# I Am Officially OFF Camera Watch!



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

It's been months since I first brought it up here for advice and I finally took the plunge and spent way too much, but I think I'll be happy with it. I managed to get just the body a bit cheaper and buy a couple lenses to go with it, which of course got me in another mess of having to look into lenses. But at this point I just said, whatever, and got the Nikon brands of two good workhorse lenses (I hope) and tried to get them at the best price I could. I would have loved to get them through Amazon, but keh.com just had too good of a deal to pass up.

So I got myself a Nikon D90 with a 50 F1.8 D (52) 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS STANDARD ANGLE LENS and a 55-200 F4-5.6 G ED DX AUTO FOCUS-S (52) DIGITAL SLR ZOOM STANDARD ANGLE LENS. The whole thing came to just above $950 with shipping <sticker shock> but it was my birthday and I treated myself! If any of you experts out there see something wrong with my lens purchases please please tell me. I'm second guessing the first lens, but it -was- listed under digital. I might be able to catch them before it ships, but I just couldn't wait to put in the order.


----------



## Dana (Dec 4, 2009)

Congratulations on your birthday gift to yourself!  Wonderful choice!  I hope you can find a local camera club to make your DSLR experience as much fun and helpful as your KB experience.  

(also a great choice for Harvey if you purchased through the Amazon links!  LOL)


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Yay, my camera finally shipped!  I've been obsessing over guides and websites and reading the manual for it on my Kindle.  I can't wait to get it even though I really have no idea what I'm going to go take pictures of first.  I haven't been this excited since my Kindle... now I just need to find a nice tripod.  I should get it Thursday!


----------



## rho (Feb 12, 2009)

LOL oh I am not tired at all   I read it as a camera that is a watch -- LOL


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Hehe, was kinda afraid that might happen... I'll have to change it not to mislead folks.


----------



## Dana (Dec 4, 2009)

Great idea to put product manuals on Kindle!


----------



## rho (Feb 12, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> Hehe, was kinda afraid that might happen... I'll have to change it not to mislead folks.


I was thinking that it was a cool idea hehehe


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Okay... got it and gotta say I love it.  I've just been playing around and it takes wonderful shots even just on Auto.  I'm really impressed by it.  It almost improves reality    Though it also highlights flaws you don't see.  I've taken pictures of things and seen nicks and scratches on them I never realized they had, and this is just looking at them in the LCD... on the computer it must be insane.  At any rate, this really seems like an amazing mid-range DSLR for a really good price since it's a couple years old.  Anyone looking for one I recommend looking into a D90.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> ...Though it also highlights flaws you don't see. I've taken pictures of things and seen nicks and scratches on them I never realized they had, and this is just looking at them in the LCD... on the computer it must be insane....


That's what Photoshop, The GIMP, etc. are for. You no longer need years of experience learning how to use a real air brush.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

Congratulations on the camera purchase!  Of course it would have been much cooler if you'd gotten a Canon!  (just kidding!).

Next you may want to save up your pennies for a wide angle lens!  Then you should have everything you need for most "normal" photography.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Yup, wide angle is next on my list!  I wouldn't mind a telephoto as well, but those get pretty pricey.  I have both for my old film Minolta, but no idea if they would fit or not and don't want to try.  It's been so long since I've used an SLR with a removable lens that I am still in the "afraid I'll break it" mode of lens attaching.  I realize they won't autofocus, but they're pretty nice glass and there was a time when there was no such thing as autofocus so I think I'd be okay for the time being.  My biggest concern is getting some clear filters to protect the ones I have, but I definitely want something for macros and such as well.


----------



## KindleGirl (Nov 11, 2008)

It looks like I'll be going the route of a DSLR also. Stopped into our local camera shop the other day to ask for advice between p&s cameras and SLR's and obviously they suggested an SLR for the pictures that I want to take. Now I just have to decide between Nikon and Canon...they said either one was a good choice, especially for the entry-level I would be getting. They suggest the Nikon D3000 or the Canon Rebel XSI. Both seem to get good reviews everywhere I've looked. I think I will probably go with the Canon though since it has live view. I know, I know...they say that with SLR you don't use the LCD to take pictures because it slows it down, but since I've only had p&s in the past I am used to the LCD, I think I still want that option right now. I can see it being useful in some situations. 

Congrats on your new camera Scheherazade!  Have fun playing and snapping pictures!


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

My D90 must be one of the few mid-range that has Live View and I am actually pretty glad it has it.  I'm still trying to figure out how to select the focus zones through the viewfinder, but on Live View it's as simple moving a box around on the screen.  I think, especially for a beginning/transitioning DSLR, Live View is really nice to have.  It will help with the move from a Point and Shoot to the more advanced DSLR features.  Just don't let it overwhelm you too much.  And I am actually finding that the flash is more useful than I would have given it credit before.  I always hated using them because the lighting seemed so fake.  Things must have really advanced because this thing's flash is even better than the hot shoe flash I had for my old Minolta.  I do stand by my stance on no flash for those sports pictures, though.  In fact, if I were to use the sport mode on this camera it disables the flash.

