[catluvr]

I only shoot in JPG with my K100D but that is purely for lack of know-how in processing RAW. I don't do a lot of post-processing and right now am using paint shop pro but only use the very basics of the program. I am going on vacation in a couple of weeks for a photo workshop and hope to learn a little more about shooting and PP RAW.

---

Last edited by catluvr; 03-26-2010 at 02:01 PM. Reason: sp

[Marc Sabatella]

FWIW, I'd recommend you think of it the other way around. That if you shoot JPEG now and do very little PP, there's no reason to even think about RAW until you start doing more PP. If/when you start doing more PP on your JPEG and start running into limitations of JPEG, *then* you should consider shooting RAW. By then you'll already be familiar with what you want to do in PP.

[catluvr]

thanks Marc. What in your opinion is the best pp software to go from beginner to more advanced functions?

[UnknownVT]

thanks Marc. What in your opinion is the best pp software to go from beginner to more advanced functions?

Marc's advice was spot-on -

You already have PaintShop Pro and that is actually very good

The only rivals in the same price range are:
PhotoShop Elements
Nova/Ulead PhotoImpact

It's hardly worth switching.

I'd follow Marc's good advice - and just use PSP until you find there is a limitation.
By then you'll be in a much better position to know what else to look for.

If you want to experiment with RAW/PEF then just try using the Pentax supplied software Pentax Digital Utility/Lab which is based on SilkyPix - it is actually very good as I found in this Post #23 of Modern LED Stage Lighting & photography problems

---

Last edited by UnknownVT; 03-27-2010 at 02:05 PM.

[FHPhotographer]

I have to go with marc on this one. Intentions really do predict outcomes.

Can RAW give you more data to work with? Absolutely. Can jpeg give you all the data you want? Also, yes. The real question isn't what the camera/lens can give you, the question is what do you intend to get out of the image.

Try an experiment: set the camera to RAW, pick a subject with good natural light, set the camera to the factory defaults, and shoot in Green Mode; then reset the camera for jpeg in M and the best possible in-camera shot (custom image, custom WB, etc) and chimp the settings until the LCD gives you what you feel is the best possible image. Compare the images in Bridge Camera RAW (or whatever program you have). My feeling is that you will see your intentions on screen: the RAW image giving you everything that the camera/lens can get (with all the extra work into pulling the image you saw out of the data you got); the jpeg image giving you everything you wanted at that moment. Here's what I mean:
what the camera saw in RAW full auto


or what I saw in manual jpeg



Then you can PP the RAW image and see if you can pull more out of the image and how close you can get to, or surpass, the jpeg.

If you can get it all out of the RAW image, and intend to PP, shoot RAW and have the editing flexibility; if you want your intentions of the moment of taking the photograph to stand, and don't intend to PP, then shoot in jpeg and don't worry about it.
Brian

[catluvr]

Marc's advice was spot-on -

You already have PaintShop Pro and that is actually very good

The only rivals in the same price range are:
PhotoShop Elements
Nova/Ulead PhotoImpact

It's hardly worth switching.

I'd follow Marc's good advice - and just use PSP until you find there is a limitation.
By then you'll be in a much better position to know what else to look for.

If you want to experiment with RAW/PEF then just try using the Pentax supplied software Pentax Digital Utility/Lab which is based on SilkyPix - it is actually very good as I found in this Post #23 of Modern LED Stage Lighting & photography problems

thanks Vincent. That post really shows the differences software can make.

[catluvr]

I have to go with marc on this one. Intentions really do predict outcomes.

Can RAW give you more data to work with? Absolutely. Can jpeg give you all the data you want? Also, yes. The real question isn't what the camera/lens can give you, the question is what do you intend to get out of the image.

Try an experiment: set the camera to RAW, pick a subject with good natural light, set the camera to the factory defaults, and shoot in Green Mode; then reset the camera for jpeg in M and the best possible in-camera shot (custom image, custom WB, etc) and chimp the settings until the LCD gives you what you feel is the best possible image. Compare the images in Bridge Camera RAW (or whatever program you have). My feeling is that you will see your intentions on screen: the RAW image giving you everything that the camera/lens can get (with all the extra work into pulling the image you saw out of the data you got); the jpeg image giving you everything you wanted at that moment. Here's what I mean:
what the camera saw in RAW full auto


or what I saw in manual jpeg



Then you can PP the RAW image and see if you can pull more out of the image and how close you can get to, or surpass, the jpeg.

If you can get it all out of the RAW image, and intend to PP, shoot RAW and have the editing flexibility; if you want your intentions of the moment of taking the photograph to stand, and don't intend to PP, then shoot in jpeg and don't worry about it.
Brian

thanks Brian I will try that. my intent is to try and get more out of my pictures, instead of just taking great snapshots.

[UnknownVT]

Here's what I mean:
what the camera saw in RAW full auto


or what I saw in manual jpeg



Then you can PP the RAW image and see if you can pull more out of the image and how close you can get to, or surpass, the jpeg.

Hope you don't mind I took your JPG image and did a minimal amount of editing -

The EXIF is still attached to show it was that file I edited.....
it's not too far off your RAW version.

[snostorm]

Hope you don't mind I took your JPG image and did a minimal amount of editing -

The EXIF is still attached to show it was that file I edited.....
it's not too far off your RAW version.

Hi UVT,

I was going to do the same, but you beat me to posting. The PP of the jpeg only took about 30 sec in PSP 9 (didn't even have to break out X2), I used the "fill flash" tool, then did a little color adjustment and got about the same output. I doubt that many, if any could distinguish the RAW sourced image from the jpeg.

At this level of PP desired, there really isn't any difference in the source image file used, IMO. This is not to say that there aren't circumstances where RAW isn't the better format. . . but IMO, that's what the RAW button is for.

