Photo editing

I am not a lover of spending a lot of time in front of a computer editing photos. How ever I do know that a raw file will hold more detail than that of a j peg. That said does the in processing raw file function on the Kr offer a way out for me. Or could I say it another way will the result be better than the same shot by J peg.
Regards Ian

Not initially, we all need to learn to use our chosen RAW software effectively, and it takes time. I'd suggest shooting both RAW and jpegs and taking care to set the custom image settings on the camera well for the jpeg. Then use this jpeg as an example while you practise with your RAW editing. Initially aim to match the look of the two, but then start to try and extract more from the RAW and see over time where the key advantages will be.

I love the processing aspects ... For me, reliving my images through computer work is effectively an entirely different enjoyment, like a hobby in itself! The fact that the shots are mine and I remember the events and locations with fondness is just an added bonus!

It's not only about detail ... The 12 or 14 bit RAW file holds a great deal more data that translates into finer tonal and colour gradations. This means there are more distinguishable individual steps in brightness tones and a wider range of colours are available The potential is there for revealing more realism and accurate reproduction of the scene.

Some good input there thanks.
Regards ian

It depends. Although there may well be more potential in a RAW file, how often that is actually taken advantage of is another matter.

For most purposes JPEG capture will be more than satisfactory, and in some cases may actually be preferred.

My suggestion would be if we don't like spending lots of time processing, then let the camera do the work and just tweak it afterwards.

Without changing settings, you will not see a difference. But yes, you can play and enhance an image by enhancing contrast, adjusting white balance and exposure and so on. But why would you work on a mini screen with primitive controls if you can do it on a PC. It will take the same amount of time on the PC as on the camera.

Just my thoughts.

I feel the same way. Post processing offers the photographer so much. It's a bit like controlling the b/w darkroom print as opposed to just getting some colour prints or slides back from the chemist, someone else's interpretation of your photograph.

Every jpg has come from a raw file.
If you process a raw file to look like a jpg straight out of camera, then it can look the same. If you want to do something different with it, then you'll have more data and room to move if you start with a RAW file.

I now shoot RAW only but that's just my choice, as every DSLR shot of mine goes through Lightroom to be 'developed'. I don't use anything straight out of camera and you don't have to do any additional work to use a pentax RAW file in Lightroom ~ they import just like jpgs.

If you are happy with the jpg processing occurring in camera then you can leave it at that. There is still a lot of data to play with in a JPEG also.

It is certainly true of the large high quality JPEG files from a modern Pentax DSLR. If you set the camera to produce output images close to what you want, there is still plenty of scope for tweaking the JPEG (which usually takes little time) in computer software, to give high quality full-screen images and/or 300 PPI (pixels per inch) prints.

A few important points about using JPEGs :-
always keep a copy of each original JPEG file - do any PP work only on a copy of the file;
finish the PP on an image before saving the file - repeated saving during PP can degrade a JPEG image because it compresses it a bit more each time;
save the new image with the highest JPEG quality setting - i.e. the lowest compression.

Cheers.
Philip

Personally, I have never got to grips with Photoshop and the like. Probably should sign up for course or something but I haven't yet.

I take my pictures with all the jpg settings (sharpening, contrast etc) set to mid position, max file size and then use Faststone image viewer for the adjustments after, on the computer. Easy to make changes to the image and doesn't require too much skill with the software!

I also use the auto bracketing quite a lot, allows me to have more than one go at getting the picture I wanted without going the raw route.

I agree. I never save to the original file name, always 'save as' a new file name. That way you can always go back to the original.

I am totally sold on RAW files but save to both RAW & JPEG so that I can have a quick look at the JPEGs before deciding which shots I like best and want to look better.

Have a quick look at my image 'Little swordsman' which I posted yesterday where I stated that this was my demonstration of WHY I save in RAW - the JPEG was very dark as I had to shoot into the sun. However, it only took a few seconds work on the RAW file using the RAW plugin of Photoshop Elements 11 to bring out the detail.

As Nigel said above, it does take some practice before you get the hang of things but the secret is really just 'having a go !'

Also as said above, first save the file under a new name then experiment with the various sliders to see what effect they have. The purists will tell you to watch the graphical display at the top of the window but I must admit that I normally simply look at the image and make adjustments till I see the effect I like !

With a bit of practice it only takes a few seconds work and you will be amazed at the differences it can make !

As Del Boy said "He who dares, Rodney !"

Good luck

Peter

I've never understood the point to shooting RAW+JPEG.
I shoot RAW all the time, but as FASTSTONE loads the embedded JPEG preview first (which is the same resolution as the RAW and is processed according to the chosen camera settings) this is all the is needed to save a JPEG version.
If this initial JPEG view is good enough for downsizing to post on the web or send to someone via email, then that's what I do, but if it's a ½ decent photo I always keep the RAW in my archives.
RAW+JPEG shooting just uses more card space.

Note: This is not true for the GR which [oddly] embeds a much smaller resolution JPEG preview. It's the only camera I've come across which does this.

(Referring to PeterKR's post one above) ... Good positive thinking Peter! And all good advice.

Auto Bracketing was mentioned earlier, and while that usually refers to exposure bracketing (taking 3 or 5 automatic varying exposures), our DSLRs offer another useful feature, ' Extended Bracketing', which you can set to save 3 consecutive jpeg files (processed from the same single exposure) each with a differing white balance or some custom image settings (eg sharpness) . This gives you some leeway where you can't decide exactly what's best, and you can examine each jpeg in detail later to decide which to use.

To get the most out of cameras we have to ' process ' the output in done way .. Be that done via the custom image settings and other software manipulation controls on the camera, or by using a computer editor, it's still all processing ... Whichever you choose to use I recommend learning as much about it, practising and experimenting to get the best results possible, consistently every time.

(Now referring to Steve's point above) ... I am surprised by your comment there about the JPEG preview ... I have always assumed this 'embedded' file to be far too tiny to use for any purpose other than camera LCD display and thumbnails in cataloguing software? What are the file sizes of preview jpegs you've extracted Steve? I'd have thought, surely, that if you needed a jpeg that you could display or print at any decent size then you'd HAVE to set a high quality jpeg output from the camera?

Re read my post, Nigel..