raw images

[asfixiate]

Stupidity has nothing to do with it. Laziness, ignorance more likely.

 

[Harmony]

Wow. The last half of this thread has been extremely disrespectful to the OP.

To the OP: shooting in RAW is more desirable, but if you have no want to learn how to post process photos, why not let your camera do it and shoot in JPEG? However, it's highly recommended that you do learn. Some cameras have the function to shoot and save one RAW, one JPEG. It uses TONS of memory, but that way you can edit some and not edit others...

 

[asfixiate]

sorry it looks that way when really its a side bar that could probably be moved from the thread. jerry asked why and we gave our opinions. We werent directing towards the OP.

Sorry Polock.

 

[Alfred D.]

Stupidity has nothing to do with it. Laziness, ignorance more likely.

If a poster assumes, as many seem to do, that they are posting a unique question that was never asked before and therefore does not have an answer floating around that they can search around and Google for first, then that is stupidity in my book.
Sorry, I call 'm like I see 'm.

 

[asfixiate]

everyone is entitled to my opinion....I mean their opinion.

 

[Mav]

should i be saving in raw format if i have no clue about editing yet?

No, shoot JPEG. Don't listen to all the dorks here who will try to claim that RAW is the "holier" of the formats. JPEG is perfectly fine for most uses. There are pros and cons to both, and I'd strongly suggest reading some of the other threads on this. There's two in the FAQ thread now which is on the first page but not stickied.

also to sum a few questions up in one post.... what ISO should i use for outside nature landscapes

The lowest ISO your camera will shoot at will give the most dynamic range and the least noise, and the best overall quality. So long as you have good light, you won't even need a tripod.

 

[Alfred D.]

Hey! Mav! No need to start calling names!

Photo file formats are tools. Use the appropriate tool for the type of photography you do and the images you aim to create.
And, conveniently, you can change the photo file format you shoot when you do different types of photography. So it makes sense to know the pros and cons of each photo file format in order to be able to make an informed choice which to use.

 

[Helen B]

should i be saving in raw format if i have no clue about editing yet?

If you have yet to explore the possibilities of post-production, I suggest that you shoot in Raw until you know for yourself whether or not JPEG is adequate for your kind of photography.

Best,
Helen

 

[Mav]

If you have yet to explore the possibilities of post-production, I suggest that you shoot in Raw until you know for yourself whether or not JPEG is adequate for your kind of photography.

Best,
Helen

But how would they be able to figure out whether JPEG is suitable for them or not if they're shooting in RAW?

 

[Helen B]

Simple. Just use the default JPEG conversion (ie the one that reads the camera settings and applies them) in your Raw converter.

If you shoot JPEG you will never know what you could have done with the same image if it had been shot in Raw.

Best,
Helen

 

[Mike_E]

Hi Polock, how about a free RAW editing tool? At least to play around until you decide.

http://www.rawtherapee.com/

It's pretty good, not as good as one you pay $110 or much more for but it will get you started.

Good luck





P.S. you have mail

 

[Mav]

Simple. Just use the default JPEG conversion (ie the one that reads the camera settings and applies them) in your Raw converter.

If you shoot JPEG you will never know what you could have done with the same image if it had been shot in Raw.

Best,
Helen

Every RAW converter seems to have different interpretations of how to apply those cameras settings and you end up with something different. Sometimes very different and far from what the camera would have done for you, and not in a good way either. You'll never know just how good the in-camera JPEG processing can be unless you give it a shot. My now older Nikons are great, and the newer ones even better, but I know other systems are not as good in this respect. But most people will never even need the added capabilities of RAW anyways, so why recommend it as a default to beginners?

 

[Helen B]

It's very easy to find out if your Raw converter gives similar results to the in-camera converter.

I'm suggesting that Raw is a good option if you don't yet know whether you require Raw or JPEG. You can always go from Raw to JPEG, you can never go from JPEG to Raw. It's just my suggestion. You have a different opinion. It's no big deal. I'm not going to call you a dork because you have a different opinion.

Best,
Helen

 

[dEARlEADER]

Every RAW converter seems to have different interpretations of how to apply those cameras settings and you end up with something different. Sometimes very different and far from what the camera would have done for you, and not in a good way either. You'll never know just how good the in-camera JPEG processing can be unless you give it a shot. My now older Nikons are great, and the newer ones even better, but I know other systems are not as good in this respect. But most people will never even need the added capabilities of RAW anyways, so why recommend it as a default to beginners?

I agree.... I get three different results importing .nef(RAW) files with Picasa, PS elements, and Nikons ViewNX.... ViewNX seems the only one capable of representing the RAW file using all of the incamera adjustments that I made during the shoot...

I'm with Mav... I wouldn't recommend RAW for beginners.... there is plenty of quality in JPEG and in my opinion... noob's should be focusing on getting their incamera settings right in the first place.... the rookie shooting errors can still be corrected in jpeg if desired... it's unlikely the noob is going to be selling their work... and the whole RAW process can just bog down the learning process....

learn how to use your camera..... learn your post processing in JPG..... when you start getting better.... decide where you want to go....

you can do either and succeed so there is no wrong decision.... but shooting RAW adds conversions, potential colour space problems, potential software problems not reading your propriatary RAW files correctly... among other things.. If I sat with you I could show you one of my RAW pictures and the same picture converted to JPEG and you would not be able to tell any difference.... so why complicated things further? (at this point)

 

[Mav]

It's very easy to find out if your Raw converter gives similar results to the in-camera converter.

I'm suggesting that Raw is a good option if you don't yet know whether you require Raw or JPEG. You can always go from Raw to JPEG, you can never go from JPEG to Raw. It's just my suggestion. You have a different opinion. It's no big deal. I'm not going to call you a dork because you have a different opinion.

Best,
Helen

Helen I just question the "forum consensus" of by default recommending that beginners shoot RAW when they already have far more important things to deal with and learn like shutter speed, aperture, ISO, composition, how to use their camera properly, how to use their lenses well, etc. The Nikons that most beginners seem to be going with nowadays don't even give you any RAW editing software so now that's yet more stuff to buy for beginners, who are already cash strapped. I just loaded that free one that Mike suggested above onto Vista and, well, you get what you pay for that's for sure.

To me this violates the KISS rule. Keep It Simple, Stupid. IMHO it needlessly complicates the DSLR learning process which is already a pretty steep curve to climb for many. Not everybody is the graphic artist type.