NEF vs JPEG fine, large on D70 - benefits?

I have been running some (admittedly simple) tests with my D70, trying to
see if there is any significant difference visible in pictures taken with
the NEF vs. JPEG, fine, large setting (both are 300 x 2008 pixels - the NEF
is stored in a 5,4MB file, the JPEG in a +/- 2.4MB file). Obviously, the
JPEG has a compressed version of the picture.

In practice, the difference are so small that I can barely see them -
literally at the level of one or two pixels brighter or darker in an area-
and it may even be a matter of taste which is "better". (I use PS elements,
and transfer the images from the camera to my computer using
PictureProject). What really surprised me was that the much more compressed
JPEG that the D70 provides to allow you to view images in IE and to store
EXIF information, even though only about 750KB vs. 2.4MB for the fine, large
JPEG, was also barely distinguishable form the other formats!!

So - is the difference really simply that the NEF format is lossless and
allows you, if you wish, to adjust exposure and white balance when importing
to PS, and keep saving in lossless format? (I understand that repeated
saving images in JPEG format loses information, and, of course, the JPEG
could always be saved in TIF or PSD format).

And, importantly, if you blow these up to a large print size, such as 13" x
19", is there likely to be any quality difference visible between the NEF
and JPEG image, assume both go through the same PS processing steps, or are
not postprocessed in PS at all?

I put up a couple of screen shots showing the comparisons at
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?p...911793&size=lg and
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?p...911790&size=lg . The images
have had no PS post processing (no levels, sharpening etc. - just as they
were transferred from the camera to PS. And, of course, you're viewing them
at the resolution your screen can give of a screen shot off my screen, but
they seem reasonably representative of what I view in PS.

Alan

In general there is a great deal of difference between RAW and JPEG

If you can't notice it, don't worry or be anxious about it and save with the
format that meets and addresses your needs

Aerticeus

"AK" wrote in message
news:_dLpd.31$M57.6@trnddc01...
I have been running some (admittedly simple) tests with my D70, trying to

In general there is a great deal of difference between RAW and JPEG

If you can't notice it, don't worry or be anxious about it and save with the
format that meets and addresses your needs

Aerticeus

"AK" wrote in message
news:_dLpd.31$M57.6@trnddc01...
I have been running some (admittedly simple) tests with my D70, trying to

In general there is a great deal of difference between RAW and JPEG

If you can't notice it, don't worry or be anxious about it and save with the
format that meets and addresses your needs

Aerticeus

"AK" wrote in message
news:_dLpd.31$M57.6@trnddc01...
I have been running some (admittedly simple) tests with my D70, trying to

Oops - should say 3000 x 2008, not 300 x 2008

"AK" wrote in message
news:_dLpd.31$M57.6@trnddc01...
I have been running some (admittedly simple) tests with my D70, trying to
see if there is any significant difference visible in pictures taken with
the NEF vs. JPEG, fine, large setting (both are 300 x 2008 pixels - the NEF
is stored in a 5,4MB file, the JPEG in a +/- 2.4MB file). Obviously, the
JPEG has a compressed version of the picture.

In practice, the difference are so small that I can barely see them -
literally at the level of one or two pixels brighter or darker in an area-
and it may even be a matter of taste which is "better". (I use PS
elements, and transfer the images from the camera to my computer using
PictureProject). What really surprised me was that the much more
compressed JPEG that the D70 provides to allow you to view images in IE
and to store EXIF information, even though only about 750KB vs. 2.4MB for
the fine, large JPEG, was also barely distinguishable form the other
formats!!

So - is the difference really simply that the NEF format is lossless and
allows you, if you wish, to adjust exposure and white balance when
importing to PS, and keep saving in lossless format? (I understand that
repeated saving images in JPEG format loses information, and, of course,
the JPEG could always be saved in TIF or PSD format).

And, importantly, if you blow these up to a large print size, such as 13"
x 19", is there likely to be any quality difference visible between the
NEF and JPEG image, assume both go through the same PS processing steps,
or are not postprocessed in PS at all?

