Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

is the following correct? If I set my camera to JPEG, my understanding is that the camera captures the image data and converts it to jpeg, presumably with an algorithm that tries to make a "good" picture.

If I capture in RAW, I then open the image in a software package, (either the camera manufacturer or something like Lightroom or PSE). Now is that software (a) also using an algorithm to try to create a "good" picture that I can either export directly as a jpeg (or other format) or use the tools to improve it or is it (b) just providing me the data and a platform to make the "good" picture myself with the various sliders and tools?

If (b), then as an inexperienced software user, I may not be able to make a picture as "good" as what the camera algorithm can do for its jpeg, and I am better off using the jpeg until I Master RAW processing software.

If (a), I can use RAW, starting with a "good" picture, and can work to improve it (reverting back if I make a given picture worse). This way I should presumably come up the learning curve faster, and in the meantime have the software's version of the "good" picture as a failsafe.

I guess a corallary question would be: if (a), which RAW converters make the best images?

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

A couple of quick notes as you will be receiving mega-advice :)

Shoot raw + jpg; then you have your camera's version to compare with your raw edits.

I only know one raw editor (Adobe Camera Raw, the less complex version in PS Elements) and it does indeed have some pre-sets you can use as a starting point.

Raw files don't change; you can't mess them up. When you save, you must convert to a different file type, so your raw is always available to go back to and start over.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Many folks (self included) shot raw+jpeg while they were learning raw processing. I did that for about 6 months, till I had confidence in my own raw editing abilities, and from then on I have shot raw exclusively.

For most cameras, the software that came with your camera will give you the best jpeg version from your raw file. But often that software does not do enough for more advanced editing once you get over the initial learning phase.

Any raw converter will perform better for you if you learn how to control it, but the one that came with your camera will look more like your camera's jpegs if that is what you want.

Adobe Lightroom does a good job of raw converting/editing for me BUT I had to learn how to use it in order for it to do a good job, it does not make the photos look great on import. They are bland, and I do with them what I want which may be very different image to image, so I appreciate having the extra data of the raw file to work with. I have a LR preset that imports my raws and does a good job of basic editing, but I still like to do my own fiddling.

Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

Thanks, Linda. Bringing up presets suggests a better way I could have phrased my question:

If I bring in the image without a preset, is the ACR or their software basically applying its own algorithm as a preset? Or is it just sort of raw data coming in with no manipulation at all?

I have been doing RAW + JPEG for your reason, and also to work in jpeg, but experiment in RAW. I don't shoot '"great" pictures (mostly grandkids, travel, and miscellaneous landscapes) so I don't spend a lot of time in pp with any of them. That said, like anyone I enjoy capturing nice images (composition, color, light, etc), so I do do a little quick global touch up.

So far, occasionally I can make a wonderful photo from RAW, but usually I do no better than the camera jpeg with slight pp.

Again, thanks. I have enjoyed much of your advice on this forum.

Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

Thank you minniev. Good stuff. I have to get so I Can make the "bland" as good or better than the JPEG.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Lots of "a's" and "b's"

When you set your camera for jpeg you are telling the camera how to interpret what it captures. Theoretically you can adjust all the parameters, but seldom does more than exposure actually get changed. Once the interpretation is baked into the jpeg, all additional information - colors, detail, contrast, tones, etc are discarded and the image is compressed.

When you record a raw file with the camera, you are in complete control of the outcome. If you choose to you can set the camera as if you were taking a jpeg, and generally those settings will determine what you see in the preview screen in the raw converter. You can also set up an import set of adjustments in many raw converters that can be applied to all the images on import.

The nice thing about raw capture is that you can deal with each image individually, or in groups of similarly exposed images, applying the same adjustments to all the images in the group based on the adjustments made to a single image in the group.

But, this will not be your last stop in post processing. Sharpening, dodging and burning, local contrast adjustments, masking, layering, retouching, etc is often done to "finish" the image. Most of the time images look pretty good out of a raw converter, but seldom do they look finished. A fine point that many gloss over, but presenting raw conversions to a client's art director is a sure way to ensure that you will never work for that company again - unless this is what they want so their Photoshop guys can do the final finishing.

The best raw conversions have traditionally been made using the camera mfgr's software. But Nikon has changed that - their raw conversion software is almost useless. All it does is make it similar to what you would get with in camera settings.

You cannot edit a raw file. You can edit a preview that you can convert to a psd, tiff or jpeg. Sometimes a quick jpeg is all you need, but when it really counts, it makes sense to convert to tiff or psd to take advantage of the layering and non-destructive editing that you can do in Photoshop and other programs. With 16 bit tiff or psd editing capability there is no sense to spending time trying to edit an 8 bit jpeg, only to get inferior results.

For me, Capture One has the best image quality on import. Images look better with less adjustment. Lightroom is an industry standard, and together with Photoshop - represent the core post processing suite for photo editing. The best way to get LR and PS is to subscribe for $10/month - best deal out there for professional quality photo editing software. There are dozens of programs - free and paid, that are available, but for the most part these are generally used by hobbyists and photo enthusiasts.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

What software are you working with?

Bill_de Loc: US

If you are using Nikon, download Capture NX-d from Nikonusa. It is a raw converter that can open your raw image with your camera settings applied as they would be to a jpg. You can use this as a starting point, but still have the flexibility of non destructive editing.

Adobe raw editors start with software presets, your own, or theirs, but not your actual camera settings.

