Some RAW Questions

[kgphoto]

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Ok Dave, if you want a solution to your answer, next time, don't go the cheap route and by a canon, buy a Nikon, and when you set it to RAW+JPEG, that's what you get, not embeded crap, you get two seperate files, a RAW and a JPEG.

He does get the two files AND The EMBEDDED crap, just like you do with the NIKON. It is just the way it works.

[isaiahbrink]

You know what's weird? Is that neither me or my dad has ever gotten anything embedded in the files when we shoot in that mode, and I shoot with the higher end D2Xs and he shoots with the D40X.

[kgphoto]

Did I forget to mention that you cannot see the embedded files unless you use special software to un-embed them?

[RobArtLyn]

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

You know what's weird? Is that neither me or my dad has ever gotten anything embedded in the files when we shoot in that mode, and I shoot with the higher end D2Xs and he shoots with the D40X.

And you would know this because? The JPEG is embedded in the NEF for software preview purposes. There are no outward signs that it exists and there is normally no reason for end users to have any knowledge or awareness of this internal feature/implementation detail. (Can you tell I develop software for a living?) There are tools available that can extract the embedded JPEGs for people that so desire.

For the record, your D2X generated NEF files have an embedded full size, basic quality JPEG. I am not familiar with the output of the D40X.

[isaiahbrink]

Really? Is that why I get a seperate .JPG file when I copy the file over from my memory card? I get a .NEF and a .JPG, 2 files independant of themselves, and why is it that every source I hear from says that the RAW format is not an image file? They all say that it is a data file, with and the .JPG files is a purely image file (Joint Photographers Exchange Group - neat acronymn) Look, PhotoDave was looking for some help with this problem, but this thread has becomed hijacked, I"m not saying it should be delted, but let's consider one of us asked for help here, let's get back to the thread topic. Besides, I'm sure there's specialty software out there that could take a .NEF file and make it out to be an Excel document. And oh, for the record, I have turned OFF the jpeg compression on my camera when I shoot RAW. To me, it defetes the purpose of shooting RAW, but that is my opinion.

[RobArtLyn]

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Really? Is that why I get a seperate .JPG file when I copy the file over from my memory card? I get a .NEF and a .JPG, 2 files independant of themselves,

No, it is not why. It is because you have the camera set to record NEF + JPEG. (See the Image Quality portion of the Shooting Menu, pages 45 & 171 of the manual.) The embedded JPEG is just that, embedded in the data file. You don't see it as such, you think you are looking at the raw file.

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

and why is it that every source I hear from says that the RAW format is not an image file? They all say that it is a data file, with and the .JPG files is a purely image file (Joint Photographers Exchange Group - neat acronymn)

Because, technically, raw isn't an image file format. It needs to be processed to be converted into a format that contains a coherent image. (It needs to be demosaiced for starters.) That is why raw files contain embedded JPEGs. Software can be written that doesn't have to know how (& spend the time) to interpret the raw data in order to display a thumbnail for cataloging and image management.

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

Look, PhotoDave was looking for some help with this problem, but this thread has becomed hijacked,

I was just responding to your rather bizarre assertion about not getting embedded JPEGs, but then this has been a rather strange thread to read in its entirety. Many people, fine photographers all, dependent on digital photography with barely the first clue about how their cameras and computers actually work.

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

I"m not saying it should be delted, but let's consider one of us asked for help here, let's get back to the thread topic.

OK, but since the original question was to help him find his JPEGs when shooting raw+JPEG and he has since admitted that he copies the images manually off of his card, I can't imagine how any of us are going to him where he put them. If he knows where he put his raw files, why doesn't he know where he put his JPEGs and why doesn't he just search for them if he accidentally put them in the wrong directory? They have the same name as the raw files, just with a different extension.

Originally Posted by isaiahbrink

And oh, for the record, I have turned OFF the jpeg compression on my camera when I shoot RAW. To me, it defetes the purpose of shooting RAW, but that is my opinion.

Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding this comment. I assume you meant to say you turned off raw (NEF) compression. JPEG compression only affects, well, JPEGs. Unless you think that by turning it off you turned off JPEGs, because you don't see the point of shooting raw+JPEG, which would explain your question at the top of the post and my comment a little farther down.

[PhotoDave1]

"Ok Dave, if you want a solution to your answer, next time, don't go the cheap route and by a canon, buy a Nikon, and when you set it to RAW+JPEG, that's what you get, not embeded crap, you get two seperate files, a RAW and a JPEG."

Isaah, your comments and your zeal for Nikon are commendable but you don't have the benefit of all the facts. I used to shoot with Nikon and in the pre-digital days they were at the top of the heap but Nikon got careless and the powers that be at Nikon nothing more than a bunch of senile losers who wouldn't be able to find the work "innovate" in a dictionary if it came with directions.

I started with an F3 and then bought an N90S and then an F5 but when digital hit Nikon got caught with their shorts down looking. I bought a D100 and hated it and dumped it and shifted over to Canon a year later and I have never regretted it or looked back. Nikon still hasn't figured out how to make a shoe mount flash that work reliably with their digital bodies so why should I spend my money on second rate goods.

A quick look at the sales numbers will tell you that Canon rules the roost and there are good reaosns why this is so. A good photographer can take good photos with any camera but I am sticking with my Canons until death do us part but thanks for the advise anyway.

[isaiahbrink]

Originally Posted by PhotoDave1

"Ok Dave, if you want a solution to your answer, next time, don't go the cheap route and by a canon, buy a Nikon, and when you set it to RAW+JPEG, that's what you get, not embeded crap, you get two seperate files, a RAW and a JPEG."

Isaah, your comments and your zeal for Nikon are commendable but you don't have the benefit of all the facts. I used to shoot with Nikon and in the pre-digital days they were at the top of the heap but Nikon got careless and the powers that be at Nikon nothing more than a bunch of senile losers who wouldn't be able to find the work "innovate" in a dictionary if it came with directions.

I started with an F3 and then bought an N90S and then an F5 but when digital hit Nikon got caught with their shorts down looking. I bought a D100 and hated it and dumped it and shifted over to Canon a year later and I have never regretted it or looked back. Nikon still hasn't figured out how to make a shoe mount flash that work reliably with their digital bodies so why should I spend my money on second rate goods.

A quick look at the sales numbers will tell you that Canon rules the roost and there are good reaosns why this is so. A good photographer can take good photos with any camera but I am sticking with my Canons until death do us part but thanks for the advise anyway.

Well, Canon may rule the roost in numbers, but when it comes to quality, that is highly debateable. I'm still wondering why one of the other users had to go through of the new TOL (top of the line) Canon bodies before he got one that could focus correctly. Nikon has always been about quality over the newest gadgets, hence why they didn't release their TOL with AF or any Auto exposure features for so long. But I do agree with you on the statement that it's the user of the camera that makes the image sucessful. Like you, why would I spend my money on second rate goods?

[kgphoto]

Well, now we got that settled.

[isaiahbrink]

Hey KG and Robyn, obviously we aren't going to convert each other to the othe brand, as I said before, I hope that PhotoDave has his question answered.

Isaiah