Resaving new peg inside edited NEF raw file

Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
82
Location
KC, MO USA
Just curious if anyone knows of - after all these years - any software that has the ability to save a copy of a nef file that has been edited AND with a new edited jpg preview image inside. It seems Nikon software could easily do this as an OPTION for any particular file. Would be very valueable for viewing NEF files in other programs that use embedded preview jpg. Surprises me that I have not heard of this easy, valuable feature being added. If I recall, maybe Capture NX-2 kind of had this option but it was confusing.

Thanks.
 
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
82
Location
KC, MO USA
When you edit a nef in Photoshop a .xmp file is generated containing the results of your edit. When you reopen that nef file those values are applied in ACR. Does this help?
Something tells this is not the same as saving the edited jpg back inside the nef file so other programs can view the new edit.
 
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
13,258
Location
Northern VA suburb of Washington, DC
If I recall, maybe Capture NX-2 kind of had this option but it was confusing.
I think your memory is correct. I seem to remember that initially the information was written directly to the NEF and later they added the option to instead write the information to an .XMP file.

Once I switched from Capture NX-2 to Photoshop/ACR, I changed my workflow to include the creation of a full-size JPEG so I could view the edited image in my cataloging software.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
1,416
Location
Sacramento
Just curious if anyone knows of - after all these years - any software that has the ability to save a copy of a nef file that has been edited AND with a new edited jpg preview image inside. ... If I recall, maybe Capture NX-2 kind of had this option but it was confusing.
You are correct, the paid-for tool Capture NX-2 (CNX2), would by default save a full resolution jpeg to the .NEF file when the image was edited. So too would View NX2, the free image editing tool from Nikon. Both applications wrote an updated jpeg directly to the original file. Nikon has moved away from editing tools that modify the original file, using sidecar files to save the changes for a couple of good reasons. (1) If the original is not modified by the editor/application, it cannot be corrupted by the application due to a coding bug or some issue with the PC during the write phase. (2) It is easier to update software applications that are not tied directly to the format of the original file when saving the changes. Improperly save the new embedded jpeg or the edit data incorrectly and you could corrupt the original file ruining everything. (3) Decide to save the edit data in a different format and the sidecar file is the only file format you have to worry about dealing with/changing no matter the camera model. (4) The sidecar files are pretty compact, so the total size of a .NEF + sidecar file is much smaller than the space used by an edited .NEF + full resolution jpeg.

When you shoot raw, Nikon DSLRs save a low - medium quality full size jpeg into the .NEF. As I recall from using CNX2 with my D3, the embedded jpeg was about 3Mb for a 12Mb D3 NEF. A full resolution D3 jpeg from NEF with minimal compression is 8-10MB. When I would use Capture NX2 or View NX2 and the editor would overwrite the original jpeg with the edited jpeg, the .NEF files would grow by about 7-10MB due to the difference between the new high quality edited jpeg and the original low quality jpeg. Side car files are a fraction of the space.

Personally I also prefer the old way of saving the updated jpeg into the .NEF so that 3rd party tools can easily show the changes and you don't need to keep external full resolution copies to view the latest editing state, (which takes MORE disk space than CNX2 did), but the new way is "for the most part" a better way, which I have learned to accept. Didn't have much choice...

I have found that since the updates to NX-D have included the ability to do localized changes based on control-points, the tool is perfectly fine for my use 99% of the time. I have fine-tuned my in-camera Picture Controls (PicCon) setup to suite my desires and CNX-D fully supports the in-camera PicCon settings, so I start out with a known state that matches what my camera LCDs show at the time of the shoot. Stability of the latest CNX-D tool version is now pretty good on my home-built I-7 Windows PC. I miss having the masking capability that allowed for localized sharpening in CNX2, but I have just worked to improve my in-camera settings and image quality at time of capture to compensate.
 
I have fine-tuned my in-camera Picture Controls (PicCon) setup to suite my desires and CNX-D fully supports the in-camera PicCon settings, so I start out with a known state that matches what my camera LCDs show at the time of the shoot.
I'm confident you realize that when you are using your camera's LCD to review the image you are viewing the embedded JPEG, whereas when you review the image on your computer monitor you are viewing the converted raw file. There might be slight differences.

When you shoot raw, Nikon DSLRs save a low - medium quality full size jpeg into the .NEF.
Only as a point of interest, I seem to remember that beginning with about the D50 or D80, the camera embedded a full-resolution JPEG. I don't know what the more modern models do, but it would make sense for the reasons you mentioned that they would embed a lower resolution JPEG.
 

Growltiger

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
12,324
Location
Up in the hills, Gloucestershire, UK
Only as a point of interest, I seem to remember that beginning with about the D50 or D80, the camera embedded a full-resolution JPEG. I don't know what the more modern models do, but it would make sense for the reasons you mentioned that they would embed a lower resolution JPEG.
Yes, full resolution but medium or low quality. The quality refers to the amount of compression not to the resolution. High compression means low quality.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
1,416
Location
Sacramento
I'm confident you realize that when you are using your camera's LCD to review the image you are viewing the embedded JPEG, whereas when you review the image on your computer monitor you are viewing the converted raw file. There might be slight differences.
Yes, you are correct. However to my knowledge and based on my experience, the difference is mostly due to the color fidelity of the uncalibrated camera LCD and the high compression level of the embedded image.

I find that there is not (for my eyes) a noticeable difference between embedded JPEG and raw review. The camera uses the selected PicCon curves/values to create the full size, high compression level JPEG seen in the camera LCD. The editor, if it is NX-D or V-NXi, will use the same PicCon curves/values to display the image on the computer monitor if you have Use 'camera compatable' picture control settings set.* Other editors and viewers have to use their own interpretations of the raw data, so that can induce large differences. The Nikon editors use the same curves and adjustments you set in-camera, except that the monitor displayed image is without JPEG compression. Therefore the result on the PC monitor is possibly better color shading and possibly fewer artifacts than the heavily compressed embedded in-camera image. Due to the small form factor of the camera LCD limiting my ability to see artifacts and subtle shade transitions, for all intents and purposes, what I see on the little LCD is essentially the same image as that which I see on the big LCD. That's why I stick to using the Nikon converters, the results on the back of the camera are repeated in the computer so closely. The less time I spend working on images in post process, the more time I have to shoot.

*I have found that the CNX-D editor has 2 PicCon options: 1) Use camera compatible and 2) Use latest PicCon settings. The difference is substantial for some images. The 'latest PicCon settings' option is very close to the camera compatible settings in colors and shades, with a bit more contrast and a bit less "brightness". I tend to use the 'camera compatable' option generally. I use 5 in the camera for default PicCon sharpness and if ISO is below 400 leave it alone in the editor. Above ISO 400 and I switch to USM 35+/-5 : 13+/-2 :12 +/-3. I have found that 35/13/12 will provide similar sharpness as PicCon 5, with a noticeable drop in sharpening noise. My goal is always to get it as close to finished in the camera as possible. RAW allows me to fudge the WB as needed later.

Only as a point of interest, I seem to remember that beginning with about the D50 or D80, the camera embedded a full-resolution JPEG. I don't know what the more modern models do, but it would make sense for the reasons you mentioned that they would embed a lower resolution JPEG.
Yes, as far as I know, you are correct, all of the the modern models do the same. Full resolution with high jpeg compression as Mike Buckley stated. It saves space in the .NEF and that saves write time to buffer and media. For paid gigs I have used my own, or rented and shot with D5, D3, D850, D500, D7200, D7100, D300 and used a D200 and Df for personal stuff. All work essentially the same as far as I can tell in regards to the embedded jpeg.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom