I would SO LOVE to NOT shoot in Raw, but I have, like, 80 hot pixels. And my camera is 2 years old. Is there anything I can do? Is there any software I can buy? Is there any way I can fix it with out spending a ton of money that I don't have?

Unfortunately, I didn't know what hot pixels were when I bought the camera. I didn't even know what ISO was. I learned everything I know about photography on that camera, and the more I learn, the more I can't bare to live with it.

I dream of shooting jpegs...

Does anyone else have this problem?

So depressing....

I think they can be mapped out by Nikon.

really? Even on Jpegs? Does it cost money? How can I get this done?

It's not a jpg-raw thing, it's a sensor thing. They go in and kill individual pixels so they are not part of any image here on out.

I hate shooting jpg... Why would I want to shout jpg? I don't understand photographers that insist in sooting weddings in jpg... it is harder to process... Why would I choose an inferior methods of capturing images when I have raw? I may be missing something but I just don't understand it. Everything I have read tells me that RAW is way superior... so why jpgs? and what does that have to do with the D200?

Punam,

I know that the information I lent you suggests shooting jpg, but don't be fooled by it.
Jpeg is a cruel mistress. Stay safe, shoot RAW. Especially if you are shooting with a D200.

Jpg may save downloading time, and of course, save storage space - but I had a fling with Jpg earlier this year (after 5 yrs of shooting RAW) and regret ever doing it. I am back home to RAW now, and my images look right again.

Don't be fooled - stick with RAW.

well, I started out shooting jpeg, and it was fine. Until all the hot pixels. now that I shoot Raw, though, it's like lightroom doesn't know what to do with it. Whe I shoot in jpeg, the colors in the camera are the same on my screen. When I shoot in Raw, the colors are muddy and orange, but for one brilliant second, before it totally loads, the colors are just how I wanted them. And it is just so disappointing when it loads, and suddenly snaps to those horrid colors I have to fight so hard against. So. Am I doing something wrong here? Because I really felt so much more flexible shooting jpeg, other than that pesky little problem of my hot pixels.I end up spending so much time trying to get those nasty colors out of my pictures, and its the same in nikon capture, nikon nx, adobe bridge, and on both my computers. So. Any suggestions? Am I missing something? Plus, my computer is freezing all the time, and after editing 20 pictures I have to restart lightroom. I know that means I probably need to get more processing power, but I can't afford it. I even cleaned out my whole imac and reinstalled the system. I don't have that problem when I shoot with jpeg. But if I could shoot raw, and it made my life easier, I would do it forever. Especially on my D200. If I could somehow get those colors off my camera and onto my screen, I would say to you, jpeg, who?

One day, I will be a rockstar, and I will have 8 Nikon D3's and I'll fly to Fiji first class at a moments notice with 100gb of memory cards for famous people's weddings, and I'll have a G5 with 8 terabytes and 16gb of ram! But, that's not tomorrow . Tomorrow, I have to edit 20gb of raw files on an external drive that make my poor imac cry. But I do have an interview at the apple store! Yumm...

I suggest buying a good book on RAW. You may be basing decisions on misinformation.

The only reason jpgs appear to be "better" color is because it was processed by the camera. a RAW file is not processed by the camera but must be process in your computer by software designed for it. jpgs are "better" only in the surface but not were it counts.

ANd there lays why RAW is way much better than jpg.

1. jpgs are 8 bits while raw are either 12 or 14 bits... that means that RAW has more image information, more color information than jpg.

2. RAW has more dynamic range... that means more tonalities between white and black. It mean also that you will blow your white earlier on a jpg than in a raw file, and that you can recover more highlites data because of the more data in a RAW file.

2. White balance... when shooting jpg you must select WB correctly while on RAW files you can select the white balance in camera and then change it completey in the computer without any damage to the bits.

While LR and Aperture allows you to do some corrections to jpg files "like" you were working on a RAW file, you don't have the same flexibility, range or effect over the image as with RAW.

Any way you look at it, RAW file is better if you want to have the best possible outcome and the most control over your images.

I'm going to try to answer your HOT PIXEL QUESTION

(Johnny, can I get a hallelujah?? )

You said you use Lightroom. I know you can't create a spot cloned preset (which is dumb, I'm going to complain about that on the LR forum right now)

----------------------------
Creating an image to sample from

Shoot an image of the back of the lens cap on about F16, 3 seconds. This should be a totally black image with just the hotspots.

Download that image to c:\program files\adobe\lightroom
Import the image to Lightroom.

In develop tab make the navigator say at least 3x for magnification.

Click N to bring up the heal/clone tool and click "Heal" Make the cursor size as small as possible.

