Nikon D200 - Manual (Page 47)

the subject, instead of making big files when they aren't needed for flat subjects like blank
skies. Using the Optimal Quality option in BASIC JPG lets the file size grow to the same
size as JPG NORMAL if the subject needs it, and lets the file size shrink back to JPG
BASIC when it's not. Set the Optimize Quality JPG option in the D200 SHOOTING MENU.
Once set it stays this way even when the camera is green-dot reset.
JPG BASIC, Large, Optimal Quality, with sharpening
Now they look the same. The minor artifacts from the BASIC Size Priority JPG are mostly
gone. This is why I shoot at this setting. It looks great! If anything I see more detail in the
green tree in the JPG and more hard contrast between the wall and black tree in the NEF.
This is more a function of slight differences in the levels of the two files than differences in
sharpness or resolution. The wall is slightly lighter in the NEF.
JPG BASIC, Medium
Any increase in JPG quality to NORMAL or FINE wouldn't get any better, so I won't bother
comparing it. Data cheapskate that I am, I wonder how the smaller JPG image sizes
compare to the NEF? I shot this Medium JPG (also at BASIC and Optimal Quality JPG)
and then increased its image size in Photoshop to match the larger NEF. I added more
sharpening (200% @ 0.3 pixels) to get the best match to the NEF:
JPG BASIC, Medium (2,896 x 1,944), Optimal Quality, resized and sharpened
They are similar, but the detail is a little finer in the NEF. This is why I use this setting for
people, parties and sports. The image is 99% of the NEF, but the files are 1MB vs. 16MB
for uncompressed NEF. Viewed at any reasonable distance they would be the same.
Details are a very small part of total image quality.
JPG BASIC, Small
JPG BASIC, Small (1,936 x 1,296), Optimal Quality, resized and sharpened
The difference is visible at this extreme magnification. I see mostly JPG artifacts, and I see
them because they have been magnified with the increase in image size and the added
sharpening. Even at this 40" wide equivalent print size it's not at all awful.
Compressed vs. Uncompressed Raw
Seeing how well the BASIC JPGs look, why worry? I never even stepped up to NORMAL
JPGs, much less FINE, in this comparison. Take a look for yourself: the BASIC JPGs look
the same as the NEFs. Uncompressed raw makes 16MB NEFs and compressed raw
makes 9MB NEFs. I tried to make duplicate shots to compare. I gave up. The mechanical
exposure repeatability of my camera isn't stable enough to let me make two captures close
enough to see any possible difference between compressed and uncompressed raw.
People do see differences. They are seeing fluctuations in their technique shot-to-shot, not
differences due to the compression. Since the compression is lossless and the only
potential issue is some curve shaping, I wouldn't worry. I always use compressed raw if I
shoot anything raw. When I use raw I always use raw + JPG. I usually throw away most of
the NEFs if the JPGs are OK. Using this option saves me from having to convert the NEFs
to JPGs manually.
Test Details
I opened each file in Photoshop and cropped them. They were saved at 80% in Save to
Web, which shows you exactly what I was seeing on my screen. To open the NEFs I used
Nikon's free NEF opener that comes with the camera. Third-party NEF openers, like
Photoshop's Camera RAW don't have access to Nikon's secret sauce curves and will have
different colors. Then the NEF colors won't match the JPG.
PDF by Paul Deakin - 47 - © 2006 KenRockwell.com