Raw vs JPEG and NX2 or something else.

[kcbryan]

OK,
I have a D80, have a SB-800 in the mail as I write this, and have 3 lenses that suit my needs. I have been expirementing with a lot of different camera settings lately, and just started taking pictures with the RAW+JPEG setting. I had resisted shooting in raw for about a year, and am still confused. I have tinkered with Picture Project a little bit, and can't say that I see a lot of difference between RAW and JPEG fine.

I am going to download the NX2 free version to give it a try. Part of why I am confused is that some people swear by NX2 and RAW, others seem to like Lightroom, and others say that JPEG is the way to go.

Let me say that I have no interest in doing layers and a lot of the creative stuff that would require Photoshop and other programs. I just want to get the best results possible with the least amount of post processing possible. I don't mind tinkering a little bit, but as others have said, I don't want to become a slave to post processing. In Picture Project it seems like most of the time the image looks a little better after being sharpened and changing the dlighting setting. If I am going to do that 90% of the time, why not change the setting in camera?

Thanks, and any and all advice would be helpful.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Well I guess anasmith is spam.

kcbryan, IMHO
-If you don't want to post process to get incremental improvement in your shots
and
-you don't mind that some shots where the exposure wasn't correct in camera are unrecoverable

Then don't bother with raw. Savea heap of time and just enjoy the photography.

If however you're shooting something that must be as good as you can make it (ie post processing) therefore you want to tweak the contrast etc or make bigger adjustments to exposure then haing a raw file helps heaps.

The problem with doing it in cam is that what you're shooting and what your settings should be changes from shot to shot. A landscape on vivid setting might be really nice. A portrait on vivid setting may look like a really bad fake tan.

[jcon]

You dont see a difference with RAW to JPEG, you dont want to spend time processing, the answer is quite simple... shoot JPEG and dont worry about it.

I prefer to have the control on what my final images look like, so I shoot NEF and use NX2/ PSCS4. I would never go back to JPEG now that I have used RAW/NEF.

[K1W1]

I just want to get the best results possible with the least amount of post processing possible.

Shoot jpeg and process in Lightroom.

[erichlund]

I personally only shoot RAW. My reasoning is as follows: Even if all I want is the jpeg, I can get that from the RAW file and be done with it. It's a simple conversion. However, I can never get a RAW file from a jpeg.

Why would I want a RAW file vs. jpeg? More control. Totally lossless editing. Deeper bit count (12 vs 8, 14 on the new cams) means more editing headroom. There's lots more, but there is a penalty. RAW files are bigger and more of a pain to work with. I accept that, but you may not. Fine by me. I won't tell you which you should use, only why I use what I do.

[Rooz]

i had a little fling with shooting jpeg. its great as long as you dont screw up. i tend to screw up a bit, so i prefer raw. i only use nx2 cos i find its easy, fast, produces the best results but even more important than that, it imports all of my in cam raw adjustments so PP is a tweak, not a long arduous process.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Back to Raw Rooz?

I started as you did kcbryan but eventually got convinced to shoot Raw by a mate. I did for a bit and it was a pain in the A. Up until the first time I wanted to make an image look better than SOOC. Then all those little tweaks I could do convinced me of the benefits of raw to correct my in cam errors.

After that experience I only shot raw and then let capture NX do a batch conversion on all shots to jpeg. That way I have my jpegs nice and easy but I still have my raw file in case. If there's a shot that had a nice composition but I stuffed up I still have the raw data to tweak.

Now I almost always tweak the NEF of my best shots (and anything I post here) since I've gotten a bit faster.

I did have to buy a new computer though since the old one was just painfully slow at this whole process.

[K1W1]

I actually use either RAW or Jpeg depending on the subject.
For the kids sports photos and the motorcycle photos I post on Flickr under another name I always use jpeg simply because it's far quicker and easier.
On the odd occasion where I get into one of those arty moods I switch to RAW.

Horses for courses really but I still think jpeg and Lightroom fills the requirements of the original posters request best.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Horses for courses really but I still think jpeg and Lightroom fills the requirements of the original posters request best.

I agree K1W1, I think the OP sounds best off with jpg.

I was just trying to explain why I use Raw and under what circumstances he/she might get advantage from it.

[XaiLo]

Raw vs JPEG, from your own words JPEGs are your speed. The winner is the format that allows you to produce the image you want the way you want. For some that's SOOC JPEGs for others it's a few adjustments to a raw file. The chief advantage of raw over JPEG is lattitude. Raw will never be the answer for a minimalist and to get the most out of a raw file takes a little proficiency in post processing.

