# Nikon D3300 RAW images



## dowlers44 (Dec 29, 2015)

Just purchased my first DSLR - a Nikon D3300.

I already have Photoshop CS5 on my computer but I have noticed that Nikon's raw images are in NEF format, of which I am unable to open in this software.

Is anyone aware as to whether the RAW image format can be changed on the camera or am I going to have to look into obtaining a converter if I wish to work with raw images in Photoshop CS5.

I am really very new to photography so apologies if this question should have been posted in the Beginners forums.

However, if anyone else has anything interesting to add regarding this camera, I would be happy to listen to any comments.

Thanks!


----------



## john.margetts (Dec 29, 2015)

You need to update the Camera RAW module which you can do from Adobe's web site.

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk


----------



## jaomul (Dec 29, 2015)

As cameras get newer the raw files are modified. Photoshop updates these to a point, then stops. I'd imagine that the d3300 files are to new for photoshop cs5. You can update photoshop (if the raw part doesn't update to one that sees these d3300 files) by buying the new lease type one, or a work around is to download Adobe dng converter, and convert all your NEF files to DNG format raw that photoshop can see. It's an extra step in your editing but its a painless enough process


----------



## PropilotBW (Dec 29, 2015)

It's most likely that the Photoshop doesn't support these files because the camera wasn't produced when the software was created, forcing you to upgrade your Photoshop software.
Your Nikon came with software, Nikon View NX2, or you can get it free from Nikon's website.  You can use their software to view and make basic changes to the image. 
There are some free programs, such as GIMP, that you can use to view and edit these files.
Of course, you could also upgrade your photoshop to the newest version by subscribing to Adobe Creative Cloud.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 29, 2015)

Your camera is too new and your software too old. Adobe does not update old versions of PS to keep up with new camera releases.

You have a couple options.

1. Download Adobe's free DNG converter and convert your NEF files to DNG. Then you'll be able to open the DNG files in CS5 - ACR.
2. Use a different raw converter for your NEF files and then transfer TIFF files to PS.

Joe

Edit: If you go the route of downloading and using Adobe's DNG converter don't give in to the temptation to delete your original NEF files. At some point down the road you may discover that you want those NEFs.


----------



## john.margetts (Dec 29, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Your camera is too new and your software too old. Adobe does not update old versions of PS to keep up with new camera releases.


It is not PS that needs updating, just the Camera RAW module and these are updated on a regular basis.


Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk


----------



## jaomul (Dec 29, 2015)

john.margetts said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Your camera is too new and your software too old. Adobe does not update old versions of PS to keep up with new camera releases.
> ...



After a certain point the raw module within a certain ps version stops allowing updates


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 29, 2015)

john.margetts said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Your camera is too new and your software too old. Adobe does not update old versions of PS to keep up with new camera releases.
> ...



The version of ACR in CS5 will not update to cameras as new as the D3300.

Joe


----------



## Ido (Dec 29, 2015)

Just checked on Google: Adobe added Camera Raw support for the D3300 in version 8.4, which cannot be downloaded for Photoshop CS5—only the newer CS6 and CC versions will work. 

As others have suggested, there are free workarounds: you can download the Adobe DNG Converter which lets you batch-convert all NEF files to a DNG that Photoshop can read, or you can use the software that came with your camera to make Raw adjustments and "export" a TIFF file, which you can then refine in Photoshop. 

While the first option is the easiest one, I believe the second option is better. I'm with Ysarex on keeping the original NEF files even if you convert them to DNG; I made the mistake of not retaining the original out-of-camera Raw files after converting to DNG, which eventually got me ineligible to enter some high-profile photo competitions, which require, at a certain stage of the competition, that all contestants send the original files to check if the editing complies with their rules and codes. A lot of those clearly state that files converted to DNG are not accepted, as they have no way of knowing for sure that the DNG file you're sending in has not been touched before that. 

Keeping the original NEF files, while also saving DNGs, basically doubles the amount of storage space your photo library consumes. And while storage is fairly cheap and only getting cheaper, it's still money you shouldn't really have to spend. 

One way of dealing with that is to do the culling first on the NEF files. Get it down to the select few images you want to work on, move them to a different folder or tag them somehow, and only concert those to DNG. But then I believe the second option is easier to manage. 

The second option is to use the software that came with your camera as the first step of editing. It should have very usable tools for Raw processing, such as setting the white balance, changing the overall brightness of the image and in different sections of the histogram (i.e. only affecting shadows, highlights, or mid-tones), noise reduction, etc. 