I put up a couple of screen shots showing the comparisons at
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?p...911793&size=lg and
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?p...911790&size=lg . The images
have had no PS post processing (no levels, sharpening etc. - just as they
were transferred from the camera to PS. And, of course, you're viewing
them at the resolution your screen can give of a screen shot off my
screen, but they seem reasonably representative of what I view in PS.

Alan

Well, I guess my question is - what is the visible difference? Are there any
examples out there of significant differences visible?

E.g., if I printed the same picture a large blow-up, would I notice a
difference between the image captured as a NEF vs. the image captured as a
JPEG (on the D70) - same number of pixels in each case - just that the D70
has compressed and possibly tweaked the image data using an in-camera
algorithm in the JPEG format?




"Aerticeus" wrote in message
...
In general there is a great deal of difference between RAW and JPEG

If you can't notice it, don't worry or be anxious about it and save with
the format that meets and addresses your needs

Aerticeus

"AK" wrote in message
news:_dLpd.31$M57.6@trnddc01...
I have been running some (admittedly simple) tests with my D70, trying to

Well, I guess my question is - what is the visible difference? Are there any
examples out there of significant differences visible?

E.g., if I printed the same picture a large blow-up, would I notice a
difference between the image captured as a NEF vs. the image captured as a
JPEG (on the D70) - same number of pixels in each case - just that the D70
has compressed and possibly tweaked the image data using an in-camera
algorithm in the JPEG format?




"Aerticeus" wrote in message
...
In general there is a great deal of difference between RAW and JPEG

If you can't notice it, don't worry or be anxious about it and save with
the format that meets and addresses your needs

Aerticeus

"AK" wrote in message
news:_dLpd.31$M57.6@trnddc01...
I have been running some (admittedly simple) tests with my D70, trying to

Well, I guess my question is - what is the visible difference? Are there any
examples out there of significant differences visible?

E.g., if I printed the same picture a large blow-up, would I notice a
difference between the image captured as a NEF vs. the image captured as a
JPEG (on the D70) - same number of pixels in each case - just that the D70
has compressed and possibly tweaked the image data using an in-camera
algorithm in the JPEG format?




"Aerticeus" wrote in message
...
In general there is a great deal of difference between RAW and JPEG

If you can't notice it, don't worry or be anxious about it and save with
the format that meets and addresses your needs

Aerticeus

"AK" wrote in message
news:_dLpd.31$M57.6@trnddc01...
I have been running some (admittedly simple) tests with my D70, trying to

S'OK AK - we all do it from time to time but I think everyone knows what you
meant

You've really answered the question you asked

If you are happy and pleased with in camera processing - well, JPEG is fine

If you want to tweak images on PC rather than rely on incamera processing =
go RAW

If you do go RAW it may be wise to invest in a dual processor 'pooter

Both MAC and PC variants show a marked performance while image processing
using duals (or quad) pumped cpu units (IMHO)

So, there you go. No absolute best answer as it depends upon what you want
to do with the kit and the files it produces :-)

Aerticeus

"AK" wrote in message
news:YoMpd.970$%C6.935@trnddc02...
Oops - should say 3000 x 2008, not 300 x 2008

S'OK AK - we all do it from time to time but I think everyone knows what you
meant

You've really answered the question you asked

If you are happy and pleased with in camera processing - well, JPEG is fine

If you want to tweak images on PC rather than rely on incamera processing =
go RAW

If you do go RAW it may be wise to invest in a dual processor 'pooter

Both MAC and PC variants show a marked performance while image processing
using duals (or quad) pumped cpu units (IMHO)

So, there you go. No absolute best answer as it depends upon what you want
to do with the kit and the files it produces :-)

Aerticeus

"AK" wrote in message
news:YoMpd.970$%C6.935@trnddc02...
Oops - should say 3000 x 2008, not 300 x 2008