exiftool -b -JpgFromRaw IMG0001.NEF > test.jpg

Long answer:

Most RAW files contain not only the raw data that was captured when the picture was taken, but also a jpeg file which can be used to quickly show the image before the RAW has been completely interpreted.

Some programs that pretend to handle RAW files actually just extract the jpeg and displays that one to the user.

There is rarely any reason to extract the jpeg manually, but if you want to, you can use the command tool above using exiftool which is a tool available for Windows, Mac OS and Unix/Linux.

Just replace "IMG0001.NEF" with the name of your RAW file and "test.jpg" with the name of the jpeg you want to create.

Update: The name of the preview is not the same for all RAW files. That's why Jener in the comment section succeeds with PreviewImage but not with JpgFromRaw. In general, if you have problems with the command, try the exiftool documentation page. 

Updating metadata in a CR2 file

To find images quickly using a disk search tool, like Mac OS X' Spotlight, you can update the metadata of the images. You can for example set the description to "Holiday in Sverdlovsk". Searching for that string in Spotlight will quickly show you all the images.

For JPEG files, you can use for example Adobe Bridge to quickly do this. I assume Lightroom also works.

However, when it comes to RAW files, like NEF and CR2, Bridge adds the metadata in a separate xmp file. When you search for the string using Spotlight, you will find the xmp files but there will be no preview of the image in the search result.

Bridge itself finds the data of course, but you may have moved the files to a computer without Bridge installed.

To update the Description field you can use View NX (free) or Capture NX for Nikon's NEF files. For Canon's CR2 files, however, it seems like it is not that easy.

One solution is to use Aperture.

1. Open the file in Aperture.
2. Click on Metadata and choose the "General" set.
3. Update the field "Caption". That is the field that other applications usually call "Description".
4. Go to File > Export > Master...
5. Enter the data as you want, but make sure the option Include IPTC is set.
6. Save.

You can of course export several images at the same time, and even mix different formats.

There are other solutions than Aperture, I am sure. It should for example be possible to use the utility exiftool which is free. However, Aperture is the most convenient solution I found so far.

Which Nikon camera settings matter when you shoot RAW?

Almost all the settings in a Nikon camera matter when you shoot JPEGs, as a JPEG is supposed to be good enough for immediate use.

When it comes to RAW/NEF files it is a little more complicated. Some settings matter a lot. Some settings do not matter at all. For some settings it really depends. There does not seem to be any exhaustive list of which settings matter and which can be ignored - probably because it is so complicated. The following list is not exhaustive.

Shutter speed is important, as it obviously cannot be changed in software.

Aperture is equally important, as it cannot be changed in software.

ISO is less obvious, but it is also important. ISO is not just a matter of how bright the picture is, but it sets the physical light sensitivity of the sensor. The incoming light is amplified by hardware. When a lot of amplification is needed (high ISO), the system is more likely to introduce noise. Even if my explanation may not be one hundred percent clear, a simple experiment can show that a NEF taken with long shutter speed (much light) and low ISO has less noise than one with short shutter speed (little light) and high ISO.

Long Exposure NR seems to matter. There is no way to undo it even in Nikon software.

White Balance can in theory be ignored, but it is practical to give it a correct value. It is visible to virtually all RAW conversion software, and it can be changed freely in most software. However, some software is unable to correctly adjust bad White Balance, like Picasa or the Finder previews in Mac OS X.

Exposure compensation does not really matter on its own. However, it affects shutter speed and aperture, so it indirectly matters what you set it to.

Active D-lighting is not clear cut. The setting seems to be ignored by Adobe software. At the same time, it cannot be switched off in Capture NX, if you use that software. Anyhow, when you switch it on, it will change images to a somewhat darker exposure by changing shutter speed or aperture, so it indirectly affects the image.

Picture Controls can safely be ignored. They can be changed freely in Capture NX and View NX, and they are not even visible to non-Nikon software like Adobe Camera RAW, Lightroom or Aperture. This is the reason why a black and white NEF file is displayed in colour in Photoshop.

Nikon's Active D-lighting - what is it?

"Nikon has gone through great pains to promote this feature without telling anybody what exactly is going on."

