Filed under: Software
Camera RAW Conversion 1.0
Since purchasing my Nikon D70 last month, I've been taking lots of pictures in a variety of formats, and loving the camera. As many of you who use these high-end Digital SLR cameras know, the best way to shoot is in RAW, but it's also the most data hungry format that doesn't always play nicely with your image-editing program of choice.MacScripter today points to Camera RAW Conversion 1.0, an Automator action that handles batch conversion from "Camera RAW to Photoshop or other formats. Works with most Digital Cameras that support RAW format. " Looks to be a possibly very useful addition to my digital picture taking workflow. Check it out.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tom Edwards said 3:47PM on 6-16-2005
What's wrong with iPhoto?
Reply
teece said 4:17PM on 6-16-2005
iPhoto doesn't support the RAW format that the D70s uses, for one thing.
Another option, that I have decided upon, is Adobe's free DNG converter. Photoshop does not natively support the D70s raw format. Nikon provides a photoshop plugin, but it sucks something fierce, as it's horrendously slow and poorly designed, and intentionally crippled unless you buy Nikon Capture, which still sucks (I refuse to pay $100 for software so bad). I've used the RAW converter action, but it's not what I was looking for, either. It requires converting the image to PSD or PPM, both of which will greatly blow up the file size (with my D70s, from around 5-6 MB to around 20 MB).
The really cool thing about converting the NEF to DNG is that you can then open the raw file with Adobe's Camera Raw plugin for Photoshop (something which can't otherwise be done for a D70s NEF. I don't think that applies for a D70). The ACR plugin is *the* way to go as far as manipulating the raw image goes, so I was happy to be able to use it. An Adobe DNG file is still a raw format, and thus is very small, at about 5 MB for my 6 MP D70s, which saves tons of space on storage.
You have to get Adobe DNG convertor 3.1 to be able to use it on D70s files. I use Photoshop CS with ACR 2.4. Interestingly, it seems that only the 3.1 DNG converter is able to open D70s NEF files, neither ACR 2.4 or 3.1 (for CS and CS2, respectively), or DNG convertor 2.4 are able to do it.
Go figure.
Reply
Bjoern Kriews said 4:33PM on 6-16-2005
RAW files are supported in every Cocoa app that uses NSImage etc. in Tiger - you can also import/export with iPhoto.
Reply
Chris K said 10:19AM on 6-17-2005
iPhoto's RAW conversion REALLY stinks. iPhoto was one of the main reasons I got a Mac after a nine year absence, and I was VERY disappointed in iPhoto (and not just the RAW conversion, but I digress).
iPhoto essentially converts your image to JPEG as a first step. From that point you edit the JPEG itself. This defeats the entire purpose of shooting RAW! You lose the 12-bit dynamic range, you lose the white balance adjustment, and the image is saddled with JPEG artifacts. Steve Jobs sold us snake oil this time.
I use my PC these days for photo work (there's no image browser on my Mac that can compare with the speed of Picasa or ACDSee) but the two best RAW converters out there (Capture One and Adobe Camera RAW) are both available for OSX. I have heard Bibble is good, too, and that's also available for OSX.
If you shoot a lot of RAW, try out Capture One. It's a great app, and can really speed your workflow if you shoot 100+ RAW images in a shoot.
Does this converter allow you to adjust the image, or is it merely a RAW-to-JPEG converter like iPhoto?
Reply
teece said 12:36PM on 6-17-2005
Are you asking about Adobe DNG converter, Chris K, or CameraRaw Convertor?
CameraRaw convertor has extremely minimal (and command line, at that) ability to edit the RAW file. So yeah, it, too, defeats the purpose of having a RAW file. There is a Gimp plugin, but I was not all that happy with it.
That's why I use DNG convertor, as I get to edit the RAW file with Adobe Camera Raw before I import it into Photoshop. The difference in changing exposure and shadows etc. in a RAW file vs. a JPEG is big. Really big. If you can't do that with your RAWs, you might as well not use them. The differences are smaller if you edit the TIFF, PSD, or PPM file, but it is still better making changes from the RAW file.
Reply
Chris K said 1:34PM on 6-17-2005
I was referring to Photoshop's built-in Adobe Camera RAW converter. The one that pops up the big dialog box with tabs to adjust shot settings. I'm not sure if the same converter is used for Adobe DNG... I've never used it.
ACR is great, however. The CA fixer is very nice, and a great reason to shoot anything with foliage in RAW if you have a cheap WA lens like I do.
Reply
teece said 3:14PM on 6-17-2005
Ah, yes then Chris, Adobe Camera Raw supports DNG raw files just like any other that it supports, so you can do everything with the ACR open dialog. It is very nice.
DNG is just Adobe's hope that the industry will standardize on one raw format, that they just happen to create. So DNGs are yet another raw format (YARF?).
If your camera format is already supported by ACR, DNG doesn't get you much (although supposedly they are just slightly smaller than the average RAW). Well, it gets your precious data into a publicly documented format, so that's something. But for me, it is a Godsend because ACR does not support the NEF files that my D70s creates.
Reply
bhavesh patel said 6:57PM on 6-17-2005
i love the D70...isn't it such a fun camera?
regarding RAW as the best way to shoot, i would say that is only halfway true. obviously, it is the highest quality, and then you can do anything you want with the images later. i think this is important for those shots you really want to get EXACTLY right.
however, if you consider how long it takes to process RAW after you get it to your computer, it's actually very time consuming, and often times, your results aren't that much better than letting the camera handle the work.
i'm not sure i understand the purpose of a "batch converter" for RAW. As far as I'm concerned, the reason to shoot RAW is so that you can manipulate ISO, White Balance, Sharpness, etc after the shot is already taken. Each image is going to be different, and require different settings, so why would you run them in a batch?
the only thing i can think of is so that you can get a folder full of jpegs to look at, and then see what you want to do with them; but then, why not just shoot them in RAW+JPG?
i guess the only other thing I can think of is if you have the same adjustment to make on several similar images. for me, that doesn't happen too often.
bhavesh
Reply