Nikon - Effect of camera settings on RAW images

B

bigbigblue

Messages
553
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
I always shoot RAW on my D700 - as it gives me more options in PP - but I got to thinking - which of the camera settings actually have an effect on the RAW image file produced by the camera?

Obviously shutter speed, aperture and ISO have an effect. I have read in loads of places that white balance settings are pretty meaningless as WB can be easily manipulated in the RAW converter software, but what about some of the more esoteric settings (such as D-Lighting)?

Has anyone been able to find a list of all the settings available on the D700 (or other Nikon cameras) showing whether or not each setting has an effect on the content of the RAW files produced by the camera? Or does anyone have any opinions / empirical evidence or hard facts as to which settings do and do not have an effect?

Cheers!
 
check out ken rockwells web page i found it informative with regard to my d300. he covers the d700 as well.
 
bigbigblue said:
I have read in loads of places that white balance settings are pretty meaningless as WB can be easily manipulated in the RAW converter software,...
Click to expand...

Well that's not entirely accurate, you should always strive to get the most accurate or the most appealing white balance in camera.
Although white balance can be altered during post it's not exactly the same IMO.

bigbigblue said:
but what about some of the more esoteric settings (such as D-Lighting)?
Click to expand...

Active D lighting is a feature that only the proprietary NX2 will allow you to take control over during raw processing.
If you shoot in jpeg then active D lighting is applied to the jpeg in camera.

bigbigblue said:
Has anyone been able to find a list of all the settings available on the D700 (or other Nikon cameras) showing whether or not each setting has an effect on the content of the RAW files produced by the camera? Or does anyone have any opinions / empirical evidence or hard facts as to which settings do and do not have an effect?
Click to expand...

Nothing with regards to Nikon's camera control is effecting the NEF file destructively/permanently.

When you take an image in NEF format the representation that you see on your cameras lcd is a the embedded jpeg interpretation.

All of the information from the in-camera adjustments are stored in a side car file that only Nikon software can read and implement to your raw.

If you do not use NX2 to process your raw files, all in camera adjustments such as active d, camera control (standard, vivid etc) cannot be read and therefore ignored, leaving the NEF without any in camera control option.

Recently I have been shooting raw as well as jpeg, utilizing the dual card slot on my D3, setting to record NEF + (JPEG Fine) just to see how much difference there is with the in camera adjustments:

JPEG from NEF, Straight from camera, no post.
_09T9797-2.jpg


JPEG from JPEG, Straight from camera, no post. Active D lighting and in camera profile set to standard.
_09T9797.jpg


A notable difference, colour wise and also the highlights and shadow dynamics granted by active D lighting.

I use lightroom despite the fact that I have NX2, although NX2 will process the NEF more efficiently and accurately, I find the ergonomics and workflow procedure far too inefficient when having to batch process, so I use a combination of lightroom and CS4.

There is a small compensatory alternative available at adobe labs, you can download the in camera profiles and add them to your camera calibration in Lightroom:

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles

Scroll down to 'Downloads and Installation' and click 'Download camera profiles beta 2 (updated October 22, 2008)'

Although no direct solution, it's a decent compromise if like me, you prefer Lightroom and CS4.

I hope that in future, either NX2 will be more clever or Lightroom will be able to read NEF side car files :lol:
 
It's much simpler than that, surely.

99% of a RAW file is just a straight dump of all the information gathered by the sensor. So the aperture, shutter speed and ISO will affect this, but nothing else does.

The remain 1% of a RAW file is metadata describing the camera's settings when the shot was taken. Some of this - shutter speed, aperture, date/time etc. - is just for information. Some of it - white balance, JPEG settings etc - can be read by auitable RAW processing software and applied to the image in order to recreate (more or less) what the in-camera JPEG would have looked like. But of course the RAW software doesn't have to apply these settings, which is the whole point of RAW.
 
StewartR said:
Yes, I am. But does that make it invalid (as opposed to incomplete)?
Click to expand...

Not at all mate but there's a lot more to it than the simple explanation of raw functionality with NEF files.
Considering what the OP was asking there is much more to consider and to be aware of when it comes to understanding what's going to happen next if you don't open it in NX2.
 
I'm not sure I'd take much advice from Ken Rockwell on the subject of RAW. He freely admits to never shooting RAW and doesn't see the point. Apparently it's for poor photographers who can't get their exposure correct while shooting. I think he kind of misses the point... RAW data is simply the levels registered in the photosites on the sensor dragged through an ADC. The two key factors affecting the values in the ADC are aperture and shutter speed. Don't confuse D-Lighting with *Active* D-Lighting. The latter is the one that can affect the RAW data, because it affects the exposure, as it reduces it, if needed, to prevent highlights from being blown out. ISO is merely a degree of electronic amplification applied to the signal taken from the photosites. It doesn't have anything to do with capturing data as such. It just 'beefs it up' a little if required. A bit like amplifying a quiet music track or radio signal - the noise you see is the background hiss that gets boosted up alongside the weak image signal to corrupt it if the ISO gets pushed too far. All the other jazz like white balance, color space etc. are just advisory metadata values recorded alongside the image data to help your RAW converter generate a more accurate final image after the fact without needing you to make those decisions yourself.
 