Frans Waterlander

I have no idea who Frans Waterlander is, but I think he was spot on in a discussion forum. This blog post lists some known facts and some important guesses - if you switch Active D-Lighting (ADL) on.

ADL is a technology Nikon uses to handle pictures with big contrast - a lot of light and a lot of darkness in the same photo.

To make it work properly, use Matrix metering.

Switching on matrix metering on a Nikon D300.

ADL is not the same thing as D-lighting. D-lighting does about the same thing - it reduces shadows and highlight, but it is made after the picture is taken. Active D-lighting is made while the picture is being taken.

How it is done, no one seems to know. One theory is that it is done by the camera sensor itself. Another is that it is a setting applied to the RAW camera data.

You cannot change the level of ADL in Capture NX or View NX. Normal D-lighting can be changed in those products.

It is rumoured that ADL does not work when you take pictures in Manual mode in the camera.

When you use ADL in A, P or S mode, it makes the general exposure slightly darker.

From experiments it seems like Adobe products ignore ADL in NEF files completely. In other words: if you shoot RAW and use Adobe products like Lightroom or Photoshop, Active D-lighting will serve no purpose.

Normal D-lighting can be applied in the retouch area of the camera in many models. It can also be applied in Capture NX and View NX.

My own strategy currently is to switch ADL off. It is complicated to handle, it takes time to switch on and off, there is a risk factor that you do something wrong, and life is too short to learn all the aspects. If there are high contrast images to take, they can often be handled by post processing anyhow.

What use is Aperture? Or Adobe Lightroom?

Apple's Aperture is a RAW converter and image management system for Mac OS X. It is a high end program with a vast amount of options and functions. It supports RAW files from a large number of manufacturers, but not as many as the competitor Adobe Lightroom.

As so often, it is very difficult to tell which program is "best". If one of the programs does not support your camera, you should clearly stay away from that program. If you have Windows, you do not have to consider Aperture, as it is Mac OS X only. If you need to batch process files, either program will do fine. If you need to script a program, Aperture can be scripted with AppleScript, but it seems like Lightroom 3 still has very limited scripting capabilities.

Aperture uses the same RAW converter as Mac OS X, which means that any image that can be opened in Aperture, also can be opened in Preview or Quick Look. Lightroom uses the same RAW converter as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw, even though the version may differ.

Both programs have the following main purposes:

• Adjust RAW files.
• Sort and manage images.

If one already has other programs that do this well enough, one probably does not need either of the programs.

Both Adobe and Apple often have trial versions of the software to download to further explore the programs.

What use is Digital Photo Professional?

Digital Photo Professional (DPP) is Canon's RAW conversion tool. It comes for free with Canon cameras that produce RAW pictures, and once you have it, all updates are free. However, you cannot download it for free without an original copy to update. DPP opens CR2, TIFF, CRW and JPEG files.

When it comes to high end RAW converters, like DPP, Adobe Camera RAW, Adobe Lightroom and Apple's Aperture, they all have their strengths. It is very difficult to tell which one is "best". Someone who masters any one of them, can usually do what s/he needs to do with that program. Anyone who does not fully master any one of them will probably not achieve the best possible result.

Comparing DPP with Nikon's RAW conversion programs is not easy either. DPP can do more with CR2 files than View NX can do with NEF files. Capture NX has more functions for NEF than DPP has for CR2, but what you find in DPP may be more than enough.

If you want a full blown image editing program, neither DPP nor Capture NX cuts it. You cannot use them to paste a face from one person onto another. Neither can you render patterns or add text strings to a picture. For such tasks, you need to use a tool like Adobe Photoshop or the gimp.

DPP can perform batch jobs on several pictures at once. However, it is not scriptable with any internal macros or AppleScript.

Adobe Camera Raw "Batch conversion" of White Balance

... or other settings.

I took a number of pictures today with my Nikon D5000 with the White Balance set to "incandescent", which was silly, because all of them were taken outside on a sunny day. As I had taken only NEF pictures, I was not too concerned. I know that one easily can adjust white balance in RAW files. The only question was how.

