rebeil Loc: florida

The more I read about Raw the more I am confused, manual dosen't explain very well-- just in everyday shooting, like grandkids, pets maybe a graduation do I get a better picture in RAW, I do not do any editing in camera just take media from camera and download to computer , I am using a D5000

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

If exposure is right and perfect conditions for shooting, you'll likely see no difference. The real difference comes in, if the conditions are not favorable (backlighting or some extraneous light), or low light. With RAW, all of the data from the sensor is saved. With jpg, it is not. So with RAW, if you have to tweak a photo that isn't so great, you can often recover details that wouldn't be possible in the jpg version.

profpb Loc: Venice, Florida

The real value in shooting RAW is be able to correct the less than perfect exposure in your photo using software.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

Also you have the option to choose what format you want to convert to from raw without losing quality.
JPEG can only get you ... well, jpeg.

leroynunn Loc: Queen Creek, Arizona

If you want to shoot RAW, and use Photoshop for editing, you might want to get the book I am reading now: "Camera Raw, with Adobe Photoshop CS4. You will take better photos with RAW with lots of room for adjusting.

rebeil Loc: florida

Thanks for all the advice & information I going to get the book today

stevelew47 Loc: Edmonds, WA

If your lighting and exposure is dead on then jpeg works fine. I use an expo disc to get a custom white balance first then shoot jpeg. There is less post production shooting jpeg but the problem exists when the lighting changes or shooting in different locations. That's when raw is better. Fixing a jpeg image if you messed up in exposure you probably have only a stop adjustment in exposure. Shooting raw, you have about 4 stops of adjustments which means if you blew the exposure you can fix it. Shooting in raw, you will need to convert that image after post production which is an extra step in getting an image that other's can view or to print.

darkmanCANADA Loc: Calgary, AB Canada

If you can't afford Photoshop try Gimp with the UFRaw plugin and the Gimpshop plugin to make it look like Photoshop so that you can follow the books. I have used it a few times with success.

Alternatively if you are using Windows 7 you can download the RAW support codec and download Windows Live Photo Gallery and you can do some minor editing. Check out my panorama in the Pictures section.

CocoaRoger Loc: Cocoa Florida

RAW is especially good in difficult exposure settings. It also gives you a chance to fix mistakes. I'll post three images I've saved for this type of question. I went to a museum and after getting out of the car I took a picture of a fountain with the wrong exposure and had it been something I could not go back and fix I would have been screwed. Then I tried using photoshop on the jpeg to fix it and as you can see in the middle picture it could do very little, then I went to the RAW file and you can see what a big difference it made. You wouldn't want to take that once in a lifetime shot only to find out you had the wrong setting or exposure.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

If you're just taking snap shots then jpg is fine. If you're a perfectionist and what to be able to take control and get the most out of every image in post processing (Photoshop) then RAW is the answer. Most people start out using jpg and if they really get into photography they will usually shoot both and then later switch completely to RAW. When you shoot in RAW, the image you get will be from the camera with no "in camera" processing. In other words, shooting in jpg you can choose various picture styles like Landscape, Portrait, Standard, Vivid etc., every make of camera is different. These picture styles will add something to the jpg image, but will not affect a RAW image. Sometimes a RAW image can come out looking rather flat and less vivid than a jpg. But those changes can be made to one image in the RAW editor and applied to all the images in a batch.

DCHigley Loc: Ashtabula, OH originally

RAW is what the camera sees and records without any adjustments. On the D90 is does save things like the control used when shot (such as Vivid or B&W) but this is adjustable in ViewNX easily. The JPG images are processed in the camera with the control used and can no longer be changed to different controls.

For example, if you shoot a JPG with the B&W selected, you are stuck with a B&W image because the JPG doesn't have the original sensor data of the image. RAW saves all of the sensor data, so even is the shot was taken with B&W selected, it is only the "default" for that RAW image. Choosing Vivid for the control in ViewNX will make the shot just like you shot it with Vivid. Something that the JPG can't do.

Just posted this in another thread, so I thought I would put it here as well since it appears to apply... :)

Try ViewNX 2. Play with it a bit. You can make the picture control whatever you wish under the adjustments. This will make the raw images as "colorful" as you want. I am guessing that the conversion you are doing does something similar, or maybe it adjusts to some other parameter that is set in the software you are using. Personally, I prefer NEF because I can use one shot and do many different controls and see which presents the picture as I want it.

What I did, yes it's a bit boring, is take some shots in the living room, plop them in ViewNX and played with every thing it had under the adjustments, metadata and so on. It took me a day to do all this to my satisfaction, but I am fond of ViewNX and NEF images now. I am one that doesn't do any fancy editing, so ViewNX works for me.

Good luck!

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Raw is the full amount of information that the sensor of your camera is recording with no adjustments made by the camera at all. When you shoot raw you cannot make any adjustments in the camera such as B&W or contrast settings or HDR any other setting that the camera is capable of doing. So why do you shoot raw. The reason is that a raw file is the best and largest file that your camera can produce and there is a lot more information in a raw file so the quality of the file is much better. A good raw file should need less adjusting in post production also. The only downside to shooting raw is that the files are larger and for storage purposes a larger file will take up more space when you store it. The advantages of a raw file make it well worth shooting in raw. If you are going to make a large print a raw file will print better.

CocoaRoger Loc: Cocoa Florida

It should be added from Silvers post that once you make adjustments if any, that it will then be saved as a jpg and his post leaves the impression that you will use up your HD space with them. That is a misimpression. That is only temp until you convert them, after that you can delete if you wish the RAW files and reclaim that space on your drive.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

The purpose of shooting a raw file is to keep it as a raw file so it can be accessed at any time as a raw file. No misimpression here, if you are not going to keep the raw file why shoot raw in the first place. The ideal is to copy the raw image and do the adjustments to the copy file. By doing this you keep the raw information intact.

tulsimm

What is your goal for your photos? Have an image you can look at and recall the event in your or their life's? You want to spend time editing your photos as part of your hobbie? Would you enjoy editing? Is your camera settings auto or manual?. Will crisp sharp over sharp be important?

Those answers, IMHO, will tell you what RAW will do for you and the worth of the learning curve.
If it is for memories, I would take Jpegs trusting that camera and take 100s. Culling time want be any learning curve and no stress