If you do that, it's usually best to do the culling first. Most free editing applications the manufacturers provide are pretty slow, so you're better off limiting the pains to only the few images you want to work on. Also, when you go to save the edits to an image file that Photoshop can read, your best option will be TIFF. These files are bigger than both NEF and DNG, so they consume even more storage space. The benefit, however, is that you won't need to save yet another file after you work on it in Photoshop—all functions, including layers, can be saved to the same TIFF file you started with, and you can always open it back up and have all the layers and adjustments still available.


----------



## KmH (Dec 29, 2015)

Cameras supported by Adobe Camera Raw

It sounds like PropilotBW doesn't actually understand the situation.

No one is forced to upgrade their Photoshop software when a camera maker releases a new camera that has a new proprietary raw file type.
Adobe provides *free software* to convert NEF files to the Adobe _*open source*_ DNG file type that allows new camera Raw files to be edited in older Adobe software.

GIMP has never included a Raw converter. So you can't view or edit _any kind of a Raw file_ using GIMP.
You can download one of many standalone Raw converters but would still need a version that can open Nikon D3300 NEF files.

Nikon (and other camera makers) does not give Adobe information on any of Nikon's proprietary Raw files.
Each new model of Nikon has a unique .NEF file type.
Adobe has to reverse-engineer the file type and that usually takes a month or more after a new Nikon has been released.
Some camera makers don't use a proprietary Raw file type. those camera makers use Adobe's DNG Raw file type.

Camera Raw and Bridge are plug-ins that are included with Photoshop.
Adobe's Photography Program subscription costs $9.99 a month and gets you Photoshop CC 2015 (including Bridge and Camera Raw) and whatever updates there are as soon as they become available. You also get Lightroom CC 2015 and it's updates. So with the subscription you can always have the latest Ps and Lr updates.


----------



## dowlers44 (Dec 30, 2015)

Thanks for all this info - gratefully received.  Some follow up questions if you don't mind.

I think I like the sense of obtaining a free converter for NEF to DNG files for working on.  The other option of convertering to TIFF seems to me a more costly option in regard to memory (regardless of taking note that memory is quite cheap to buy).

However, just to increase my knowledge my first question is to ask about TIFF files.  In anyone's experience of using TIFF files, my previous understanding was they they are just highly detailed, high memory JPEGs.  Or to put it another way, they are processed files (like jpegs/jpgs as opposed to RAW images).  Can anyone offer better clarity on this?

My second question relates to the converter option.  My convertering NEF files to DNG, could there be any loss in quality using a free converter?  Someone mentioned the Adobe free NEF to DNG converter.  Is there any loss here?

Finally, I have started to take photos using the D3300 for the first time.  In fact, as mentioned, this is my first time with a DSLR and no prior experience.  Just to get a handle of the various image types available with this camera, I took identical photos using a tripod choosing the settings for jpeg basic, jpeg normal, jpeg fine and NEF raw, maintaining the same 24Mp in each case.  When reviewing back the photos on my computer, I actually didn't notice a difference between any of the jpegs.  

Further to that, I actually found that the NEF images seemed much more underexposed (or higher in contrast is perhaps a better description).  What I believe I found was that the JPEG highlights in the images were just as good (or nearly as good) as the NEF highlights but the darker colours came out too dark in the NEF files while being adequately balanced in the JPEGs.  Generally, I found the NEFF darker tones were too dark as if someone had played about with the levels.  Has anyone any thoughts on this and why it would seem the JPEGs were actually better images.  My thinking behind this is that if I chose to work with my RAW images, many of the darker colours would start at too dark a level that brightening them would affect the quality of the image than if they had been correctly balanced from the start (as with the jpegs).

Thanks.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 30, 2015)

dowlers44 said:


> Thanks for all this info - gratefully received.  Some follow up questions if you don't mind.
> 
> I think I like the sense of obtaining a free converter for NEF to DNG files for working on.  The other option of convertering to TIFF seems to me a more costly option in regard to memory (regardless of taking note that memory is quite cheap to buy).
> 
> However, just to increase my knowledge my first question is to ask about TIFF files.  In anyone's experience of using TIFF files, my previous understanding was they they are just highly detailed, high memory JPEGs.  Or to put it another way, they are processed files (like jpegs/jpgs as opposed to RAW images).  Can anyone offer better clarity on this?