Either way, it shouldn't take long to get on the screen what you saw in the viewfinder, or any variation you desire.

--

Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

Thank you Gene51 and Bill de. Everyone is helping me greatly.

Minniev: for software, I have not yet developed a RAWProcessing "workflow", so no choice yet.

I have used Aperture, primarily for organization, but also a little sharpening or exposure adjustments on jpeg's. With Apple no longer supporting it, I need to settle on a new approach (hence my original post trying to better understand RAW). I have done 30 day trials on several, but not spent much time on them. I have Affinity and the Costco version of PSE, so those are 2 I've tried, which are both good. Also Aperture will deal with RAW, and even Photos, which I now use for its fantastic organization and search capabilities.

I wil guess I will settle on PSE or Lightroom CC, or maybe Affinity if I can learn how to sync adjustments and save files more quickly, but I first have to develop a quicker and better way to process.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

There isn't really a good universal answer other than it depends...

Each individual needs to work out the best process for themselves and it depends what the objectives are.

At least to begin with shooting both raw and JPEG makes sense, since it gives you a comparison image. It will also vary from camera vendor to camera vendor and software vendor to software vendor.

For example, Canon's DPP software imports the camera preset information and applies it to raw files so that they look the same as the camera processed JPEGs, but that is just the starting point. The raw files have more editing potential.

If you import to a different software package then the presets may not be transferred. You may have to create your own.

I think only you can work out what works best for you, there are lots of choices to be made.

Good luck...

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Jpegs contain the in camera settings for sharpness, contrast, color tone, etc. Most raw programs ignore that information for raw files, including all Adobe products. As a result, straight out of the camera, raw files tend to look flatter, duller, less sharp and less saturated when compared to jpegs. It is expected that you will always do post processing on raw files.

Some post processing programs from camera manufacturers, such as Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) will retain the in camera settings for raw files. In those cases raw images will look identical to jpeg images straight out of the camera. One of the advantages of shooting raw is that raw files contain all the shooting information at the time the image was captured and allows for far greater and more precise adjustments with fewer artifacts and less noise than jpeg images which are only a subset of the original data.

Linckinn Loc: Okatie, SC and Edgartown, MA

Good advice Peterff. I can and will work it all out, but these answers today will help me greatly.

Thanks.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

From my own convoluted journey (started with iPhoto, graduated to Elements, went to Photoshop, stopped and backed up to Lightroom and left everything else alone till I mastered LR, then added Photoshop, then added plugins) my very humble advice would be to start with a parametric converter/editor/organizer like Lightroom, and add a pixel level editor when you hit the limit of what you can do with the other. There will come a time where you will want to learn layers, masking, etc, but it is too much for a beginner IMHO.

Having your photos in a conversion/basic editing program that will interface later with a pixel level editor would be consideration, so you won't face starting over again. One catalogue that can house and shuttle everything back and forth, one seamless workflow where all programs you use work together. It may be that Photos and Affinity will do that for you, I don't use either so can't offer an opinion. Have heard good things about Affinity but don't like Photos, avoid it like the plague, so can't be fair about it:)

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

For the purposes of demystifying the whole thing, I recommend that you use the camera manufacturer's raw rendering program to open the camera manufacturer's proprietary raw file format as an introductory step. The camera and the program that came with the camera "talk the same language" so to speak. The raw file will be displayed with the camera settings applied, but you will still have the freedom to change any of the camera pre-sets, just as though you had not yet taken the image. This helps you become familiar with what the camera settings do, and with what can be done with raw files. Then, you can move to Adobe or working on the files in other editing programs, as appropriate.

The folks who have posted on this thread so far know their stuff and are always helpful. You can trust what Gene, Minnie, Peter, mwsilvers, Linda and Bill are telling you. They are the best.

Mike

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

It sounds as if you're working your way toward raw. In my opinion, that's good. And presumably you understand that shooting raw is a bit more work. Many of us consider that the price paid for better results.

Your pictures are indeed converted from raw one way or another: whether you do it yourself or let the camera do it. The camera has a pile of parameters you can apply to produce the jpg from the raw sensor data. They're generally in fairly coarse discrete steps. The external software used to convert from raw to jpg has much finer steps, and therefore you have more control over the final image. The trick is learning to use those adjustments. That takes practice. You also have to develop a sense of just how much adjustment is right and how much is too much. That's probably half the battle right there.

If you're just taking a few family and vacation shots you can probably use just about any software to do what you want. If you start taking a lot of photos, you might want to consider getting into a management program so you can keep track of what you have and find it when you need it. That's where I like Lightroom. When I got up to 10,000 pictures it started to get tough to find things. But with the Lightroom catalog and keywords on my photos finding things becomes much easier.

Another discipline you might want to develop is going through your photos as you take them and toss out the stuff that is duplicated, out of focus, uninteresting, etc. That will go a long way to keeping your photo rate low so you can keep track of things. My keeper rate is on the order of 10%. There are generally a lot of pictures that are not very good but show something related to the family that I might want to keep. For that reason although my keeper rate might be 10%, what I actually keep is more in the 15-20% range. For me that's 1500-2000 shots/year out of around 10,000/year. YMMV

PS: Developing a good folder hierarchy for keeping track of photos is also a good idea. My primary search engine for photos is Lightroom, and I think it works faster than looking through folders. But my wife doesn't know how to use Lightroom and if she wants to find a photo she can still look through the folders, which are named by subject.