Fix all of the hotpixels by clicking directly on them with the smallest cursor possible.
----------------------------

When you are done a shoot, go to this image in Lightroom, press Ctrl+Shift+C to copy settings. Check none, then check "spot removal" - this will grab ALL of the spot removal/hot pixel fixes from the sample image.

Go back to the images you worked on, click Ctrl A to select all, paste the settings with Ctrl+Shift+V.

Press sync and check only the spot removal button. Sync.

ALL of your hotpixels should be gone. Until LR lets you make a spot removal preset, that's about the best you can do.

Hallelujah!

Matt is the ON topic King!
Way to go Matt!


Punam, sorry to have gone off topic...

Have your pixels mapped.
Or do what Matt suggested - he rocks the LR!

That's an awful lot of bad pixels. I have just recently noticed one - on one of my three cameras (20D and two 10D's). You must have a bad sensor.

I've had my D200 for a couple of years now and it is beautiful. Not a bad pixel to be found. My only complaint is the meter being a little on the low side, but that is easily compensated.

Matt is the man for creative sue of lightroom (etc) to solve problems. If that fix isn't working for you, take the time and $ to have the sensor looked at by Nikon. It might be bad or need to be mapped. Either way - it is worth it to not have this stress.

As far as raw and presets, you might just need to build some for yourself that give you what you want. Are you shooting Custom White Balance? That will help you get better RAW or JPEGs in the end. Balance off a gray card, balance smarter target or other thing. It will pay off.

If you are nailing the exposures, getting the correct white balance and keeping track of the details, you should be able to use lightroom for a quick run through for selects and rejects, add a custom tweak or two and then do the creative toning on selects. The rest process and sharpen. Done. Think of it as shooting RAW like a jpeg. If you do have a catastrophe, you can move through it. For me, RAW processing is more about creative control and adding a custom curve, vignette and a touch of vibrance. The less time you have to spend on each individual image, the more time you have to make your selects even better.

Good luck.

Hey Punam,

Yeah I hate that when the pics are done loading the nice colors go away!! but if you open up the NEF files through Preview, do you see the same color as in Lightroom after loading?

I would like to know where the nice color comes from.

I did this way back when I realized my problem and I was shooting in jpeg. The problem with it is that in some pictures it created wiered spots around the image. I ended up having to go through each image individually and repositioning the cloned area. But we are on the same page though <img src="style_emoticons/default/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />.<br />

Thanks for all your suggestions! Yes, I do need to learn more about RAW. Also, the image looks great in preview and crappy in everything else. I feel like every time I am dealing with images shot in a new room, with a new color tempurature, I have to start all over again, tweaking each image so people don't look orange, yellow or red. So I haven't been able to come up with a solution to make a preset for everything, because it seems that different twaeks do not apply to all the images. Argh! It's frustrating. I think I do have a bad sensor.

But here is another peculiar thing. I was experimenting with new methods of obtaining yummy skin tones, so I took an image off someone's blog that had skin tones similar to what I was going for so I could sort of tweak and compare. So, it was a jpeg that I got off the internet, and when I put it in lightroom, with no presets running - it tunred red, too! It was a slightly different color in every application i opened it in. Is that suppose to happen? I thought our monitors were supposed to be calibrated for consisten color or something. Can someone educate me on this or point me to a book about RAW or color management?

thanks for all the input, guys!

<br />

so that is my biggest problem switching to raw. I feel like I shoot accurately enough that sometimes my JPG need absolutely no adjustment for proofing, but my RAW's are just so different. I feel like working in the raw conversion softwares that I'm loosing time and efficiency! For those of you that have switched effectively, what are you doing differently?

And as far as Matt's instructions... man you rock! Can the same kind of thing be done with dust spots? I knew there had to be a way to batch dust spotting. Is this it?

It should be noted that if you use Nikon's software (Capture NX), it will honor your in-camera settings, even for RAW (if I'm not mistaken). So that could be a solution for you if you want to shoot RAW but have instant, in-camera results when you open up the images on your computer.

My problem with Capture NX is that I have been using Photoshop for 10 years and it's like second nature. Also, Capture NX ran super slow on my computer. Unusable.

Sorry to hear you are having a hard time with your D200. The D200 is my favorite body ever (I have 3). The only problem that I had with one of them is the rubber falling off the body. I just sent it in for repair a few weeks ago.

Assuming you have a backup body, I would ship that baby to Nikon Repair and have them take a look. It will cost $ but it is a lot cheaper than buying a new camera.

Here is a link for an online form for repair submission.
http://form.nikonimagesvcapprove.com/

I echo your comments about Capture NX. It's really nice software, but it is so slow and I just don't have the patience. I do pull it out of the toolbox and use it for images that are in need of an HDR type treatment; exposure variances throughout the image that prevent a uniform adjustment. Capture NX control points are much quicker in solving those types of issues than Photoshop. Otherwise, LR and PS for me.