Thanks everyone for the informative replies. Very helpful. The following however does illustrate the reason for my question :
SLRist said:
Don't confuse D-Lighting with *Active* D-Lighting. The latter is the one that can affect the RAW data, because it affects the exposure, as it reduces it, if needed, to prevent highlights from being blown out.
Click to expand...
So *Active* D-Lighting does affect the RAW data recorded - I suppose what I am trying to understand if there are there any other in-camera options which also affect the RAW data.

Amazingly - given that NX2 is supposed to honour the in-camera settings, I have always found the RAW conversion done by Adobe ACR to be superior to that I could achieve with NX2 (in the short time that I trialled NX2)!!!!
 
SLRist said:
I'm not sure I'd take much advice from Ken Rockwell on the subject of RAW.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I would take Ken's advice on very much at all after I made a lens purchasing decision based on his advice, and it turned out to be a dog of a lens.
 
bigbigblue said:
So *Active* D-Lighting does affect the RAW data recorded - I suppose what I am trying to understand if there are there any other in-camera options which also affect the RAW data.
Click to expand...

Unless it directly affects:

1. Aperture
2. Shutter Speed
3. ISO

Then no, it won't have any effect.

So things like auto-ISO, Active D-Lighting will. White balance, Colour space etc won't.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Active D doesn't effect the NEF, see above example. ;)
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. The whole point of Active D-Lighting is that it has to be applied as the exposure is made, so highlights can be retained. The only way to achieve that is by reducing the exposure. I agree that it does also 'tinker' with the mid-tones post exposure, but by that stage, the exposure has already been affected. You could argue that it only partially affects the RAW data, because the midtone tinkering isn't of course directly applied to the RAW data.
 
SLRist said:
I beg to differ.
Click to expand...

Cor blimey, I've only just explained this in a nice and simple way above with pictures to illustrate the points. Can't you see the difference? Active D was set to normal on both shots :lol:

As you can see the jpeg export direct from NEF is unaffected. It's not lying dude.

Still don't see? OK try this:

Part one:

1: Take a picture in NEF format with active D lighting enabled in any setting, low normal or high.

2: Open the image in NX2, ensure that the active d lighting is set to the same level, ie low, normal or high.

3: Export a jpeg.

Part 2:

1: Take the same NEF file and open it in say Lightroom or Photoshop.

2: export a JPEG.

Compare the NX2 jpeg to the Lightroom/Photoshop jpeg.

Then you can see clearly that active d lighting does not effect the raw.

It's well discussed fact that the active d lighting information is included on the side car file that any other software other than NX2 ignores. It's suggested that a slight underexposure occurs if active D is enabled but 99.9% of active D's process is an effect, similar to the highlights/shadows adjustment in photoshop and only applied if the NEF is processed in NX2.

You may be confusing Active D with the in camera editing facility - D lighting. Two different things.
 
I don't think anything I've said contradicts your posting above. All I'm saying is that part of the functionality of Active D-Lighting is to reduce exposure in order to preserve highlight detail. That will directly affect the RAW data. Perhaps in your example photo there were no values which exceeded absolute white, in which case you wouldn't see a noticeable difference. No matter how clever NX2 is, it can't reclaim blown out highlights after the exposure has been made.
 
SLRist said:
No matter how clever NX2 is, it can't reclaim blown out highlights after the exposure has been made.
Click to expand...

Not true, there is considerable recovery available if you shoot in raw, it has it's limits but blown highlights can be recoverd to a degree, this is one of the advantages of shooting raw in the first place. :D

Anyway, regardless of our difference in opinion, your not going to get the intended result using active D if your not going to use NX2 to process the NEF. Apart from the very debatably insignificant underexposure the rest of active D's meat is post process. :thumbs:
 
How insignificant its effect on exposure is rather depends on brightness and contrast of the subject. It's still beneficial when just used for overexposure protection, even if you're not using NX2. Personally I use Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw, so I wouldn't import the midtone tweaks anyway, but they can be replicated pretty well using curves adjustments. When I talk about blown highlights, I'm talking about values off the scale. Nothing over 255 255 255 (or the equivalent) can be recovered.
 
SLRist said:
How insignificant its effect on exposure is rather depends on brightness and contrast of the subject. It's still beneficial when just used for overexposure protection, even if you're not using NX2. Personally I use Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw, so I wouldn't import the midtone tweaks anyway, but they can be replicated pretty well using curves adjustments. When I talk about blown highlights, I'm talking about values off the scale. Nothing over 255 255 255 (or the equivalent) can be recovered.
Click to expand...

