Yes, Janet, Linux is all I have. We don't own any Macs or PCs.

Thanks Ever, I did download raw and will play around with it.
I work better that way, trial and error It will be a nice winter project to learn.

@dave regarding linux, why do you like it? When it's time for a new computer I was thinking Mac, both my sons have them and love them. Something new to learn but I'm not too old yet

luvsgrtdanes said: regarding linux, why do you like it? When it's time for a new computer I was thinking Mac, both my sons have them and love them. Something new to learn but I'm not too old yet

http://cubits.org/cubits/faqs/...

Well that answers my question I do remember reading that now

Thanks to looking into this, I decided to check out the free trial for Nikon Capture NX2. I found they have a new free RAW (NEF) download!

The thread "FREE Nikon Capture NX-D software!" in Photography Tips & Techniques forum

Shooting RAW: Saving inept photographers from themselves, one lousy shot at a time...:



That's lousy, NOT lossy!

@evermorelawnless Is this photo cropped and brightened or two different shots?

2nd one might be a crop? It shouldn't have been, but maybe I posted the wrong one. If it's a crop, it's the same pic.

luvsgrtdanes said:@evermorelawnless Is this photo cropped and brightened or two different shots?

Well heck. You're absolutely right. Those are two entirely different photographs. Good eye, good catch, and thank you.

So, for the sake of it all, here are both pair

The first is my photo 9441 - it was shot at pretty close to the right exposure and then cropped as you pointed out:


The second is my photo 9443 and something went remarkably wrong - here's the before/after I really meant to post above:


The principle remains the same, but it would help if I tried to illustrate it using the proper illustrations

Great shots

I found a way to use my photoshop I uploaded my canon disk again and it helped when I open my digital tools professional and open the pic I can send it to photoshop. It only takes a few more clicks. I have to save it as a PNG file. My son is going to set me up with the new version he has at work then I can save a few steps.

I'm going to try raw and JPEG today together, I'll post a few pics later.

Here are a few raw shots, unfortunately I didn't do before and after

Seems like It isn't uploading...back to the drawing board to save it differently...

Alright @evermorelawnless when are you going to share what you changed in the before/after of 9443?

dave said:Alright @evermorelawnless when are you going to share what you changed in the before/after of 9443?

Hahahaha...you're asking me to document my public trainwreck?

I was trying a LOT of stupid things that day. I think I had a 2x teleconverter and the smallest extension tube on the camera (with a 50mm f2 prime lens) at the time. Maybe I'd dumped the teleconverter by then, tho, yet still had the tube. But whatever the case, I was fiddling with the focus and aperture manually (so I don't know for sure what the f-stop was).

Both were shot at ISO 200, 1/3200 and from the looks of the depth of focus (and lack of light), I'm gonna guess that I shot the first at about f/2.8 and the second at about f/20? or so? Really hard to tell with the monkey business I had going on between the lens and the camera.

So did you edit the image using a raw editor?

dave said:So did you edit the image using a raw editor?

Yeah, sort of. I used RawTherapee with all of the autocorrectors - didn't fiddle with anything nor do I feel good about the post-production. Was more going after the idea that stuff was salvageable (rather than salvaged and publishable).

I guess my question would be...other than more info you get when shooting raw as opposed to jpgs what is the difference? I can fix things with jpgs in photoshop just as easy (for me actually easier) than raw if editing is needed, which it usually is

Are raw better for printing? My png files won't upload here, so I have to convert them to jpgs anyway

With RAW shooting you get all the information to work with straight from the camera as taken. In order to edit it successfully a good RAW editor is necessary.

When shooting in jpeg the camera does the conversion, thus you lose a lot of the original information from the photo. Some editing is usually still necessary, taking a perfect shot depends on the user's knowledge of how to use their camera, and light conditions.

http://digital-photography-sch...

I have found a photo taken in RAW (done accidentally!) once converted to jpeg on my computer, then edited, can give slightly better results than in camera conversion. That may depend on your computer and/or your programme used to convert to jpeg. I can convert to jpeg using my camera's basic editing programme but it has to be done one at a time and is a slow process. With a DSLR camera of over 16 MP the files are large.

Some people prefer to take in jpeg as often the differences are not worth the effort and time taken to shoot and edit in RAW. Again, it depends on many factors such as the camera used, user ability and light conditions which no matter how well you can use a camera are often not ideal.

Read Ken Rockwell's views..

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tec...

I don't have a DSLR but my camera will shoot RAW, but for me the very much faster shooting and the ease of using jpeg is much more of an advantage for the type of photos I take. I really feel for the great majority of people here in the forum RAW is too much of a hassle for posting on a backyard flower photos to a web site.
Certainly I am not saying that RAW is not the preferred method for many others who want the more professional looking shots.

luvsgrtdanes said:I guess my question would be...other than more info you get when shooting raw as opposed to jpgs what is the difference? I can fix things with jpgs in photoshop just as easy (for me actually easier) than raw if editing is needed, which it usually is

Are raw better for printing? My png files won't upload here, so I have to convert them to jpgs anyway

Think of it this way...if you took the same negative to Costco, Walmart, Walgreens, and Target and asked for a print, you'd get 4 different 5x7s back...ranging from subtlety to radically different (in my experience).

RAW is that negative...and your in-camera processing (shooting to .jpp only) yields the results of only one of those stores (take your pick). And it could be that you prefer Costco's prints to Walgreens (after you see the difference) yet your camera delivers in Walgreens style.

A little esoteric, I know, but that's what's going on...sort of...or close enough to have this conversation, anyway.

Don't think of the RAW file as a replacement for .jpg. It's not. It's where the .jpg comes from (either in-camera or through your computer). And how you get to that point, I guess, is part of the trouble. You convert the RAW to .jpg at some point to upload or print (you don't print straight from RAW normally - I've never even thought to try...or look).

A good RAW converter ought to let you do a few things. Some of them have camera-specific profiles that should kick out a .jpg that will look just like a .jpg coming out of your camera. Software that shipped with the camera ought to be able to do that, too. I know that in Photoshop, you can mess with the contrast and saturation and colors, etc., from a .jpg, but because RAW files contain so much more data, the possibilities for potential outcomes are all the greater.

I don't know if I'm doing this right or traditionally (I'm new at the practical side of things here and a TERRIBLE photo editor still), but lately I've been making the EV (exposure value) and WB (white balance) adjustments with the RAW editor, saving it off to .jpg, and (when I remember) cleaning up an artifact from a dirty sensor (need to get that cleaned...again!).

So...bottom line??? My camera (Pentax K-x) has the option to shoot/save both RAW and .jpg concurrently. I have a number of fast 32GB cards and prettymuch limitless hard disk space, but that's a consideration because one bad thing about RAW files is that they take up approximately 2x the disk space as .jpgs (at least in my experience). It also takes the camera longer to write both formats (so shooting in burst mode will get really frustrating really fast). But I think if I were you (read more comfortable with straight .jpgs), I'd set the camera to shoot both - and then use the .jpgs like you normally do...and then only appeal to the RAW file if there's some stuff you just cannot fix in Photoshop. Archive the RAW files like (I assume) you do your .jpgs...and then maybe revisit them in the future, as needed (and as your skills working with RAW files improve).

JRsbugs said:
Read Ken Rockwell's views..

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tec...

Just read that after I posted. He sure does have a point of view. Guess I'm a "more data is always better" kind of guy. Especially when there are not consequences to creating and keeping the data. If/when there are, you have to take a practical approach. Otherwise for me...

Plus I'm the kind of guy who is always trying new, stupid stuff and maybe I need the latitude more than most...