j.mcdanielphotography Loc: Ardmore, Tn

Just got a new camera..Not new but new to me..
Lumix FZ40...It's a giant leap from my FujiFilm FinePix
Cameras (S3280)

What is better about using RAW. And what program will I need to process the files? I have been using a couple of different programs to edit pictures Picasa And PicMonkey.. I have OnOne's Perfect Photo Suite Effects 7..

Any help would be great. Thanks J

asjohnston3 Loc: Irving, TX

I consider a RAW file to be the digital equivalent of a 35mm negative. It's an archive file that you can always go back to. I'm currently using an open source program called UFRaw to process my .NEF (Nikon RAW) files. I prefer it to the software that came with my D5100. UFRaw saves to a format called .PPM that can be directly exported to GIMP - my editing software of choice. (also open source)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

A RAW file contains all of the information that the camera recorded. If the camera converts this to a JPG file, some of that information is adjusted to correct exposure, contrast, color, etc. Some of the information may be lost and irretrievable, such as detail in the highlights and shadows.

If you don't want the camera to make arbitrary decisions for you, work with the original RAW file and make your own adjustments. It's a little more work and you might not want to do it for all of your images but it provides you the most control over your image.

Most current photo editing software can start from a RAW file but if you are not using a Nikon or a Canon, try before you buy.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

xxxxxxxxxx
Hi, jmcD,

Here's another "take" on the " jpg -RAW comparison" that some of my students and workshop participants have found useful:

The RAW data collected by your camera at exposure is not an image data file comparable to the JPEG file that your camera selects, copies, and "cooks down" from that original, inviolate sack of RAW data.

The 12 bit or 14 bit "RAW FILE" your camera delivers is simply a guarantee that that sack o' RAW data can be repeatedly "worked" by the RAW converter of your choice to come up up with a practically unlimited number of raw versions/ interpretations in a 16-bit environment , each with multiple thousands more options of interpretation than posessed by that little 8-bit RAW file that,admittedly, doesn't look too bad straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) but which is served up as a small "medium-well-done" hamburger rather than with all the glorious inate potential of a whole side of RAW U.S.D.A. Prime beef that never looses weight as new entrès are prepared from it!
Damn...now I'm hungry...salivating...prime rib, please -medium rare!

Dave in SD

CliffC Loc: Colorado USA

Easy to understand explanation Dave. Raw conversion sounds intimidating but doesn't have to be. I like to slightly underexposed my images knowing I can bring back some exposure if I need to.

JoeDesertrat Loc: Daytona Beach, FL

Raw files do generally take up more space, if that is an issue.

Your camera probably came with some software, check if that processes raw.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

JM, just my two cents.
I use raw, to take full advantage of what my equipment may produce.
I shoot Canon, so I use strictly the Canon DPP that comes with it. I consider the Canon software to be a Canon reader, and I'm looking, in RAW at the virgin Canon RAW file.
If I download with anything else, say Lightroom, LR is a translator. The algorithms in LR, don't read the file per se', but translate the file to a DNG. So the original file is translated into a different file format. I will always assume, untill I see empirical proof that there will always be some data lose or mismanipulation of my original data.
Though I work maybe 1% of my files in LR, I will always keep them in the original Canon RAW format.
I can easily convert to jpeg when necessary, but again, it's only for 1% of the files.
If you shoot events, maybe it's convenient to shoot in jpep.
Those are decisions you need to make for your style of photography.
Good luck
SS

chcinc Loc: Northeast Pennsylvania

One contributor suggested that a RAW file is like a film negative, I consider the RAW file to be more like an undeveloped film negative. Different conversion programs will "develop" the RAW file differently.

tequilacvx Loc: Sarasota, FL

Hey Dave. About that prime rib. I always cook my food (images) from RAW. The cooking (post-processing, starting from RAW), always results in a more appealing product (final image.... usually jpeg. -- Webby from FL

Greg K Loc: Iowa

My Pentax will has PEF or DNG. I use DNG would PEF be Better?

donrosshill Loc: Delaware & Florida

I think the easy (simple)way to describe what Raw is versus Jpg is.
Raw is like a 40ft truck full of image data that you can access to make your final image.
Jpg is like a pickup truck with some of the image data and can make a good image, but with less possibilities for a perfect final image.
Raw is like a 10ft deep pool of data and Jpg is like a 5ft deep pool.
I use both depending on what my goal is.
Use and enjoy.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Google "pef or dng better" and you will get a whole lot of information and opinion on the topic.

Both are valid but DNG will probably tie you to Adobe software, which was their objective in coming up with it.

I am not an Adobe dependent so I would prefer PEF, but that's just my opinion.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Think of this Do you want to have final control over how your image looks then use Raw If you would rather the camera decided how the picture looks then use JPEG

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

One of the best reasons I've found for capturing in RAW is that over the years since I started digital photography, both the software for image processing and my skills at it have improved. I can now go back to RAW files I captured 6 years ago and get a MUCH better photograph from the same file. My older JPEG captures (even at maximum quality settings) are very limited in how much additional benefit they can get from better software or new skills, as they quickly begin to break up, posterize and fill with noise.

If you never plan to post process any photos and simply want to capture and look/print/share, then RAW is of limited benefit as all modern cameras have good jpeg engines built in. But if you are a tinkerer and like to tweak your photos or re-interpret them into Black and White or other creative endeavors, then RAW is a good choice.

In my view Lightroom is the best starting point because of its development tools and cataloguing and print features. I use the On One Suite for most of what I do beyond that. It's great and the new version looks like it'll have more tools, but I haven't done the Beta, waiting for the full release. Lightroom works well with the On One modules.