Madman Loc: Gulf Coast, Florida USA

Using the View NX-i software will allow you to edit in raw- in fact if you shoot in raw and import in raw, you must first edit in raw and then convert if you desire. If you have the older NX-2, you can update free online by going to NikonUSA.com and going to support.

Contact me if you have questions.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Thanks. I think I do have an interesting perspective.

I grew up in a black-and-white darkroom from the time I was ten. Five years of doing yearbook candids and sports photojournalism taught me some photographic process systems finesse. Five years of making slides because I had no access to a darkroom taught me precise color and exposure control. Eight years of multi-image slide show production and processing my own slides REALLY reinforced that. Working 33 years for a 90,000 square foot portrait lab which went through five train cars of photo paper every Fall taught me a color negative workflow, PLUS the obvious differences between real photographers and "blind shooters," as we called them.

When you see many sides of the business from their different perspectives, you realize there is no one best tool in the box. There is only the right tool for the job.

There's an old adage, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything and every situation looks like a nail."

Working with B&W and color negatives was very similar to capturing raw images and post-processing them. You HAD to develop and print. You MUST post-process raw files.

Working with slides was very similar to working with JPEGs. There was a lot to do *at the camera,* because you really couldn't do much in the E6 process to change the outcome. What you EXPOSED is what got projected.

At the lab I worked for, we printed mostly K-11 school portraits, senior portraits, and team-plus-individual portraits. Our model was that we had either customers or employees all across the country who sold their services and made the exposures. They sent their film to us, and the lab did ALL THE REST. "Post processing" was a TOTAL mystery to most of our photographers.

When digital imaging came along, with all its proprietary camera raw formats, almost our entire industry went with a JPEG workflow:

• Partly because there was no way to UNIVERSALLY process raw files efficiently. Universal raw converters didn't exist in 2000 – 2005.
• Partly because raw files took up too much server space, too much network bandwidth, too many processor cycles, and too much labor.
• ESPECIALLY because the vast majority of school portrait photographers have NO CLUE about darkroom duties or post-photography processing of ANY kind. Most of them don't even understand exposure! They work from the formulas that their labs provide them. They follow carefully engineered procedures. Their job is to capture good poses and expressions, and/or to spend face time with principals, selling them our services.

We figured out really quickly that if we set up our cameras using the onboard menus and used standardized exposure test targets, we could get results that were the equal of, or better than, what we were getting from Portra 160 film.

Since I had managed the film scanning area for several years (I had set up and calibrated nine $50,000 Kodak Bremson HR500 scanners), it became my job to test the cameras and tweak the JPEG output to match the film... and then create the photography training manuals and videos. We "got there" surprisingly quickly! But we also learned that there is a good bit of discipline required to stay there.

There really shouldn't be any debate over which is better... CIRCUMSTANCES dictate what is the most appropriate workflow. That's why every adjustable digital camera on earth gives you the options!

NikonCharlie Loc: Kansas USA

I shoot all in RAW format. And I always tweek the white balance, if nothing else. There is a lot of editing that can be done to the file, but at a very minimum the WB should be explored. Once done, open it and edit more or save the file to jpeg, as you know the original raw is as it was exposed.

MtnMan Loc: ID

With the D5300 you can have your cake and eat it too. Set the image format to RAW + jpeg.

If you want to save on card space you might be able to set the RAW images to 12 bit compressed. Then they are much smaller than 14 bit uncompressed. I am not sure now if my D5300 enables that...I know my D800 does. Check your manual.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Great analogy. I too grew up shooting film and developing B&W, Color, and Color slide film. Lightroom is very similar to working in a darkroom (which I suspect is why they call it "Lightroom". And it presents many of the advantages and a few of the issues of working in film (without the smell of chemicals, working in the dark or under "safe lights". But, the one really nice thing about the darkroom was that if my "work in progress" light over the door was on, people knew (and I always kept it locked anyway) not to try to open the door if I was in there. Unfortunately, I can't say the same thing about Lightroom as it is out in the open on my computer! LOL.

fjrwillie Loc: MA

I am using Rawtherapee which is a free raw editor >>> http://rawtherapee.com/

I have Rawtherapee linked to Paintshop Pro for further editing, however this is not a requirement of Rawtherapee. It can save it's results to any number of completed image files, .ie JPG, TIF.

It is an awesome raw processor, at least that is my opinion.

Willie

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

I like to own my editors, renting is like having a dentist in your mouth forever.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I know the feeling!

MtnMan Loc: ID

You can still do that with Lightroom 6.

If you want more sophisticated processing, though, Photoshop Elements is a better reasonably priced choice.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

I can't see the difference either so I don't bother. Besides, like you, with the things I do I don't need to buy more software.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Scott Kelby has an appropriate rule of thumb:
Do you want to spend time in post processing?
If yes, shoot RAW
If no, shoot JPEG

I shoot RAW and enjoy my time in post processing, but not everyone enjoys spending time in pp.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If you do not understand what a RAW file is and if you are not familiar with color management RAW is not for you.
Very often there are good arguments in photography forums about which file is better. A RAW file needs editing to bring its best. A JPEG is a file that had in camera editing by the camera firmware and although in the past JPEGs were files of poor quality modern JPEG engines are outstanding in quality. I have been shooting JPEGs more often than RAW lately. You do not need RAW files for Internet use.
Some of my best enlargements have come from original JPEG files.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

Not sure what the message means, unless you are using older Nikon lenses or another manufacturer's lenses. If this is not the case, try calling Nikon customer support and asking about it.

