First, my question is NOT about Raw vs JPEG! This has been discussed extensively, so please don't go there!

I'd like to better understand what happens when a camera saves Raw data and JPEG files and how the Raw data is converted to an image viewable on a computer screen. (I use a Nikon D5300 with monochrome in-camera setting; I save both Raw and JPEG; I use Affinity for editing (just started!); having said that, my questions really go beyond specific cameras, in-camera settings, and editing software.)

So,

1) I understand that the JPEG file produced by the camera, saved to the card, and visible on your camera screen is based on your in-camera menu settings (monochrome, contrast, brightness, etc, etc). I've read that there is also a JPEG embedded in the Raw file. Is this the same JPEG saved to the card and seen on the camera screen? If not, how is the Raw-embedded JPEG different and when and how is it used?

2) I understand that the Raw data cannot be viewed directly; it has to be processed to some extent. When you open a Raw file in a program like Affinity or LR you see the image, so it must have been processed to some extent. In Affinity this initial "Raw made viewable" image is apparently not based on the saved JPEG (my JPEGS are set to monochrome but the initial Raw image shown is in color!) What kind of processing has taken place to give you a viewable image in the editing program? Does it depend on the editing program?

3) Is it significant to know what processing has taken place in the creation of the initial viewable image from the Raw file? Or can you get to the same processing end point regardless of the starting point you work from?

I'd appreciate any constructive comments you might have....(I'll even take "don't worry about it, go out and shoot, and just push the PP sliders around")

Hi all,

I'm considering buying a printer, possibly the canon pro 100s, this might not be a good idea.
I love black & white and this is difficult for many printers they tend to mix magenta and cyan inks to attempt to get gray. I day attempt because often there is cyan in highlights and magenta in the shadows.

The best printers will use pigment inks rather than dye, this tends to give long life without fading, it also tends to make for clogged print heads, actually printhead in most cases If you get a clog on one color then you can end up replacing the whole print head.

Some printers can be adapted to run in third party gray inks (epson usually) but inks can be hard to obtain outside of the USA. Inks can be often treated as potential bombs and the post service often may refuse to carry ink (almost as bad as lithium batteries).

Why get a printer at all then?

Well there is the wonder of seeing your print appear before your eyes, its not the darkroom but ...
Of course that assumes there are no blockages, in which case it's an expensive mess.

If I don't self print then i don't need to match paper and ink. The clogged printhead is not my problem, I don't need to invest in the printer ensure I print often enough or buy expensive cartridges. It may be cheaper to get prints made professionally, i'm pretty much forced in that direction for photo books.

For the canon pro 100s it's looking to cost around €450 to start (sales tax bites), So i kind of want to do this but my head is saying leave it to the pros.
It might even be possible to get a deal if i can wait for prints, they have the same head cleaning issues i would face, so a print for me maybe cheaper than a cleaning cycle. Printer manufacturers are pretty shy about the costs of running their printers, the cost of cartridges and how much they will cover. often giving typical document useage (sure lots of pages for text but i'm covering a whole sheet). Apart from the margins, borderless printing will lead to overspray which may reach the waste ink tank or just lightly coat the printer. It may be better to allow for some 'bleed' if you want to crop the paper and not have white border showing, Mats are also a good choice.

So taking all this into consideration do i buy a printer and if so which one?

Christmas is coming and i have a handy bonus in hand :)

I am having issues with LR after hooking up my new monitor. Specs below

The Text of the upper header File, Photo, View, etc is Tiny .... The text throughout is much too small too! I can't find a way to adjust that. The computer monitor itself is set to view at the recommended 150%
Also ... the old monitor .... a good LED Dell unit projects LR at an expanded size ... super large!

When I disconnect the primary monitor (the new one) and reboot the computer with the old monitor... LR restores to a good size. But with both monitors connected together, it's all screwed up.

But this is NOT a problem with other programs. Microsoft Word for instance, maintains the same size print and "paper" width on both monitors.... So I think this is a LR issue ....

Any ideas???

LG #32UD59.
32" UHD 4K
16x9 aspect ratio
3840x2160
60 hz refresh rate
Basic computer specs is the Intel i7 8700k NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 graphics card with 32G memory and Solid State primary drive.