Using Live View is -definitely- slower.  I think it has something to do with having to move the mirror around.  I am finding I prefer the view finder, I just need to figure out how to finagle it.  So don't not try your viewfinder for fear it will be too difficult.  Also keep in mind that light can slip in through it, so if you do end up using Live View more often than not you should keep the cap that they're likely to provide over the viewfinder.  My camera didn't have one since I got it used  but thankfully that's all that seemed to be missing except the caps for one of my lenses which is driving me nuts trying to keep it protected in the meantime.

And yes, Photoshop is my friend.  I took a picture of my book case for fun just because I had tried to before and the shots came out horribly.  Well the bookcase came out wonderfully and so did the wall behind it where the drywall is apparently rippling and I had no idea till it showed up in that shot    But yeah, you can't go wrong with a Canon vs. a Nikon.  I think the main difference will be in the cost of lenses?  I'm pretty sure they both have a wide variety available and it's why I didn't even consider a Sony.  They're just getting into the DSLR thing and their lens selection isn't up to par with the big two.

Just be sure to do your research and I think you'll be thrilled with either decision.  It looks like the Nikon D5000 does offer live view and is the next in line from the D3000 in the case you were wanting to go with Nikon and are only choosing the Canon for that feature.  Not a bad price on it either... it's not much more expensive than the 3000.  It also has a tilt and swivel screen which I'm not seeing on the Canon.  I know I keep thinking how handy it would be on my camera, so it's another feature you may want to consider.  The Canon does have a slightly bigger screen however, 3.0" vs. 2.7".  Looks like the D5000 shoots video while the Canon doesn't in the case that this is an important feature to you as well.  I personally find it more of a novelty than anything.  It's kind of like a Kindle... if you really want to shoot movies you're better off with a camcorder.

In the end it really comes down to which feels better in your hands in case those features are a wash.  I'd have a hard time choosing between the two.  I'd like the larger LCD on the Canon, but the tilting is nice on the Nikon and the video doesn't really matter to me.  Canon has an advantage in being able to use older lenses while the Nikon is a little more limited to newer ones due to them changing how it handles autofocus.  Nikon has the advantage in being a year newer, but then you throw the Canon 500D into the fray (which is the upgrade to this Rebel XSi also known as Canon 450D) and well... you end up debating forever and not buying either ><


----------



## hsuthard (Jan 6, 2010)

Congratulations! There's no doubt that if your goal is good pictures, an SLR is the way to go. And I love the fact that you got the 50mm lens in addition to your all-purpose zoom. When you start really exploring what your camera can do, you're going to really love that 50mm. And there's lots of information out there, as I'm sure you've already discovered, on how to get the most out of your camera. When I first got started with DSLR's, what helped me the most was a DVD walking me through all the parts of my camera:


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Wow.
I have enjoyed reading your posts on this subject because I want a Canon Rebel.
And now I must consider the Nikon.
I have a perfectly good Kodak with great lenses.
But I think I am ready to step-up.
thanks for sharing.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

On my old Pentax SLR (which I've not used in years) besides a clear filter to protect the lens I also got a polarized filter on the advice of the salesman. It had a clip-on mechanism so that I could quickly install/remove it on top of the screw-in clear filter. I found it quite useful any time sun glare was an issue, especially when photographing on/near water. By rotating it through 90-degrees you can control just how much reflected glare is allowed through, whether off water, car windows, bald heads, etc.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Yep, I just had to get the 50mm (I'm a sucker for low apertures) and I find I really prefer it to the workhorse zoom lens, but having that all purpose one is a must too. And yes, I -always- get polarizing filters and the clear ones just to protect the lens at the very least. I have like 3 or 4 of each and somehow none of them fit my new lenses, so it's a trip to the camera shop tomorrow. I'm also a sucker for starburst lenses, but apparently my camera can simulate those on its own.

I grabbed a book by David Busch but I didn't see the DVD. That looks like it could be extremely helpful as well. I wanted Busch's guide on my Kindle, but in his sample he goes on about how he was sure to put in color pictures because they really make a difference and well.. that won't work on the Kindle yet.

Thanks for all the well wishes and advice! It's of course been raining since I got the camera, but we're supposed to have a break in it tomorrow then another few days of rain so I might go out to Williamsburg and shoot around a bit while I can.

