You can't tether a D3300 to a computer but you can tether it to a stand alone monitor or a TV set. With some monitors you can tether direct using a cable with the mini hdmi to the camera and an hdmi or DVI pug for the TV or monitor. I found I needed to use an upscale box like the one I use to connect my Wii to my TV to watch Netflix. Nikon doesn't document this capability, so I created a Youtube video to show how it worked with my D3100 (ought to work the dame on the D3300).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bqerz7PfuY&index=8&list=UUSbokLY5DkTAy5movtXN5Dw

I used it for video, but works the same for still shots.

Now that I have a D7000 I can tether to the computer direct using the free DigiCam Control program.

Ross, Using Lightroom vs Photoshop is hard to say specifically, since they are both part of the same solution. Lightroom is a program designed to take (primarily the RAW file but also works with .JPG, TIFF etc) photos from your camera and catalog them and make adjustments to and edit the images beyond the abilities of the camera. It also is nondestructive to the original image (it creates a trailer file with the adjustments and edits). Photoshop is a program that takes the images and actually edits the individual pixels within the image giving the photographer, editor or other photography worker the ability to either adjust or make complete changes to the photo. (Note: this is not saying the Lightroom can not make images completely different from the one shot but Photoshop gives the editor the ability to carry it further more easily. Both programs can work hand in hand or each can be used alone. Many photographers will begin with Lightroom and adjust edit and produce the photo to completion and then publish it. Others will do similar things in Lightroom then move the completed Lightroom project to Photoshop for additional editing, and still others (a minority but still excellent photographers) will do all of their work in Photoshop. Note: Photoshop in of its self does not have the ability to catalog and sort photos and the user will probably use an additional utility called bridge to handle those duties. I fall into the category of doing 90% of my work in Lightroom and then 5-8% gets final touches in Photoshop. I also use other programs like Nikon Camera Capture NX (replaced by Nikon Capture DX) of which I have both. Nikon View NX (came with the camera and limited but okay) Nikon Camera Control Pro ( Nikon's tethering software) Note: Tethering can also be done to a limited degree in Lightroom but (for me) is not nearly as robust nor does it give the complete control of the camera as Nikon's Camera Control Pro. There are many other image editing programs out there both free and for pay but these are my primary ones. Corel Draw (which used to be a direct competitor to Paintshop is one and there are many others people will mention on here. I have tried and used them in the past (most back when I was running Microsoft XP or Windows 3x. and even in my DOS days) some have stayed semi-main stream and others have gone the way of the Dodo bird. Photoshop has remained in the mainstay for all of that time though originally, it was designed for Apple Macintosh as a professional editor for newspapers, magazines and printers. Adobe has been around since the early days of computers being used in imaging where many others have jumped on the bandwagon or gone away. Corel, Quark and Adobe were the mainstay of the publishing world and each still have their proponents and their users but Adobe seems to have gotten and held the lead.

Jaymatt, when you say that you're starting to photograph in RAW, do you mean you're shooting sometimes RAW, sometimes JPG, or that you're now shooting in RAW+JPG mode? There are valid reasons to shoot RAW+JPG, such as a sports photographer who needs to post or email images. But, most of the time, I think it's a case that the photographer hasn't yet achieved a comfort level with post-processing. So, it's kind of like riding a bike with training wheels. One drawback is it adds to file management complexity. Another is it eats up drive space.

As soon as you feel comfortable, I'd suggest shooting strictly RAW. Remember, you can edit RAW files again later, but that's hard to do effectively with JPG's.

This article may be useful:
http://laurashoe.com/2012/09/24/shooting-in-raw-jpeg-mode-lightroom/

In a couple recent topics, it has been suggested there are too many "issues" with Lightroom's current versions. Apparently, there are about 60,000 signed up as UHH members and millions of Lightroom users. Some have said they won't use it because it is too flaky.

I thought it would be fun and interesting to see how many find it reliable and how find it a failure. The point here is not whether or not you like the perpetual licence plan or the CC rental plan, but only if Lightroom "works reliably".

Would you please post a "Good" if it is reliable and a "Bad" if it is not reliable.

My post is "Good". It has been flawless.

While I agree with soft-proofing and do this myself. Most non-professionals do NOT have a color managed workflow and therefore soft-proofing is unnecessary. If you don't have a color managed workflow you can go directly from the print module.

However soft-proofing is a good habit to get into. Soft-proofing is the act of bringing back into gamut anything out of gamut for your printer/paper combination. This should be preceded by a calibrated monitor on a regular basis, or soft-proofing means very little.