[dwaugh]

Anyway, I want to start printing out some of my pictures. I have a D50 and the pictures are normally 3008x2000 pixles and 72dpi. I know that for picture quality shots I would need to change the resolution to 300dpi. In turn, that makes the actual size print go down to about 6.5"x10". However, I want to print an 11x14" (after cropping some of the image). So, after I make the resolution 300, I resize the print size to 11x14, and in turn the image is enlarged. Will this enlarging have any effect on the quality of the picture, especially in detailed pictures?
Also, let me know if I missed anything.
Thanks.

 

[maxyedor]

If you are using photoshop for editing go to the bar at the top, select "image" then "image size" then keep upsizing by no more than 200 pixels in length at a time untill you get an acceptable size this may cause a slight loss in detail, but won't be noticable until you get toward the 4X5 foot range. However Depending on how much croping you want to do this shouldn't be nessicery on a 6mega-pix image. 11X14 isn't realy that big.

I regularly make 24X36 prints from un altered images from my 1Dmk2, it is an 8mega-pix camera but you get the point.

 

[PatBranch]

He uses Paintshop pro, but its the basicly the same idea.

 

[dwaugh]

I am gonna see if I can adjust camera settings for future use...nevermind...

 

[maxyedor]

I am gonna see if I can adjust camera settings for future use...

The only camera settings to adjust are the image quality shoot in RAW or large jpeg. that will give you the best files to work with. Also try to fill the frame thus negating the cropping issue.

 

[dwaugh]

The only camera settings to adjust are the image quality shoot in RAW or large jpeg. that will give you the best files to work with. Also try to fill the frame thus negating the cropping issue.

I rarely crop my pics, but I would need to, otherwise if I wanted them to be 11 inches tall they would be 16 long, so I crop them down to be 11x14.

Can you tell me more about the first thing you said (about RAW)?

 

[maxyedor]

I forgot about that weird size issue that the Nikon and some Canons have, realy pretty stupid if you ask me.

About Raw
I think Nikon calls it something else like .neff. Not sure if the D50 even has it as an option. Anyway it is a file format that allows you to tweek the white balance and exposure after the fact. It is the best way to shoot by far. You would need Nikon capture software to use the files but the results you get are worth the hassel. One other not on Raw is they are an uncompressed file so on my 1Dmk2 they are about 25megs each as aposed to 8megs for a Jpeg.

 

[binary visions]

RAW is an ongoing debate in most photo circles.

It boils down to the fact that RAW requires you to tweak all of your images before they're even presentable (since it applies no white balance, no sharpening, no contrast enhancement, etc.). Plus, the files are 3+ times the size of JPGs.

If you can get past those two serious disadvantages, you get a super high quality, lossless image. The disadvantages are pretty heavy for an amatur photographer, though, you're talking about a HUGE amount more hard drive space, and the requirement to modify even your "snapshot" pictures.

RAW files are rather like the digital equivalent of a negative. You have to process it before you get a usable image. Digital has allowed people to skip the processing step, even if it provides you with more creative control. Best thing is to try it yourself and see if it gives you enough advantages to make the disadvantages worthwhile.

 

[spincrazy]

Well said. One of the disadvantages to digital photography is that you are now the photo lab guy unless you are happy with the in camera processing. The post production quotient is huge, especially for sports, weddings and photojournalism. Enjoy. I actually prefer of course, but I work up images for a living.

RAW is an ongoing debate in most photo circles.

It boils down to the fact that RAW requires you to tweak all of your images before they're even presentable (since it applies no white balance, no sharpening, no contrast enhancement, etc.). Plus, the files are 3+ times the size of JPGs.

If you can get past those two serious disadvantages, you get a super high quality, lossless image. The disadvantages are pretty heavy for an amatur photographer, though, you're talking about a HUGE amount more hard drive space, and the requirement to modify even your "snapshot" pictures.

RAW files are rather like the digital equivalent of a negative. You have to process it before you get a usable image. Digital has allowed people to skip the processing step, even if it provides you with more creative control. Best thing is to try it yourself and see if it gives you enough advantages to make the disadvantages worthwhile.

 

[biggins]

raw is the only wat to go. preview/edit the image in a raw converter program and then same your master as a tiff file.

 

[biggins]

oh and one way around the grain issue you might encounter is to print your photos on heavyweight matte finish paper.

 

[justsomeguy]

A few clarifications:

-You don't need Nikon Capture to proccess .nef files. PS and a number of other apps can handle them as well.

-You can shoot RAW with a D50.

-Nikon RAW files are only 2x the size of fine jpegs (edit: I looked at a bad example without much color info. RAW can be 4x the size!)

