OK, when I'm wrong I'm wrong. I use Elements 12, which as far as I know, does not allow layers and masks while in the RAW editor. What is the name of the RAW editor that does allow layers and masks while editing RAW Files? Elements 14? I would seriously consider switching.

I shoot a lot of RAW images. I'm not a RAW fanatic, more of a "might help, can't hurt" thing. If I discover on download that I used JPEG only, I'm not going to freak out because RAW will only (maybe) improve an already usable shot, not rescue something really bad.

If my photo is "soft" because I missed the focus, or the subject moved, or the camera moved or the shutter was too slow for the action, or I just pushed the lens or sensor beyond it's usable envelope, RAW is not going to help. Careful JPEG processing might improve things so I am not too proud to show it to someone, but it is what it is.

Rarely is a photo "globally" under or overexposed. Usually one area is too dark, or one area too light. RAW processors have "shadow" and "highlight" features that allow an adjustment to correct this problem, but like most RAW adjustments, these are applied "globally". A good JPEG editor with layers and masks is much more precise.

As much as I concentrate of composition and timing, I still get photos that are great except for the "booger" coming out of little Johnny's nose, or the fly on Triggers nose, or the reflection on aunt Clara's eyeglasses etc. RAW is not the way to rescue these photos.

In short, use RAW to fine tune exposure and white balance, or to tone down an overactive JPEG processor if your camera will not let in do it "in camera", or just because you enjoy the RAW interface in Elements, but be prepared to learn and employ JPEG processing too.

If using full manual, or a semi-manual (A for example) mode works for you great. Personally, I am not mystified by manual, and frankly do not believe it really is that difficult to understand once you accept that good settings occur within ranges, and are not absolute. Do you honestly believe that f4.0 will give the only acceptable result, and that f5.6 will yield an unusable image? Nonsense! Is ISO 80 perfect, bit ISO 100 terrible? Ha!

Someone who wants to try manual could set their camera at ISO100, F4.0 (or one stop closed from full open if the lens is slow) shutter at 1/125 and be good for 60%(more or less, don't pick nits) of daylight shooting. In bright light go to 1/250, darker go to 1/60. Simple, and now
I'm probably good for 80% of daytime conditions.

If my camera suggests f4 to f5.6, 1/125 to 1/250 at ISO100-200, I concentrate on composition, focus and timing, three things my camera cannot do (well) for me. If the camera suggests a setting outside these ranges I take a few seconds to think it over, but never at the expense of taking the shot.

Does this mean I use full auto, even if "intelligent"? No never! I always use a custom or program function to set focus point at center, and metering to center weighted. I have also found that program mode still allows auto-bracketing, while full manual disables it. Bracketing is an invaluable tool to see if one f-stop is better than another.

Drink beer! Drink lots of beer. On arriving in 1969 we were told to never, ever drink water not supplied by the military. Never drink Coke, or use ice cubes, or eat anything you didn't peal yourself. (Lots of other warnings, but none suitable for a family channel) But beer is fine. Brewing kills everything. Good advice for Mexico too

With minimal in-camera processing, the photographer can use layers and masks to apply adjustments to portions of the image that need it rather than globally. For example, heavy noise filtering could be applied to the sky and dark areas, and less heavily to the critical subject to preserve detail.

If editing is not to this level then little benefit might accrue.

Panasonic zs50. $400 more or less. Looks perfect for you.

Nah - - . A novice spends as little money on equipment as possible, and takes some very nice photos. An amateur spends as much money on equipment as possible, and takes some very nice photos. A professional spends as little money as possible on equipment, and takes a lot of very nice photos.

I don't think I would be happy without the benefits of layers and masks.

Composition first, then focus, then timing. These three factors cannot be automated.

Guess I'll have to take up Scrabble!

Should people just quit photography just because they don't have a couple of thousand dollars for expensive equipment? Those that can afford expensive equipment must never make it seem as if anyone who cannot afford it should take up Scrabble or something. I have taken a few nice BIF with either my Pentax k100d or KX and a sigma 70-300 APO DG. New, $700. Used, maybe $300 Now that I look at these, the first one was taken with a 400mm manual everything Quantaray

sorry

Spray and pray probably helps. A good bird man I know thinks nothing of taking 100 shots deleting 99.

Search the internet for copies of the old camera settings guide that came with every roll of film. In there you will find recommendations for easy to understand conditions such as sunny bright, overcast, light shade, heavy shade etc. Cut out the chart and carry it with you.

Settings in a narrow range will not be that critical if you do your own PP. For example, both f4 and f5.6, will probably both yield usable results if you adjust brightness later in PP. (If you do not yet do your own PP, learn that first)

I'm betting that once you try (and maybe learn) full manual you will find it not worth the effort. Having learned photography when the only guide you had was the flimsy sheet in the film box, I can mentally "see" suitable setting ranges before I bring the camera to my eye. If the camera recommends settings within that range I concentrate of composition, focus and timing, and let the camera do the mathematical calculations.

If you have a modest budget, just about any off-the-shelf PC will run Elements just fine. If it does run slow close any other programs running in the background. I have found that even my modest PC is most often waiting for me, rather than I wait for it. RAW files might take a few seconds to load, but once loaded edit just fine.