Reading mode: Light Dark

Going RAW

Go to last post
M

Mark of New Jersey

Active member
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I been using my D80 for over 10 months and have been using JPEG only. I have been reading many posts and its seems that the way to get the better photos is to go RAW. In am a novice/intermediate skilled photographer but do not want to spend hours and hours PP photos. I have my eye on a D300 and will certianly shoot RAW.

Question: I do not want to spend $500.00 for Photoshop which may be overkill for what I want to do which is to get a good color and saturation balance and have really nice photos for viewing on hi-def TV and printing. I want a program which is relatively easy to use with an easy learing curve. Since I am staying with Nikon, is their RAW program the best match?

My photos are mostly travel (beach, cities) and family events. I am not a professional and it is a hobby which I enjoy. I do not want to be tied down to a computer to get the best photo in the world but I do want a good photo trying to match what I see on these threads.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
 
PS Elements 5 is under $100 and uses ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). PSE 5 is a very capable option vs Photoshop CS2 or CS3. Lots of people have PSE and that is all they need, again, it is not just a "basic" program, it does a lot.

Nikon Capture NX can be obtained for about $120, and if you want less time at the computer, I think this your best option. NX raw images when first opened are very sharp, and colors are great.

You can get close results by using PS with ACR, but it will take more time.

Keep in mind, that PS can do more enhancing than NX can, but I think NX can produce a better "natural" picture, and has some very useful features that PS does not. So the ideal situation is to have both ;-)

But, if you are to have just one, I would probably say that PS is your best bet, as it will work with your RAW files, and give you more "enhancements" than NX will.

--
Albert-O
http://www.berto.zenfolio.com

 
The general consensus is that Capture NX is the best program for Nikon Raw.
Richard
 
I have Elements 5 and have been seriously thinking about adding NX. They have a 30 day trial that you can use for free. Why haven't I taken the plunge? I just can't seem to force myself to buy software that has so many "issues." Unlike their cameras, I personally think Nikon has done a poor job in implementing their software. Over on another forum site, I see plenty of posts about what I consider serious bugs in the newest version of NX. I refuse to spend that kind of money on a product that I know has such issues only to end up having to pay AGAIN when they come out with version 2.0. Maybe if I knew a purchase now would guarantee a free upgrade to the next big version jump, I'd go ahead and bite. Perhaps I'm just pessimistic!
 
I am not myself with familiar with Nikon Capture NX, but have been using Photoshop Elements 5.0 for about a week now, and am very satisfied.

I bought it for about $50 (no physical manual) from http://www.webcommunitysoftware.com , but I see that it is currently backordered and now showing a higher pirce.

But, it's not $500 and quite effective. More controls than I can ever master.
 
Mark of New Jersey said:
My photos are mostly travel (beach, cities) and family events. I am
not a professional and it is a hobby which I enjoy. I do not want to
be tied down to a computer to get the best photo in the world
Click to expand...
Stick with JPEG then and save the hassle. PSE 5.0 is all you need to post process and achieve fantastic beach, city, and family photos. While RAW certainly has its advantages you are signing yourself up to another workflow, more money, and a lot more time. Don't be swayed by all the "Joe Photo" hype that implies RAW shooting and complex workflows are necessary for great results and make you a "real photographer."

That said, if manipulating photos sounds like fun, go for it. Just make sure you know what you are signing up to. Many pros make tons of cash and never shoot a single frame in RAW. Most of the great examples in this forum are not shot in RAW. Saves tons of memory too.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
 