-There is no absolute requirement that you modify/proccess your RAW file "snapshots" to make them usable. You can shoot using auto white balance and the RAW and jpeg image will be the same, and quite usable in the vast majority of cases. The camera still applies the in-camera settings (sharpening, contrast, etc.) to the RAW file, just like it does to a jpeg. The RAW file however gives you the option of changing those values in post, while the jpeg doesn't.

 

[binary visions]

The camera still applies the in-camera settings (sharpening, contrast, etc.) to the RAW file, just like it does to a jpeg.

What kind of RAW files do you shoot? The camera should not be implementing any of the in-camera settings to the RAW file. The RAW file is just that - RAW sensor data.

 

[biggins]

What kind of RAW files do you shoot? The camera should not be implementing any of the in-camera settings to the RAW file. The RAW file is just that - RAW sensor data.

i have to side with BV. after all that is the entire point of a raw file.

 

[Transcend]

What kind of RAW files do you shoot? The camera should not be implementing any of the in-camera settings to the RAW file. The RAW file is just that - RAW sensor data.

Exactly. Although there is some evidence that both canon and nikon tweak things slightly. It is nothing that is noticeable to the human eye, and definitely nothing that you can change afterwards.

There is no contrast/sharpening or color adjustments taking place on my raw files (canon). It DOES use your WB setting and adjust accordingly, and this can be tweaked afterwards. It doesn't however alter any data to do this.

 

[brungeman]

BV, & Fraser... can you tell a raw file, from a jpeg with adjustments made? cause the RAW shots coming out of my D50 are pretty good straight... if you could look at them and tell me if there is something more I could tweak? I think they look pretty good as they sit, but if there is something I am missing?

these were uploaded straight from the memory card to photobucket.

 

[caboverpete]

I think for the average joe like myself shooting in jpeg will do the trick 98% of the time.

Now for a pro who wants the best quality possible RAW is the way to go. It is good insurance too, as you will have a much better chance at saving that botched important shot if you have not discarded any data.

 

[justsomeguy]

What kind of RAW files do you shoot? The camera should not be implementing any of the in-camera settings to the RAW file. The RAW file is just that - RAW sensor data.

Nikon.

The in-camera settings are attched to the RAW file via a header file. When the RAW file is opened you are looking at the file with those settings applied.

 

[binary visions]

Nikon.

The in-camera settings are attched to the RAW file via a header file. When the RAW file is opened you are looking at the file with those settings applied.

I realize the as-shot data is sometimes attached in the metadata of the NEF file, but the NEF file is not a modified image. Nikon Capture or whatever you are using may apply these settings when you are in the default view, but the NEF file is unaltered raw sensor data (barring what minor altercations that Nikon and Canon both make to the RAW data, which is essentially nothing).

It's kind of like saying that all the images shot in the camera are 800x600 just because your image application defaults to showing an image of that size.

 

[justsomeguy]

I realize the as-shot data is sometimes attached in the metadata of the NEF file, but the NEF file is not a modified image. Nikon Capture or whatever you are using may apply these settings when you are in the default view, but the NEF file is unaltered raw sensor data (barring what minor altercations that Nikon and Canon both make to the RAW data, which is essentially nothing).

No, the as-shot data is always attached to a nef.

Let me help:

"A NEF file from a Nikon digital SLR camera consists of three key components that include raw image data captured by the imaging sensor, thumbnail images of the raw data, and a unique instruction set that retains camera settings from the moment a picture was taken.

During postproduction in Capture 4.0 software, these original camera settings can be tweaked, edited and saved as a variation of the instruction set, thereby leaving the original raw data unaffected, yet achieving the effects of the editing on the final image."

Perhaps it's different with Canon RAW workflow but there is no need to "tweak all of your images before they're even presentable" when shooting RAW nefs, which was my initial point.

 

[caboverpete]

I realize the as-shot data is sometimes attached in the metadata of the NEF file, but the NEF file is not a modified image. Nikon Capture or whatever you are using may apply these settings when you are in the default view, but the NEF file is unaltered raw sensor data (barring what minor altercations that Nikon and Canon both make to the RAW data, which is essentially nothing).

It's kind of like saying that all the images shot in the camera are 800x600 just because your image application defaults to showing an image of that size.

I think your basically argueing about his use of the word "applied" instead of "attached" when he originally mentioned the shot data. In that case he can argue that saying "the NEF file is not a modified image" is also wrong, nikon does some compression hoodoo voodoo therefore it is not the exact RAW CCD data... it has been slightly modified to save space.