Scott

[UnknownVT]

I was going to do the same, but you beat me to posting. The PP of the jpeg only took about 30 sec in PSP 9 (didn't even have to break out X2), I used the "fill flash" tool, then did a little color adjustment and got about the same output. I doubt that many, if any could distinguish the RAW sourced image from the jpeg.
At this level of PP desired, there really isn't any difference in the source image file used, IMO. This is not to say that there aren't circumstances where RAW isn't the better format. . . but IMO, that's what the RAW button is for.

I tend to agree - but absolutely acknowledge the superiority and flexibility of RAW -

However if all one does is to use "As Shot" or "Camera Settings" the resultant JPG is more likely than not similar to the paired JPG if RAW+JPG was shot......

In fact I'd be somewhat disappointed if the RAW processor did not produce a result that was at least close to the paired JPG! (talk about circular-logic )

My processing was very simple minded (like me )
All I did to the JPG version was to up the mid-tones, then add a bit on contrast, adjusted the color balance a tiny bit (adding a smidgen of yellow and a tiny bit more red) and that was it - not perfect but close enough for jazz.....

[Marc Sabatella]

You already have PaintShop Pro and that is actually very good

The only rivals in the same price range are:
PhotoShop Elements
Nova/Ulead PhotoImpact

I've never used or even seen PSP or PhotoImpact, so I can't really say. If it does all the nice parametric/non-destructive editing that you get with Adobe products (Photoshop CS, Elements, and Lightroom) or with Aperture, ACDSee, Bibble, or Lightzone, then I'd agree there would be no particular reason to switch. If one the other hand PSP is the old-fashioned kind of software that makes you covnert all your RAW files to JPEG when your done processing them then immediately forgets all your settings as soon as you leave an image, I think that would get old very quickly if you tend to do a little PP on a lot of files (might not matter if instead you do a lot of PP on only a few files). Looks like the very latest of PSP (X3) provides the more modern interface, so if you don't have that, you might consider upgrading.

Aside from that, Elements is in the same price range, ACDSee Pro a bit more (PC only), Aperture (Mac only) and LR a bit more still.

[Mark Castleman]

I started shooting RAW back with my *ist DL and have continued to do so with my K10D. I started using iPhoto and moved to Aperture when 1.5 came out. I would say most of the time I do no further processing in the computer beyond what Aperture does in the RAW conversion. I have had several times where I filled all 3 of my 8GB cards and I would just set Aperture to importing them and then go do something else while the machined whirred away.

All this said I have several vacations with the *ist DL where I shot jpeg back when cards were more expensive and those photos look just fine as well. Use what you feel comfortable with.

[Internetpilot]

I shoot JPEG 100% on my K-X, as well as previously on my Panasonic FZ50 and my Olympus E-500. I've tried RAW on every camera I've owned that offered it, but for MY shooting style, MY subjects, and MY level of postprocessing, I have PERSONALLY found that RAW is just not worth it for ME. I think I emphasized the right words to show that this is just my opinion and not a negative reflection on anyone who chooses to use RAW.

Like others have posted, I really enjoy trying to get the most out of my camera's settings and JPEG engine, always looking for that perfect right-out-of-the-camera photo. Yes, I'm still looking...haha. But if all I have to do is a resize, crop, and maybe a little USM, I feel successful.

Thankfully, all of the cameras I've owned have offered rather nice JPEG engines so I have never been "forced" to use RAW, which would very likely cause me to not like a camera as much since I prefer JPEG so much more.

[UnknownVT]

does all the nice parametric/non-destructive editing that you get with Adobe products (Photoshop CS, Elements, and Lightroom) or with Aperture, ACDSee, Bibble, or Lightzone

Marc is right, this is an important aspect in RAW processing.

The above named software can remember all the conversion processing so that one can go back at any time and undo or redo any of those steps non-destructively.

This is for whatever editing adjustment one can do before the conversion to a viewable format (like JPG).

However Marc and I had a long discussion off line during the thread:
Do people really shoot in JPEG???

There is a limitation -

The time consuming editing like selected area adjustments, cloning, healing, masking, layers etc - these are not "non-destructive" editing since these have to be done in the editor for a viewable format (not in RAW, and after the conversion) and therefore are not retained.

If and when I have to do more extensive editing - most of my time is spent in selective area adjustments, healing etc which cannot be "non-destructive" as they are not done in the part before conversion.

So even though I have and know how to use Elements 7.0 with the latest ACR 5.6 and Pentax Digital Utility 4.11 (SilkyPix) - tried ACDsee and even LightRoom Beta (now on 3 which I have) - I do not do this on any frequent basis - most of my real time consuming editing unfortunately cannot be "non-destructive" even if I used RAW for the reasons given above.

So again I acknowledge the superiority and higher flexibility of RAW -
but in my case I cannot take advantage of those advantages -
and where I would really want "non-destructive" editing and its ability to back track undo or redo any edit step at any time does not apply to where I spend most of my time in editing (when I have to do it) - that is in selective area adjustment, healing etc.

[Marc Sabatella]

There is a limitation -

The time consuming editing like selected area adjustments, cloning, healing, masking, layers etc - these are not "non-destructive" editing since these have to be done in the editor for a viewable format (not in RAW, and after the conversion) and therefore are not retained.

I think that is application-specific. I'm pretty sure that both Lightroom and Bibble at least can do *some* of that kind of thing parametrically/non-destructively on the RAW data. But it's certainly true that at some point, there may be things you need to do that have to be done post-conversion. Photoshop layers allow most of this to still be done non-destructively in a fashion, but it's not really the same thing in practice. Luckily, I almost never do any of that kind of thing - I'm pretty much strictly messing with global changes like color and exposure.