nikon d200 vs d70 and photoshop vs nikon capture

I currently use the Nikon D70 and have generally found when working in
RAW that printing from nikon capture produces better results than from
photoshop in the absense of exposure or color correction work. I was
recently told by a photo retailer that this would not be an issue with
the D200 as the RAW conversion in the D200 now takes place in the
camera as opposed to the external software product. Is this true?
Aside from the obvious hardware benefits offered by the D200 vs the
D70, this alleged issue between the camera and photoshop re Nikon raw
being resolved in the D200 would be very compelling. I would
appreciate any clarification on this issue. Thanks.

Larry wrote:
I currently use the Nikon D70 and have generally found when working in
RAW that printing from nikon capture produces better results than from
photoshop in the absense of exposure or color correction work. I was
recently told by a photo retailer that this would not be an issue with
the D200 as the RAW conversion in the D200 now takes place in the
camera as opposed to the external software product. Is this true?
Aside from the obvious hardware benefits offered by the D200 vs the
D70, this alleged issue between the camera and photoshop re Nikon raw
being resolved in the D200 would be very compelling. I would
appreciate any clarification on this issue. Thanks.

No free lunch, you still have to process RAW files out of a D200. RAW
files by definition are image files that save space by leaving out the
instruction set for making the image (like undeveloped film) so you
need the software to bring the pixels together.
I don't have Nikon Capture so I use Photoshop CS2, I'm liking the pics
I get from this combination, but I'll probably buy the new Nik Nikon
Capture when it comes out. RAW files in a D200 are quite a bit larger
than from a D70 15.6mb uncompressed, 7-12mb compressed.
I can't stand the viewfinder in the D70, just that sold me on the D200,
it is the difference from overcast to a sunny day.

Tom

use jpeg

for the 1 percent better quality, RAW is too much hassle

Utter nonsense ;-)

Some shots can be 'rescued' if shot in RAW.
Many shots can be greatly improved due to RAWs larger exposure latitude.

It's not purely about 'quality' it's also about flexibility in the digital
'darkroom'.

Also once an image is .jpeg encoded there is no going back - it has .jpeg
artifacts encoded in it. Any editing or resaving will cause further
artifacts...
Using RAW and a lossless format (.tiff etc.) maintains maximum possible
image quality.
RAW is your 'negative' and offers the maximum available latitude for
adjustment.

If all your shots are perfect and beyond improvement then stick to .jpeg...
if you want to tweak use RAW + .tiff / .psd.

RAW can be seen as a hassle but I prefer it to leaving everything to a
camera's automatics... YMMV

If you are shooting 'snaps' and only need small .jpegs then avoid RAW ;-)

Guy

"jom" wrote in message
...
use jpeg

for the 1 percent better quality, RAW is too much hassle

"Larry" wrote in message
ups.com...
I currently use the Nikon D70 and have generally found when working in
RAW that printing from nikon capture produces better results than from
photoshop in the absense of exposure or color correction work. I was
recently told by a photo retailer that this would not be an issue with
the D200 as the RAW conversion in the D200 now takes place in the
camera as opposed to the external software product. Is this true?

It sounds like that retailer hasn't the foggiest idea what he's talking
about. Obviously the whole purpose of shooting in RAW (with any camera) is
to get the original raw image data out of the camera so you can do with it
what you will, not image data that's already been converted to something
else.

"Larry" wrote in message
ups.com...
I currently use the Nikon D70 and have generally found when working in
RAW that printing from nikon capture produces better results than from
photoshop in the absense of exposure or color correction work. I was
recently told by a photo retailer that this would not be an issue with
the D200 as the RAW conversion in the D200 now takes place in the
camera as opposed to the external software product. Is this true?
Aside from the obvious hardware benefits offered by the D200 vs the
D70, this alleged issue between the camera and photoshop re Nikon raw
being resolved in the D200 would be very compelling. I would
appreciate any clarification on this issue. Thanks.

Hi.

There does seem to be a certain amount of confusion inside this salesman's
head, and a lot of it seems to have exited via his mouth.

Any camera which can output in any format other than RAW, (and that is every
camera I have ever come across), must be capabable of "In Camera"
processing of RAW. That is hardly new, and it is certainly not an
advantage.

You do not have any control over that "In Camera" processing.

Working in RAW means that you will be able to control the way the RAWs are
converted to other formats, and that is where the benefit of using RAW lies.
These user controllable conversions will be done in some sort of Editing
Software after the image has been downloaded.

I also do not quite understand your remark about working in RAW and
Printing.

Surely you only start your workflow with a RAW File. It needs to have been
converted to a Tif, Psd or even Jpeg, before you can Print it. So you are
not really printing from a RAW file, but you are printing from a file which
was a RAW.

Roy G

Larry wrote:
I currently use the Nikon D70 and have generally found when working in
RAW that printing from nikon capture produces better results than from
photoshop in the absense of exposure or color correction work. I was
recently told by a photo retailer that this would not be an issue with
the D200 as the RAW conversion in the D200 now takes place in the
camera as opposed to the external software product. Is this true?
Aside from the obvious hardware benefits offered by the D200 vs the
D70, this alleged issue between the camera and photoshop re Nikon raw
being resolved in the D200 would be very compelling. I would
appreciate any clarification on this issue. Thanks.

All cameras have to process raw files in order to display them. That
does not mean they make permanent changes to the files in the camera.
Nikon raw files are not truly raw; they are processed to some extent
and compressed. But they do store more information than jpeg files.

All external editors also have to process raw files in order to work
with them. No surprise there; they have to process a jpeg or tiff, too.
Most editors have some differences how they process raw files.
Photoshop gives you a lot more creative control, but Capture probably
comes closer to processing the files the way Nikon thinks they should
be processed.

Neither D200 nor the D70 would have an advantage in this area.

The RAW conversion? I don't understand. RAW conversion to WHAT? RAW
to JPG? Or else maybe the guy was just saying that the D200 processes
colors and such differently than does the D70. Both cameras offer
options that allow you to fine-tune the output you get from the camera.
If you find your pics are all coming out under sat'd, then you can
bump up the sat., for example. Those are just options that help save
you time from doing post-processing (out-of-camera) work.


Larry wrote:
I currently use the Nikon D70 and have generally found when working in
RAW that printing from nikon capture produces better results than from
photoshop in the absense of exposure or color correction work. I was
recently told by a photo retailer that this would not be an issue with
the D200 as the RAW conversion in the D200 now takes place in the
camera as opposed to the external software product. Is this true?
Aside from the obvious hardware benefits offered by the D200 vs the
D70, this alleged issue between the camera and photoshop re Nikon raw
being resolved in the D200 would be very compelling. I would
appreciate any clarification on this issue. Thanks.