 

[binary visions]

No, the as-shot data is always attached to a nef.

Let me help:

You're not helping . I know how the data is attached - by "sometimes", I meant "some cameras" (as opposed to all models of digital cameras that Nikon has made, since I don't know if all models have done this).

My point is that these settings are not applied to the original image, they are just stored in the header of the file. Nikon Capture has a default setting of displaying the RAW image with the in-camera settings applied to it, but there has been no modification to it, you are just seeing what the image would look like IF you chose to save it that way.

Other RAW image editors will not necessarily behave this way, and a straight conversion from RAW to JPG will not give you those results - unless done through Nikon Capture.

caboverpete, I know that my semantics are not exact, but indicating that the NEF file is unmodified sensor data, when the truth is that it is almost or mostly unmodified sensor data, is a lot closer to the truth then saying that having some metadata in the header of the NEF file is actually a modification of what the image looks like.

 

[Transcend]

No, the as-shot data is always attached to a nef.

Let me help:

"A NEF file from a Nikon digital SLR camera consists of three key components that include raw image data captured by the imaging sensor, thumbnail images of the raw data, and a unique instruction set that retains camera settings from the moment a picture was taken.

During postproduction in Capture 4.0 software, these original camera settings can be tweaked, edited and saved as a variation of the instruction set, thereby leaving the original raw data unaffected, yet achieving the effects of the editing on the final image."

Perhaps it's different with Canon RAW workflow but there is no need to "tweak all of your images before they're even presentable" when shooting RAW nefs, which was my initial point.

Right, the actual data has no adjustments made, it is simply a sidecar file (or appended to the raw file in this case).

The program you are viewing it in is going to be what decides whether or not you see the actual as shot data.

Canon RAWs include only WB in the as shot (or the new canon picture styles I believe, no sure of this). In C1 the only as shot info i can see is WB, which shows up as "as shot". I can then edit it to my hearts delight.

There is no sharpening, contrast or color cast adjustments output form the camera in raw mode.

 

[justsomeguy]

In that case he can argue that saying "the NEF file is not a modified image" is also wrong, nikon does some compression hoodoo voodoo therefore it is not the exact RAW CCD data... it has been slightly modified to save space.

That is at the discretion of the shooter, depending upon which NIkon body you're using.

I have the option of compressed NEFs (your example above) or uncompressed NEFs on both of my bodies.

You're not helping . I know how the data is attached - by "sometimes", I meant "some cameras" (as opposed to all models of digital cameras that Nikon has made, since I don't know if all models have done this).

I'm not trying to be pedantic here but the data is ALWAYS attached to the nef. It doesn't vary by Nikon camera. It's an inherent part of Nikon's RAW file system.

 

[Transcend]

That is at the discretion of the shooter, depending upon which NIkon body you're using.

I have the option of compressed NEFs (your example above) or uncompressed NEFs on both of my bodies.

Just curious, what does an 8mp Nikon raw file weigh in at? (color, good contrast, good tonal range etc).

My mk2 files are about 10mb or so.

 

[binary visions]

I'm not trying to be pedantic here but the data is ALWAYS attached to the nef. It doesn't vary by Nikon camera. It's an inherent part of Nikon's RAW file system.

I believe you. I just am not specifically aware that early Nikon digital cameras handled NEF files the same way that current ones do. They may have.

It doesn't change my argument, though.

 

[justsomeguy]

Just curious, what does an 8mp Nikon raw file weigh in at? (color, good contrast, good tonal range etc).

My mk2 files are about 10mb or so.

My 12.4mp RAW files are 10-12mb compressed or 19-20mb uncompressed.

 

[justsomeguy]

It doesn't change my argument, though.

Ok, was that the he'll have to "tweak all of your images before they're even presentable" argument (disproven) or the semantic disagreement regarding what comprises Nikon's RAW files?

 

[binary visions]

Ok, was that the he'll have to "tweak all of your images before they're even presentable" argument (disproven)

Oh, really?

Where?

or the semantic disagreement regarding what comprises Nikon's RAW files?

You mean, this statement that you made:

The camera still applies the in-camera settings (sharpening, contrast, etc.) to the RAW file, just like it does to a jpeg.

...that was just plain wrong, and was corrected by several people? I'm not sure I'd label that a "semantic disagreement regarding what comprises Nikon's RAW files", but whatever floats your boat.

 

[justsomeguy]

Oh, really?

Where?

Right here:

"and a unique instruction set that retains camera settings from the moment a picture was taken."

You obviously don't have much, if any, experience working with nefs. That's ok.

I have zero experience working with RAW Canon files, but I have worked with thousands of nefs, for over five years.

