Try something like the Fuji S1500, compact zoom.
Runs on 4 AA batteries, I recently went from an earlier version (S5700) to a DSLR.

Just to chuck in my tuppence worth regarding RAW vs. Jpg.

Earned my crust as a snapper without break since 1980.

Zenith E to Canon 1Ds. Quite a journey.

I resisted raw for all of the usual reasons, until the photography manager from one of my major clients enlightened me a few years back.

Not shooting raw, is akin working with one eye closed and one hand tied behind your back.

Why overspend on flashy equipment and shoot using only a percentage of its potential ?

Added to which, the "megapixel capacity" of existing kit is already in excess of what most pros need.
My clients admit to discarding around 60% of ther information when editing images for publication.

300 dpi is industry print standard. A4 front cover is generally max size.

Work it out.

I'm trying to, but I'm confused. You seem to be saying to use RAW, and at the same time, that the camera is already giving far more than is needed for the end result.

One is nevertheless intrigued as to the answer.

The point is that if you use RAW you store the max possible info in the picture you have just taken, when you process it you may not need it to produce what you need,but, the only thing wasted is a bit of memory on the flash card. If after a few weeks you, or your client/wife/girlfriend/etc, decide they want a poster size image from it you can do it.

RAW gives you access to the image the camera took. With the right tools, you can then manipulate that image: correcting chromatic abberation, correcting lens distortion (e.g. via DxO), sharpening, and even changing the apparent exposure. All changes are lossless and reversible.

With JPEG, first you're dealing with something the camera created, using the camera's algorithms. For example, the camera's idea of how much sharpening should be applied, the camera's built-in dynamic range shaping, color gamut and so on. Some cameras do a good job, others get it hopelessly wrong: e.g. the Ricoh GX200 takes great pics but makes terrible jpegs. Finally, the image from the camera has already been lossily compressed, and each time you manipulate the image a little more quality will be lost. Only a few tools can even rotate a jpeg without more loss. Even Q=100 gives about 2.5:1 lossy compression. Interestingly, near Q=100 as compression artifacts increase, saving a file multiple times reduces its quality yet increases its size dramatically.

So if you ever think your tools can do a better job of making a jpeg than the camera's built-in algorithms, you're usually right. That's why RAW (or DNG) is important: access to what the sensor saw, rather than what the camera thinks you want to see.

Most cameras, of course, can shoot both at the same time, so you get a jpeg to look at and send people, and a RAW file to archive (on the assumption you're not going to edit every photo you ever shoot).

A lot of cameras can sheet (and store) both raw and jpeg concurrently.

According to a pro I know, the name of the game today is to edit from raw but in a manner which always retains the original file as a base layer. I don't know what tools he uses though...

The difference between raw and jpeg becomes smaller as one goes more upmarket, and as the lighting conditions get better. A lot of the time, with a decent DSLR, the difference is virtually invisible in the end image. But there is always a big difference if you are doing substantial image adjustments. In aviation, these are not uncommon, to e.g. take out haze which sometimes needs a lot of work.

I shoot RAW .

It's unmessed with. It becomes the modern version of a transparency. It can seem a boring thing compared to the tweaked up jpegs created in camera but only if I shot time critical stuff like sports for web and newspapers would it be different.

I shoot raw to get me the maximum exposure range the sensor can record for me to use as I want. That range is still far, far less than the human eye can see but it gives me more choices within those limitations. That's with what I shoot though - most people simply couldn't be arsed any more than they'd build their own PC.

I don't want or need more megapixels given present sensor sizes and technology unless I'm significantly stepping up from my normal maximum 18x12 or A3+ print size. I'm also hitting the lens quality being the limiting factor at that print size - prime lenses or pro zooms become a must for critical work.

But then again, how many prints a year do you take to that size? I do it a lot - at just over a UK pound a print these days it would be rude not to:ok:

RAW is about preserving as much quality as possible and accepting that post processing is inherent to your workflow. It suits me, it's how I've always worked from film days. My hand made cibachrome prints from 30 years ago still look stunning. The stuff I sent to Bonusprint like everyone else just looks faded and old. It's about what you want from photographs and how much effort you'll put in. Most people are very happy with their jpegs and either don't know or don't care that their camera is capable of much more.

It's always been that way whatever the technology. Same with film, video, hi fi.

Rob

There you go loose rivets, the guys answered your question in a correct and concise manner.

The real (although marginal difference) shows up, not when you get your 8x10back from bonus print, but when the Summer 2010 first edition from Thomas Cook or the like, with your shot on the front cover, plonks onto your desk, rapidly (less so in the last 18 months) followed by a cheque :ok:

That must be a nice feeling.


I'll try a few RAW shots tomorrow. That's if the British type weather goes away. I have the Photoshop Elements 2.0 that came with the camera, and will be interested to see just what I can produce.

I understand the concepts of 'noise' from the array. The bigger the cells, the less noise...as a rule, but I'm still a tad worried about being back in the 6.1 Mp world. But as mentioned, I put a pic on the 1920 X 1080 screen, and it looked fantastic. First time I'd seen the old D50 put to a real test.

My son has just been given a Sony Alpha 350.:( He wanted the tilt-able screen), but I was (silently) appalled at their idea of a 18-70 kit lens. It weighed about a quarter of my lens, and was nothing like the 67mm - same zoom ratio - glass that I got for $250 on Craigslist. A lot of the time, my smaller lens does everything I need, and am tempted to sell my 18-200 VR that I'd waited for, for so long.

However, my son has 14 days to return it, and I want to influence him...but so often, parents just shouldn't keep putting their proverbial oars in.;)

I took a series of shots of the Golden temple in Kyoto without realising that I had left the camera on manual exposure after using my flash. By the time I found out what I had done I could not go back and reshoot.
They were horribly overexposed but they were in raw.
The ability I had to recover something like a decent image would have been impossible from a compressed jpeg file. The data available from the raw file saved my hide. The adjusted image was remarkably good for a salvaged photo.

I take everything in raw and do all my work in Adobe Lightroom and CS3 if needed. (Aperture is a good alternative on the Mac platform).
The capability of either program on your computer has a lot more potential than the computer in the camera.
Raw is essentially the equivalent of an original negative that you can develop as many times as you like.

Rivets:

I seriously doubt that Elements 2 will do much with raw files from a recent camera.
Raw files are generally specific to the camera manufacturer and Elements 2 is Stone Age in the scheme of things and will likely not recognise any recent raw file.
If you want to have a look at processing raw, download the 30 day trial of Elements and experiment with raw using that.
Raw is mostly proprietary from camera manufacturers which is why they provide their own software to process their raw files.
Adobe's Elements will process most manufacturers raw files but if your camera is recent then you will need a recent version of their program.
Have a look at their 30 day trials, or even better look for tutorials on their software first and go through those before starting the clock going on the trial period.

Got me interested. I'll look at the one that came with the camera and a few others.

By total coincidence, this appeared in the PC world e-mail today.

Haven't read them yet, but it's got two links to previous blogs which might help beginners like me.

Using Your Camera's RAW Mode - PCWorld

Thank you Dave Johnson PC World,,,NOT.




I finally downloaded the Windows Live Photo Gallery. Directions from that link above.

I had a couple of .NEF files, (RAW) 5mb each, to try out.

I un-ticked most of the dross that I didn't need and started the download. CAREFULLY only selecting that program.

I got just about everything that MS has ever produced to do with sending photos to grannies, but absolutely nothing but the most cumbersome, unwieldy, counter-intuitive pile of cr@p, that has ever got past my vetting of this machine.

It defines Bloat-ware, in its sheer hugeness in achieving nothing. Great OS, shame about the ad-ons.

All this, and I still can't get to see the RAW files. :ugh:

Finally loaded the Nikon add on. One hundred megs of crappola, and a diddy program that simply lets me Prieview the RAW files when in NEF form.

I have a shrewd idea that MS use that to sneak some of their stuff in. I now have to set about sneaking it out again.:*

I've taken on board that I have to acquire an appropriate program to do much with these files, but when simply Previewing, the zoom before pixelating, is nothing special, so I can't really understand what all the software is for.

Yeah, this seems common.

I bought my GF a Canon S90 and the only software Canon supply for RAW to 'other' conversion is a few hundred MB's worth of stuff one doesn't need.

Similar with my Pentax K200D.

There are converters which support many formats but most of them are not free, and some are quite pricey. However, I found a thing called Faststone Image Viewer which seems to work well; it's a bit like ACDSEE in that one can use it to view one's photo albums.

Not sure if Photoshop Elements can read any RAW formats. I have Photoshop 7 which certainly can't. However, the biggest problem with ex-camera jpeg is the amount of compression; if one converts RAW to Jpeg (highest possible quality) then the result is very good - although the filesize is probably 50% of the Raw size, whereas the more compressed ex-camera Jpeg is probably 25% of the Raw size. If cameras allowed control over the degree of Jpeg compression, there would be a lot less need for Raw.