I get what you mean mate, I seriously do, the manual does indeed state that exposure is adjusted, but you'd be missing the conclusive point that a huge percentage of the effect is disregarded if your not using NX2 to process it.

The entire facility is broken, a very debatable, very questionable and supposed under exposure is all that's evident. I'm not convinced to be honest.

Contrast of subject matter and mid tone contrasts aside, it's the same as the high ISO noise reduction facility, if your not using NX2 it's pointless.

Try shooting continuos high speed string of 14 bit NEF's with active D and high ISO noise reduction enabled and see how quick your buffer maxes out.

It's waste to enable it when your not editing in NX2 as the effect is quite non existent.
 
So does having active D lighting on while shooting make the buffer fill up faster due to the extra processing the camera has to do? I use mainly Adobe Camera Raw, so I may try turning off active D lighting in that case....
 
it sucks that the user interface for the nikon software is politely put complete and utter ***** as it does make a noticeable difference even in sharpness.

it accounts for at least 5% of the rage I experience every week
 
I'm afraid that some of you have it wrong when you say that Contrast, Sharpness and Saturation settings on a camera do not affect the RAW files, since they DO.

At least in my Canon EOS 350D they do.

To see my proof then here are 2 pictures produced directly from the RAW files.

These are NOT the small Jpegs produced alongside the RAW files in the camera, they are directly from the RAW files.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=64090&ppuser=10934

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=64089&ppuser=10934

As you can see the settings DO affect the RAW files.

So try this simple test in your own camera, and see if it also applies to your RAW files.
 
yeah but the point is that the first word of the title of this post is Nikon
 
petersmart said:
I'm afraid that some of you have it wrong when you say that Contrast, Sharpness and Saturation settings on a camera do not affect the RAW files, since they DO.

At least in my Canon EOS 350D they do.

To see my proof then here are 2 pictures produced directly from the RAW files.

These are NOT the small Jpegs produced alongside the RAW files in the camera, they are directly from the RAW files.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=64090&ppuser=10934

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=64089&ppuser=10934

As you can see the settings DO affect the RAW files.

So try this simple test in your own camera, and see if it also applies to your RAW files.
Click to expand...

So what do we think about this then... I know its canon but i would still be interested to know about it. I have been told 100% that any picture styles sharpness etc onnly show up on the lcd because that is a small jpg but they dont touch the RAW.

Does this test prove otherwise???
 
Out of curiosity I set the first user defined style to everything minimum and the second user defined to everything maximum on the 5D then took a shot with each. Viewing the two raws in Lightroom there is absolutely no difference.

Maybe the pictures above were processed with canon software that reads the settings?

edit. Oh and there is a huge difference visible on the cameras lcd now I've put the card back to format it.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Not at all mate but there's a lot more to it than the simple explanation of raw functionality with NEF files.
Considering what the OP was asking there is much more to consider and to be aware of when it comes to understanding what's going to happen next if you don't open it in NX2.
Click to expand...

I think it is just your interpretation of OP question Tomas - to me the question is not how it will look or what will apply when opened in NX2 but about the raw file itself and for that reason it is just plain and simple as Stewart said. To some degree what you said is applicable to RAW converters other than Nikon - some of them will interpret some of the settings out of the RAW (like WB) and apply them by default some will not. Of course in tools like LR this does not matter since you can change all the settings later.

To OP, re: WB - I agree with Tomas, you should attempt to get it right in camera despite shooting in RAW. The reason for that is twofold. Firstly, if you judging your shots using in camera histograms then they (histograms) will be affected by WB settings. And then, if you have not got it right in camera, whilst shooting and judging the shot quality by histograms, then there is a good chance that your WB correction in PP will add noise to some of the channels (if the shadows have to be expanded for instance as a result of applying WB). On DPReview forums, Iliah Borg talked about it to some extend so do a search if you interested.
 
In general, the "adjustment" settings applied in-camera by Nikons are ignored by programmes such as Lightroom and Photoshop.

Try taking a pic in raw with something like Ken Rockwell's profile or the D300 or even Nikon's own D2 emulator and then run it through NX2. The image that appears will look just like it did on the camera's LCD, with all the settings from the profile in place and can be edited from that point.

Now repeat using Lightroom, the initial thumbnail will appear as before, but then,before your eyes, it will revert back to the pure raw state and any adjustments made by the profile will need to be reapplied manually.
 
I don't have Photoshop (too expensive for me) but I have imported the 2 images into Photo Dynamic HDR and they were the same (more or less) as the pics.

In the past when I have edited RAW files using DPP and then imported them into PDHDR they have all appeared the same, so the editing is not carried over.

However these adjustments are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top