so confused on RAW: I know what raw vs. jpeg means. compression of dots and loss of some quality after editing in jped but i have such a hard time. I want to shoot raw but even after i...

dblackard Loc: Rockport Texas

I know what raw vs. jpeg means. compression of dots and loss of some quality after editing in jped but i have such a hard time. I want to shoot raw but even after i process it thru lightroom i cannot use the pics. I mean i change them to dng in LR and downloaded a plug in so i could view on my computer. But now it only shows small. i cannot open one up to view. or to print or to put on say.. Uglyhedghog. This does me no good. I end up changing them all the jped after anyways so what good am i doing?? what am i doing wrong??

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

raw is just the data..like the digital negative..jpg is the print, so to speak. the raw file has to be saved as a jpg or tiff to be viewed in a regular program or image viewer. the Raw file, like a negative, is the original.

normanhall Loc: Leslie Missouri

I am not sure but it sounds like the program you downloaded to veiw the dng files is causing the problem. If you download the images from your camera and convert to dng once you are through editing them you can save a copy of the edited image on your computer in lightroom and view them in jpeg format.

Why would you want to view those Dng's in another program other than what you have. (lightroom)

if you want to convert them to jpeg after you have finished editing them go to file and export this will bring up a window with the export information and you can set the image format from there to jpeg or any other file format.

the raw image gives you so much more information to work with.

dblackard Loc: Rockport Texas

ok, i have converted them to jpeg. i just dont understand why i am doing this? doesnt seem to me to be much different in editing except maybe the white balance in lightroom. so if i am changing them to jpeg in the end anyway why do you shoot raw?? i know this sounds like a real newbie but i am just trying to find logic in this!

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

dblackard wrote:

ok, i have converted them to jpeg. i just dont understand why i am doing this? doesnt seem to me to be much different in editing except maybe the white balance in lightroom. so if i am changing them to jpeg in the end anyway why do you shoot raw?? i know this sounds like a real newbie but i am just trying to find logic in this!

Did you ever shoot 35-mm print film? It wasn't actually a print, but a negative image that is used to make a positive print on paper.

Raw is very similar, so think about it like a negative. Raw is a "capture" format. You can come back to it time & time again, because it never changes, just like an original film negative.

A JPG image, on the other hand, is similar to a paper print. It is a "viewing" format. Granted, you can alter a JPG without going back to a Raw image, sort of like using colored markers on a paper print. Once you alter a JPG, you cannot "undo".

Every digital camera and scanner captures only in Raw. Some cameras (and every scanner) allow only JPG (or TIFF) as output. Many cameras allow downloading both Raw and JPG images to a memory card for transfer to your PC or Mac.

normanhall Loc: Leslie Missouri

Raw is your digital negative. This is the equivalent to the negative you used to get when you picked up your photos from the lab. This negative has all of your information on it for that particular image. You have a wider range of options when dealing with the raw image than you do with jpeg. When you are through working with your raw image(negative) you save it as a jpeg. Once you save it as a jpeg the image gets compressed into a smaller file which makes it easier to send via e-mail and it is also the format for printing your images. Unless the printer wants a tif file.

dblackard Loc: Rockport Texas

I understand it is like a negative. But if i run a jpeg thru lightroom and save the edited one, it will also makes a second copy of the jpeg. so i still have the original jpeg as well unaltered. my camera, ( nikon d7000) does have the abiblity to save both files on the memory card.and i have been using this but it takes forever to get everything done than to just shoot jpeg to begin with. i am sure i am frustrating some of you. but working in lightroom i really havent seen to much more i can do except wb with the raw. am i missing something? thanks for all your replies!! they are very well writen.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Forget RAW for now.Just shoot JPG. For newer folks, RAW is WAAAY overrated.
If you are getting your exposures and White Balance right, A Large Fine JPG is perfect. Really - don't overthink this -shoot JPG for now and lose the stress. How many 20x30s are you printing? Shoot JPG.

Everyone on this list but 2 will disagree with me, but I have the images shot in sRGB JPG to prove it. :-)

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

CaptainC wrote:

Forget RAW for now.Just shoot JPG. For newer folks, RAW is WAAAY overrated.
If you are getting your exposures and White Balance right, A Large Fine JPG is perfect. Really - don't overthink this -shoot JPG for now and lose the stress. How many 20x30s are you printing? Shoot JPG.

Everyone on this list but 2 will disagree with me, but I have the images shot in sRGB JPG to prove it. :-)

Make that 3.

donnahde Loc: Newark, DE

I agree, too, Capt C. When shooting raw causes that much distress there's just no reason to do it when jpeg shots (even shot on automatic) come out so well. I always shoot raw but sometimes wonder why - esp for run of the mill event photography.

CaptainC wrote:

Forget RAW for now.Just shoot JPG. For newer folks, RAW is WAAAY overrated.
If you are getting your exposures and White Balance right, A Large Fine JPG is perfect. Really - don't overthink this -shoot JPG for now and lose the stress. How many 20x30s are you printing? Shoot JPG.

Everyone on this list but 2 will disagree with me, but I have the images shot in sRGB JPG to prove it. :-)

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

CaptainC wrote:

Forget RAW for now.Just shoot JPG. For newer folks, RAW is WAAAY overrated.

For your situation, he is absolutely correct.

I did not realize that a D7000 cannot simultaneously record Raw + JPG (fine) to a memory card. Are you sure about this? I could swear I read where some D7000 users send JPG to one card, and Raw to the second card. On both my D90 and my D5000, I simultaneously record both to the same card. Selection is a menu choice.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Nikonian72 wrote:

CaptainC wrote:

Forget RAW for now.Just shoot JPG. For newer folks, RAW is WAAAY overrated.

For your situation, he is absolutely correct.

I did not realize that a D7000 cannot simultaneously record Raw + JPG (fine) to a memory card. Are you sure about this? I could swear I read where some D7000 users send JPG to one card, and Raw to the second card. On both my D90 and my D5000, I simultaneously record both to the same card. Selection is a menu choice.

The d7000 can shoot both, but my suggestion does not change.

normsImages Loc: Alabama for now

You only need to export to Jpg the ones you are sending to the printers. If you print your own there is now need to convert to jpeg. After I send pics to a printer I deleat the jpeg to same space. The only other reason I convet to jpeg is if I'm sending them to someone else or putting on disk for someone else. When shooting I shoot only RAW and let LR do the rest.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

CaptainC wrote:

The d7000 can shoot both, but my suggestion does not change.

And I still agree with you.

I want corroboration or correction about simultaneously recording both to memory card.

tvsnan

Nikonian72 wrote:

CaptainC wrote:

The d7000 can shoot both, but my suggestion does not change.

And I still agree with you.

I want corroboration or correction about simultaneously recording both to memory card.

You are correct - it will record both simultaneously.