Any reason to shoot in RAW if I don't have PS/LR?etc?

Digital noob question -- apologies if this has been answered but a brief search didn't turn up a previous thread:

I have a copy of PS Elements, but not the full CS/PS/LR or any non-Adobe versions (other than the GIMP). Is there any point in shooting in RAW?

(I'm not a working pro--obviously--and have no plans to become one. Just a long-time amateur in the original sense of the word. I'm not making pictures to sell, just for myself and friends who might enjoy them.)

Why not save in both (jpeg and raw) that way, when your ready to edit your pictures you have saved the raw file,
The camera more or less does the work for you when saving in jpeg,

With raw its like a blank canvas, you don't have to be an expert in photo editing to make the basic adjustments, the more you use a program the better you get, and look on youtube for tutorials.

Also this is a good thread to read, about before and after editing.

http://nikonites.com/post-processin...res.html?highlight=before+after#axzz3v9C4owwQ

CP93 said:

Digital noob question -- apologies if this has been answered but a brief search didn't turn up a previous thread:

I have a copy of PS Elements, but not the full CS/PS/LR or any non-Adobe versions (other than the GIMP). Is there any point in shooting in RAW?

(I'm not a working pro--obviously--and have no plans to become one. Just a long-time amateur in the original sense of the word. I'm not making pictures to sell, just for myself and friends who might enjoy them.)

Click to expand...

I think it depends, at least in large part, on how much time and effort you want to invest in your shots. The primary reason for shooting in RAW is because RAW offers orders of magnitude more control over things like exposure, white balance, color correction and so forth when doing post processing. If you're not doing this sort of post-processing, and don't plan on doing so in the future, then the value of shooting RAW drops precipitously, in my estimation. If for no other reason than because you CAN edit JPG's; just nowhere nearly as well as you can a RAW file. Photoshop Elements may not have all the bells and whistles, like layers and masks and such, of Photoshop, but it's still a very powerful editing tool. The question, really, is to what degree do you want to process your photos. The more you want to do that, the stronger the argument for shooting in RAW.
.....

CP93 said:

Digital noob question -- apologies if this has been answered but a brief search didn't turn up a previous thread:

I have a copy of PS Elements, but not the full CS/PS/LR or any non-Adobe versions (other than the GIMP). Is there any point in shooting in RAW?

Click to expand...

PS Elements does include Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), however if it is old, you likely will need to upgrade to a new version in order for a late model D7200 camera to be recognized by it. The D7200 requires at least ACR 9.0. It is the same ACR module, but Elements does limit ACR a little more than is Lightroom or Photoshop.

Also, Nikon does offer a free download of their latest raw Capture-D software,
at Nikon | Capture NX-D

I have Elements 10. There are limitations to how much it can do--PSE 10 doesn't offer everything that comes with PCC, but it does allow RAW editing. As was said, you need to be sure to have the latest ACR that will open D7200 files.

I only use freeware. I seriously doubt I would ever agree to pay for digital software. I would rather spend the money on gear and vacation venues to shoot pics at.

Nikon NX-D

Love it, easy peasy. Free download from Nikon USA. Pair with Nikon View NX-i for even more horsepower.

Extremely easy to get great RAW results, you can start learning the software by using the emulations of your JPEG Nikon settings (Vivid etc)

Shoot RAW and you will never go back...and NX-D makes it painless.

My take is that if you don't know much about post processing, JPEG should be enough. Of course, raw files do contain more information (more highlights recovery possible), bue unless you know what you are doing, you should stick to jpeg until you are ready to invest a bit of time learning post processing.

But if you are serious, you might as well shoot both and save the shots you like raw version so you could improve them later.

If you are happy with jpeg and it is giving every thing you want then its all you need,you can move onto raw if and when you want more out of your images,as for elements not handling D7200 files you can use the free Nikon View NX-i to download from your camera and if its raw files then use the export button to convert to Tiff,or you could download the free Adobe DNG converter,elements will handle both these formats.

For me, in my early days, I always shot both and stored the raw files. My reason at the time was that someday as my editing skills improved I might want to go back and play with the image. From time-to-time I like to go through some of those images and I find real gems that I can do great things with that I couldn't at the time.

Yes shoot RAW. I was the same as you a couple of years ago. I got my camera for the kids activities and to do their Senior pictures. Fast forward a couple of years, and I wished I would have shot RAW the whole time. I have taken some good pictures, but they were JPG. So that doesn't leave much ability to make corrections. Also when you first start, your photos may not be the greatest as you get to know you new gear. RAW would give you more options later.

Just my thought.

I definitely consider myself an amateur but I shoot raw. Started with jpeg, then raw + jpeg, then just raw. I don't do a lot of pp; just what is needed in view nx2 to make the photos better. I've saved photos that otherwise I would have deleted and it doesn't take me very long. Originally thought raw was beyond my needs (and talent) until I tried it.

Camera Fun said:

I definitely consider myself an amateur but I shoot raw. Started with jpeg, then raw + jpeg, then just raw. I don't do a lot of pp; just what is needed in view nx2 to make the photos better. I've saved photos that otherwise I would have deleted and it doesn't take me very long. Originally thought raw was beyond my needs (and talent) until I tried it.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the way I started when I bought my first DSLR, the D3100.. Now up the the D750. See what shooting RAW will do to you?

