[NYpHoToGraphEr]

This may look like a dumb question but I just don't know how
I know that there is JPEG OR RAW But I see no option to choose
RAW on my camera
(Pentax K100D)
Someone answer my question please and make me feel even dumber.

[and]

I dont have a k100d but I would assume its in hte menu in quality where it says 3 stars, select raw instead. in any case its listed in the manual that came with the camera.

[davemdsn]

On the K10 it is down from the size and quality choices, almost to the bottom of the first meny list. May be the same for the K100.

[NYpHoToGraphEr]

I am so dumb sometimes i missed it the first 300 times thanks guys
I have looked in that menu and just seen the stars

I also want to know the difference?
With RAW And JPEG
I know the technical one
but is it better in quality.

[and]

The details of raw vs jpeg have been discussed numerous times before, a forum search lists therads about this here such as
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/9488-raw-vs-jpeg-debate.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-talk/12729-raw-jpeg.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/11196-pentax-k...e-quality.html

and a google search lists many external references raw vs jpeg - Google Search

[NYpHoToGraphEr]

Thanks for your help

[Mallee Boy]

I am so dumb sometimes i missed it the first 300 times thanks guys
I have looked in that menu and just seen the stars

I also want to know the difference?
With RAW And JPEG
I know the technical one
but is it better in quality.

Hi,
I am no expert on this, but in laymans terms this is how it works...
RAW is your 'negative', jpeg is your 'print'....to simplify it all. RAW allows you to make many and varied adjustments in detail through post processing software, once converted to jpeg the options are lessened and restricted due to file / data compression.

For example, here is a shot I took yesterday, in RAW. The second shot is the same shot after post processing and then converting it to jpeg. If I had taken the original shot in jpeg my adjustment options would have been far less and the shot probably useless.

Hope this helps.
Grant.

---

Last edited by Mallee Boy; 12-28-2007 at 03:14 PM.

[ChrisA]

For example, here is a shot I took yesterday, in RAW. The second shot is the same shot after post processing and then converting it to jpeg. If I had taken the original shot in jpeg my adjustment options would have been far less and the shot probably useless.

The first shot, of course, is not the RAW image. It's a JPEG, since browsers can't render RAW file formats to my knowledge. Presumably it's the unedited shot, reduced to 800px wide, and saved somehow as JPEG.

But even in the file that ends up at the browser, there's tons of information available. There would have been even more in any original JPEG.

Here is an edited version of the first JPEG:



So there's obviously enough information, even in the (presumably reduced size) JPEG that you posted, to recover the shot. All I did was boost the shadows, cut the highlights and then increase the brightness slightly,finishing off with a touch of USM.

[regken]

Hi,

Welcome to the forum. It appears you are new to both the forum and digital photography. Hope I'm not out of line on this but would like to make a few suggestions. If you are on a budget you can download Raw Theraree at Raw Therapee - Download. It is a very good converter, easy to use, a little slow, and free other than a donation is requested. Please do some reading on why shooting in raw is a good idea.

Don't hesitate to ask questions. You will find the people on this forum very helpful and knowledgable.

Regards,

Ken

[atnbirdie]

When in doubt about camera functions, try the manual. You'll be surprised what you find there.

[NYpHoToGraphEr]

I'm guessing that the only purpose of
the photo labratory is to convert from
RAW to JPEG after editing?

[Mallee Boy]

The first shot, of course, is not the RAW image. It's a JPEG, since browsers can't render RAW file formats to my knowledge. Presumably it's the unedited shot, reduced to 800px wide, and saved somehow as JPEG.

But even in the file that ends up at the browser, there's tons of information available. There would have been even more in any original JPEG.

Here is an edited version of the first JPEG:



So there's obviously enough information, even in the (presumably reduced size) JPEG that you posted, to recover the shot. All I did was boost the shadows, cut the highlights and then increase the brightness slightly,finishing off with a touch of USM.

Sorry Chris...did not explain myself fully. Yes the first shot is simply converted from RAW with no adjustments as an example.
Thanks for posting your example, I think it makes the point very well.
Cheers
Grant

[Mallee Boy]

I'm guessing that the only purpose of
the photo labratory is to convert from
RAW to JPEG after editing?

Basically...yes. Photo Lab is OK, but personally I find it a little restrictive when compared to Lightroom. But there are a lot of programs out there of varying sophistication.

[jgredline]

Basically...yes. Photo Lab is OK, but personally I find it a little restrictive when compared to Lightroom. But there are a lot of programs out there of varying sophistication.

I have the entire cs2 suite and am wondering if it is worth the money to purchase Lightroom?

What does it do that can't be done in cs2 suite?

[bymy141]

I have the entire cs2 suite and am wondering if it is worth the money to purchase Lightroom?

What does it do that can't be done in cs2 suite?

It depends.

If you shoot a lot of photos: yes!
If most of the PP you do is related to fixing lighting and colour: yes!
If you are looking for something that helps you organize your many photos: yes!
If you think PS is too slow: yes!

If you are not making that many shots: Stay with CS2
If you are a PS artist: No way!
If this investment will prevent you from buying a nice piece of glass: Don't do it!

- Bert