I'm in the process of scanning a lot of my 35mm and medium format film images on a Nikon Coolscan 9000 scanner. The scanner has the option of saving as a TIFF or NEF file format. Are there similiar advantages to saving a scanned image in a NEF format as there are in capturing a NEF image format in a digital camera? I'm using Adobe Lightroom 2.3 and Photoshop CS4 for my imaging editing and was wondering if there would be an advantage in keeping the original scan as a NEF file? Thanks!
I don't know about the advantages or disadvantages, but one thing that could be accomplished with some pain: find a good loupe with backlighting, and an adapter for a Nikon 50mm F1.8 prime lens, and take pictures of the slides! I suggested the 50mm F1.8 prime because of the quality, and the relative lack of DoF issues involved in taking pictures of slides. But I haven't done any scientific analysis to come to this conclusion.
Posted by Phillip Noll on March 4, 2009 at 4:31 PM
I'm converting all my raw files to DNG. Now that I am scanning in older slides, I am also converting those into DNG. Using VueScan to run my scanner gives me the option to save the scan directly as a DNG. I just find the DNG format to be a nice "container" for my digital information and it is open source so I don't have to worry about proprietary formats such as CR2 or NEF.
This way, all my "raw" files are DNG and I can use Lightroom on all of them. Once I start working on them in Photoshop, I usually save them as layered tiffs. Just my $0.02.
Are there similiar advantages to saving a scanned image in a NEF format as there are in capturing a NEF image format in a digital camera?
Not exactly.
Unlike RAW (NEF, etc.) camera image files, your film scans have already been developed via the scanning process itself before they even hit the image editor. This means that, as opposed to RAW camera files, you can't 'develop' the scanned files further in ACR/CS4 or Lightroom (e.g. white balance, color temp., etc.) without causing at least slight pixel damage to the image.
I'm not sure if there will be a whole lot of difference between the two scanned file formats, with the exception that the NEF file will probably be much smaller, while the TIFF format will in all likelihood have more longevity as a format than RAW files.
According to the e-book on CaptureNX2 the saving of jpegs or tiffs as nefs has the advantage of "meaning you can save the edit list along with the original image in a non-destructive manner." I don't know for sure how that translates into the scanning or if that only applies using the NX2 software.
Thanks all for the answers. John, the NEF files turn out the same size as the TIFF so I'm going to save them as TIFFS until I get them in Lightroom. Ultimately I'll save them as DNG as Phillip suggests but the scanner software doesn't give me that option.
I don't think there's any advantage to converting to DNG once they've already been TIFFs Bill. Just similar to the NEF option, once the data is processed into a TIFF by the scanner, you don't get new raw data by converting to DNG. You just get TIFF data stored a little differently.
Posted by Phillip Noll on March 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM
An interesting take on why you might want to convert a tiff/jpeg to dng:
Thanks Phillip - That's interesting. I still don't think I'd convert my things to DNG, but it would probably make sense in some people's business/workflow, where they found themselves making many versions of one file, or handing a file off among multiple people.
On the flip side of this argument from where many are recommending DNG, there was an article in Sunday Morning (CBS news program) about data rot. In that program, the library of congress was scanning to TIFF. The reason is that it is a stable mature definition, and lossless. DNG, despite Adobe's best efforts has not caught on. If DNG doesn't make significant inroads, the format will dead end and you'll find yourself with a need to migrate formats, which may or may not be a lossless process. Of course with time, the same will be true of TIFF.
A few reasons why I would (do) choose the TIFF format. First, the scanner records in 16bit. You aren't going to get any more bit depth than this, so the DNG doesn't buy anything for you. Second, if you wish to keep the TIFF pure, you can work from a copy of the original file and even have the option to work on the TIFF in ACR if you wish. Third, the availability of TIFF viewers is much greater than DNG viewers. As time progresses, the issue with digital media is not only data loss due to physical problems, but also data loss from an inability to read or convert the source.
Raw camera files may be another story, but those are all very good reasons to use TIFF format for scanned images, Mel.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on March 5, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that you not use RAW in camera. That's clearly the best choice in digital capture right now. But you do face the risk that the RAW file may not be supported at some time in the future. From this standpoint, I support Adobe's attempt to push camera makers to a common "RAW" format, but at the same time I understand the reasons the camera makers keep proprietary raw to maximize their system.
My scans are all TIFF files--uncompressed 8-bit. When I use my digital camera, I shoot in NEF and then convert them to TIFF. In both caees I create a PSD or a TIFF 'master file' that I then edit.
I find this works best for me and I always have the master file and the unedited TIFFs.
Like Preston I have used a Microtek Scanner for years and have always saved and worked in TIFF. A couple years ago I started scanning at 16 bit instead of the 8 bit software default setting. As a result with 8 pass scans I have lost most all noise issues that were hit and miss at times.
Discussion
13 repliesThis way, all my "raw" files are DNG and I can use Lightroom on all of them. Once I start working on them in Photoshop, I usually save them as layered tiffs. Just my $0.02.
Not exactly.
Unlike RAW (NEF, etc.) camera image files, your film scans have already been developed via the scanning process itself before they even hit the image editor. This means that, as opposed to RAW camera files, you can't 'develop' the scanned files further in ACR/CS4 or Lightroom (e.g. white balance, color temp., etc.) without causing at least slight pixel damage to the image.
I'm not sure if there will be a whole lot of difference between the two scanned file formats, with the exception that the NEF file will probably be much smaller, while the TIFF format will in all likelihood have more longevity as a format than RAW files.
I don't think there's any advantage to converting to DNG once they've already been TIFFs Bill. Just similar to the NEF option, once the data is processed into a TIFF by the scanner, you don't get new raw data by converting to DNG. You just get TIFF data stored a little differently.
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/03/converting_jpeg.html
On the flip side of this argument from where many are recommending DNG, there was an article in Sunday Morning (CBS news program) about data rot. In that program, the library of congress was scanning to TIFF. The reason is that it is a stable mature definition, and lossless. DNG, despite Adobe's best efforts has not caught on. If DNG doesn't make significant inroads, the format will dead end and you'll find yourself with a need to migrate formats, which may or may not be a lossless process. Of course with time, the same will be true of TIFF.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/01/sunday/main4836569.shtml
A few reasons why I would (do) choose the TIFF format. First, the scanner records in 16bit. You aren't going to get any more bit depth than this, so the DNG doesn't buy anything for you. Second, if you wish to keep the TIFF pure, you can work from a copy of the original file and even have the option to work on the TIFF in ACR if you wish. Third, the availability of TIFF viewers is much greater than DNG viewers. As time progresses, the issue with digital media is not only data loss due to physical problems, but also data loss from an inability to read or convert the source.
That's my take on this issue.
I find this works best for me and I always have the master file and the unedited TIFFs.
-P