My first attempt was using View NX. I highlighted all the pictures in the browser, clicked on "Quick Adjustments" and chose the white balance "Calculate Automatically". I then sat back with a good book and waited while View NX updated all the files. There was a progress indicator in the lower right corner, so I could see approximately how thick a book I could read. Somewhere along the line I also clicked on the Save button, when View NX prompted me to do so.

The "problem" was that View NX did not update the original setting in the NEF files, and Adobe products only read the original setting. In other words, even though they looked fine in View NX, they still looked wrong in Adobe Bridge and Adobe Camera Raw.

So the solution had to be within the Adobe products themselves:

1. Double click on the first image in Adobe Bridge, to open Adobe Camera Raw.
2. Select the White Balance you want (for example Auto or Daylight).
3. Click on Done, to close ACR.
4. In Adobe Bridge, right click on the image and select Develop Settings > Copy Settings in the pop-up menu.
5. Select all the other images.
6. Right click on them and select Develop Settings > Paste Settings.
7. In the dialogue you get, choose which settings you want to paste. To get just White Balance, you can select the Subset White Balance.
8. Click on OK.

Once ACR has finished processing the files, they will look fine in Adobe products.

Difference between RAW converters

There is one big advantage of pictures taken in jpeg format compared to RAW: you have a fairly good idea what they will look like.

With RAW pictures, be it CR2 or NEF or any other version, it is just the raw data from the camera, and each RAW converter may interpret it in their own way. One converter may handle noise better than another. One converter may interpret the white balance or luminosity in one way, and another converter may have another idea of how things should work.

Here is an example where compensation for distortion is radically different. The pictures are taken with a Canon S90 camera.

The first picture is a CR2 file processed with Canon's own Digital Photo Professional. The lines and the tiles are pretty straight.



The next picture is the same CR2 file, processed by Picasa 3.6.1. Note the very bent lines. In the corners of the photos, there is actually more information than there is in the straight picture.



What likely is happening here is that DPP has information about how much the lens bends the picture. DPP corrects for it, and the tiles look like they should do. Picasa, however, probably takes pixel for pixel from the sensor of the camera, and the result is the bent aspect.

It is very possible that Picasa will update its converter for CR2 files from S90 in the future, so they will look closer to reality and further from the pixel data.

Note that converting to DNG is not a solution. If you convert to DNG, that does not remove the distortion, and Picasa displays the DNG as distorted as the CR2 file.

Using "hidden" NEF data in Photoshop or Aperture

If you shoot raw nef files with your Nikon camera, you may have camera settings that are not readable by non-Nikon applications. One of the most striking ones is if you choose to set the picture controls to create a black-and-white picture. When you open that nef file in Photoshop or Aperture, for example, the colour will come back.

To see this kind of information in non-Nikon applications, you will have to convert the files in a Nikon application. You can for example batch process all your nef files to jpeg or tiff format using View NX (menu File > Convert Files...) or Capture NX (menu item Batch). Then import the tiff files to the other application.

But don't forget that conversion from nef to both jpeg and tiff will lose some data. Tiff is a lossless format, but the only thing that is lossless is what is visible. In the nef file you can always go back and change the picture controls to some other setting. However, there is no way you can get the colour back in a black-and-white tiff file. In other words, it is always good to keep the nef as backup, in case you need to make some other modifications.

Bridge's raw xmp files

Whenever Adobe Bridge updates a raw file, it stores the data in an external "xmp" (Extensible Metadata Platform) file with same basic file name as the original. If your raw file is called "sunrise.nef", then the corresponding xmp file is "sunrise.xmp".

The idea behind this is excellent. The raw file contains exactly the data that came out of the camera and nothing else, and you can trust that nothing has been changed - by Bridge.

The drawback is of course that you have two files that need to stick together. If you move all files created a certain date from a folder, it is not at all certain that the raw and xmp files are created the same date, so they may get separated.

Nikon's Capture NX instead stores all modifications in the nef file itself. That may be seen as a drawback - a raw file is no longer what came out of the camera. However, there are ways inside Capture NX to remove the modifications, so it is not that much of a drawback.

