Question about RAW *photo included*

[PhotoMama22]

Hey guys
Question...I have my camera set to take a picture in both JPEG & Raw...I usually never do anything with Raw because I just use my camera for fun (and am a newbie with my DSLR so just playing around)...I rarely do much editing...but tonight I decided to see what Raw was all about & took a pic of my hubby..when I put it in my editing program (PaintShop Pro X3) and then converted it from raw-jpeg I got THIS...if you can see there are red lines on the side of the picture...it seems to be happening to any photos that go from raw-jpeg..any suggestions or input as to why it does that?

 

[Ajlista]

Well, for a visual comparison and differences
http://www.aguntherphotography.com/files/reviews/canons3/raw-vs-jpg.jpg
And from what ive heard it offers more editing? I may be COMPLETELY wrong about that, haha so dont take my word too seriously

 

[reznap]

I wouldn't normally say this, but in your case I don't see the point of shooting in RAW. The file size is bigger and the photo will almost always look worse than if it was shot in jpg if it's not edited properly (think of RAW as undeveloped).

I have no idea what the red line is from but it's an easy crop anyway..

But yeah, unless you need top quality after heavy editing work, RAW isn't really necessary.

 

[iPhoto17]

Well, for a visual comparison and differences
http://www.aguntherphotography.com/files/reviews/canons3/raw-vs-jpg.jpg
And from what ive heard it offers more editing? I may be COMPLETELY wrong about that, haha so dont take my word too seriously

yeah, something about the the pixels not being compressed to smaller sizes so you get all true colors, something like that, and its apparently better for editing

 

[PhotoMama22]

I wouldn't normally say this, but in your case I don't see the point of shooting in RAW. The file size is bigger and the photo will almost always look worse than if it was shot in jpg if it's not edited properly (think of RAW as undeveloped).

I have no idea what the red line is from but it's an easy crop anyway..

But yeah, unless you need top quality after heavy editing work, RAW isn't really necessary.

Thanks so much.
Yah I also don't see the point in shooting in RAW but on another forum everyone's answer to everything is "try shooting in raw". It's not something I feel I need to be doing as I usually just take a picture & the most editing I will do it brighten it up a bit sometimes.

Thanks for your input!

 

[PhotoMama22]

Well, for a visual comparison and differences
http://www.aguntherphotography.com/files/reviews/canons3/raw-vs-jpg.jpg
And from what ive heard it offers more editing? I may be COMPLETELY wrong about that, haha so dont take my word too seriously

yeah, something about the the pixels not being compressed to smaller sizes so you get all true colors, something like that, and its apparently better for editing

Yah I think it's supposed to be better for editing however...I don't do anything that really needs a lot of editing & if I do it's mainly just brightening it up a bit..so I think I'll just be turning raw off-it's more of a headache for me right now LOL

 

[Jcampbelll]

RAW is only good if you are going to edit them. If you don't plan on editing them, shoot in Jpeg and you will be fine.

 

[photocist]

I would always recommend shooting in raw. Why not have all the information possible for the photo? Even if you do not edit heavily, you still gain tons of control over the final shot.

 

[reznap]

I would always recommend shooting in raw. Why not have all the information possible for the photo?

If you want to take photos, remove your SD card and take it to your friendly neighborhood print shop/lab, you can't do it with RAW. RAW requires you to take an additional step by editing each of your photos. For someone using the camera casually there really isn't a need for it.

 

[PhotoMama22]

Thanks everyone!
I think I will most likely just stick with shooting in Jpeg for now...maybe in the future I'll use some raw shots but I think it's a bit easier for me to just take a picture & load it on the computer or take it to my local print lab...

 

[Jcampbelll]

I would always recommend shooting in raw. Why not have all the information possible for the photo? Even if you do not edit heavily, you still gain tons of control over the final shot.

Not at all. :gah: RAW photos are really flat and dull straight out of the camera. Jpeg's look (some-what) processed out of the camera. So if you aren't going to edit the picture the Jpeg will look better over RAW. But if you are going to edit them you have more control over the picture if you shoot RAW. And you can take a lot more pictures on your SD card :thumbup:

 

[KmH]

yeah, something about the the pixels not being compressed to smaller sizes so you get all true colors, something like that, and its apparently better for editing

The pixels don't get compressed. A 10 MP Raw file is still a 10 MP file as a JPEG as long as JPEG Fine is used.

The image file size gets compressed. The file compression is mostly accomplished by throwing away color information. Raw files have at least 12-bits of color information per color channel. JPEG can only use 8-bits per color channel. My D300 12 MP, 12-bit raw files are about 12 MB in file size. Note: MegaPixels is not the same thing as MegaBytes.

Raw files are like film negatives, they have to be processed in a digital darkroom before they can be used.

JPEGs are like a polaroid, they are a finished photograph, not intended to be edited any further.

 

[table1349]

yeah, something about the the pixels not being compressed to smaller sizes so you get all true colors, something like that, and its apparently better for editing

The pixels don't get compressed. A 10 MP Raw file is still a 10 MP file as a JPEG as long as JPEG Fine is used.

The image file size gets compressed. The file compression is mostly accomplished by throwing away color information. Raw files have at least 12-bits of color information per color channel. JPEG can only use 8-bits per color channel. My D300 12 MP, 12-bit raw files are about 12 MB in file size. Note: MegaPixels is not the same thing as MegaBytes.

Raw files are like film negatives, they have to be processed in a digital darkroom before they can be used.

JPEGs are like a polaroid, they are a finished photograph, not intended to be edited any further.

:thumbup:

 

[Dominantly]

What about Nikons Capture software, does it allow for more intuitive processing as it is a factory program?
I have never used it, but I have heard good things.

 

[KmH]

You don't show any editing preferences. PM me if you would prefer I remove my edit of your photo. Your camera was not set to a white balance that matched the tungsten light in the room, which is why it has such an orangish overall color cast to it. As best I could from the small posted JPEG corrected the white balance, cropped, and brightened his teeth and eyes. I also removed a couple of facial blemishes and adjusted the exposure. The edit is for illustrative purposes.