Linckinn wrote:
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?
is the following correct? If I set my camera to JP... (
show quote)
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.