Photoshop 7 is a 7 or 8-year-old product. You can't expect it to work with RAW files for cameras which post-date it, unless you use a third-party plug-in.

Most cameras support various jpeg qualities. Your K200D, for example, has 3 I seem to remember. The Canon S90 has just two. The problem with jpeg in general (apart from no way of preventing lossy compression) is that in most cameras it's an 8-bit color depth, while the RAW file can be up to 14 bits. One example of what this means in practice: the jpeg can show blown highlights (i.e. bright areas unrecoverable by post-processing) that may not exist in the RAW file. Most cameras only offer one or two color spaces: sRGB and Adobe RGB. So you're losing gamut that is available at the sensor, especially with sRGB. A comparison might be, if you only shoot jpeg, it's like getting prints without the negatives: it's a lot harder to fix stuff.

jpeg is effectively a viewing format. You really want the original data to be in a better format.

Lightroom and PS CS4 handle most of the raw formats. Irfanview will handle .RAW

Rivets,

These links are to the 30 day free trials to Adobe's Photoshop Lightroom and Photoshop Elements.
They are among the best available for working with raw files and also do a LOT more.
Like any very comprehensive program it can take a bit of study to appreciate just how much they can do.
Personally, I found that looking at some of the tutorials available was far better than feeling my way about, I would have missed a lot with that approach. I would really suggest this route while exploring the programs.
Google will find tutorials but I would recommend those by JuliAnne Kost for Lightroom. She is an Adobe staffer and I can say from attending one of her presentations that she is excellent.

PSE has two options to edit photos. There is a semi automated option where you adjust each photo by means of a series of sliders which are in the best order for each adjustment, you are sort of lead through the process, EG the Sharpening slider is the last in the order which is generally when it is best applied.
There is also a more basic set of adjustments that assumes you are a more accomplished user of the Photoshop tools. Probably more capable but with a steeper learning curve.
Lightroom also has excellent organizational capabilities for your image library.

Getting the best out of raw files will take a bit of understanding of the process otherwise perhaps the various picture styles that your camera offers for jpegs may yield better results.


https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/i...op%5Flightroom

Download Adobe Photoshop Elements 8.0.0 Free Trial - Powerful yet easy-to-use photo editing software for print, e-mail, and the Web - Softpedia

By the most extraordinary chance, I was clearing out a folder called "Old drive backup." It was on a HD that failed.

There I noticed Nikon, and sure enough, there was the original soft that came with my aging D50. Having resolved to do a Restore, anyway, I loaded it with the other offerings.

It was just more of the same. Did little but let me preview NEF pictures. Anyway, my curiosity is spiked...or whatever the word is, and I'm resolved to get some RAW pictures that are worth the effort. Trouble is, down here in deepest Texas, there is little to photograph - if you don't like cactus or possums. Back home, especially in the Lake District, there was the temptation to photograph everything, because it was so beautiful compared to here. Yes, One is homesick.

Really a simple question of Am I doing something wrong, or making a totally wrong assumption about RAW data?

By a stroke of luck, I find that I've got Elements 7 bundled with a tablet. It required something from Adobe to be loaded before I could install it, but then it was away.

The program itself looks very professional on the 1920 res screen, but the NEF files are still very mediocre from my old D50.

Am I expecting too much, and just what should one get from the FIRST images of a RAW (NEF) file? ie before it's been worked on.


Looking at 'Actual Pixels' the auto-zoom is almost exactly the same between a 500k jpeg file and a 5mb RAW file. :confused: I'd assumed that I'd be able to zoom in much further before pixellation.

My son's new Sony, with a kit 18-70 lens was to my chagrin, rather better than my setup with its much vaunted 18-200 72mm lens. He has two and a half times the pixel-count, so I guess where RAW is concerned, it will always provide that ratio more data. But I just can't understand what my RAW's 4.5mb of extra data is supposed to be doing if I can't zoom in further.

The NEF data and the jpeg data are the same image dimensions. So, they "pixellate" at the same point when you zoom in. Depending on your camera settings, the jpeg may be sharper and the colors punchier than the NEF, too. So in your case, the first-look NEF quality should appear to be roughly the same or maybe a little worse than the jpeg.

In Elements working on the NEF data, you can basically apply the same corrections the camera applied to the jpeg, but using more powerful tools and tailoring the changes to each individual image. So you should end up with a result that is somewhere between the same and way better than the jpeg the camera created. TYpically, you might correct the following either manually or semi-automatically: chromatic aberration (color fringeing), vignetting, softness (i.e. sharpening the image), adjusting color, anamorphosis, keystoning, remove ISO noise (that's a tradeoff with sharpness), dust removal, highlight recovery, etc etc.

