/p/ - Photography » Thread #4156676

[40 / 5 / 23]

3MiB, 4608x3456, France.jpg

NEF to PNG file converter?

Anonymous Sun 19 Mar 2023 15:58:37 No.4156676 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4156683 >>4157188 >>4157220 >>4157249 >>4157257 >>4158495 >>4159082 >>4159548 >>4160066 >>4162848 >>4163927

I have a Nikon Z5 mirrorless and I've been shooting in RAW for the longest-ass time. The camera saves the images as 33MB .NEF files that I want to resize into smaller, more manageable PNGs. I can't find any decent file converters that can manage this though. Any ideas? Online tools are a no-go because the prospect of uploading multiple 33MB images is just complete fuckery, and I can't find any offline tools.

I have reaconverter but it's shit and the quality is ass.

Any suggestions? I browsed the wiki and found nothing
>picunrelated

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Mar 2023 16:08:02 No.4156681 Report

Quoted By: >>4156684

lol, simply fucking lol
good job OP, you made my evening

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Mar 2023 16:10:57 No.4156683 Report

Quoted By: >>4156685

>>4156676
>Any suggestions?
1. find out the differences between different image raw file formats (png, jpg, gif, raw/dng/nef/raf)
2. try to understand why you NEVER should use png for photos
3. either set your camera to raw+jpeg and use the jpegs, or get a raw converter (lightroom, capture one, darktable, rawtherapee) to edit your raws and export them as jpg
4. buy an external hard drive

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Mar 2023 16:11:02 No.4156684 Report

Quoted By:

>>4156681
i...im serious

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Mar 2023 16:12:15 No.4156685 Report

Quoted By: >>4157188 >>4157190

>>4156683
I thought PNGs are lossless while JPGs have a lot of loss/static/white pixels?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 12:52:26 No.4157180 Report

Quoted By:

Bumpity

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 13:47:59 No.4157188 Report

Quoted By: >>4157193 >>4159170

>>4156676
>I can't find any decent file converters that can manage this though
Because it's a dumb idea. RAW files need to be processed. If you are too lazy to do it yourself and only care about smaller file sizes, just shoot small JPG's. TIFF is also better if you want something better than JPG, but not quite RAW, and your camera shoot have that option.
>>4156685
If you keep opening, modifying and then saving your JPGs, you'll see degradation. If you're just exporting JPG's and using those for printing / sharing, you wont notice any degradation.

Storage is cheap, and if you don't care about image quality, you should have just gotten an older & cheaper camera. If you want to actually use your camera to it's abilities, shoot RAW and learn to process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 13:49:54 No.4157190 Report

Quoted By:

>>4156685
Well they can, doesn't mean they do, it all depends on the compression
A good JPEG for a modern camera will be between 10 and 20Mb, but the beauty of the format is that you can bring them down to mere Kbs if you need to

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 13:57:53 No.4157193 Report

Quoted By: >>4157195 >>4157262 >>4157301 >>4157374 >>4158090

>>4157188
>RAW files need to be processed. If you are too lazy to do it yourself and only care about smaller file sizes, just shoot small JPG's.
I want high quality photos for maybe printing and displaying some day, but I also want the ability to upload and share images with friends and family. I don't care about paying for more storage. It's not that I'm lazy to process them. I just don't know how.

>TIFF is also better if you want something better than JPG, but not quite RAW, and your camera shoot have that option.
I'll check it, thanks.

>If you keep opening, modifying and then saving your JPGs, you'll see degradation. If you're just exporting JPG's and using those for printing / sharing, you wont notice any degradation.
Oh, that's really good to know. I'll likely just shoot in JPG from now one.

>if you don't care about image quality, you should have just gotten an older & cheaper camera.
I had an Olympus EM-5 Mk II that took some nice pics and was really easy to upload to my phone. I switched to the Nikon Z5 when I went on a safari and never switched back. Maybe I will just switch back to the Olympus since it was lighter, easier to use, and took some banger photos.

So, is there any way to process or "recover" (for my purposes, any way) the .NEF photos I took so I can share them with family?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 14:01:50 No.4157195 Report

Quoted By:

>>4157193
as people told you before, use lightroom, rawtherapee or something to process them. Think of your nef as negatives, those programs let you make the "prints"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 15:20:06 No.4157220 Report

Quoted By:

>>4156676
Just pump them through rawtherapee on default settings

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 15:21:28 No.4157221 Report

Quoted By:

Do Nikon cameras have in-camera raw processing? OP most likely wants what is visible on in playback/preview.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 16:59:38 No.4157249 Report

Quoted By: >>4157257

>>4156676
You can't "convert" a RAW file to PNG, for two reasons:

1. The PNG would be larger anyway. A PNG is a compressed bitmap with 24-64 bits or color depth per pixel. A RAW file stores 12 or 14 bits of monochrome luminance data per pixel, so the RAW will be smaller than a theoretically lossless PNG.