TIFF files are RGB photos as are JPEGs however the similarity ends there. A JPEG must be an 8 bit file and JPEGs must be lossy compressed. A TIFF file does not need to be compressed and it can be a 16 bit file. TIFF files are fine to work with as an intermediate or final step after raw conversion.



dowlers44 said:


> My second question relates to the converter option.  My convertering NEF files to DNG, could there be any loss in quality using a free converter?  Someone mentioned the Adobe free NEF to DNG converter.  Is there any loss here?



Adobe's DNG converter is free and comes with a number of processing options. Unless you output a linear DNG (demosaiced) then there is no loss of quality. Your raw file is moved to the DNG wrapper untouched. Some meta-data may be lost but this is not a quality loss issue.



dowlers44 said:


> Finally, I have started to take photos using the D3300 for the first time.  In fact, as mentioned, this is my first time with a DSLR and no prior experience.  Just to get a handle of the various image types available with this camera, I took identical photos using a tripod choosing the settings for jpeg basic, jpeg normal, jpeg fine and NEF raw, maintaining the same 24Mp in each case.  When reviewing back the photos on my computer, I actually didn't notice a difference between any of the jpegs.
> 
> Further to that, I actually found that the NEF images seemed much more underexposed (or higher in contrast is perhaps a better description).  What I believe I found was that the JPEG highlights in the images were just as good (or nearly as good) as the NEF highlights but the darker colours came out too dark in the NEF files while being adequately balanced in the JPEGs.  Generally, I found the NEFF darker tones were too dark as if someone had played about with the levels.  Has anyone any thoughts on this and why it would seem the JPEGs were actually better images.  My thinking behind this is that if I chose to work with my RAW images, many of the darker colours would start at too dark a level that brightening them would affect the quality of the image than if they had been correctly balanced from the start (as with the jpegs).
> 
> Thanks.



How are you viewing the NEF files?

Joe


----------



## john.margetts (Dec 31, 2015)

dowlers44 said:


> ...
> 
> Finally, I have started to take photos using the D3300 for the first time.  In fact, as mentioned, this is my first time with a DSLR and no prior experience.  Just to get a handle of the various image types available with this camera, I took identical photos using a tripod choosing the settings for jpeg basic, jpeg normal, jpeg fine and NEF raw, maintaining the same 24Mp in each case.  When reviewing back the photos on my computer, I actually didn't notice a difference between any of the jpegs.
> 
> ...


you cannot actually view the RAW files - when you are looking at the NEF files you are looking at default JPEG conversions. When looking at the JPEGs, you are looking at more careful conversions so they look better. The whole point of RAW files is that you are going to spend time editing them - until you have they are not worth looking at.



Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ido (Jan 1, 2016)

dowlers44 said:


> I think I like the sense of obtaining a free converter for NEF to DNG files for working on. The other option of convertering to TIFF seems to me a more costly option in regard to memory (regardless of taking note that memory is quite cheap to buy).


That’s depends on whether or not you …

immediately covert all NEF files, as opposed to first choosing the ones you want to work with and only converting them;
keep the original NEF files alongside the converted ones (which I strongly recommend);
actually go through Photoshop for every image you process (saving the Photoshop edits on a DNG file requires saving another file, as either TIFF or PSD, while saving them on a TIFF simply modifies the original—and you can do so non-destructively, so you can always go back to the TIFF you started with).



dowlers44 said:


> However, just to increase my knowledge my first question is to ask about TIFF files. In anyone's experience of using TIFF files, my previous understanding was they they are just highly detailed, high memory JPEGs. Or to put it another way, they are processed files (like jpegs/jpgs as opposed to RAW images). Can anyone offer better clarity on this?


The first thing you should know about raw files is that *they do not hold (contain) images*; instead, they are *data files*, that have to be processed/converted to become standard image files. Because they are data files, it means you need software capable of reading them to display them as images (basically like converting the file to an image in the background, without creating another file in the folder), and each software reads them differently, so the image they display may not be the same. It means you can’t share these files anywhere at their original state. DNG is just the same.

Both TIFF and JPEG are standard image file formats. They display the same image on all computers with whichever software. However, there is a key difference between them: a JPEG file is strongly compressed, and has only 8 bits per color channel (red, green, and blue), while TIFF files can be uncompressed, and have much higher bit-depths. In essence, a TIFF file can contain just as much information and “latitude” as a raw file, but in that case the file will be much bigger.