I just went through a RAW converter / editor bake-off myself. Long story short, I'm going with:
  • Capture NX for conversions, tweaks, etc. for the keepers (best RAW conversion, a limited set of powerful tools (the upoint thingies), and it's nice to be able to see what would happen if I "reshoot" the pic with different in camera settings). On the downside, Capture doesn't have nearly the online support as does Photoshop, Elements, or GIMP. $117 delivered from Amazon. Oh, and it's PC or Mac, and I plan to switch platforms in the next month or so.
  • Picasa for organizing (fast, free, intuitive UI, hooks into Picasaweb - but laughably poor tools, especially for RAW). The only issue is that it's PC only, but I've heard you can run this in Parallels on the Mac
  • Noiseware / Neat Image - these ended up in a tie in my testing, both just slightly ahead of Noise Ninja. Noiseware is perhaps slightly faster, and easier to use. All three were miles ahead of the built-in noise reduction for all the other packages. As an aside, Noiseware and Neat Image have free versions that produce usable images - they just limit the output options. Noise Ninja's trialware adds a watermark. When I buy one of these, it'll probably come down to price - both are PC / Mac.
Other packages I tried:
  • PSE5 - nice suite of editing tools, but bland converting. Probably the next tool I buy, as an editor.
  • Bibble - very nice converter, very powerful converter tools, nice workflow, fairly cheap, especially for what you get. If Capture didn't exist, this would be my converter - I'm sure I'd eventually get over the ugly UI.
  • GIMP - good editing tools, free, some plug-ins available (like UFRaw), lots of support online, but missing a couple key tools that I want in an editor (e.g. magnetic lasso), and seems more oriented towards graphics production than photo editing.
  • UFRaw - limited but decent converter, and the price is right (free!). Very basic conversion tool, can run standalone or inside GIMP. Again, tempting, but not as good as Capture.
  • DxO Optics Pro - I really, really wanted to like this program. I love the idea that it can automagically correct aberration, distortion, etc. for my body/lens combinations. However, it just didn't do it for me. Aside from the slick interface, I liked Bibble a little better in just about every way.
  • Lightroom - slick, good conversion tools, but ... a little bit heavy on resources (about the time you start editing the 4th or 5th picture in a collection it really slows down), the conversion seems a little flat to me, and I didn't like the workflow. (although I admit that I spent the least time with this product, as I didn't expect to spend ~$300 on something that didn't include editing tools).
I guess the best part about all these is that they are free, or there's a trial version available, so you don't have to take anyone's word about it - just download them and give them a whirl.
 
I have to say I'm a bit surprised at your posting. On one hand you have your eye on a $1800 camera, body-only, but on the other you balk at spending $500 for a piece of software that arguably can get you the most out of even a $100 camera. Seems inconsistent to me.

I can understand not wanting to have to spend hours tweaking pictures. However, if you really don't want to spend any time manipulating pictures on your computer then you need to stay with JPEG. I'm not aware of any print services that take RAW formats. You could consider shooting both formats and then manipulating the RAW files that you really wanted to spend time on.

Personally I don't mind working with software on my pictures - unfortunately my pictures generally need some tweaking. Also I'd be completely lost without the photo managing capabilities of programs like Lightroom or PhotoAlbum. It doesn't take very long before you find yourself with thousands of pictures.

Personally I prefer shooting in RAW because I can never get the white balance exactly the way I want with JPEG. Shooting in RAW gives me the flexibility but ties me to the conversion process.

Hope this helps and I don't mean to sound harsh or critical.
 
i shot raw for about 3 months after i got my d70 two years ago. i did not like the fact that i had to spend more time in front of my computer post processing than actually going out to shoot. i still post process some of my shots but i'd rather spend my time making backups and emailing my pictures and of course looking at my pictures and or showing them to my wife and kids. i switched to jpegs. thirty thousand pictures later, i have no regrets. i'm not a pro but i shoot a lot--school, church and community as a volunteer. thanks.
 
I see that on my new D40x, there are a few JPEG settings. Is there much advantage in going for the "Fine" setting? Please explain. Thanks much.
Howie
 
As others have said, Elements + Adobe Camera Raw might be the right answer. It is what I use but I am a novice myself, still just putting a toe in the water. I would defer to others who have a view on whether NX is "better" in some way. But one thing is (I think) for sure - if it's the cost of Photoshop you're worried about, don't - just get Elements.

