MiroFoto

1. I always took photos in JPEG format ..some of them editing w Elements 9. Now, I have Elements15 and my question is : " Do I really get much better pictures using RAW and editing them with Elements 15? "
sure I know that without post processing with Photoshop and fancy programs I can not match the profi ...even 1/2 profi quality of pictures UHH members post here.

Can somebody post a comparison pics?.

2. Second question is ..how would they look on 4K monitor? It means what quality Megapix do I need to see the difference between 4k and 1920? I have a Nikon 7100 (can shoot RAW) and Nikon P90 (shoots JPEG)

3. Third question : I would like to buy a 24" screen 4K and 1920 laptop ......will it work ? OR do I have to have 4K laptop?

Thank you very much for your responses. OR just a direction to old posts will be OK.

Miro

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Item 1 - I was researching some other topics yesterday and came across this post. Look at the JPEG image vs the RAW version before the editing started. Then, follow the discussion until the end where the fully processed RAW is compared back to the JPEG.
http://www.slrlounge.com/workshop/dynamic-range-and-raw-vs-jpeg/

REF laptops / desktops and monitors, I'd go with an High-Def 1080 model (1920x1080). If you can afford a 4K and have the physical space in your workarea to use it, go for it. You'll be prepared for the future directly. Just don't be on the bleeding edge ... The advantages of 4K are all about the applications you use. Beyond Photoshop, what other applications (and the computer) do you have to leverage this investment? Is PSE15 included in that inventory?

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Photoshop Elements is really not a good choice for working on raw files, as PSE is soooo very limited in what it can do with raw files!

MiroFoto

Thank you guys for the hints. I have looked at the video, but it is the general one. I know the elements will be a bit weak. This is what I wanted to compare
- Jpeg directly from camera and the same done by Elements . I know ..if it is done by a full Photoshop, it will be much better. And this is what I wanted to compare....and decide.
The second question basically is : If I use Elements only and jpegs directly from camera...will the 4k screen show a huge difference?

PS: I do not call myself a photographer . So I have invested $50 for Elements , but do not want to go further, and do not want to spend much time on learning either.

Still, your input will be appreciated Miro

Bill_de Loc: US

I used Photoshop for many years. I now use Elements 15 for most of my post processing including RAW images.

There are people on this site who work miracles with their raw files.

I use JPG for images that I post and small prints, and RAW for larger prints and for those images that I couldn't get right in the camera.

I suggest that you shoot both for now and use the JPGs If you get to the point YOU are not satisfied with your images, you will be able to test the RAW waters with Elements. Also, Elements can do a lot with your JPGs, beyond what the camera alone can do.

The reason I say shoot both, sometime in the future you may decide to go back and redo some images.

Good Luck

--

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Your D7100 provides plenty of pixels to 'cover' a 4K display. The only limitation is how much you want to learn and develop in your edit capabilities using PSE15. The tool PSE15 probably won't be a limiting factor nor will a 4K display show issues in a JPEG that would be hidden on smaller screens.

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

The basic raw editing workflow will not produce an image that is "finished"- but it will produce a very good proof. There is always more enhancement that you can do with an image, in the form of local (not global) adjustments that you can make in a program like PSE or Photoshop. The raw editor in PSE - Adobe Camera Raw, or ACR for short - is quite good, but there are some tools that you can use to make local adjustments in the full blown ACR that is in Photoshop, that are missing from the ACR that is part of PSE. There is no adjustment brush, radial or linear gradient, color sampler, or spot removal tool in the PSE version of ACR. Also, PSE is missing some important adjustment tools - Tone Curve, HSL/Grayscale, Split Toning, Lens Corrections, Presets and the ability to make Snapshots. Also, the working color gamut and output of PSE is limited to a relatively small color space - sRGB. During editing you are more likely to end up clipping a color channel (oversaturating it), which results in bright colors without detail.

So if your needs are modest, PSE is "ok" but if you want to fully exploit the quality in your images, a better editing platform can potentially provide a better result. The rest is up to your and your abilities, and that will continue to improve over time.

