[ukbluetooth]

Also, shooting RAW, you gain the ability to change any of the settings after the fact for more practical reasons as well--say a mistake in White Balance or a flash that didn't go off.

.

Well yes of course I agree and in fact that is my point. RAW is really useful if you mess up the shot. I am rarely in the situation that a single shot is that important - mainly into landscapes, architecture, flora, stars (not movie ones unfortunately) and natural lighting. If the shot/hystogram dont look right - make a correction and shoot it again.

Of course RAW works for you and if I was doing something for somebody else (such as a wedding) then I would take every precaution I could including RAW and possibly a couple of film cameras too.

But for what I do, jpg out of the camera always seems to me better (more "real" and more authentic colours) than what I achieve with pulling all the sliders in photoshop.

No doubt it is my inability to achieve what I want in Photoshop. As far as I am concerned these clever Pentax people who devised the in-camera RAW to JPEG software have made a better job of it than I can.

[emalvick]

I think the best indication of whether someone should use RAW or not is if whether they tend to use Photoshop (or other editor of choice) or not frequently. What I mean is that if you are shooting JPG but you tend to do edits to the photo anyway, than you should probably shoot in RAW from the beginning. While you may not notice a difference, the file you are starting from in JPG has already had some processing and is lossy. Further processing degrades the photo further.

Starting from RAW you are already at the stage before any losses have occurred. You can make edits or stick with the original before you even get to Photoshop. If you save things as Tiff and make your corrections, you may never have any losses or just one if you need JPG for printing or web.

Now if you don't edit at all and you are perfectly happy with the images in your JPGs, then you don't need RAW images. Many people are that way, and that is good. If you aren't changing your images than you won't really lose any information, and you'll save yourself the time of processing. I wish I was that way as I find editing and processing images (Raw or JPG) tedious. Instead, I am my own worst enemy and constantly criticize and tweak my shots.

Ultimately, I don't think there is a right or wrong except what is right for you.

Erik

[stevilcornevil]

This might be slightly off topic, or deserving of a new thead, but I'll try it here for now.

I use Photoshop Elements 5, and have been messing around with RAW shooting just a little bit. When I use the RAW editor and get the settings how I like them, then the next thing to do is save the file. This is where I find things a little confusing. If you hit the save button in the editor, it doesn't seem to me that it changes the RAW settings on the original photo to your updated settings. After hiting save, there is no way to exit out of the help menu other than hitting the cancel button, so that might be why I'm having troubles getting my color corrections to stick. It seems like I'm just missing a simple concept or two regarding RAW editing using Elements 5.

Also I'm wondering if the file needs to be changed to a JPEG before you send it to a photolab for printing? Anyone know how to do that using Elements? I haven't been able to find any thing that answers my questions in the internal help menu, so any assistance here is greatly appreciated.

[deludel]

This might be slightly off topic, or deserving of a new thead, but I'll try it here for now.

I use Photoshop Elements 5, and have been messing around with RAW shooting just a little bit. When I use the RAW editor and get the settings how I like them, then the next thing to do is save the file. This is where I find things a little confusing. If you hit the save button in the editor, it doesn't seem to me that it changes the RAW settings on the original photo to your updated settings. After hiting save, there is no way to exit out of the help menu other than hitting the cancel button, so that might be why I'm having troubles getting my color corrections to stick. It seems like I'm just missing a simple concept or two regarding RAW editing using Elements 5..

I just upraded to Elements 6.0 from 5.0 .. and the full edit in 6.0 is a lot easier to navigate, less confusing in the saving arena .. with that said .. I think all you need to do is "Save As" instead of "save" .. that way you create a new file. I have not shot/edited RAW yet, but I think it's the basic concept of the full editor you are getting at here.

If you do need more info, I'd try the "Post Processing" forum (Post Processing and Software - PentaxForums.com)

Also I'm wondering if the file needs to be changed to a JPEG before you send it to a photolab for printing? Anyone know how to do that using Elements? I haven't been able to find any thing that answers my questions in the internal help menu, so any assistance here is greatly appreciated.

Again, haven't done RAW conversions in Elements yet, but I remember that when you "Save As" in general, you get two boxes:
1st - it asks you WHERE to save the file
2nd - a box asks you about JPEG quality .. so I think you use the options in that box for saving the file type.

I'm not at home w/ Elements right now (at work .. shhh ) but I've been saving a lot of edited files recently, and I think I have it close, if not right!

Good luck!

[NaClH2O]

Well yes of course I agree and in fact that is my point. RAW is really useful if you mess up the shot. I am rarely in the situation that a single shot is that important - mainly into landscapes, architecture, flora, stars (not movie ones unfortunately) and natural lighting. If the shot/hystogram dont look right - make a correction and shoot it again.

Of course RAW works for you and if I was doing something for somebody else (such as a wedding) then I would take every precaution I could including RAW and possibly a couple of film cameras too.

But for what I do, jpg out of the camera always seems to me better (more "real" and more authentic colours) than what I achieve with pulling all the sliders in photoshop.

No doubt it is my inability to achieve what I want in Photoshop. As far as I am concerned these clever Pentax people who devised the in-camera RAW to JPEG software have made a better job of it than I can.

My shooting is very similar to yours and I only shoot raw. Why? primarily for AWB adjustment. I also shoot lots of florals, and I'm kinda obsessive about color. If I'm moving from shade to sun to cloudy back to cloudy shade the WB changes for each shot. I got REAL tired of trying to remember to chanbe the WB from sun to shade to cloud etc. With raw I don't have to. The WB nearly always comes out good and if it's not it is very simple to fix in RAW, and nearly impossible to fix in JPEG. I've found the workflow isn't much different, two extra steps is all. It would be only one extra step but I'm too lazy to upgrade from PSE 3.0 so I have to do an extra conversion because PSE 3.0 doesn't recognise the K10D PEF's.

NaCl(RAW makes my shooting simpler, not more complicated)H2O