Software for RAW files (Page 3): Take a class at as local College, Jr College or Community College. There is nothing like hands on instruction, a knowledgeable person to ask questions...

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

robertjerl wrote:

That is a great image. br Do you have a recommenda... (show quote)

Take a class at as local College, Jr College or Community College. There is nothing like hands on instruction, a knowledgeable person to ask questions, submit material for critique, etc. Aside from that, Lynda.com provides a host of self-paced tutorials that cover more topics than any of use could ever want. I know College Professors who show Lynda.com videos as opposed to lecturing. The fee is $25 and you will have access to the entire library. You can start and stop when you like, anytime of day, 24/7. Pay for just one month try it.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Yep - - when the RAW is 'blown out' - - that means the sensor wells have become saturated and can no longer differentiate between more or less light.
You can't get any more info when you've 'flat-topped' the data.
-
Now just because the JPG is blown out - doesn't mean that you can't get a significantly improved image by tweaking the RAW.
-
If I have to, I prefer to underexpose and brighten in post.

mrjcall Loc: Woodfin, NC

Merlin1300 wrote:

Yep - - when the RAW is 'blown out' - - that means the sensor wells have become saturated and can no longer differentiate between more or less light.
You can't get any more info when you've 'flat-topped' the data.
-
Now just because the JPG is blown out - doesn't mean that you can't get a significantly improved image by tweaking the RAW.
-
If I have to, I prefer to underexpose and brighten in post.

It's really simple, the majority of the time, just expose for the highlights and recover shadows where necessary. If very high dynamic range, bracket and combine...

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Mark7829 wrote:

Take a class at as local College, Jr College or Co... (show quote)

Thanks

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

mrjcall wrote:

It's really simple, the majority of the time, just expose for the highlights and recover shadows where necessary. If very high dynamic range, bracket and combine...

Yep - - that's the C1 setting on my 7D = 3-shot autobracket 0+2eV

JD750 Loc: SoCal

dpullum wrote:

I am a JPEGian photographer... so RAW to me is for those wheo do not expose their shots correctly... (no - - kidding.. sort of?)

What an interesting statement.

And in the same post you critize other posters for being contrarian. Hmmmm.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

dandi wrote:

I like FastStone software and use it almost all the time.

My question is: will I get a better result using Photoshop when working on a RAW file? Thank you.

Photoshop is very powerful but complex with a steep learning curve. Lightroom is more palatable, is much easier to learn, and provides quite good editing tools. Both are available in Adobes Photographers CC so why not download the free trial and compare them to FastStone and find out for yourself which you like better.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

JD750 wrote:

Photoshop is very powerful but complex with a steep learning curve. Lightroom is more palatable, is much easier to learn, and provides quite good editing tools. Both are available in Adobes Photographers CC so why not download the free trial and compare them to FastStone and find out for yourself which you like better.

That was my original question. I processed the same image in SC5 and Faststone and got almost the same result. I know that Photoshop is very powerful and I should be getting better result out if it than after Faststone, but I don't see a huge difference, that's why I asked the question.
But I know now that Faststone is not a Raw processor, it just takes the JPEG preview and does some editing to it.
I thank everybody for the responses.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

dandi wrote:

That was my original question. I processed the same image in SC5 and Faststone and got almost the same result. I know that Photoshop is very powerful and I should be getting better result out if it than after Faststone, but I don't see a huge difference, that's why I asked the question.
But I know now that Faststone is not a Raw processor, it just takes the JPEG preview and does some editing to it.
I thank everybody for the responses.

Sorry if I didn't understand that correctly. I understand now.

I also learned as I didn't know such things existed. But then that brings up another set of questions. All non destructive editing programs keep a list of changes based on an interpretation of the raw, for the screen. Perhaps what FS does is interpret the embedded JPEG and show changes based on that rather than interpert the actual raw code?

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

JD750 wrote:

Sorry if I didn't understand that correctly. I understand now.

I also learned as I didn't know such things existed. But then that brings up another set of questions. All non destructive editing programs keep a list of changes based on an interpretation of the raw, for the screen. Perhaps what FS does is interpret the embedded JPEG and show changes based on that rather than interpert the actual raw code?

Yes, it's like the more you understand the more you want to ask. I have to remind myself to ask: do I really need to know all this? I am trying to keep things simple, but sometimes question arises :).

JD750 Loc: SoCal

dandi wrote:

Yes, it's like the more you understand the more you want to ask. I have to remind myself to ask: do I really need to know all this? I am trying to keep things simple, but sometimes question arises :).

I wholeheartedly agree!