I would like to offer an opinion on some points in your post - not to argue against using raw, but because I have a different view on what to expect from raw.
Mark of New Jersey said:
I have been reading many posts and its seems that the way to get the
better photos is to go RAW.
Click to expand...
The way to get "better photos" is to become a better photographer :)

There's a lot of opinions about the value of raw, and a lot of reasons why raw is useful. But I don't think you'll find even the proponents of raw claiming that it is the key to "better photos" - not, at least, until you've mastered quite a few other things.
Mark of New Jersey said:
In am a novice/intermediate skilled
photographer but do not want to spend hours and hours PP photos.
Click to expand...
The way to avoid hours and hours in pp is to get better results out of the camera. Raw is not the major contributor to that.

Especially if you class yourself as "novice/intermediate".
Mark of New Jersey said:
I have my eye on a D300 and will certianly shoot RAW.
...
My photos are mostly travel (beach, cities) and family events. I am
not a professional and it is a hobby which I enjoy. I do not want to
be tied down to a computer to get the best photo in the world but I
do want a good photo trying to match what I see on these threads.
Click to expand...
As another poster has said - many if not most of the great photos you see on these threads were shot in jpg - or if they were shot in raw, that is not the source of their greatness.

I'm starting to play with raw myself, and I support you doing the same. It is one of many skills you can learn, many techniques you can put into your photographic toolkit.

Just one. it is not the key to "better photos".

--

 
HKW811 said:
I see that on my new D40x, there are a few JPEG settings. Is there
much advantage in going for the "Fine" setting? Please explain.
Thanks much.
Howie
Click to expand...
If you are shooting jpeg only:

Don't even think about using other than the "Fine" setting.

This will get you the best possible result out of the camera. Shoot in any other setting and you can't go back.

The only reason you would shoot other than Fine (IMHO) is to get a smaller image file out of the camera for some reason - like, you need a small file straight away and you don't have time or access for computer processing to resize it.

If you are shooting raw + jpeg:

Same advice. You may be planning on working from the raw file, but why not have the best quality jpeg at the same time?

You never know - the jpeg might be good enough to use.
^ Raw fanboys will disagree that this is ever possible ;)

--

 
Arrowman said:
Arrowman said:
In am a novice/intermediate skilled
photographer but do not want to spend hours and hours PP photos.
Click to expand...
The way to avoid hours and hours in pp is to get better results out
of the camera. Raw is not the major contributor to that.
Click to expand...
I know what you are saying here - but there is an implication that raw does not have significant advantages over jpg. Raw has more dynamic range, and for some subjects (such as fine leafless twigs on trees), gives cleaner, sharper images which no amount of camera skill can make up for.
Arrowman said:
Arrowman said:
I have my eye on a D300 and will certianly shoot RAW.
...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The 300 is dripping with trinkets and toys, but how will its jpg engine work? If you go from a consumer focused model to a pro focused machine you may find it backward step in image quality - though raw from either should be more comparable (in which case what have you gained). PP is crucial to final image quality for digital photography - investing in PP will benefit your image quality far more than investing in camera bodies.

In film days people would buy a decent camera, then skimp on cheap film and budget processing, only to marvel at the quality others can obtain. They put this quality down to superior equipment. Well, if it makes you happy, then take the digital equivalent, but I reckon take fewer, better images. Milking the most from the best in PP is the route to photographic satisfaction.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/leechypics/
 
Arrowman said:
Don't even think about using other than the "Fine" setting.
This will get you the best possible result out of the camera. Shoot
in any other setting and you can't go back.

The only reason you would shoot other than Fine (IMHO) is to get a
smaller image file out of the camera for some reason - like, you need
a small file straight away and you don't have time or access for
computer processing to resize it.
Click to expand...
I'm not buying this. See the thread here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1034&thread=24707697

This echoes my results. In every pixel-peeping test I've run (on several cameras, Canon and Nikon), there is no perceptible advantage to "Fine."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top