Bruce T Loc: Michigan

You are right about being able to walk. But people are too lazy to walk to their mail boxes and use golf carts too.
People use to do their only oil changed and spark plug changes. They got too lazy and take it to dealers. Now they don’t know how to do anything.
Understanding the photography triangle will make them better photographers….if not leave your camera on full auto and program mode.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I would spend my time researching different areas to photograph and not worry about post processing till he gets back. Use the jpeg, which usually are ok, then post what you have after. Adding the jpeg on does take up much file space so NO reason not to do it

Bruce T Loc: Michigan

If you have the disk or USB drive space, take both.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

First of all, that's a wonderful shot! There isn't a lot that can be done to improve it. In other words, you really "nailed" it.

However, like ANY image, there is ALWAYS something that a little post-processing can add. In this case, selective sharpening and a little increased contrast on the bird really makes it pop. Some might also play around with lightening the background slightly or adding a mild vignette in the corners. These are the sort of things that are done "to taste".

Any post-processing is best done working on a RAW image. This is because the RAW has the full data captured initially and the maximum bit depth. Interpolated as 16 bit by the post-processing software, working from a RAW file will make for smoother transitions, avoiding possible "banding" that can occur when JPEGs are post-processed. Your sample image is a poor example for this, simply because it doesn't need much adjustment! But, be honest... how often do you achieve near perfect exposures like this? Especially shooting wildlife where circumstances can change rapidly... the subjects quickly appear or move from one lighting condition to another. Even shooting RAW with as much care as possible, there can be shots that are just unusable. But when shooting JPEGs and not doing any post-processing, I would be that "keepers" are pretty far and few between!

Just to illustrate the difference between RAW and JPEG, do a little experiment. Set your camera to shoot both RAW and JPEG. Take a few shots that way. Download them to your computer and then inspect the file properties. See how the RAW file is larger? That's because a lot of data was "thrown away" when the camera made the JPEG. There is no getting that back. It's gone.

Another comparison... a JPEG is an 8 bit file. This means that the 0s and 1s that make up individual colors comprise 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 or 256 tonalities per color channel. There are three color channels (red, blue, green) and to make an image tonalities from each channel can be mixed with tonalities from the others. 256 x 256 x 256 equals more than 16.7 million possible. That's A LOT of possible colors, isn't it?

However, 16 bit has 65,536 tonalities per color channel (2 to the 16th power). 65,536 x 65,536 x 65,536 gives a 16 bit file a palette of 281 trillion possible colors! Precise color is MUCH more possible and gradations can be MUCH smoother with roughly 16,800 times as many colors to work with!

Note: Most digital don't actually shoot 16 bit RAW files... Most shoot 14 bit or 12 bit (or in some cases can be set to shoot one or the other). Don't worry about it. These files are "interpolated" as 16 bit by any image editing software.

You may not be aware... You're actually already shooting RAW files. In fact, every digital camera initially takes a RAW shot. When you set the camera to RAW... it simply saves the entire file. When you set the camera to JPEG, it quickly post-processes that "16 bit" RAW according to the settings of the camera, saving what it thinks is needed and throwing away the rest. Again, the settings of your camera... contrast, saturation, sharpening, white balance (color temp and tint), etc.... are all applied to the JPEG. Those are not applied to the RAW file, though they are recorded along with it for later use, if wanted.

Your camera probably came with some RAW conversion/post-processing software. Camera makers' own proprietary software usually has an "as shot" conversion option, where the software will make a JPEG from a RAW file EXACTLY the same way the camera would have done. In other words, so long as you have your camera maker's RAW conversion software, you can ALWAYS make a JPEG from it with a single click that will be at least as good as if you had set the camera to JPEG. However, since you still have the RAW file, you also have option of changing many of the settings that were recorded by the camera. The biggest of these is probably the white balance. Have you ever set it incorrectly and had your JPEGs end up with a strange tint? If you had shot RAW you can easily correct the white balance. You also have a lot more latitude to brighten up a dark image or lighten one that's over-exposed.

3rd party RAW conversion software like Lightroom doesn't have that "as shot" option, but Lightroom and most of them do have a "one click" that can be used to get pretty close. Lightroom and other, similar 3rd party software often is a lot faster and has many more features than the camera maker's software. For example, Lightroom has a ton of organization tools. It also "meshes" very well with Photoshop for more intensive image editing, when needed.


It's up to you, whether to shoot RAW or JPEG, as well as whether to post-process your images or not. Personally I think EVERY image needs some post-processing. Sometimes it's very little. Other times it's a lot. I tend to post-process for a realistic look and often that means very subtle adjustments.

