husky2

I am a new hedgehog member and I've determined that although I've done a fair amount of photography in the past 30 years I apparently am fairly ignorant of a lot of issues, terminology, etc. When digital started I bought a Fuji pro camera (16 yrs ago?) and when that went on the fritz I bought a used Nikon d200 on Ebay since I could continue to use the few Nikon lenses that I had. Since my wife's new Canon point and shoot was taking better pictures that my d200, I recently bought a fairly new Nikon d7100 on Ebay. This camera shoots both RAW and Jpeg as my d200 did. Any editing of photos that I've done have been with Photoshop Elements and I've used Jpegs almost exclusively. Since Elements is pretty basic, my edits are also pretty basic. Any advantage of getting a more professional version of Photoshop? They are expensive, probably with a significant learning curve. How about an older version of Photoshop on Ebay that might be a little less expensive? Now my original question - advantage or not of RAW over Jpeg?

Old Timer Loc: Greenfield, In.

You should have a raw edit program with your Nikon I believe. As a Canon shooter I use Canons DPP for most all of my editing and conversion. I have photo shop but seldom use it. I am not sure how advanced Nikons program is I am sure it will do basic editing and conversion. From what I have heard it is not as compresive as Canon DPP. Nikon shoote can help with the advice. Later photo shop edits and converts also. You can get copy when on sale at a reasonable price. I got eleven about year ago for I believe for about fifty dollars.

TonyL Loc: Coventry, UK

The arguments for and against are manyfold and diverse. See:
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/tips-techniques/photo-editing-tips/raw-vs-jpg/
http://photographyconcentrate.com/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/
https://photographylife.com/raw-vs-jpeg

To name but a few, but don't expect a definitive answer!!

brent46 Loc: Grand Island, NY

I Shoot raw with my D7100 and edit/convert with Nikon View X2 or Capture NX D. You should have had a copy of View NX 2 with your camera. Both programs are available online to download for free. I also have Corel Paintshop Pro which I use for more advanced editing options. Corel is an advanced editor and is resonable (<$100.00).

Washburn53 Loc: Limerick.Ireland

As a new member and a Nikon user I have been using Capture NX-D with my Raw pics.I downloaded free from the Nikon site.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

NIkon software has been significantly "dumbed down" and is extremely frustrating to use. It does offer good raw conversion, but it is slow, slow slow. I suppose if you have time on your hands it's ok.

PhotoshopCC, which includes Lightroom - is much better. It is a professional-level tool. However, you will probably not need to get involved with it's long and steel learning curve if your needs are modest. Lightroom is a breeze to use for editing, and once someone takes 15 mins to explain how the file management works, it flies. It is not a pixel editor - it is a parametric, or rules-based editor - so changes tend to be coarse and global in nature. Photoshop will let you edit down to pixel level, and it has all sorts of tools to help you get EXACTLY what you want. The price is nominal - at $10/mo. This thread seems to say that B and H is offering the year's subscription for $90.

Learning curves are not a reason to avoid new better software. They are only temporary. Like learning how to ride a bike or drive a car - once you've done it you never have to do it again.

As far as raw and jpeg are concerned. While you can get decent jpegs out of a camera, you can get better quality images if you process the raw file instead of letting the camera do it. Unless you change your camera settings for each picture you take when you are taking them, the settings will not change from image to image. But as long as your exposure is ok, when shotting raw you can adjust all the other parameters in post processing during raw conversion - contrast, noise, color saturation, sharpening, color space, etc. The camera's tools for addressing these adjustments are pretty crude, and destructive by nature. Raw files are not changed during editing, so whatever your camera recorded will always be there.

Do a google search for that question - it has been asked and answered at least 45,000,000 times.

Bill_de Loc: US

Elements is somewhat basic. But I'll venture a guess that you have not learned all it's capabilities. I would suggest continuing to use Elements until you reach a point that it just can't do something you want it to do.

While the subscription to Adobe CC is reasonably priced for what you get, what you get are programs that are so far beyond the average users needs, you are paying for things you will most likely never use. Your camera purchasing history leads me believe you buy what you need, no more and no less. Keep that same philosophy with software.

--

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

IN JPG the camera does the processing and you get what the camera wants you to get. In RAW you get the real pic and you edit the way YOU want it.

I used elements for about a year. I then got a cheap used copy of PS6 and Ive been using that ever since. I really dont want CC and another $10.00 bill each month.

On the other hand, learn elements, it is very powerful and does a lot of stuff.....

or find any kid on the street and they will get you a cracked version of CC for $20.00

husky2

I have done simple editing using Photoshop Elements 1 which I bought a long time ago. I have P Elements 10 which I bought a couple years ago. I have used it some but I agree, I've probably just scratched the surface for what I can do using version 10. I am going to see what I can do with the RAW files. Thanks to everyone for your suggestions.

Bill_de Loc: US

Wrong on a couple of counts. In most modern cameras you determine how the camera edits the file.
And the idea that you can't edit a JPG is ridiculous. You just have less latitude than with a RAW file. That is important when the scene contrast exceeds the dynamic range of the camera, or when the photographer screws up the camera settings.

Raw is also best for folks who are talented enough to transform their images into a more artistic piece of work. I know we have some folks on UHH that do a fantastic job with this.

BTW- If your version of Elements won't open your NEF files, you can convert them to DNG using Adobe's free converter. They are then RAW files that will open in ACR and can then be edited in Elements.

--

Jim Bob

Great advice. Although people with a good working knowledge of RAW and post processing do not require special "talent" to realize the potential of that format.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Lots of links -

http://www.lightstalking.com/these-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-shooting-raw/
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2015/02/25/7-things-didnt-know-raw/
http://photographyconcentrate.com/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/
http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-vs-jpeg/
http://reframe.gizmodo.com/why-you-should-be-shooting-raw-in-one-simple-gif-1607230731

katbandit Loc: new york city

i shoot only RAW since finding that the editing curve gives you so much more advantage to saving many otherwise "ruined" photos..i use a mac and still have the old Aperture program which i absolutely love and use almost exclusively..however now use Affinity often and occasionally Elements..if you're using Windows I'm sure there are programs that will convert Raw files to jpegs..once you start finding that Raw has more editing features you probably won't be able to go back to jpegs..you definitely can edit jpegs but not as much of a curve..

DwsPV Loc: South Africa

All points mentioned by others are extremely valid - your choice of software in future will depend on where you want to go with photography, and what your personal economic situation is. One point mentioned below is having incorrect settings (i.e. shooter error) which I agree with. Another is unexpected equipment failure - in my case flash batteries that died with no time to rip and replace. Had this been a Jpeg I doubt that any form of rescue would have been possible.

ISO 400, 55mm, f/4.5, 1/200

(Download)


(Download)