The suggestion I made about converting to TIFF, was not to convert it just as-is. Instead, it was to first do the essential processing of raw files—to use the benefits of the raw file—and then converting to TIFF to work with in Photoshop. Those tweaks to the raw file can be white balance, highlight/shadow recovery, sharpening and noise reduction (though they can be done just as well on an image file), etc. Basically, that’s preparing the raw file for Photoshop.

If you used a version of Photoshop that does read your camera’s raw files, the process actually wouldn’t be very different. You’d have to use Adobe Camera Raw first—the raw converter that Adobe makes—and then open the image in the actual Photoshop interface. It would basically do the conversion for you, yet without saving another file. (That file has to be saved afterwards, to have the adjustments you make in Photoshop.)



dowlers44 said:


> My second question relates to the converter option. My convertering NEF files to DNG, could there be any loss in quality using a free converter? Someone mentioned the Adobe free NEF to DNG converter. Is there any loss here?


The converter should perform a _lossless _compression. That means it does compress the file slightly, but no data is lost. I think there is a selectable option there to do a lossy compression instead—so make sure that box is unchecked.



dowlers44 said:


> Finally, I have started to take photos using the D3300 for the first time. In fact, as mentioned, this is my first time with a DSLR and no prior experience. Just to get a handle of the various image types available with this camera, I took identical photos using a tripod choosing the settings for jpeg basic, jpeg normal, jpeg fine and NEF raw, maintaining the same 24Mp in each case. When reviewing back the photos on my computer, I actually didn't notice a difference between any of the jpegs.


The different JPEG settings (Basic, Normal, and Fine) are different compression strengths. Fine uses the weakest compression, which retains the most detail and has the largest file sizes, while Basic is the strongest compression, which shrinks the files the most, and throws out the most data in the process.

It is very normal that you can’t see a difference between them on screen, especially when you view them at the size that fits the screen. If you zoom in, you may see differences. You may also see differences in large prints.

The different compression strengths also have different results depending on the scene you’re shooting. If it’s a mostly smooth image, they will all be pretty much the same. But if it’s a highly detailed scene, and with different colors all around, jumping from pixel to pixel, the gap between the weaker and stronger compression options is a lot wider.

If you decide to use JPEG instead of raw, I recommend sticking to Fine. You may shoot a scene that the stronger compression options would crush, and not realize it until you see it on the computer.



dowlers44 said:


> Further to that, I actually found that the NEF images seemed much more underexposed (or higher in contrast is perhaps a better description). What I believe I found was that the JPEG highlights in the images were just as good (or nearly as good) as the NEF highlights but the darker colours came out too dark in the NEF files while being adequately balanced in the JPEGs.


Coming back to the point about raw files: they are not image files, and they are not meant to be seen as image files. They are made to look horrible, and you should do something with them to make them look good.



dowlers44 said:


> Generally, I found the NEFF darker tones were too dark as if someone had played about with the levels.


It’s actually the other way around: it looks worse to you _because no one has played with the levels!_ *It’s up to you to do that. *The JPEG were converted by the camera, with a certain “curve,” but the raw files are untouched.

There’s also the issue of different applications showing it differently. I presume you used your operating system’s default file browser and image viewer to view the NEF files, and it may show them a lot differently from how Adobe converts them.



dowlers44 said:


> Has anyone any thoughts on this and why it would seem the JPEGs were actually better images. My thinking behind this is that if I chose to work with my RAW images, many of the darker colours would start at too dark a level that brightening them would affect the quality of the image than if they had been correctly balanced from the start (as with the jpegs).


As a general rule, if you like how the JPEG files look, then there’s no need for you to use raw files. Just let the camera do all that work, and you’ll always get those images you like.

Ever since I got my first interchangeable-lens camera, which is the same one I use today, I’ve had it on recording nothing but raw files, except for one week when I tried out its JPEG conversions. I had read online about how amazing the JPEG images looked straight out of the Olympus cameras, so I had to try it myself. I found that indeed they were very nice, but I didn’t like having the same “treatment” applied to every photo I take. To counter that, the camera has different “Picture Mode” options, which are kind of like presets. Those include ‘Natural’, the one I used the most; ‘Vivid’, which offered very punchy colors when desirable; ‘Portrait’, which does a nice job at rendering skin tones; and ‘Monotone’, which does a decent job at converting to black & white. There’s also a curve adjustment available, which I believe is unique to Olympus. The results were pleasing, but switching between them wasn’t, even with a custom button assigned to that. I ended up having to desaturate colors when I accidentally left it on Vivid, and often one color channel had clipped, so that wasn’t even possible. I ended up with a ton of noise trying to recover shadows, when I had the curve set to darken shadows a bit too much. I could only think about how a certain image would have looked in color, if I had the camera set to Monotone at the time. You get the idea…

Don’t worry about the shadows being too dark in the raw file, while they are just fine in the JPEG. The camera itself basically starts with the same raw data you have in the NEF files, so you can get to the same image as the JPEG, if you so desire, in processing. The camera did the same thing. Or it’s just how the certain software you have chose to display the image by default.