As far as the recommendation to shoot raw+jpeg, this really only works for images of average contrast without lots of image data at the extremes of the brightness range. If you are shooting say, a waterfall, where part of it is lit by the sun and the rest is in shadow, and you have deep shadows cast by rocks and overhanging foliage - you have a large brightness range that simply put - exceeds the range that the out of camera jpeg can produce. Your highlights and dark shadows will be without detail, but your middle tones will not. You can bias the exposure to NOT blow out the highlights, but the resulting image will be dark, and the shadow detail will likely be even less recoverable. Adjusting the mid-tones is possible to create an acceptable image, but the shadows will be lost. With the greater tonal range possible with a raw file, you can bias the exposure to retain highlight detail, and still have enough data in the shadows to produce a much better end result. So for high contrast (wide tonal range) images you set you exposure differently to capture as raw than you would for an "acceptable" jpeg out of the camera.
brightest
This is an example of the exposure bias, set to retain the highlights. I set my meter to spot, read the brightest part of the image - the water between the two rocks in the center of the image, and added 1 stop of light to bring the value higher than the middle gray that would result had I not adjusted the reading from the meter.

First image is un-edited, the second is the same image but with tonal and color adjustments to create a balanced image. The third is similar to the jpeg a camera might produce - overall good midtones, but poor, deep shadow detail and blown highlights. The raw file of an image exposed like this may also have blown highlights. Exposure biasing to retain highlights, knowing that you can adjust the rest of the image, is a benefit of not even bothering with raw+jpeg in this situation.

I have not shot a jpeg since 2006.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Thanks. Interesting video. You know, I bet with a bit pf training, he could speak even faster.

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

I always shoot JPG and RAW. I first review the JPG's in Elements 15 because they are much smaller files and load more quickly. When I find the ones I like, and are worth the effort, I process the RAW file in Elements 15. I like the RAW processor because I can obtain the best color, exposure, noise reduction and sharpening on just two screens. I can also apply sharpening to those areas that need it and avoid sharpening areas that do not. When finished in RAW I move to the JPG editor for finish work; cloning, wrinkle moderation, eye and tooth whitening etc., and spot extreme sharpening. Most of the time my JPG is better than out of camera, sometimes not. The more extreme the lighting conditions the more likely my JPG will be better. (If not, I go back and try again). To me RAW might help, can't hurt.

jacklewis014

I started shooting JPG and edited with Elements but never was completed satisfied with the finished product. Someone suggested that I needed to shoot RAW, that it would be better. So I did and although the results were improved, still not satisfied. I had Lightroom (bought Elements & Lightroom as a bundle) but didn't use it because I didn't know how. It was not intuitive to learn and I wasn't taking to time to get the training I needed. After talking with friends and other photographers in the photo club, I decide to invest the time to learn Lightroom. I am still learning but I am getting closer to what I want in my post processing and final product. The options and capabilities available in LR far exceed that of Elements. I only shoot RAW now and with a RAW file I can fully leverage the functions in LR.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I use Elements 14 (started on 9). I now shoot exclusively in RAW except when doing a model shoot and the model wants JPEGs, then I shoot RAW + JPEG. The secret to using RAW in PSE is learning how to use Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) to edit your RAW photos. There are plenty of great tutorials on how to do it; as I've progressed in post processing, I've learned to adapt my setting in ACR, but the tutorials gave me a starting point! After I finish in ACR I will open the photos in PSE14 and tinker with them. I have to be honest, I probably use on 20% of PSE's capabilities, but (so far) it's the 20% I need (at the moment).

Do I get a much better photo than shooting in JPEG alone? Yes, I do. By doing the initial edit in ACR, I bring out details and textures that are not present in the JPEG file. It took a little time to develop the ability to do it, but it was well worth the time and learning experience.

As to the rest of your questions: I have no idea!

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

You might try Gimp ot has ;ots of tools and it'

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

This has been the most rational thread of RAW vs JPEG I have yet to read on UHH.

IMO, as was aluded to earlier, RAW has the POTENTIAL of giving you options that JPEG cannot provide - but do you have/want the knowledge/software to make this "POTENTIAL" become a noticeable reality in YOUR work ??? - And, will it be significantly enough to MATTER ?? Are you willing to pay the price ?

..

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

Photoshop Elements 15 has a very good RAW converter. The only problem is that I don't know how to use it for multiple photos, so you have to do individual pictures. Other than that, it is great.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

If you're satisfied with it, then great ( it would just not be enough for myself, being used to the full ACR)!