redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

I have yet to use the RAW picture settting on my t4i as i am pretty satisfied with the jpeg images.. If i do decide to shoot raw ,should i shoot raw only or shoot raw-jpeg. And what would the advantages be of shooting raw -jpeg? Thanks for your tips?

EstherP

I always shoot raw + jpg.
Many of my photos include the grandkids: they and their mother often are impatient to get copies of (some of) these photos, so having the jpg image allows me to e-mail the photos right away, or if I'm at their place, stick my card into their computer's card reader and copy to their computer.

Another advantage is, that if I open the folder in Windows7, I can see the photo myself, as Windows does not read the raw images from my camera (no, not even with the latest codec installed).

But in the end, I always open the raw files to work on and finally save as .jpg (and yes, overwriting the .jpg taken by the camera).

EstherP

fthomas Loc: Philippines

You will be extremely pleased with the image quality available to you with RAW. It will take some experience to begin the process, but you will be WOWED by what your T4i can deliver.

Go for RAW + Jpeg and you will have what you are used to and something new to learn.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Many folks like RAW+jpeg so they can access photos quickly and email or post them, then work on the RAWs later at their leisure. RAW+jpeg is, in my opinion, the best way to start learning RAW which has a little learning curve though it really is pretty easy in a good RAW processor like Lightroom or several others. After a few months of learning I went to RAW only and now seldom shoot jpeg (I am not in a hurry about much). My cameras do a good job with jpegs but I like the control and options I have with RAW which will tolerate a lot more adjustments of lighting, white balance, and contrast without degrading the image.

For instance, here's a shot from my yard a couple of days ago, jpg first (with camera defaults) and adjusted RAW second. It was late evening, shady area, I didn't want to use flash or raise ISO (this camera gets noisy in a hurry).

There's lots of other similar threads on this and other forums, and some get kind of strange. This one may too. There are people who get really attached to one format or the other with an almost religious fervor, and get very defensive about their favored method. Don't take it personally. Experiment with both enough to get the most each has to offer, and find out what works for you.

Rob O' Loc: Freakin' Hot Arizona

I used to shoot only jpg. Then I would import the files and adjust them in photoshop elements.

But then I figured I was adjusting them anyway, so why not just shoot in raw? So now I shoot only raw and import the files and adjust them in lightroom. Same process, BUT the original file is unchanged (and thus retains all the possible information available)and I can export as jpg for viewing and printing and posting. I just don't see a need for raw + jpg anymore.

However, whatever works for you (after trial and error) is what you should go with no matter what anyone tells you is the 'right' way to do things.

redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

Thanks all for the tips. I think i will go with raw+jpeg and see what happens. If i get proficient in post processing then i probably will go with raw only in the future. I just ordered LR5 as per uhher"s and will do most of my post processing here and then with PE11 if needed. Have a Great Daay!! Tommorrow i will be hiking in a mass audubon wildlife sanctuary in marshfied,ma and will see if we can catch some good ones. I will be using my sx40 for any long range shots as i cannot afford a 500mm lens and my t4i 18-135mm lens for the shorter shots. Cheers!!

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Lightroom 5 is good. Get a book! My own personal favorites are the ones in the Craft and Vision Ebook series, which are cheap, concise, written where normal people can understand them, and illustrated in ways that help you learn the software. I learned more from Michael Fry's $5 Light and Land than I learned from the big Martin Evening & Scott Kelby $30+ volumes.

There's lots of people on this site that will help if you get stuck. There are a few quirks in Lightroom that can be baffling (just like there are quirks in cameras that stump us). Ask if you need anything. Have fun, sounds like you're in for a great day. I love Audubon sanctuaries.

redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

minniev, have you read the e-book on lightrm 5 in the craft and vision series and would you recommend it over kelby"s lightrm books. What are the quirks in lightroom that you find baffling as i just ordered lightrm 5. Thanks!!