RAW doesn't automagically give you a better result, it gives you the opportunity to get a better result.

Thanks very much for that. Things are becoming clearer. :hmm: Did I really say that?

Certainly, watching my son correct the colour temp of his test shots, was very impressive. He just seems to intuitively know how to drive applications as they come out of the box. Sadly, after teaching and working on papers, I don't like to press him to spend more time in front of the screen.

I guess that if I'm to make use of this new kit and in particular this program, I'll need to put the time in. Jet Blast stress therapy will have to be put on hold.

Hello again Rivets,
Bushfiva's post is an excellent explanation.
Perhaps in addition it might help if a very general understanding of what your camera does in producing a jpeg will help in deciding if you want to take your photos in RAW.

Your camera takes images in RAW to start with, it is the data file that the sensor generates. It is the onboard processor in the camera produces the jpeg. Some, (not all) of the parameters that it will apply are white balance, exposure, black and white point, contrast, saturation, sharpening and noise reduction.
In addition you can select picture styles for things like portrait, Landscape, neutral and faithful colours and B & W to list just some of them.

Another function that a jpeg conversion does is to reduce the file size of the image.
As a very basic explanation of how this works, (the only kind I understand:ok:), say you have a photo where the top half is a clear blue sky of fairly uniform colour. The jpeg engine looks at it and says, there is no need for all the pixels in the file to produce that blue sky in the finished image, every third or fourth pixel can be discarded and still produce the same visual effect. This sort of thing goes on throughout the image resulting in a smaller file which has various benefits.
An example of the size reduction is a jpeg from my Canon 40D which often is around 3-4 MB while a RAW file is around 10MB. The size varies depending on how detailed the image is. The more detail, leaves, trees EG, the less opportunity for discarding data.

So back to RAW. Instead of the in camera processor deciding what sort of parameters to apply and how much data to throw out, (and it cannot be retrieved), with programs such as Adobe PSE/CS4, Light Room, Apple's Aperture, all these parameters are in your hands to adjust as you prefer.

In addition, with these programs one of the most valuable features is that the original RAW file is preserved. The adjustments that you apply in Light Room and Aperture etc., do not alter the original file. All the adjustments are attached to the original in a Sidecar file. When you view the image on screen it has those adjustments applied so what you see is what you have produced but they are not permanently applied. The original file is not changed.
It is your digital negative so to speak, you can always go back to the original state and start from scratch again.

Not so with the camera produced jpeg, It is what it is. Of course it can also be edited just that there is a lot less data to produce what you are looking for.

A small warning about processing jpegs. If you work on a jpeg and save the changes in jpeg file format, the jpeg compression does its thing and compresses the file again. Do this too many times and your file can become compressed to the point that it will start to show compression artifacts. A fancy term for pixellation or blockiness.

Having said all this there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the cameras jpeg settings. Todays cameras can produce excellent images and the range of picture styles work very well for those who do not want to put in the time and effort, (and the learning curve) to post process their photos from RAW.

You may like Welcome to dxomark.com (beta), a free resource dedicated to RAW-based camera image quality. The database only considers sensor RAW image performance, and doesn't consider ergonomics, features, price and so on.

Thanks again gentlemen for the work you've put into this thread.

I didn't realize that. I haven't saved any of my experimenting, so don't know yet if it will do that with the bundled offering. I'll look tomorrow.


I hadn't given this much thought. I have to say that I'd rather formed the opinion that once the jpeg was created, that was all the 'damage' done. I'll try repeated editing to one and see what happens.

I'll look at the site above tomorrow. One thing that is coming to light is the need to be very disciplined about not hanging onto poor shots. 1 gig files tend to creep up on one.

What is the best way to convey 5mb files to friends and family? e-attatchments are very limited in size. Also, is there a site that will host large files so that one can send a link to high def pictures?

Talking of which, what's happened to PhotoBucket? Went back to it recently, and just about everything had changed. Why? :ugh: If it aint broke, and all that.

One worthwhile exercise is to shoot using the RAW plus JPEG setting with the scene type selector set to the subject type. Putting them both up side by side in Elements you can see the difference and you can play with the adjustments in the RAW image initially to reproduce the JPEG corrections, this will give you a better understanding of the way the camera works and also the way the program on your PC works.