If you want to give it a try, you might consider Adobe Photoshop "Elements" instead of Lightroom. Elements can do a lot and, like Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop, is well supported. Elements is NOT a subscription. It's a perpetual license and costs about $100 (if you also shoot videos, Premiere Elements can be bought in bundle with Photoshop Elements for $150... saving $50).

Lightroom is good, though. I use it along with Photoshop. Mine are older versions of it, though. Today's subscription versions have some new features I'm not familiar with.

I hope you don't mind, to illustrate what I mean by subtle post-processing I took your image into Photoshop did some very selective adjustments of contrast, saturation and sharpening, then slightly lightened the background. See what you think, below. Especially look at the bird's eye, bill and legs detail. At higher magnifications there is a little noise showing up, but by limiting the sharpening to the bird that will be hidden in the feather textures in any print that were made from this image. Again, this image is simply "too good"... it doesn't need much in the way of post-processing!

(Download)

druthven

I took up Lightroom at 81 and I second Morganti. The basics are pretty easy to grasp and use and Morganti doesn't talk so fast that it is difficult to assimilate. Just take notes so that after a layoff you don't have to remember, "do I turn the highlights up or down and which way do the shadows go".

klf

I am 90 + and starte shooting

I am 90+ years and have been shooting nothing but
RAW for 4 years








raw

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

Auto maintenance isn’t a DIY skill any more. You can’t get under a car with a creeper any more. Waste oil disposal is a problem and the cost to have it done by a shop is nearly the same as buying the oil and filter and oil plug washer. Changing spark plugs used to be a simple process. Pull out the old ones gap new ones and install. Easy as can be. Now you have coil packs associated with each spark plug on many cars. Have to have an OBDII reader to make sure all is well. You may know how to adjust a carb if the car isn’t running right. But electronic fuel injection, not so much. If you have the time, tools, knowledge and a place to work on your car you may be lazy but if you are missing just one of those the professionals are the only answer.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Why buy expensive cameras and lenses if you're not going to obtain the best possible results from that equipment? That may be the typical UHH community gear-head approach, but many others subscribe to this site and to similar "insider details" blogs to learn how to use their equipment in ways that are not covered in the generic manual and / or the 3rd party "user's guides". I have repeatedly posted topics that seek to distill the basics of these 'advanced-level' shooting technique, some covered in my initial reply earlier.

If a future-point software can deliver 'as good as' the camera could do in expert hands, why bother buying the expensive equipment at all? Just hocus pocus your own results there at your desktop without ever going outside. Personally, I don't see this happening as the software still has to 'invent' focused pixels that are missing from your near-miss results. Where, your time and sunk costs into the top-end gear could all be better spent learning the details and practicing the shooting technique. Someone who nailed the image in the camera will always have a visually better result, down to the pixel level, than the software / AI software could even achieve from the near-miss version.

To your idea of a database of 'perfect' images, that might be how it could be done. None of that infrastructure exists today for consumers, that's more of fantasy / CSI TV ideas today, and maybe some nation-level facial recognition applications. In today's reality, people can buy whatever they can afford and use it anyway they want. But, when someone asks me for help, they'll get both candid feedback on current example results, and actionable ideas on the proper things to practice doing to the best of their ability.

gener202002

There are all kinds of arguments on the internet about jpeg versus raw. But then again, might just make you more confused. I think so much depends on exactly what you want to do.

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

Even if you are confused about raw va jpg it’s worth saving both. Memory is cheap and confusion can be overcome. The raw files give additional flexibility. If you don’t know how to fully use that flexibility now, you might be able to use it a couple years from now and you will have a stock of raw files you can use to improve your photos.

Saving raw files is like an investment in photo quality.

gener202002

I myself generally shoot in raw, but sometimes in both raw and jpeg. I like playing around with lightroom and photoshop to see what I can do. What makes something stand out and so on. But it seems more and more people are saying nowdays that jpeg is the way to go. I don't get into the arguments too deeply. I don't have time for it. But I like to experiment.

Jdh1951 Loc: Los Angeles

Go for it! I was 68 when I started with Lightroom and almost right away was able to use it to produce noticeably better photographs. It's quite intuitive (unlike Photoshop) and has been substantially improved over the past decade with AI features that make it even simpler to use. I'd recommend the Creative Cloud subscription since Adobe is continually upgrading LR (you will also get Photoshop if you want to try something much more challenging).

Unless you can nail the shot in the camera at least 20% of the time, you'll appreciate the ability to do sophisticated post-production processing in LR. Also recommend using RAW rather than JPEG-- it's a lot easier to correct mistakes with exposure or white balance if you do.

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Thank you for taking the time to respond... Good points to chew on. Sometimes I tend to overthink things. My wife tells me to be happy with what I have...

DVZ Loc: Littleton CO

You might try ACDSee it not as full featured as LR but it's very intuitive and has all you need.