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

I have the LR 5 book you reference and its helping me make the transition from LR4 to 5 but I don't know how it would be for a beginner. The same guy has written a bigger basic LR book. I think if you get it they throw in the LR 5 book free. I really like the Craft and Vision series. David du Chemins books in that series are good too. His are more about vision than software but he uses LR primarily to achieve that.

As for quirks, all software has them. LR has less than most but they are frustrating to beginners. Some basics. : use only 1 catalog, don't move photos around except within LR. Get a book. Ask here. Search for solutions on the excellent lightroom help site and lightroom queen. In a couple of weeks you'll feel better. Much more intuitive than PS or PE.

llcasey Loc: USA

Even if you don't shoot in "RAW" format many photo enhancing software programs allow you to open a JPG/jpeg in "RAW" format. Photoshop and PSElements both allow you to "Open As" and then you use the drop down box to open in RAW format.

redfordl Loc: Carver,Ma.

lcasey does this image opened in raw format from jpeg have the same info as if you had taken an image in RAW? Thanks!!

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I think this is misleading (but probably well intentioned)

I think what you mean is that these programs allow you to open jpgs in their raw converter (Adobe Camera Raw), and have access to the tools there to edit the image.
Is this what you mean?

llcasey Loc: USA

Jpg/Jpeg is a smaller file than a RAW file and has some basic processing influenced by the settings you choose with your camera. Raw is supposed to be (at least the way I understand it) a completely unprocessed and larger image. So it isn't exactly the same as taking the image in RAW format. Opening a Jpeg in the "raw" format in Photoshop or Photoshop Elements or any of the other software programs does give the same tools to process the image and it is much faster to do it this way. http://photo.net/learn/raw/

I personally have not seen much difference in the overall quality of the image between RAW and Jpeg. If you are going to process the Jpeg image in a software program and you are going to process the RAW image in the software program the difference I see is the quality of the software program and the size of the image. Might be different with a top of the line camera.

I don't know, does anybody put a RAW image out without processing it?

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

Sorry mate but almost everything you have said is incorrect.
There is a massive difference!
A jpeg file collects 256 shades of RGB (Red, Green Blue) which equates to 16 million colours.
A 12 bit RAW file collects 4,096 shades of RGB which equates to about 68 BILLION colours.
RAW files can be stored with lossless compression.
jpeg files at best compression use lossy compression which means any compressed files
are subject to artifacts, that can be seen in the end result.
Colour is only one factor in the equation of course. There are heaps more and all of them
better handled in computer post processing than incamera processing.
By the way, every RAW file also has a jpeg file embedded in it.
This provides the image on your camera screen when you are chimping your pics.

Is see so many discussions about which is the best on UHH, and have refrained from commenting,
but I couldnt resist after reading your post.
Really, there is no arguing with the facts.
jpegs suit many amateur photographers who are happy to let the camera auto settings,
or their own incamera settings define the end result with perhaps a little tweaking in their
favorite programme.
Many of these photographers would have probably used instamatics back in the old
days of negative film.
If you are serious about your hobby, passion, business or whatever stage you are at with
picture making, its a no brainer.
You spend thousands of dollars on equipment, research the web and talk on UHH about
whats the best lens, whats the best camera etc
and then decide to use your fantastic expensive setup to collect as little
information as its able to do.
Weird.
Sorry for my rant but, well, I just felt someone had to say it.

By the way, ou asked, "I don't know, does anybody put a RAW image out without processing it?"
No, it is not possible. A RAW file is NOT an image. It is a collection of data that needs converting to a picture file.

This subject comes up so often here. If you are serious about realising the full potential of the
equipment you have spent so much time and money on, it seems strange to me that
so many then stop and ignore the processing aspect of their hobby or whatever it is to them.
From the day photography was invented, post processing has been an important part of the final result.
The picture.
Why is it, that now in the digital age when we can take responsibilty for all stages of the end result,
do so many decide to stop at the moment they click the shutter button?

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

What LR 5 book are you referring to?