Aperture has yet another approach. It stores the modification in its own database. When you export the Master you get the choice whether you want to include the IPTC data or not. The IPTC is the only data Aperture allows to change in a raw file. The rest of the image is intact, as it came out of the camera. Other changes need to be exported through other file formats, like tiff or jpeg.

Index of NEF files with keywords

There are plenty of good reasons to use RAW file format instead of jpeg. However certain things get trickier. One of them is keywords.

The great thing with metadata like keywords and IPTC fields is that you quickly can search your entire harddisk for files about a certain subject, taken at a specific location or by a specific photographer. You just have to make sure that the information is stored in your files.

That is fairly easy with JPEG files. You update the metadata with, for example, Bridge, and the files can be searched in Bridge itself, in Aperture or Spotlight.

However, if you update NEF files or other RAW files using Bridge, the data is not stored in the files themselves, but in the associated xmp files. This means that for example Spotlight does not find the image, but just the xmp file. Neither does Aperture see the field, if the file is imported to Aperture.

The only way I found to make sure that they keywords are found by both Bridge, Spotlight and Aperture, is to use Nikon's free application View NX to set the metadata.

This is a funny roundabout way of doing things as View NX itself does not have any search engine. In other words: you need to use one tool to set the metadata, and another to look for it. Well, that is how things work today anyhow.

Doing the Impossible with Smart Objects

Before CS3, there were plenty of things you simply could not do in Photoshop. With CS3 and the introduction of Smart Objects, a lot has become possible.

One (almost) obvious thing is that you can apply lossless filters. Just create a layer to a Smart Object and apply the filter. You can add loads of filters and remove or activate them, and of course edit them with Layer Masks.

Smart Object layer in Adobe Photoshop CS4

But not only that - you can now mix layers of different kinds. You can have one layer as a 16 bit image in LAB colour space, while you have another in 8 bit grey scale, and blend the two layers. You can even add RAW files using File > Place, so you have a RAW file layer, which will open for adjustments in Camera RAW every time you double click on it. This means that you can have an almost endless number of different image formats - all stored in the same file.

And if that is not enough, you can have one Smart Object contain another Smart Object that contains a third one and so on.

To have several instances of the same Smart Object, highlight the layer and press command-J. You can have as many instances of the same Smart Object as you like in a file. You can apply different kinds of layer styles and rotations and transformations of them. If you then update the Smart Object, for example by changing its colour, the modification will apply to all instances of that Smart Object in the file.

To replace the content of a Smart Object: Go to Layer > Smart Objects > Replace Contents....

You cannot edit the individual pixels in a Smart Object (unless you open it). However, you can make a copy of the Smart Object, for example with merging all visible layers to a new layer above the currently selected layer with Shift-option-command-E (or alt+ Layer > Merge Visible).

Why does not Aperture read my DNG file?

If you have a DNG file that Aperture refuses to open, is it possible that the DNG file is from a camera which has a strange format. Aperture 2.1 has support for DNGs from many cameras, but not all.

In some cases Aperture opens some DNG from a particular, camera, but not all. It then may depend on the lens, like in the case of an Olympus E-P2 ORF file.


Another possible explanation is that the DNG was generated with the "Convert to Linear Image" option turned on in Adobe DNG Converter. It has to be turned off. This is not obvious. The Linear Image option is there to increase compatibility compared to "Preserve Raw Image", but it is increased in a way that Aperture cannot handle.


Wrong setting in Adobe DNG converter.


Then, there is of course also the possibility that you cannot import the file, because you do not have any project, or because you highlight the wrong part of the screen, when you do the import. But in this case no files can be imported, DNG or not.

The Lure of DNG

DNG, Digital NeGative, is Adobe's attempt at a unified RAW file format for all cameras world wide. Some people are all worked up about this and list numerous advantages.

I am not one of them.

There is nothing wrong with dng, it just so happens that it is not much better than other things either. Some people duly convert all their Nikon nef files to dng, but that may be a waste of time and a loss of some data.

However, if your camera produces dng files, by all means, keep them. They are not worse than other raw formats.

Let's look at some of the alleged benefits.

