I am wondering why DT renders this file differently than numerous other apps.
Is it possible this is a bug in DT?
If DT is rendering correctly, where would one even begin to process this file?
These screen captures are of the unprocessed file.
Feel free to download the file…
700_5910.NEF (34.6 MB)
What is the exposure module set to? By default, dt will compensate (or undo) exposure compensation set in camera… it’s been discussed quite a bit in the past actually. Check the exposure slider, and if it’s set to +3 or something crazy set to zero and see how that looks. If its still really odd there may be something else happening.
I have it set to zero. The default .7 is mostly not required in my files.
‘0 original’ at the beginning of the history stack is where the issue first appears.
Right, well there is something wrong somewhere. Any chance you could post the file, or another file with the issue? EDIT I must be blind - it’s already there sorry!
I’m no expert but it would help to have access to the problem.
Also, what camera model?
The file link is on the original post at the bottom.
Nikon D700 you can see the image info on the left of the screen capture.
Thanks, sorry, I found it right after I posted the question.
I’m downloading it now - will see what I can see…
I confirm the results you got in dt 4.3+287 - very odd, and certainly not how it’s supposed to be.
I tried the image in Rawtherapee and it looks much better, albeit still a bit noisy.
My knowledge is exhausted - but I’m sure someone else will be able to come up with something. Are other files from this camera the same?
Did you use the nikon software to download the images to your PC? That has been known to do some weird stuff to images. If you have the images on your SD card still, and can use your file manager to copy it over, please try that and post that raw file.
This is RT with the auto-match tone curve not applied - looks as you would expect.
I notice that in dt, all the black levels are 0, which suggests an issue with how the file is being read. Changing them doesn’t help at all though…
No. I have never used the Nikon software to copy the files to my hard dive. I plug in the SD card to the card reader and use Windows Explorer to copy and past.
Another thing that seems odd is the size of that .nef file - 34.6MB ! A file I downloaded online was 13MB, more in keeping with the 12MP resolution?
@dnlyko , is the problem specific to this file, or are other files from your D700 the same?
Good question. I will try some other files.
It is just that file. I opened the file before it and the one after and they both render fine.
Thanks for trying that. That suggests to me that it may actually be a corrupt file - but I have no idea why, if that is the case, that it renders fine in other software, including the open source RawTherapee.
I don’t know who would be best to ask about this for a more knowledgeable perspective - @g-man or @hannoschwalm maybe?
I’ve added a note to the thread title as there have been multiple ‘comparison’ threads but this is something else.
In the exif data there is a setting active called Advanced Raw…I wonder if that is the same on the other files…
It looks like the file was modified by Capture NX. Similar to what @paperdigits mentioned.
[IFD0] Make : NIKON CORPORATION
[IFD0] Camera Model Name : NIKON D700
[IFD0] Software : Capture NX 2.4.7 W
[IFD0] Modify Date : 2019:12:04 13:11:29
[IFD0] Artist : *******
[IFD0] Reference Black White : 0 255 0 255 0 255
[IFD0] Copyright : *******
[IFD0] Date/Time Original : 2019:11:29 01:00:55
[IFD0] TIFF-EP Standard ID : 1 0 0 0
[IFD0] Preview TIFF : (Binary data 204696 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Interesting… if the photos were not imported using NX maybe it happened when the photo was opened in NX… crikey! I thought any half-decent raw converter was non-destructive (for want of a better word) nowadays. Nikon!? 
What aspect of the changed metadata actually affects dt’s rendering?
Nikon has always stated their software is non-destructive.
Even if Nikon’s Capture NX did modify the file, it can still be opened and rendered correctly in all my other software, except DT. (I haven’t tried LightRoom, cancelled my subscription)
I have faithfully used all Nikon software versions since it’s inception. I own many other brands of RAW processing software, but I have never experienced better results from any of them.
I would really like to move my workflow into DT but this is a huge hurdle and it would seem to be a DT issue.
Yes, I’m sure it is in terms of the image data itself, but it is changing or adding some info in the file, which is evidently upsetting something fundamental in dt’s processing.
I suppose it’s just that dt was set up for the raw from the camera and there is something important different about the file after being handled by Capture NX… but again, I don’t how or what. As Rawtherapee handles it ok, it can’t be too drastic, but then… I can’t remember if RT uses a different library or whatever the term is