Amandy

I've read shooting in raw is better but is there any apps or programs that are free to edit raw pictures? If you are just uploading pictures to a website is it really necessary to shoot in raw? I've been shooting in raw and jpeg and have not noticed a difference when looking at the pictures on my computer.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Your camera probably came with a disk that would have a program to process raw. Also -

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/41454/how-to-process-camera-raw-without-paying-for-adobe-photoshop/

Amandy

It came with a disk but it wouldn't let me edit the raw pictures. Only the jpg. But honestly I used other free apps such as photo shop fix and PicsArt that seemed to work better for me. They do not let me edit the raw pictures though. I ended up getting the Nikon D5300. I will check out the link you gave me. Thanks!

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

If all you are doing is uploading pics to a website, raw in not necessary. If you want to enhance your photos after you shoot, then raw is better for that. your camera should have come with some Nikon software that should help with raw editing.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

If you are shooting a Nikon camera then Nikon Capture NX-D and NX-I are free from the Nikon site http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/imaging-software/capture-nx-d.html

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Click "search" using the link at the top of the UHH pages. Then search = RAW. Then start reading. (If you add an "advanced option", you can also limit the results to "recent discussions".)

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

As Jerry stated, your camera probably came with software to work in RAW. If you are using Nikon, then I know it came with Nikon's Capture NX2 or Capture NX-D which both use RAW and JPG. I'm not sure what Canon includes with their cameras but I'm sure they have options too. As for the others, If Canon and Nikon does it, then I'm pretty sure that Vivitar, Panasonic and the others are following their lead.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

"Shooting in raw" is not a phrase I use in describing the recording of images. It evokes an image of a naked marksman doing target practice, or a chef attacking raw veggies and chicken with a shotgun.

Your camera should have come with a disc (CD/DVD) containing software for viewing and editing its images. If you haven't already installed it, go find it and install it now. It will read and adjust both raw and JPEG files.

If you haven't noticed a difference in raw and JPEG images, it is simply because whatever software you are using to view the images is displaying a JPEG PREVIEW IMAGE which gets stuffed into every raw file by the camera.

Chances are, your CAMERA MANUFACTURER's supplied software will read the EXIF file, and process the raw data in real time, using the same settings that the camera used to process the JPEG preview. That is one reason why the processed raw image and the JPEG look the same in the Mac Finder or Windows Explore. The other reason is that you are viewing a processed JPEG file, and comparing it with a smaller preview copy of it stored inside the raw file, that the computer's operating system (and your camera) use to preview the image.

A raw file contains the raw data from the analog-to-digital converter, PLUS a fully processed JPEG image thumbnail (or several sizes of same, depending on the camera), PLUS the EXIF (EXtra Information File, containing metadata ABOUT the image).

Raw data is richer and more usable than the data in a processed JPEG. It uses 10, 12, or 14 bits per pixel to describe the primary color in each RGB channel, whereas a JPEG uses only 8 bits per pixel. When you open a raw file in a proper editor, you have to either accept the same view of it that the camera made, or adjust the image parameters to make it "better" to your taste.

The only way you can make it better, RELIABLY, is to use a fully calibrated and ICC-profiled monitor that is WORTHY of photo editing, and to have your operating system and image editing software set up for the correct "Working Color Space" and Monitor Profile. If you have a laptop or a cheap desktop monitor that is not calibrated, you're probably better off using your iPhone or setting your digital camera to JPEG and never adjusting anything.

The debate over which is "better" is endless. The real answer, as in all of photography, is, "It depends upon what you need or want to achieve."

Basically, NEITHER is better in all circumstances! Each type of workflow (raw workflow, JPEG workflow) involves a completely different way of thinking, and completely different procedures, and is best suited to completely different circumstances.

In a raw workflow, the main concern is getting a good exposure at the camera. Given a good exposure, you can and MUST adjust everything else in post-production. There are various schemes used to maximize detail, minimize noise, ensure maximum dynamic range, and so forth. Raw capture has about +2, –1.67 f/stops of EXPOSURE LATITUDE, so many people make a deliberate overexposure (Exposing Beyond The Right side of the histogram, or EBTR for short) and adjust the image in post-production to get the tonal range where they want it. REAMS of literature exists on that, as well as ETTR (Expose TO The Right).

In a JPEG workflow, the main concern is using the right "pre-processing" menu settings on the camera, and combining that with a PERFECT exposure and a PERFECT White Balance. JPEG capture has about +1/3, –1/2 stop of exposure latitude. That means you lose a visible amount of highlight detail with overexposure, and a visible amount of shadow detail with underexposure, beyond those points. So JPEG capture actually requires more precision than raw capture if you need perfect images! You have to have a thorough understanding of your camera's controls, AND USE THEM, to get outstanding results.

In essence, using raw capture is a lot like using color negative film, which also has lots of latitude (as much as +3, –2 f/stops). Photo labs everywhere have "saved" billions of bad exposures in the darkroom, by taking advantage of negative film latitude. YOU are the "lab" in the digital world, so YOU process a raw file to your liking.