Archiving is one of the often quoted arguments for dng. As dng is supposed to be a universal standard, it seems reasonable to assume that support for it will be around for ever, right?

The answer is perhaps. A standard does not become a standard by someone calling it a standard. The internationally defined format for writing dates is year-month-day, like 080619 for today. However, apart from Finland and Sweden hardly any country uses that date format in daily life.

Adobe supports dng, and a few camera makers support it, but most camera makers do not see much advantage. The by far biggest SLR camera makers, Nikon and Canon, do not support it. That means that most raw pictures that are taken today use other formats than dng.

It is very possible that there will be dng readers in 50 years time, but it is equally likely that there will be readers for Nikon's nef files and Canon's cr2 files.


And it seems reasonable to assume that a program that can read one dng can read all, right?

But that is not the case. Just like for tiff or psd files, there are many flavours and extensions. If a program cannot read the native raw file from a particular camera, it is quite possible that the program cannot read dng files from that camera either. It is also possible that it can read some files but not all, depending on the lens used.

In some ways, a dng is simply a wrapper around some other file format. A dng can even embed the full original of another raw file. If the program cannot read the original, it cannot read the dng.


One claimed benefit for dng is the file size. The story is that raw files for early cameras were only lightly compressed. The nef file of a Nikon D1X from 2001, for example, weighed in 7.8 Megabyte, while an equivalent dng file only was 4.8 Megabyte. A Canon 300D from 2003 had a crw file of 6.0 Megabyte, while the equivalent dng was just 4.2 Megabyte.

However, there is nothing inherently large with Nikon or Canon files. The companies can modify the formats, and they compress them more and more. A lossless compressed 14 bit nef of 14.4 MB from a new Nikon D300, for example, is converted into a 13.3 MB lossless compressed dng file, which hardly is any significant gain. A non-compressed dng with embedded jpeg preview turns out to be 25.4 MB - much bigger than the original.

There are still cameras that have huge raw files, and in these cases a conversion to dng has a certain sense. However, often it may be as useful to convert the raw to tiff or even jpeg - formats that are easier to manipulate for other purposes.

If you convert a raw file to dng, you may not lose any information - at least not unless you use the "Linear Image" option. However, there may be camera specific information in the raw file, like the Picture Control data in a NEF file, that no program can interpret correctly when it hides in a dng. The information is definitely there, but it may in practice be impossible to actually use it.


But then, as said before, there is nothing wrong with a dng. If you see any use for dng, by all means use it. I for example convert my nef files from my D300 to dng in order to open them in Photoshop CS2. It is either that or upgrade to Photoshop CS3 or use Aperture. Most often I actually use Aperture, as I prefer to work on the original file.

Should I use RAW or JPEG?

The disappointing answer to that question, is that it is up to you to choose.

Raw (Nikon's nef) files contain more information.

Jpeg pictures are quicker to load and quicker to save. Many more of them fit on a memory card, and they can be sent straight to all your friends without more ado.

If you try to send a nef file to a computer illiterate person, or even an experienced Windows user, he will probably have problems opening it. It is even possible that his or your mail system does not allow the file to be sent, as it is too big. A 14-bit uncompressed nef file from a Nikon D300 weighs in at around 25 Mb.

If you try to take the ultimate perfect picture, then nef is probably the format for you. However, you may want to consider the number of small jpeg pictures you quickly could have taken and processed in the same time.

What a NEF contains

As a raw nef file is a dump of camera information and not an actual image, it is very different how the nef file is displayed in different applications.

Let's for example assume that you take a black-and-white picture with your Nikon. FastStone, IrfanView and xnview all display the image as black-and-white. However, the gimp, Picasa, Aperture 2.1 and Mac OS X' Preview ignore the tag that says that the image should be black-and-white, so they display the image in colour.

Nikon's Capture NX keeps the camera information, so it appears black-and-white, but one can also go back to the original colours.

1. Go to Base Adjustments > Camera Adjustments > Picture Control.
2. In the dialogue that comes up, change "Non-Picture Control" to "Picture control".
3. Change the settings to what you prefer.