2. PNG is basically a compressed bitmap, a list of color values for each pixel in an image with 24 or 32 bits per pixel. RAW files do not contain color, they contain 12 or 14 bits of luminance data per pixel and color is calculated by a program like Lightroom using a demosaic algorithm tuned to the Color Filter Array of the camera sensor. You cannot even in theory convert a RAW to PNG losslessly because you're inherently making an irreversible decision about demosaic.

Shoot compressed raw if your camera supports it, otherwise just shoot jpeg if you're so worried about space.

Or. Buy an external hard drive and learn Lightroom or something. The whole point of RAW is to make your own decisions about how it gets converted to a usable image, if you wanted this done for you that's what JPEG is for.

Your question is like "how do I losslessly convert 35mm film to 8x11 prints so I use less space storing film."

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 17:16:39 No.4157257 Report

Quoted By:

>>4157249
>>4156676

Here's an example using a more typical 24 bit PNG like you see 99% of the time.
> typical PNG = 24 bits per pixel, 8 bits each Red, Green and Blue
> typical 3x3 pixel PNG = 24 bits * 9 = 216 bits stored

> typical RAW = 14 bits luminance per pixel
> typical 3x3 pixel RAW = 14 * 9 = 126 bits stored

As you can see, the PNG will always be larger than a losslessly compressed RAW.

Also, note the RAW does not contain any color value! Color is interpreted after the fact by using the relative brightness of each pixel in relation to a colored filter on top of the pixel in the camera sensor, taking into account whitebalance and so on.

Additionally, there are 14 bits of luminance data vs 8 bits in a PNG, so deapite the PNG being larger, it looses data about highlights and shadows. The PNG stores only the interpreted colors and only at 8 bits of depth, so you can't go bakcwards from that and change whitebalance or color grading or anything and get a result at the same level of fidelity as if you did that with the RAW.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 17:21:04 No.4157262 Report

Quoted By: >>4157263

>>4157193
>
So, is there any way to process or "recover" (for my purposes, any way) the .NEF photos I took so I can share them with family?
Download Nikon NX Studio, which is Nikon's free RAW processor. You can import and export the RAW files in bulk as JPG.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 17:23:48 No.4157263 Report

Quoted By: >>4157301

>>4157262
Holy shit yes, you stupid nigger process them and save them as jpg

holy fucking retard piece of shit, 14 post and you cant even read a single one? you cocksucker inbreed motherfucker I bet your parents are cousins

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1679241517396487_.jpg, 371KiB, 1152x864

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 17:48:47 No.4157275 Report

Quoted By:

Quick edit

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 18:42:51 No.4157301 Report

Quoted By:

>>4157263
That was a misquote, meant to type
>>4157193
>So, is there any way to process or "recover" (for my purposes, any way) the .NEF photos I took so I can share them with family?
Download Nikon NX Studio, which is Nikon's free RAW processor. You can import and export the RAW files in bulk as JPG.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1678671699130944.jpg, 81KiB, 490x492

Anonymous Mon 20 Mar 2023 22:17:34 No.4157374 Report

Quoted By: >>4157376 >>4157549

>>4157193
> switching from full frame Nikon to MFT Olympus because you don't understand what a RAW file is and are too retarded to switch to JPG
Surely this is a troll

Ambush !!zJbpV0948+w

Ambush !!zJbpV0948+w Mon 20 Mar 2023 22:27:06 No.4157376 Report

Quoted By:

>>4157374
That would just be a normal pipe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 21 Mar 2023 13:03:54 No.4157549 Report

Quoted By:

>>4157374
>reducing all of the points someone makes to a single point
Yes, that is what you would call a "troll"

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Mar 2023 16:06:49 No.4158090 Report

Quoted By: >>4158093 >>4158497

I know this is a troll thread/stupid thread. But for any new friends reading:

>>4157193
>high quality photos for maybe printing and displaying some day
Save your pictures as TIFF, full resolution, 250dpi and 8bit color depth

>but I also want the ability to upload and share images with friends and family
Save your pictures at 2000px on the long side, JPEG, 72ppi with no more than 80% "quality" when exporting

You can't have both at once. You have one file for printing and one file for web use.

cinefag !CiNE/YT/e6

cinefag !CiNE/YT/e6 Wed 22 Mar 2023 16:12:02 No.4158093 Report

Quoted By: >>4158111

>>4158090
>8bit
>not 16
why?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 22 Mar 2023 16:49:12 No.4158111 Report

Quoted By:

>>4158093
Printers are usually overwhelmed by 16bit, resulting in more inaccurate colors.