----------



## dowlers44 (Jan 2, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> How are you viewing the NEF files?
> 
> Joe



Through windows viewer (picture viewer?)


----------



## dowlers44 (Jan 2, 2016)

Ido said:


> The different JPEG settings (Basic, Normal, and Fine) are different compression strengths. Fine uses the weakest compression, which retains the most detail and has the largest file sizes, while Basic is the strongest compression, which shrinks the files the most, and throws out the most data in the process.
> 
> It is very normal that you can’t see a difference between them on screen, especially when you view them at the size that fits the screen. If you zoom in, you may see differences. You may also see differences in large prints.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your in-depth reply. I wanted to pick up on this point above. Actually when I referred to seeing no difference it wasn't just in relation to viewing them at full screen but when I zoom in on the pictures. I had my camera angled down my road, picking up rough, textured brickwork in the near foreground and vegetation in the background. When zooming in on the brickwork on all jpeg cases, I didn't notice any loss in the brickwork detail. It made me wonder how much detail we really need to capture if the naked eye can't pick out the differences in detail and would I be just taking up unnecessary memory space taking and storing such large file types.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 2, 2016)

dowlers44 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > How are you viewing the NEF files?
> ...



In that case you're not seeing the raw files. Windows Picture/Photo Viewer is showing you the embedded JPEG. A copy of the camera generated JPEG is stored in the raw file and used for preview purposes.

It is possible to actually view a raw file as a photographic image but it doesn't look too good. Here's an example:






They look very dark and very green because you're seeing the CFA (color filter array) that's still in place on the image and no correction for the linear tone capture has been applied. There's no real point to displaying a raw file other than to understand and as an amusement.

Here's an enlargement of part of the above raw file so that you can see the CFA:





In terms of understanding, here's the important point: If at any time you've opened and are looking at a raw file and it doesn't look like the image above on your left (very dark and very green) then what you're seeing is a processed interpretation of that raw file. *Stress that term interpretation.* A team of software engineers have written a whole lot of code that processes your raw image data into an RGB photo and they in fact spent lots of time and lots of effort making decisions about how that code will make your photo look.

When the software in your camera creates a JPEG the raw file is similarly processed. You're shooting a Nikon camera and so the JPEGs that your camera creates result both from your efforts controlling the camera as you take the photo as well as the processing efforts coded by a bunch of Nikon software engineers.

The point of having the raw file is so that you can interpret the data as you see fit without having to start out relying on those Nikon engineers. However when you first open a raw file to work with it you're still going to run into a software interpretation of the data. In the case of raw photo processing you start with an interpretation handed to you by the engineers at Adobe or Phase One or DX0 or whatever company created your raw processing software. They all show you a processed image to start -- no real point in showing you the raw file. So they do a "first pass" processing the raw data and they basically hand you a toolset that lets you take it from there.

Here's an example. I took this photo yesterday and posted it here at TPF as my first photo of 2016.





Joe

EDIT: In defense of Fuji, I exclusively shoot and save only raw files and as such I only make adjustments on the camera that matter for that raw file I want. My camera has controls that I could have used in the field to influence how the camera software generates the JPEG photo and I could have used those controls to influence creation of a better JPEG. I don't bother to do that.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 2, 2016)

dowlers44 said:


> Ido said:
> 
> 
> > The different JPEG settings (Basic, Normal, and Fine) are different compression strengths. Fine uses the weakest compression, which retains the most detail and has the largest file sizes, while Basic is the strongest compression, which shrinks the files the most, and throws out the most data in the process.
> ...



If you're saving the raw NEF files then it doesn't really matter what you do with the JPEGs. I don't save them at all and yet I can't stop the camera from creating them -- I still get a JPEG embedded in all my raw files. A new JPEG at any quality level and resolution can always be re-generated from the raw file. Get your free copy of Nikon NX-D and you can create all three: Basic, Normal and Fine JPEG as often as you like. JPEG quality from the camera is really only an issue for photogs who don't save raw files.

Joe


----------