Sometimes it is not obvious to see what changes have taken place in the camera. I for example had a picture where the White Balance was far off. There is no indication in the adjustment panel of Capture NX, that the White Balance had an unusual setting in the camera, so I had to look around for some time, before I found where it was.

White balance is, by the way, one camera setting that Aperture takes into account.

This may appear confusing for a simple reason: it is confusing. Not only are the names for the features sometimes confusing, but the concept itself is confusing.

There are a couple of metaphors one can use.

Think of the raw data from the camera as a Word document. If you switch on Track Changes in Word (or Record Changes in OpenOffice) you can make as much modifications you want. Add text. Remove formatting. Change pictures. You can always select Reject All Changes to go back to the original. You can also reject some changes and keep others. In the same way, you can always go back to the original camera raw data in a nef file, no matter how many changes you have made. You can also revert some changes, even if they were made in the camera, but keep others.

A more real life metaphor is a dinner table. Let's say you change the tablecloth every day. You use different kinds of china and put different dishes on the table every day, so it looks very different from one day to the next. No matter what things you add, you can always remove them at the end of the day. What you are left with is the original naked wooden table. In the same way, you can add effects to a nef file - sharpening, blur, white balance, noise reduction. But at the end of the day, you can remove them all, and what you are left with is the original camera raw data.

Many applications open nef files, but they almost never save to nef format. If you make a modification, you will have to save the image as tiff, jpeg or some other more mainstream format.

Capture NX is an exception, as it saves the modifications in the nef file itself. However, it does not touch the actual raw data in the nef file.

Some of the data that can be stored in a nef without touching the actual raw data.

Editing your NEF in Photoshop and Camera Raw

If you want to edit your nef in Photoshop, you will have to pass through Camera Raw - directly or indirectly. You double-click on the nef in Finder, Explorer or Bridge, and Camera Raw will open. You make the adjustments you want and can then edit the file in Photoshop. When you save the file, you will have to choose a standard format, like psd, tiff or jpeg.

If you do not want to see the Camera Raw dialogue, you can shift-doubleclick on the file in Bridge, and it will go straight to Photoshop, applying the Camera Raw conversion in the background.

You can also save directly from Camera Raw, but you cannot save to the original raw file. You will have to choose a new name and the raw extension dng or another file format. From each file, you can always go back to the "original" by choosing "Camera Raw Defaults" as Setting. Talking about an "original" is a little awkward, as the original just is a dump of camera data. You have to display it in some way, and that way is through the Settings.

If your nef files are not supported directly by Photoshop and Camera Raw and Bridge, you may be able to convert them to dng, which is Adobe's attempt at a unified raw file format. Version 4.4.1 of the free Adobe DNG Converter handles both D60's and D300's nef files.

In case you wonder, the raw conversion in Adobe Lightroom uses the same engine as Adobe Bridge, so there is no advantage trying to edit a file in both tools.

RAW

Digital photographers use some fairly understandable formats like jpeg (used by everyone), psd (used by Photoshop users), tiff (used by people with big harddisks) and so on.

Then there is the mystical raw format which only high end cameras have.

Raw is not even really an image format. Raw is a dump of exactly what the camera sees when you press the shutter-release button.

Different cameras are made in different ways, so they see different things, of course, and therefore there are different RAW formats. My Nikon cameras call their raw files nef (Nikon Electronic Format). The format of these files is not the same as raw files from a Canon or a Pentax. It is not even the same format in my D40X and my D300. A program that can open one of them may not open the other.

Photoshop CS2 does not open my D300 nef files, so I have to convert them in some way to process them in Photoshop.

Some people claim that you never need raw files. They say that you can use jpeg for all your photos. That is clearly a lie. Any conversion from what the camera sees to any other format makes you lose some information. If you convert to small jpeg pictures you lose a lot of information. If you convert to big tiff pictures you hardly lose anything at all, but you do lose some things.

A tiff is lossless, that is, it does not lose any information in a picture. However, the raw file contains more information than just pixel by pixel image information. When you convert to tiff, this additional information is lost or distorted. And that may be just the information you needed.

Now, it is true that for most users most pictures are perfectly fine as jpeg. Nevertheless, for some users in some situations raw files are life savers.

Adobe Camera Raw