Edit in 16bit to avoid gaps in the histogram (that usually only a computer can see). If you would feed this file to a printer that doesn't support a 16bit or more, the printer driver will handle the downsampling instead. If you converted the same file from 16 to 8bit beforehand, you noticed that the files look identically (just make sure not to edit the 8bjt version after).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Mar 2023 16:59:58 No.4158495 Report

Quoted By:

>>4156676
try NEF to DNG.
https://helpx.adobe.com/ph_en/camera-raw/digital-negative.html#downloads

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Mar 2023 17:03:33 No.4158497 Report

Quoted By:

>>4158090
>no more than 80%
Fuck off dialup fag. All my jpegs are 100% quality. Get better internet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 23 Mar 2023 21:08:12 No.4158605 Report

Quoted By:

I use 92 % 4:4:4 when converting raws to JPEGs and 85 % 4:2:2 when posting pics on /p/

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO a_DSC01270.jpg, 504KiB, 1272x1695

Anonymous Fri 24 Mar 2023 13:47:51 No.4158825 Report

Quoted By:

I learn some things from this thread. thx all

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Mar 2023 02:59:03 No.4159082 Report

Quoted By:

>>4156676
Adobe Bridge. Takes one second to convert all your Raws into pngs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Mar 2023 11:21:48 No.4159170 Report

Quoted By: >>4159204

>>4157188
>If you keep opening, modifying and then saving your JPGs, you'll see degradation.
>he doesn't know you can change the default jpg settings from 92 to 100...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Mar 2023 13:27:57 No.4159204 Report

Quoted By: >>4159418 >>4159462

>>4159170
>he doesn't know jpg 100 is still lossy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 25 Mar 2023 22:24:43 No.4159418 Report

Quoted By: >>4159491

>>4159204
>she doesn't know it makes no difference considering the use case

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Mar 2023 00:09:36 No.4159462 Report

Quoted By:

>>4159204
Especially if chroma subsampling is used it becomes horribly lossy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 26 Mar 2023 02:15:44 No.4159491 Report

Quoted By:

>>4159418
>If you keep opening, modifying and then saving your JPGs, you'll see degradation.
is true, even at 100

Art_repro_fag22

Art_repro_fag22 Sun 26 Mar 2023 06:18:34 No.4159548 Report

Quoted By:

>>4156676
as others have pointed out, this conversion doesn't make sense. Look into adobe dng converter if you want to reduce file size a bit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 27 Mar 2023 14:48:45 No.4160066 Report

Quoted By:

>>4156676
Adobe Bridge can do what you want through its export panel.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 03 Apr 2023 08:34:12 No.4162848 Report

Quoted By:

>>4156676
Your RAW is actually the most efficient storage possible for your high quality image data.
It's essentially a 24.3MP 14-bit greyscale. From that, a RAW processor can convert it into an interpolated 24.3MP color image.

If you are looking to dump your RAWs into color PNGs you'll be saving 24.3MP RGB data most likely in a 16-bit per color format which will actually lead to a LARGER filesize.

Keep your RAWs as RAW, but HDDs to archive them, and process some JPEGs from them if you're concerned about anything. You can find HDDs at under $20/TB easily.

>buy 8TB HDD for $150
>buy a second 8TB HDD for $150 (Backup)
>buy a third 8TB HDD for $150 (second backup, three is good)
>$450 spent, maybe $500 after tax.
Congratulations you can now store 240,000 perfect quality uncompressed RAW photos with redundancy.
That's $0.20 for every one hundred RAWs.
People who shot film back in the day would murder someone for the ability to effortlessly store that many photos and you're out here trying to be a cheap ass bum. Actually funny, but when you're used to low quality extremely compressed ~50kb social media images I guess ~30MB for a proper quality RAW seems excessive. Even though it's not.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO f_CIMG2662.jpg, 382KiB, 1083x1443

Anonymous Tue 04 Apr 2023 13:14:20 No.4163209 Report

Quoted By:

i love treating crappy jpgs like a raw

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 07 Apr 2023 02:04:05 No.4163927 Report

Quoted By: >>4168011

>>4156676

Nah, You should turn on uncompressed NEF and stockpile some HDDs

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Apr 2023 22:24:39 No.4168011 Report

Quoted By:

>>4163927
Terabytes cost money, bro.
But they're also incredibly cheap and $150 can likely store EVERY SINGLE RAW+JPG you shoot on a DSLR that has ever been taken for the whole lifetime of a camera, so, yeah.

Anyone buying a camera should be buying a HDD to store everything and they should be picky and cherry pick their favorites to back up onto redundant failsafe storage (like copied on to 4 mediums [1ssd, 2hdd, cloud] or more for archival like burning photosets to optical media)

Shit's cheap. Cheaper than people think.
35MB RAW? Literally not a big deal.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

NEF to PNG file converter?