By contrast, using JPEG capture is a lot like using color SLIDE film, which has the same +1/3, –1/2 stop latitude as JPEGs. You have to get the color and exposure and contrast and sharpness and color saturation and... everything else right at the camera. Otherwise, you can't add back in post-production what was not there to start with. JPEG workflow generally requires the use of a hand-held incident light meter, or a gray card, or an ExpoDisc, or a One Shot Digital Calibration Target, or similar test target used to set perfect exposure and neutral white balance, IF accurate color is what you are aiming for.

Fortunately, MOST cameras have decent meters, and the default settings for JPEG processing are reasonably good for casual photography in about 80% of circumstances. Unfortunately, they FAIL in about 20% of circumstances... So, you have to THINK, or use raw and "fix it in post."

I use a mix of both raw and JPEG workflows in my work. Whenever I can CONTROL the lighting color, contrast, and brightness range of the scene, and it is stable, I work fully manually and save JPEGs that I will use with little or NO post-processing. This can be done for mass-market portraiture (pre-school, K-11 school, and senior portraits; department store studio portraits, etc.). JPEG capture works perfectly for "parts catalog" photography or "eBay product photography" done in a studio under controlled lighting. NO WAY am I going to photograph 500 subjects, whether people or parts, in raw, when my lab, web site, or printer requires a JPEG anyway.

Much of my work is done on location, using a tripod, under office or shop lighting, using reflectors or supplementary CFL lights. The color and brightness are fixed. I know what I'm doing, and that what I capture is useful with no (or very little) editing. It's going on an Intranet site, or into a video, or into a PDF training manual. So I have no real reason to use raw capture and spend any time in post-processing that I don't need to spend.

Conversely, I use raw in challenging situations. These include weddings, landscapes, architecture, one-time events, situations with rapidly changing lighting, situations with high contrast/high brightness range lighting that I cannot supplement with flash, LED, CFL, or reflectors, and situations where I just want MAXIMUM CREATIVE POTENTIAL. In those situations, working in raw is absolutely essential for predictably high quality results.

Professionals make their money in sales and photography. Photography is not post-processing... That is lab work. So my choice of workflow is based on need and efficiency. I try to avoid the "black hole time sucker" of Photoshop and Lightroom, unless I'm playing for my own satisfaction or the customer is paying me for perfection. That's why about 80% of my work is captured as JPEG, or JPEG plus raw, and 20% is raw only.

Amandy

When I pull up the raw image on the ViewNX2 that came with the camera I get a message "these images can neither be displayed as a raw image nor edited because the distortion control lens profiles used on them are not found." What does this mean? Right now I am good with using jpg and editing the photos to upload images on the FMLS but eventually I will need to print photos. These are for real estate. I know I don't have the best camera and lens to start but it's better than using an iPhone or iPad to take the pictures. I will buy more equipment as I go. I'm also shooting for indoors basketball and cheerleading.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

In this video Tony Northrup talks about two photo editors for RAW files: Photoscape X and RawTherapee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWC-SAuYOzw

The good thing about these editors that they both work on Windows and Macs, they handle RAW files and they are FREE.
I downloaded Photoscape X, it's not too difficult and has a lot of features. Try it.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

There really is no requirement to shoot in Raw; most cameras nowadays process JPEGS fully acceptable to most shooters, which is possibly
why you cannot see much difference. If you want to spend a lot of time at your computer, by asll means shoot in RAW, but I soon went back to JPEGS, and went out shooting more images !

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Two that I have looked at, for the purpose of recommending them, are

Light Zone - http://lightzoneproject.org/
Phocus - http://www.hasselblad.com/software/phocus

If you do a search, google, RAW vs. jpg, you should see a number of articles that will explain and compare the two quiet adequately.

--Bob

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

When I was shooting film part of the fun was the work in the darkroom now with digital the fun is at the computer with Raw files. Of course after being out shooting
In my hands the $10/mo for LR & PS is worth the money best aids to processing

Dano Loc: North Carolina

Great reply Bill! I'm only now beginning to shot in RAW and completely agree that it doesn't fit every situation. Your advice is both practical and realistic. The hardest part of my transition has been overcoming the feeling that if you're not shooting RAW, you're not a photographer. I think the general RAW/JPEG debate tends to push people to defending the extremes, which can make it even more difficult for novices like me to decide which way to go. Thanks for your perspective!

Re Amanda's original question, from my limited experience, while there are free programs out there, major programs such as Lightroom and Photoshop are far better. HOWEVER, as Bill stated so eloquently, "neither is better." If you're not seeing a difference, or feel the need for "more processing power," why make your life more difficult. For 75% of what I shoot, JPEG seems to be the right choice (IMHO), but for the other 25%, RAW is essential.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The main reason to shoot raw is because of the extra leeway you will have when performing post processing. Unless you plan on post processing all or at least most of the images you capture than you should probably stick to jpegs. Once PP is completed on a raw file you will generally save the output as a JPEG for printing, posting and sharing.