I'd reduce the emailed version of the file by rescaling/or reducing quality. If you reckon most screens are around 1280 x 1024, then there's no need to send anything larger than that. You should be able to get most files down to 300kB or so with no noticeable drop in quality. If someone does notice, then you send a big file :-)

I noticed PhotoResizer wouldn't take RAW in any form. I suppose it would totally defeat the purpose if it did.

I'm not sure what my Yahoo e's limit is. But I'd just wondered how one did it, without a real need to do it right now. But later it would be nice to be able to host, send and receive for the new screen size of 1920 X 1080. No rush.

I usually aim for about 200k. for pprune. They seem to fit quite well. Too big and I take away the IMGs. Then it (the link) just fits! I have no idea how.

One easy way is to right-click on the NEF image, select "send to", "email recipient", then a box will pop up asking you what resolution you want to send, and guesstimate the size of the file(s) you have selected. After that, your default email application opens with the jpeg files already attached to a blank email. The NEFs are unchanged.

In XP, I had to add the NEF thumbnail update, but it seems Windows 7 knows all about NEF.

I'll try sending a large jpg to myself and see just how big a file it will accept. I know there's a limit, but I can't find it stated.



To make W7 simply review NEF, I had to download (From Nikon) S-NEFCDC-190WF-ALLIN.exe It requires a reboot, and from then on it treats NEF like any other picture.

W7 offered to find the link for me as I tried to access the file - which was thumbnailed as a blank sheet.

Viewing RAW images in Picasa
 

Having read a lot about RAW images on the digital photography thread I thought I'd give it a try. Problem is, as well as being a bit rubbish at the moment, is that my Picasa download/album file won't open up my images. I've done a bit of reading on t'interweb and the pages I've looked at say that Picasa is no good for RAW, so the Q is, have I lost my images or can I open them in another way and transfer them to Picasa?? Up to now all my pictures have been taken as JPEG's and downloading has been no problem. As you can see I've still got a lot to learn and would appreciate your learned counsel

(I don't have any other photo application on my 'puter)

Thanks in advance

If you download irfanview (it's free) it will open .RAW files you can then convert them to whatever you want.

IrfanView - Official Homepage - one of the most popular viewers worldwide

Digital Camera Replacement
 

I have had a Kodak V570 compact camera now for over three years. Liked it so much, I bought a second one for my wife. For my purposes, one of the best cameras around at the time. Very small and pocketable, superb 23mm ultra wide angle lens- great all round performance- I use it as much, if not more than my camcorder for movie clips-fantastic low light movie performance. I could go on about the good points.

The downsides. Over the past 18 months, the main rear joystick control on my camera has loosened to a stage where it is almost inoperable. The second longer distance lens on my wife’s camera has just stopped working. Presumably, Kodak must be aware of these faults, because, shortly after I purchased them, they told me that they no longer offer a repair service on the camera- only a part replacement for a different model Kodak reconditioned camera, which does not come anywhere close to the specs on my V570.

So, after my preamble- I’m now looking for a good reliable replacement for the camera, with similar specs- ie wide angle lens, good still and video performance, reasonably priced, and compact.

Are there any suggestions out there?

Worked a treat............many thanks GG

I've been using a Kodak Z650 for some time, and am still very happy with it - does everything you're describing except possibly the wide angle lens (personally I tend to use telephoto more), just about fits in a jacket pocket, and operates readily one-handed.

A quick web search suggests that the nearest equivalent on the market now would be the Kodak Z915, at about £110-£130, with 10x zoom and 10 Mpix, plus basically the same workings.

G

Since you like 24mm, that's going to make finding a camera a lot easier. I've owned the Ricoh GX100 & GX200, but they're long in the tooth now. Lumix FX6 is 25mm and cheap. Casio Exilim EX-H10, H15 and FH100 are all 24-240mm. Sony W380, WX1 are bright f2.4 lenses.Canon 10S, 930S but I've not used them. The lightest by far would be the Sony W380, I think. Lumix LX3 is brightest at f2??

I'm sure there's other 24mm cameras out there, but I bet I've named nearly half of them. You should be sure to play with a Casio Exilim, preferably the Exilim FH100, whatever you end up buying in the end. Model numbers may be different in your part of the world.

You might also want to consider whether an optical viewfinder is important to you.

I'd want an optical viewfinder, since an LCD display washes out on our many bright days.

As far as I can find, the only small cameras with an optical finder sold today are from Canon, at least in the USA.

The Kodak models I mentioned have (or at-least, a small buried screen pretending to be an optical viewfinder, which works well in bright sunlight.)

G