@Stumpy: I'm afraid I don't know the name of Nikon's RAW software, being a Canon shooter.

Capture NX?

Nikon ViewNX provides a image browser and basic NEF image editting. It is free (get the latest version from the Nikon website).

But yes, CaptureNX is the full-blown Nikon RAW editor. It costs but I don't think it is as much as Lightroom. Try the 30-day trial (you'll probably need to watch a few of the tutoroal videos on that site to get the hang of it tho because the UPoint editting it uses is pretty unique – in a good way).

I really can't be arsed with RAW as I can't see the quality improvements are worth the hassle.

Perhaps if I had a superb landscape in front of me and brilliant light falling onto it, I might consider using RAW, or if I was out to get THE shot that might end up on my wall….

Other than that, JPEG all the way.

JPEGS will always be accessible to all PC's too

I really can't be arsed with RAW as I can't see the quality improvements are worth the hassle.

Not much hassle, unless you choose to mess about with it.

(Anecdote alert. A while ago I grabbed my camera from my bag and took a once-in-a-lifetime, well, once-in-a-week shot. Got home – image was all blue, as I'd not set the WB correctly. But it was a RAW file so all was saved.)

That is why the Rockwell "I just get it right in camera" school of thought misses the point a bit.

I agree (on this point anyway…) with Ken = closer it is to 'right' in camera = greatly reduced PP'ing time…
(by which I mean less time correcting exposure issues, time spent 'enhancing' and image is another thing entirely…)

If you want to spend your life in-front of a screen then go for it – point and shoot to your hearts content – i've been there, done that, won't be going back to it..

aren't jpgs a hassle too though?

If you want in-camera jpg that is remotely as good as a tweaked RAW then for every shot you'd have to set a custom white balance and adjust the colour mode, sharpening, saturation and contrast based on the subject and style. Or maybe load a custom curve.

With RAW I can make these settings decisions after the fact and interactively fine tune them on my nice 28" IPS screen.

If you want to spend your life in-front of a screen then go for it – point and shoot to your hearts content – i've been there, done that, won't be going back to it..

But that's relative to any format.

I agree (on this point anyway…) with Ken =
closer it is to 'right' in camera = greatly
reduced PP'ing time…
(by which I mean less time correcting exposure
issues, time spent 'enhancing' and image is
another thing entirely…)

Yeah correct exposure is crucial regardless of whether you shoot RAW or JPG. I wasn't arguing that.

I was saying that there are many other settings you can't "get right in camera"

e.g.

White balance: I generally shoot Cloudy+1 as it typically looks nice, but when I edit the RAW and can move the WB and tint on a slider to the exact position I want.

Noise Reduction: the camera offers very coarse control over this compared to CaptureNX

Sharpening: I'll often run a Unsharp Mask of the image and adjust radius, intensity and threshold. The camera just has on, off and enhanced.

Even exposure: my camera does thirds of a stop, CaptureNX offers tenths of a stop.

marsdenman – Member

That is why the Rockwell "I just get it right in camera" school of thought misses the point a bit.

I agree (on this point anyway…) with Ken = closer it is to 'right' in camera = greatly reduced PP'ing time…
(by which I mean less time correcting exposure issues, time spent 'enhancing' and image is another thing entirely…)

+1, learn how to get the correct exposure, learn how to take a photograph. There is, of course, room for enhancing and photoshop editing if you want to be adventurous.

What GrahamS says is spot on. My philosophy:
In camera – capture all the data you need, ie – exposure and (somewhat) composition.
In front of computer – use those data to create the image you want.

Of course my final product may be as crap as any newbie with a phone camera, but that is a different issue :-((

+1, learn how to get the correct exposure, learn how to take a photograph

Well dur. Goes without saying doesn't it?

Shooting RAW isn't about idiot-proofing your photography, and doing it 'right' in camera will always get you a better picture (ok, 99% of the time), but just shooting JPEG will remove the option to make significant changes to WB, contrast curves, coluring, saturation and sharpness later on, which you may find improves some, none or all of your pictures, depending on your skill, luck and artistic whassname.

So, if you always carry a separate meter, grey card, graduated and CC filters, have shot tranny film all your life and have a sixth sense for a great picture that's about to happen, you'll probably never need to shoot RAW. Otherwise, I'd seriously consider it. You've nowt to loose except a few gigs of storage space.

molgrips – Member

+1, learn how to get the correct exposure, learn how to take a photograph

Well dur. Goes without saying doesn't it?

Not really, you'd be surprised how many people think that they just whip out the camera, click and hey presto front page of National Geographic.

How many people shoot using fully manual?
How many people use AP?
How many people use any semi-auto function?
Suggests to me that people don't know. 😉

I'm currently reading "Perfect Exposure" by Michael Freeman. Despite an entire book on getting everything just right "in-camera" he still recommends RAW.

don: you'd be surprised how many people think it is "cheating" to use anything but fully manual. 🙂 Personally I'm quite happy to sit on aperture priority and let my camera to do the maths.

Me, I shoot RAW on 'critical' stuff – weddings, for example, best quality JPEG for most other stuff.
Flicking between Manual and Aperture Priority, heck, I also use 'P' (think it means Professional? 😉 )on occasion – quick and lazy off camera flash stuff…

Whichever you shoot though – RAW or JPEG – i'd still argue that, to get the best out of the image, it's best to be exposed right in camera….

I'd still argue that, to get the best out of the
image, it's best to be exposed right in
camera….

I've yet to see anyone ever argue otherwise.