Lightroom & Nikon RAW

G

Ginsey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13
Edit My Images
No
Hi, I have just started using Lightroom. When you import from a device you get the option to convert to a digital negative DNG file. I shoot in RAW (NEF) on my Nikon, is there any advantage in converting to DNG when I import?

Thanks
Shane
 
no! Just import as Nef and work from there.
 
Theres no advantage but adobe claim that DNG is a better archival format due to it's "open source" code, the idea is you'll always be able to open DNG. Personally I'm not convinced that DNG's any more lightly to be supported than say NEF of TIFF in years to come. But you pays your money and takes your choice.

edit if you do use dng alway keep you native raw as well, just in case.
 
As well as being an open format DNGs are a smaller file size, without losing any data, if you have a library of many thousands of images this can add up to a big space saving. However the main advantage is that the metadata (and processing) changes made in Lightroom are stored within the file, as well as in the Lightroom catalogue, with the NEF files the extra data is stored in a separate sidecar file, so you have 2 files to manage.
 
Apparently conversion is not fully reversible (hence not entirely lossless to me) - there is a photographer called Iliah Borg (he participates in some discussions on DPreview) who mentioned it a few times. Some Nikon specific data is not utilised and hence thrown away - this may be not ideal if in a future say ACR or another converter will learn to process it. Iliah is the man behind RawMagick RAW converter so if anyone can be trusted - he is and he knows what he is talking about. I'd personally stay away from DNG for now.
 
Thanks for all your replies. I have decided to stick with the RAW files. Thanks again
 
Hi - sorry to burst in on this thread, but if I use RAW (nef) files from the Nikon, they don't look sharp, but the shots taken at the same time in JPG *are* sharp. I suspect I am missing some process or other here?

Arthur
 
Ambermile, as with most raw files, they're unsharpened straight from the camera. JPEGs generally have some form of contrast and sharpening applied in-camera.
 
Right, so I sharpen before processing?

Arthur
 
Excellent, amazing how that last little bit of information makes all the difference! I was beginning to despair of why ever anyone used RAW data like this! Now though, thanks to the above answers, I get this:

DSC_0088.jpg


That's full frame too! Cool :D

Arthur
 
If you are using Lightroom, it will apply a basic amount of sharpening on input 25,1.0,1 IIRC. (I posted this a few days ago though ;) )

When working with raw files I give it a tiny bit of input sharpening, some local creative sharpening if needed and then a final full sharpen after resizing for output.
 
Ambermile said:
Excellent, amazing how that last little bit of information makes all the difference! I was beginning to despair of why ever anyone used RAW data like this! Now though, thanks to the above answers, I get this:

DSC_0088.jpg


That's full frame too! Cool :D

Arthur
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't think that looks really sharp! Also has quite bad CA.
 
May be, but if you had seen previous efforts then you would be reasonably happy. The CA is not the point, what *is* the point is that previous attempts saw no eyelashes at all. Not after a complete processing C+C, if that were the case I would have posted in the relevant section :D

Maybe I should have put up a before and after though ...
 
I tend to leave Lightroom to do its default sharpening on my photos, in other words, I don't do any additional sharpening in LR.
 
I don't use LR either, I use Corel PhotoImpact X3 - maybe I should look into a different package - PI has always been good to me for Astro pictures.
 
... OK, I do have CS3 here from way back but as I had been using PI when I bought it I carried on (it came with some astro kit and a camera and I was happy as I was!) with that package. I realise most people do us PS though and a cursory peek declares it to be pretty much the standard. Looks like I shall fire up CS3 and see what I can sort with it... wish me luck!

Arthur
 
personally I convert to DNG and use the Adobe DNG Beta profiles for lightroom that give a much better result with the nikon file that the standard nef with sidecar file.
 
oskanoears said:
personally I convert to DNG and use the Adobe DNG Beta profiles for lightroom that give a much better result with the nikon file that the standard nef with sidecar file.
Click to expand...

OK, you got me... wassat?
truce.gif


Arthur
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top