Camera Fun said:

I definitely consider myself an amateur but I shoot raw. Started with jpeg, then raw + jpeg, then just raw. I don't do a lot of pp; just what is needed in view nx2 to make the photos better. I've saved photos that otherwise I would have deleted and it doesn't take me very long. Originally thought raw was beyond my needs (and talent) until I tried it.

Click to expand...

Seems we followed the same path.Thanks to RAW I'm able to get images that jpeg wouldn't resolve. I don't PP or LR(though I have them) I just like what RAW allows me to do.

coolbus18 said:

Seems we followed the same path.Thanks to RAW I'm able to get images that jpeg wouldn't resolve. I don't PP or LR(though I have them) I just like what RAW allows me to do.

Click to expand...

Shooting JPG is tough, accepting whatever we get, with capability for much adjustment later being pretty limited. Shooting raw makes it be easy, great tools with much capability to get what we wanted (wiser decisions made after we can see what we have and what it needs).

Well as far as I am concerned, Shoot RAW, and if you don't want to edit them, it should look the same as JPEG correct? then just convert it to JPEG in a program and all is good.

Then down the road when you want to start editing them and make them look different/better, then you can edit the RAW files.

I shoot in RAW only, but I am having a hard time trying to find the time to edit with kids and 1.5 jobs on the go and helping family and friends when ever they need me.

There is also rawtherapee which is free, Although some previous experience with PP helps as the interface is somewhat different and the number of options you have.

HTH

Edit: I did not notice that this was an old thread.

Simons said:

Well as far as I am concerned, Shoot RAW, and if you don't want to edit them, it should look the same as JPEG correct? then just convert it to JPEG in a program and all is good.

Then down the road when you want to start editing them and make them look different/better, then you can edit the RAW files.

I shoot in RAW only, but I am having a hard time trying to find the time to edit with kids and 1.5 jobs on the go and helping family and friends when ever they need me.

Click to expand...

No, not really. To shoot JPG, first we must set proper values for white balance and color profile (like Vivid) in the camera. Then those settings are applied to the JPG we shoot. These settings probably vary (or should vary) for each type of shot situation.

Those settings are NOT in the raw file, so we don't get them in raw. We need not even worry about those settings in the camera (exposure yes, but not color, not yet). Raw assumes we will decide on white balance and color profile later, in the raw software. This is called Editing... but it primarily only means applying camera type settings at that time, after we can see it, and be much smarter about what it actually needs, and see what actually does help it. We can optionally also correct exposure then too. It is all real simple to do, fast, easy, and good.

You can set defaults for white balance and color profile in the raw software too, like done in the camera, and that result should be similar. But the beauty of raw is seeing it first before deciding what it needs. Many of them will be better with something a bit different. Assuming you care. If we don't care, and if otherwise satisfied with the JPGs from the camera, then why bother with raw? Raw is about caring. It's just that the more we know, the less satisfied we are, so we shoot Raw instead. But raw is a philosophy, NOT just a setting.

But to the second part, yes, if you want better images, shoot raw. We get real good at it (to be real fast). Just a few seconds per picture (at most... or in many cases we can do many similar pictures in the same one click).

We have go through all of them just to see them first time, and in this same pass, if not quite right, we simply just fix them. The looking takes the time, not the clicking. The clicking does not add much time, but it adds substantial quality.

See Why shoot Raw?

Simons said:

Well as far as I am concerned, Shoot RAW, and if you don't want to edit them, it should look the same as JPEG correct?

Click to expand...

No, not correct.

RAW vs JPG: The Ultimate Visual Guide

The OP hasn't checked back in, but this might help somebody.

You can open a jpg file in camera raw using elements. Change the format from jpg to camera raw with the Format button. This will open up a page with sliders that will allow you to tweak things like WB, exposure, etc., etc. You can then, if you choose, open up a copy, which will throw you into the regular jpeg editing page.

This might save some jpegs that you may have thought should be junked.

I shot a bunch of test pictures today with the wrong WB. I used camera raw to auto-correct the WB. There is also a slider if needed.
Before: "awooo, I am so blue." After:

There are always more choices in raw. We can then just set incandescent or daylght or cloudy WB, etc (in raw). But the problem is we rarely know what exact white balance should be, there are so many variations and shades. Or we also have an Auto WB choice, but it never knows either, it's a little crude. So we can try a few things, and choose the best choice now (after we can see it). Or there are sliders, we just silde them until it looks good.

But there are even better choices yet. We have a white balance tool, used to just click a known white point, and it neutralizes that color in the overall image to make it be white. Here, on the blue result, I just picked a white spot (on a fence?) just above an ear. I wasn't sure of it, it was quite unknown and iffy, but it seemed to work pretty well. Often it does. If not, then just try something else. This was the raw editor but working on your blue JPG, which does have limited range now, compared to a raw image.

And I also reduced exposure more than a stop, I thought it helped.





The best thing for a serious try is to include a KNOWN white card in the scene (maybe at the far edge, to be cropped off, or for me, usually in a test shot in the same light), to click to accurately remove any color cast (in a known precise way). But many images already contain some white object, trying to look real white (has to be in the right main light though). Even a sheet of cheap white copy paper or envelope, or a white porcelain dish, etc, can work well, those things actually trying to be white (not off white). Some of this stuff is discussed at Easy White Balance Correction, with or without Raw
But a Porta Brace White Balance card is only $5 at B&H, and it really works well.

But raw does make our photos to be easy, esp white balance and exposure. We can simply just fix it.