what should i shoot in raw or jpeg and what software are you guys using to upload to?

acloehlein

New member
kinda in the dark with what software i should be using is there one program that is a do all and is cheap for raw images!!!???
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
This question has been asked and answered a lot on this forum, so poke around since a lot of advice won't get given twice.

If you shoot RAW you have MANY more options to do image correction, which is a real bonus early on since that tends to be when you'll make your most mistakes. However, it's a double-edged sword since you're facing 2 simultaneous learning curves. ViewNX2 is nice because it's free. However, you'll eventually want something more powerful. I like Adobe Lightroom as a primary editor. It allows you to do final edits elsewhere if necessary, but I believe it's powerful enough to do just about everything you'll want to do (spot removal is the one weak point - you can do it, but not "intelligently" as in Photoshop or even Photoshop Elements).
 

jwstl

Senior Member
What's your idea of cheap? Adobe's Lightroom is the processing software of choice by amateurs and pro alike an can be purchased for around $120. It's worth every penny.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Just my limited experience talking here, and far be it from me to tell anyone what format they should shoot in, but this question was absolutely answered for me when I realized -- after taking a real stunner of a shot -- that not once, not one single time, have I *ever* said to myself,

"Gee, I am sure am glad I got this awesome shot in a tonally limited, stripped down, massively compressed format!!"

In short, never have I regretted nabbing a shot in RAW. Many shots I have in JPG that I would now gladly pay good money to have taken in RAW but now, of course, it's too late...

As for software, Adobe Lightroom, I think is absolutely your best bang-for-your-buck.
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
This question has been asked and answered a lot on this forum, so poke around since a lot of advice won't get given twice.

I literally was going to say something similar. . . . Best advice is to try Lightroom. Why cheap out on software when you just spent a bunch of money to get the camera? Sorta like buying an expensive car and complaining about how much gas costs.
 
I literally was going to say something similar. . . . Best advice is to try Lightroom. Why cheap out on software when you just spent a bunch of money to get the camera? Sorta like buying an expensive car and complaining about how much gas costs.

That is why I always suggest the start off with free Nikon software and then after they learn where they want to go they can then make an informed decision on what to buy.

I use PhotoShop and would not think of using anything else but I know that is not an option for most people. High cost and high learning curve.
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
Respectfully, the major problem with recommending the Nikon software is support and training. The options are pretty slim. At least with Lightroom, there is a ton of available training available.
 

nikonpup

Senior Member
welcome to photography 101. :) it looks like you are just starting (3100 and kit lens) just like school keep it simple and go step by step. I would shot jpeg to start. Software, use what came with the camera. Check the internet for tutorials on viewnx2, nikondigittutor would be a good place to start.
 

Rawfocus

Senior Member
Excuse my ignorance but being new to photography, is there really that much you can amend afterwards anyway? Surely 99% of what you are trying to achieve is done before the click? Of course, it depends how far you take your photography but my impression is that a d3100 is only scratching the the edge of intermediate standards. I guess if you know what you are doing that additional 1% could make a difference, but generally speaking, does it really matter whether we shoot in jpeg or raw? Or how we view are shots, I just plug into my laptop and if I want to enhance/change anything I use the cameras built in settings..
 

theregsy

Senior Member
I find that if you are shooting with everything set up correctly then no I don't think it really matters (unless its simply from a point of view of fitting more on your memory card) you can do more with a RAW file should you want to, and I think that is the key, post processing has a lot more scope with a RAW file so do you need it or not. Its all up to you, I used to shoot Jpeg all the time, now I shoot RAW 75% of the time I have better computer and bigger memory cards so I can take as many files of whatever type I want, but i mainly shoot for pleasure with occasional forays into gig photography where its never bright enough so I shoot RAW as its easier to get a good result. Horses for Courses, no help at all am I?
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I'd say- jpeg for practice shots, whatever shots you'll just dump somewhere online, etc

RAW for when you want to have that bank shot (or an attempt at) since you can really tweak it afterwards to perfection or a complete oblivion.

