Ok

Raw is not a set format. It is just what it says, "raw", as in uncooked chicken, steak or pork. It is not a picture. It is the actual data sent from the sensor. This data is converted into a picture by the camera or a computer. Each manufacturer has a different form for presenting this data. This means that you must have a plug-in with Bridge, or any other post processing software, that matches or can read the data from your camera. Some manufacturers have more than one format, depending on the camera model.

The camera can produce a photo if you wish to give up full control of how the image looks. This eliminates your ability to have full conrol on the final product. You will have less ability to manipulate white balance, contrast, detail and color. Raw is great, but, you must load a plug-in for your camera.

This usually is supplied on a disk that came with the camera, but can be downloaded from the internet.

Again, the raw file is simply a collection of data that can be made into a photo, but is not a photo itself. Any image that you view is simply a processed jpg, tiff, etc, that the camera or computer generated from the raw data. You determine this final image with greater control when you work with raw data.

It is quite difficult to photograph the "New Moon" since it is essentially dark and even invisible to the necked eye.

Sorry, I had to join in. You simply made a quick title for your post and did not notice the difference between new moon and full moon.

On full moons, the biggest problem is the brightness of the moon and the contrasting dark of the sky. Set manual exposures as though for daylight and view the results. Continue to reduce the aperture while using a tripod. This will give best focus. Moderate shutter times with the tripod will eliminate camera shake. Once you have an acceptable view with surface detail, you will have a photo that you can be proud to say "I took that photo myself".

There are a number of spots, but, I they are probably not on the sensor. Dust on sensors ususally create a more defined anomally. These are out of focus enough to indicate dust or debris on the lens or possibly filter if one is attached. Usually dust further from the sensor becmes so out of focus that they won't show, so more likely it is on the rear element of the lens.

The shadow does have the shape of a knuckle from a finger. If you were not using a tripod and you tried for extra steadiness by wraping your hand around to the front of the camera....

Anyway, these suggestions may be way off base, but just another idea about the problem.

Your description is quite useless! Please post a sample and the responces will become more usefull.

It seems like you are using a regular flash lighting setup instead of infrared. This tends to spook game into not returning to this site in the future.

A raw file from your camera is NOT a picture. It is a file that contains the raw (un-cooked, un-processed) data from the sensor. It gives you more latitude in post processing. The images that are the result of raw will be jpg, png, gif, tiff, bmp and/or others. If you accept jpg from the camera, some of that data is lost in the process and you can't get it back. Any image that results from your post processing will also have lost data, but you will have the results that you choose and not stuck with the camera's decision about what should be done. The raw file does not change in post processing and you can always go back to it and re-process. Up loading a raw file will not be uploading a picture, but it will allow others to process it themselves to what they like in the final image.

The Fujifilm X10 has a setting for enhanced dynamic range. You may have used that setting and when you reset, it is not now selected. This is equivalent to HDR and that is why some of the comments were about that. It does have the characteristics to suggest that. It also has a high degree of banding in the colors. This is the problem with JPG. For most photos or 'snaps', this can be tolerated. If you want to get better quality on some particular scene, it would be best to use the raw form (if you have editing software).

I don't want this to sound too critical, but, I had to read through your post three times (very slowly) to get the message. Please help us "English only" members by using capital letters, punctuation and proper spelling.

Raw is not an image. It contains data from 4 light sensors to create each pixel. Jpeg is the image created from these pixels. You have greater control when editing a raw file into the jpeg. Files up-loaded to UHH are processed into a jpeg by the servers and may not present the color, contrast or other parameters that you desire. Besides that, for members to see the raw file, they have to have a converter for the camera you use. There are different formats for raw between manufacturers and even between some cameras from the same manufacturer. It would be impractical to upload raw files.

Your best bet is to edit the raw into the jpeg with adjustments that you prefer. Use the highest quality and pixel count that your post processing allows. Just don't bother to produce more pixel counts than the raw file generates. This file will be further altered into the small "thumbnail" that appears on the site. We can download the full sized jpeg as you wish it viewed when you use the download original option. I think that the site can take an original raw file and store it, but you must provide information on the incoding format for those of us who have the software to use that raw format and create our version of your image. Again, our results may not be what you want us to be looking at.

The raw files are much larger because it contins four sets of data for each pixel. Jpeg images from the camera have been processed by the camera software to one set of data per pixel and you have less latitude in making furter refinements. Tone, color temperature and contrast adjustments on these jpeg images can be far less satisfying than working with the raw file.

Jpeg images produced by the camera at less than "Fine" have even more data deleted and much less ability to finalize a nice print. This is not a problem with general snap shots, but when you are trying for that "master piece" that we all want, raw is the best way to go.

Actually your need for macro is not in the camera, but in the lens. Find a dslr that fits your hand and that you are comfortable operating and then look for the macro lens.

Again, it's in the lens and not the camera.

Light is additive. Pigments are subtractive.

That said, the explanation is that adding blue light to red or green may change the color, but the light from the colors will be present. Pigments remove or subtract all colors but the one they reflect. Adding red, blue and green pigments means that substances will be present to absorb all primary colors and the result will be close to blace, depending on the ratios of pigments present. Adding red, blue and green light means all frequencies are present and will appear nearly white.

White light actually can be simulated with red, blue and green light. But true white will consist of more than just the three primaries. Our camera sensors stick to collecting only the three primary frequencies. The colors from our sensors will very closely approximate what we see, but can be measurably off because of this limitation.

White light is all colors added equally and black is absence of light. There is always some light reflected from black, but at low levels. True black is practically impossible to generate and would appear without dimension or variance on the surface of any item that could achieve true black. Texture visible on a white object also indicates variances in the color from true white.

Inks use Magenta, Cyan and Green because they are the opposite colors of the primary light colors. That is so that adding these subtractive pigments will add up to the positive color we wish to achieve.

Isn't it amazing! An OP says that he can and does correct unlevel images with software, but that because of the volume, it becomes a 'pain', yet multiple posts come back commenting that unlevel images can be corrected with software!

I don't believe some people know how to read.

Out of here ---- permanently!

There are two basic outdoor shots - Scenes and Landscapes.

Scenes can be shot with telephoto through wide lenses.

Landscapes are wide views of a larger area than scenes. To get this view with greater than wide focal lengths would require you to shoot from many miles from the subject. Generally the resulting photo is cropped to wider than normal perspective. It can even end up looking like a panaramic view.

I use the Nikon 14-24 f2.8. This lens has a very low distortion effect and is the best wide zoom that I could find for my use. A slight amount of geometric distortion correction to pinch the center and expand the ends will create a great balanced image.

Selective color CAN work, but, to me, only when it is a stand out that is attention getting.

This is too subtle.

Each shot probably will need individual attention in PP. But, if you shoot 20 -30 shots of some scene and all need the same light balance and/or exposure correction as well as a few other parameters that would be common to them, use batch processing. This saves have to reapply the same steps over and over again as you finish the post processing.