Ron 717 Loc: Pennsylvania

I also upgraded from a D7100 to a D500 about a year ago, I have used the LR/PS Adobe package now for approx 4 years now. I highly recommend that package at a cost of $10.00 a month. I try to learn a new procedure in the PS portion each month, but in most cases most of my post processing is done in LR. Especially useful is the key wording portion of LR, if you are diligent about key wording every photo as you import the photos either individually or as a batch, you can easily call up any photo you want whenever you need it. It took me some time to look back at all of my older photos and add keywords to them, but it was worth the time.
As with any topic on here there will be posts that are positive on the Adobe subscription program and those that think it’s priced too high, but after investing in a Pro caliber camera and lenses, $10.00 a month is well worth the investment.

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

Go to the Nikon website and get the free NX software. In the future if you don't want to do a lot of work in post processing set your camera options for the highest quality Jpegs.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

I started using Photoshop in the early 90s. It is amazing software. To me, Lightroom is kinda like "Photoshop Light." But I admit that when I first tried the Nikon View and Capture combo, that was so easy (for me) to use that I have "mostly" stayed with it. I do enjoy opening a NEF files in Capture and then trying the different Nikon Picture Controls to see the different looks, much like using multiple film cameras to see how Kodachrome, Fujichrome, Agfachrome, etc all differed. Just my 2cents.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

kkdji1

Thank you. Can you confirm my belief that shooting in raw is better if I am cropping my photos? And for clarification purposes would submitting some jpegs for review be to see how much pp the photo could use?

kkdji1

Thank you!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

For some reason, every model camera needs different software to process its raw files. Adobe takes a little while to catch up with new camera models before they issue an update. I'm using Lightroom 6, so it won't support raw for any new cameras. There are alternatives, though.

Processing raw -
http://rawtherapee.com/
https://www.techspot.com/downloads/5294-adobe-camera-raw.html
https://www.instructables.com/id/A-Complete-Beginners-Guide-to-Raw-Files-And-Raw-Pr/
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-process-and-edit-raw-files/

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Without a quoted reply, we're all unsure who this question is intended for.

Regarding RAW and cropping, no, it has no positive nor negative impact. A digital image file is made up a number of pixels. That number of pixels is exactly the same, whether the file format is RAW or JPEG or TIFF or other. A 24MP sensor is typically 6000 x 4000 pixels. The resulting files from this sensor will also measure 6000x4000.

Regarding file sizes and post processing for review, it's a matter of 'it depends'. What's important is the file is large enough to 'see the details'. This older post explains how 2048px on the long size is a good approach to provide a full-screen image that balances the size of the file for relatively quick transfer. Recommended resizing parameters for digital images

You can post as large as 20MB to this site. "Bytes" do not have a direct relationship to "pixels", although in general, a larger pixel resolution will be a larger file size measured in bytes.

For processing, what's important is the maintain the EXIF data, data about the camera, lens, and exposure settings. An unmodified file directly from the camera will have all this information. Some editing tools will delete this data, losing the ability to understand the details behind the image. The data can be accessed only by storing the attachment. We'll know how / if your tool retains this information when an attachment is posted and saved.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

If you have a jpg and only crop it, there is a small degradation of the image because the jpg has to be re-written (and therefore re-compressed). If you have a reasonably low compression and this is only a one-time change, the degradation will be neglible.

So yes, shooting raw would be better, but no, the "better" is not significantly so.

uhaas2009

Till you know what you really need and like I would start with the Nikon software. Isn’t a difficult software.

bbrown5154 Loc: Baltimore, MD

I was a huge Capture NX2 fan. Still am and still use it but its not supported anymore and will not load on the new computers unless you "migrate" it and even that can be iffy. Also it will not support the newer Nikon Cameras but you can use Capture NX-D similar but not nearly as good or View NX-1 not really a fan of that one.
Capture NX-D is pretty straight forward and not that difficult to use. I don't think you would need Youtube for it.

I like Lightroom a lot but there is a learning curve with that.

bbrown5154 Loc: Baltimore, MD

bbrown5154 Loc: Baltimore, MD

Agree with everything you said.

bbrown5154 Loc: Baltimore, MD

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.