[Rooz]

if you use NX2 there is no extra step. if you open the image in some sort of software then whether or not you use jpeg or raw the steps are identical cos NX2 carries over your in cam adjustments.

the only time it will require an extra step is if you dont open the shot in software at all and print straight from the camera.

[Visual Reality]

if you use NX2 there is no extra step. if you open the image in some sort of software then whether or not you use jpeg or raw the steps are identical cos NX2 carries over your in cam adjustments.
Same as if you use Lightroom, JPEGs are handled the same as RAW files. You do the same adjustments, you just have less adjustability with exposure and recovery mainly (plus a few other things). Otherwise a non-computer saavy person wouldn't know what type of file they were editing because within the program, it's all treated the same.

If you use in-cam settings though you may prefer NX, although with camera profiles you can supposedly duplicate the look in LR.

I always shoot RAW because I can't recover blown highlights worth a damn with JPEGs, and I can't bring up the shadows very well either. JPEG is just not suitable for "master copy" status.

[Rooz]

Same as if you use Lightroom, JPEGs are handled the same as RAW files. You do the same adjustments, you just have less adjustability with exposure and recovery mainly (plus a few other things).

this is true but you can only do that with jpegs. in nx2 you can also carry over the RAW file, as shot and adjusted in cam, str8 to the PC. whatever you think of nx2 vs cs3 vs LR etc, this is a major advantage of nx2 when handling raw files. in particular with speed of PP.

[kcbryan]

Thanks to all for the replies.
It sounds like I am just going to have to play with it for awhile.

I haven't had much time this weekend, but after tinkering with the trial version of NX2 a little bit it is kind of overwhelming. I took a couple of pics that were underexposed by a couple of stops (my stupidity) and can see how it would have been nice to change that, but I couldn't since it was a JPEG. I am assuming what others are saying that if a shot was taken with exposure compensation at -2.0 and it should have been 0, that by changing it to 0 in post production that the result would be the same as if it was set to 0 on the camera.

For now, I think I might shoot in the Raw + JPEG format. I have plenty of disk space. I will have the ease of the JPEG for what I am doing now, and picture project will let me do minor changes fairly easily. I can save all of the RAW images off to a DVD RW from time to time. That way I will have the RAW's for later if/when I want to start making changes, and will have the flexibility to fix images when I don't get the camera setting right. That first image that I want to fix will probably be what triggers the NX2 purchase.

Does anyone see a flaw in this logic?

Thanks again.

[K1W1]

Before you splash the cash for NX make sure that you download the trial of Lightroom. Lightroom may not be quite as accurate as NX in some circumstances but it is way, way more powerful in others plus it's a complete digital darkroom system rather than simply an image editor and it's more stable and easier to use than NX.

[Visual Reality]

this is true but you can only do that with jpegs. in nx2 you can also carry over the RAW file, as shot and adjusted in cam, str8 to the PC. whatever you think of nx2 vs cs3 vs LR etc, this is a major advantage of nx2 when handling raw files. in particular with speed of PP.
Yeah, it really depends if you plan on using in-cam enhancements or not.

[benp]

Maybe the best approach is to stick with RAW + JPEG. That way you get the JPEGs without any effort, but you have the backup of the RAW files for those shots that need tweaking. When you download the photos, flip through them and delete the RAW files if you don't need them (or keep them if hard disc space permits). As you get the hang of working with RAW files you might invest in some better software and switch to RAW only.

[JTL]

Yeah, it really depends if you plan on using in-cam enhancements or not.I think it also depends on what camera you shoot. If you're shooting a D300, D700 or D3, well then the in-camera settings are actually useful and you're more likely to use them and want them preserved. Which brings up an interesting twist to this discussion. I am getting such great SOOC results from the D700 that I've gone back to shooting jpeg most of the time! :D

[XaiLo]

As a side note, raw files contain an embeded jpeg which you can extract typically 700KB for a 3000x2000 file. And adobe camera profiles (beta) release as VR mentioned do a great job in mimicking nikon settings. It stops you from wanting to hit your head against a wall. It's a one click process. You will need ACR 4.5 or 4.6 for the profiles to work. Try it you'll like it.

[tcadwall]

I used to tout Bibble. But When I used a D3 and D300 for a recent shoot, Bibble absolutely fell short. Shots that I KNEW were better, were looking like crap! I was really disappointed. I finally downloaded the NX2 trial, and I am sold. I like the workflow of Bibble much more, but NX2 is way better for these better cameras. On my D70s I was always happy with Bibble. NOw I am going to have to take a few of my old D70s shots and try to re-do them in NX2... just to see.

Oh... on topic, I agree with the general idea. I shoot NEF all the time. But there are times that I wish I had just saved the space and shot jpg