The fact of the matter is that a nef does not need to be tweaked before it's usable, as you claimed. It can be left completely alone (tweakless) and converted to a jpeg that is perfectly usable. In fact it will match the appearance of an in-camera jpeg. Since I shoot NEF+jpeg (for each shutter release both a NEF and jpeg are saved to the card) I've actually done a side-by-side comparison.

...that was just plain wrong, and was corrected by several people? I'm not sure I'd label that a "semantic disagreement", but whatever floats your boat.

Yes, semantic. The camera does apply the in-camera settings (by always attaching the header file) to the nef.

Cheers.

 

[caboverpete]

I find this thread "shallow and pedantic"

 

[binary visions]

Yes, semantic. The camera does apply the in-camera settings (by always attaching the header file) to the nef.

Okay. Metadata in the header of an image (which one application defaults to applying without asking) is the same as modifying an image. Clearly. Why did I even question it?

 

[justsomeguy]

Okay. Metadata in the header of an image (which one application defaults to applying without asking) is the same as modifying an image. Clearly. Why did I even question it?

First off, that's a really cute similey.

Now then, hopefully the OP has been able to sort through this and understands that you don't need to tweak RAW images to make them usable. He can simply export as-is from Capture (I assume this is the one application you're referring to above or use PS (wait, that's a second application) and Abode Camera Raw and export using "image settings."

No need to tweak to get a usable image. Amazing!

(insert smarmy smiley here)

 

[H8R]

First off, that's a really cute similey.

Now then, hopefully the OP has been able to sort through this and understands that you don't need to tweak RAW images to make them usable. He can simply export as-is from Capture (I assume this is the one application you're referring to above or use PS (wait, that's a second application) and Abode Camera Raw and export using "image settings."

No need to tweak to get a usable image. Amazing!

(insert smarmy smiley here)

Maybe it's just me, but there is "knowledgeable" and then there is "f8cking know-it-all."

If you tweaked your presentation and general attitude just a bit, you could be described as the former.

 

[maxyedor]

A few clarifications:

-You don't need Nikon Capture to proccess .nef files. PS and a number of other apps can handle them as well.

-You can shoot RAW with a D50.

I know that the Nef files produced by a D2X are unusable without first being proccesed through Nikon software and I am pretty sure that that is the case with all Nikon cameras. The D2X is just the only one I've ever really used.

So I geuss Raw is possible with the D50, Didn't know that.


To clarify the white balance issue. The way I understand it is that if you shoot in Daylight WB for example. The image will first appear in Daylight WB on your screen, then you choose what white balance you want to apply from there. If it didn't have some form of WB the chip couldn't make color. The data just isn't permanent.

I think.

 

[justsomeguy]

I know that the Nef files produced by a D2X are unusable without first being proccesed through Nikon software and I am pretty sure that that is the case with all Nikon cameras. The D2X is just the only one I've ever really used.

Photoshop, Bibble, and Capture One (maybe others as well) all proccess nefs without using Nikon software.

 

[maxyedor]

Photoshop, Bibble, and Capture One (maybe others as well) all proccess nefs without using Nikon software.

Not my experiance with it but if it works it works

 

[firetoole]

I know that the Nef files produced by a D2X are unusable without first being proccesed through Nikon software and I am pretty sure that that is the case with all Nikon cameras. The D2X is just the only one I've ever really used.

So I geuss Raw is possible with the D50, Didn't know that.


To clarify the white balance issue. The way I understand it is that if you shoot in Daylight WB for example. The image will first appear in Daylight WB on your screen, then you choose what white balance you want to apply from there. If it didn't have some form of WB the chip couldn't make color. The data just isn't permanent.

I think.

I can do it fine with both my D2X and my D100 you may have it set weird or something

 

[dwaugh]

So, after all of that... another question...

Someone said that a RAW image is like a film negative. Does that mean that I can set it to be any size I want it to be and it will keep the good quality? (or will it still come out 3008x2000 pixels?)
I just want to know about printing quality, no matter what size I may be printing. I believe in always being prepared, I never know when I might see something totally worth taking a picture of, and if I want to eventually print it out (lets say, for example, 20x30") I want to make sure it will be good quality.

If I start using RAW I might also want to clear up some room on my harddrive... I have a lot of DVD's I can burn stuff onto... maybe buy some more RAM....

 

[Transcend]

Raw is always the same size, although with nikon you can set it to me compressed or not. The physical size however, will never change. Just like with a 35mm negative, you crop after the fact.

Most serious digital photogs will have many external HDDs. I have 3 300gb ones, and will be picking up a TB network device in a few weeks.