Also since each RAW will take post processing, it should encourage you to shoot less and think about each shot more.
 

Disorderly

Senior Member
JPEG has two advantages over RAW: it takes up less room on your cards and on disk; and it gives you a faster burst shooting rate. RAW has all the other advantages, including more latitude for adjusting exposure and contrast, more detail for editing, zero cost in data if you need to fix the white balance.

In essence, you have a choice between using the processing power of your camera to convert RAW to JPEG, or your computer. Which has more horsepower, and which gives you more control? The answer is obvious.
 
Its simple to me ...what do you enjoy about photography ? Taking the photos or sitting at the computer for hours working on your images? Thats point one. Point two is how many images do you take ....if its a thousand a day then spending only 1 min on each will take you 17 hrs!!
If its a 50 shot portrait session ...you maybe pick the 10 you like best and perfect if neccessary ......
There is no real answer ..your life ..your camera ..your decision

I think this is the only time I agree with Rockwell ( more of a Hogan man myself) but I think what he misses is use Jpeg large be it fine normal or basic.
 
Last edited:

Rexer John

Senior Member
There is no real answer ..your life ..your camera ..your decision

I thought shooting Raw was a waste of time ;)

I shoot Raw and Jpeg, but use Jpeg only if it's good enough and go to the Raw file (my full negative) if needed.
I might have a thousand Raw files but only need 5 of them, worth having them in my opinion but most don't even get opened.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Excuse my ignorance but being new to photography, is there really that much you can amend afterwards anyway?
Absolutely. What you can adjust/correct on a .jpg is nice, there's some room to play there, but it's like driving a horse and buggy: You have the reins and have your hand brake and you can turn left or right -- just not very fast and typically in wide arcs -- but even so you can get most places you want to go... Or at least get close.

RAW files, on the other hand, are like jumping in the seat of high-tech fighter jet. You can blast through every axis at mach speed, you can do loops and barrel rolls because you are in *total* control over every aspect in minute detail. It also takes more training to fly like that but there's a thrill that comes with taking charge, REALLY being in the drivers seat and taking things to the next level.

Why buy a DSLR if not to have that degree of control to begin with? Shooting .jpg in a DSLR is like castrating it; no, it doesn't kill it outright, it just... Well it has no balls. You immediately sacrifice a HUGE amount of color depth because .jpg only uses 8-bit color, and the resolution drops significantly as well. Why did you buy a DSLR again?

Surely 99% of what you are trying to achieve is done before the click?
Of course we try, but being able to manipulate and correct for things out of our control is what makes shooting in RAW as powerful as it is. It really just depends on what you want out of photography. You bought a DSLR over a point and shoot... Why? Serious question. Why did you do that? I ask because if you thought by doing so you were going to get great pictures by using "A"utomatic I'm afraid you're mistaken. Most likely you'll get very good pictures most of the time but that's about it.

Of course, it depends how far you take your photography but my impression is that a d3100 is only scratching the the edge of intermediate standards. I guess if you know what you are doing that additional 1% could make a difference, but generally speaking, does it really matter whether we shoot in jpeg or raw? Or how we view are shots, I just plug into my laptop and if I want to enhance/change anything I use the cameras built in settings..
Don't sell you 3100 short, it's a powerhouse of a camera that you need to rise up to. I could trade cameras with a lot of photographers on these forums -- they'd be shooting my 5100 and I could use their D4, for instance -- and while they would continue to turn out stunning work using my low end equipment, mine would still be mediocre because it's not the tool in the hand of the craftsman, it's how the craftsman uses the tool in his (or her) hand.

How far you want to take photography is up to you. If you want to shoot your kids birthday party and then shelve your camera until the next "Kodak Moment" comes along there's nothing wrong with that. Shoot .jpg and be happy. Shooting RAW is for those who want the most from their camera. We don't want good pictures, we want to create outstanding photographs and, in my opinion, there's a world of difference and if you want that world you have to learn to master the tools that will get you there, and in photography that means mastering RAW.
 
Top