You should also go to Nikon's website and download the Capture-NX program (free). They want you to be able to enjoy your camera and lenses!

I also started out with .jpg because my software at the time would not read the RAW files from my camera. Later I switched to RAW, from which I could always generate a .jpg file for posting on social media. Some of those early .jpg images are pretty good, and now I wish I had RAW files of them for editing. Keep that in mind - as your editing skills improve, you may eventually want to go back and edit some of your images again. It is better to have the RAW file, make a copy, and work on that because of the greater amount of information in it than is in a .jpg.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Neither RAW nor JPEG is "better". There are times and places and purposes when either might be more appropriate than the other.

A pro shooting a sporting event for a website that expects to upload images immediately might need to shoot JPEGs, so that the images can be used directly from the camera.

An advanced amateur might choose to shoot RAW for the greater adjustability and flexibility the images offer.

In fact, JPEGs are a pretty universal image format for use on websites.... and RAW files are virtually "unusable" online. RAW are largely proprietary to each camera manufacturer and have to be decoded into a more universal file type before they can be used. There are a number of different image file types that are fairly universal... JPEG is just one of them. But JPEG is easily the most widely used. JPEG Is also required for many types of printing. Few printers can or will "print from RAW".... and those that do will need to convert to some other type of file format before they can actually print it.

Here's a secret... your camera shoots RAW all the time, every time you press the shutter release. You can save that to the memory card and convert it to some other, usable image format later with post-processing software.

Or, you can set your camera to save JPEGs, in which case it will immediately process each image from the RAW into those JPEGs, using whatever parameters you've set up in the camera and throwing away whatever it deems to be "unnecessary" or "extraneous" data. How much is "thrown away" is pretty easy to tell. Most cameras today can shoot "RAW + JPEG". Set your camera to do that... maximum size and quality for each. Take a shot and then look at the two versions of it side by side. You'll always see that the RAW file is much larger than the JPEG file. For example, cameras I use make 20MP JPEGs (approx.) and the same images typically end up around 30MP as RAW.

One of the differences is that most cameras capture in 12 or 14 bit depth. A few do "true" 16 bit, but even those that don't, software used in post-processing interprets the 12 bit and 14 bit as 16 bit. JPEGs, on the other hand, are 8 bit files.

8 bit versus 16 bit refers to the number of colors available to make up an image. 8 bit has a lot... something like 17 million tonalities... that's 256 shades in each red, green and blue channel... but you don't add them, you multiply the to get 16.7 million possibilities. That's the digital "color palette" you have to work with, in 8 bit mode such as is required with JPEGs. And it seems like a lot, until you consider that 16 bit gives you 65,536 shades of red, green and blue.... or 281 trillion colors in your palette! That's 65,536 x 65,536 x 65,536, as opposed to 256 x 256 x256.

This gives you some idea of what's being "thrown away" when you convert a 12 or 14 bit RAW file into an 8 bit JPEG. And, once it's been discarded, there's no getting it back. If you convert an 8 bit file back into 16 bits (or 12 or 14), it won't look any different. But if you start with and work with a 12, 14 or 16 bit file, it will better "tolerate" changes to exposure, color adjustments, resizing larger or smaller or most other things you might want to do to an image. More data to work with equals better quality results, even though you'll eventually end up converting the image to 8 bits before using it.

Plus, having that untouched and original RAW saved in your archive of images is like having negatives back in the days of film. You can always go back to the original and re-develop it a different way, if you wish, with equally good results. JPEGs on the other hand, will lose quality each time you re-edit them, with each "generation".

From a RAW I can make an 8 bit JPEG, 8 bit PNG, 16 bit TIFF, 16 bit PSD or any of several dozen other types of image files. I could also convert a JPEG into the other file types, but there would be no improvement increasing an image from 8 bit to 16 bit.

Whenever time allows, I'd much rather post-process RAW images on my calibrated, graphics quality computer monitor, than rely upon "getting it exactly right" in-camera with JPEGs. But, as mentioned, there are times that it's necessary to shoot JPEGs (although if I have plenty of memory cards, RAW + JPEG is another option... that just fills up cards a whole lot faster).

As to software for processing RAW files, there are various freebies out there. Most cameras come with a free RAW converter.

But it's often better to spend a little to get a more full-features software. Adobe Elements 15 is a good starting point and only costs about $70 right now. It's relatively easy to use... gives you choice of beginner, intermediate or expert mode... with more or less guidance, whatever you feel most comfortable with and you can change it at any time as you gain experience. Watch for sales, right after Thankgiving Elements 15 was selling for $40 on Amazon.

If you go to the Adobe website you can download a free 30-day trial of Elements, to give it a test drive. But, before you do I'd suggest getting one of the books and reading that, so you can get up to speed using it right away and make best use of the 30-day trial. Unfortunately, Elements 15 is brand spanking new, so many of the books for it are due this month or early in January. (I find Scott Kelby's books really good, but I'm sure there are other good ones.)

I'd also recommend buying a book

blackest Loc: Ireland

This may be of interest

http://www.techno360.in/dxo-optics-pro-free/

It is legit , DXO are giving free registration codes for DxO Optics 9 elite for free until march next year, they want you to buy version 11.
However it is a pretty decent package and for raw editing it is first class. Whatever you use now it is worth a look.