Also for folks thinking about cameras, a lot of places I am reading say to consider just stepping up to a D90 (not sure what the Canon equivalent would be but it looks like the EOS 50D) if you're looking at buying the D5000 which is considered an upper entry-level. Of course it's always easier for other people to spend your money, but the additional features weighed against the additional cost is apparently considerable. I debated between the 5000 and the D90 myself and end up going over my budget to get the one I did, but I don't regret it at all.


----------



## KindleGirl (Nov 11, 2008)

Yeah, it can be quite a dilemma. I read reviews and think I'm leaning one way, then read more reviews and then lean another way! Unfortunately, some parts of the reviews are over my head because I don't understand all of the tech talk. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the basic stuff, but the advanced stuff is going right over my head. So right now I'm going to probably rely on the camera shop guy (who I told specifically what I wanted to shoot) and the reviews, plus any suggestions here. Reviews seem to be pretty much equal, so it's kind of a toss-up.

Thanks for verifying my thoughts on the live view. I think I would use it, at least initially until I got used to the view finder. SLRs seem to have the "modes" on them that the p&s have, so I'm wondering if they are easy to get good shots right off the bat, or am I going to have to still play around with adjustments? At least to get started I would hope I could get some good pics with the 'modes' and then change things as I progress in learning. 

The guy at the camera shop told me that they have a class to help learn how to use it, and I think that I would definitely do that if I purchase the SLR. I will definitely check out the D5000 and compare. 

Here's my dilemma: I want better pictures and in certain situations (sports, low light) I know that the best answer is the SLR. But I'm afraid that since it is obviously bigger than a p&s that it may become cumbersome to drag around. I don't have the money right now to buy an SLR and a new p&s. I don't want to regret it later because it's too hard to bring along to places. My question to those who already own an SLR: Is the SLR your everyday camera or do you have a p&s that you carry with you sometimes instead of the SLR?  This is the only part of an SLR that is holding me back right now. 

My friend has the Nikon D60 and I am going to her house tonight so I will get to play with hers for a bit...maybe that will give me a better idea for the feel of it.  

Prices are about the same for the Canon or the Nikon, so that's neither here nor there. They suggested the next level up lense when I make the purchase so I can get the zoom I want, but they give you a deal if you do that, so difference in prices is only $50. Video is not an issue for me. I probably would never use it. We just bought a new camcorder a few months ago and it does great so I wouldn't see a reason to use the video...plus I'd probably forget it was there!


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

rho said:


> LOL oh I am not tired at all  I read it as a camera that is a watch -- LOL


This is my laugh out loud moment of the day. 
deb


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Well, carrying around a DSLR usually means its own bag with pockets for lenses and filters and the like, so I don't tend to carry it around like an every day "in case I see something" camera.  If I know I am going out specifically to take pictures, then yes it is the camera I take with me over any others.  That being said, this is the first time in a while I've really had a camera I've been excited about.  My Sony F707 is nice, but it's kind of like a P&S DSLR hybrid.  Basically it's a DSLR with a permanent lens attached.  It was okay, but it didn't really let me be as creative as I like to be.  I can't say for sure, but I may find myself carrying my D90 with me even on days I don't expect to take any pictures if they are destinations that might be interesting.  So I wouldn't like take it with me to the grocery store, but I might lug it to school on my long days and walk around campus on my breaks.

Weight is something to consider and a lot of the more entry level cameras are going to be lighter in order to not scare folks away.  This of course means they took out something to make it lighter.  I've never minded a bit of weight to my cameras, I feel more comfortable with a bulky SLR than one of those tiny point and shoots for some odd reason.  Ever since I got my hands on my grandfather's and accidentally took a really nice picture of some leaves in a tree at like 10 years old I've been enamored with them.  I just know if there's any chance I may want a picture wherever I'm going, I would bring my DSLR.  Otherwise I just use the one on my phone if it's a must have shot.

Also keep in mind the camera guy is going to try to sell you what he has in stock and it may be why he didn't bring up the two newer models.  I'd also look around online for a deal.  Like with my D90, it comes with a very nice zoom lens if you buy the kit which is $1050 on Amazon.  If you get the body only it's $782.  I ended up getting mine for $700 in like new condition off of www.keh.com which meant I had $300 to blow on lenses and not feel bad.  I got a comparable (or better even) zoom lens and a 50mm lens for closer shots for about $100 each.  So by going with just the body you save a lot then you can get used lenses pretty cheap and have more options.  In retrospect I may have gone for Amazon's body and then gotten the lenses from keh, but too late now... and that's just me being paranoid because my camera doesn't look like anyone even touched it before me.

On the other hand... since you've talked to these people and they seem nice and knowledgeable, do you think it's a shop you will be frequenting?  It might behoove you to spend a little extra buying from them just to bolster that relationship.  A good camera shop can be a pretty invaluable asset if you find yourself getting more and more into it.  Someone willing to talk straight with you and steer you away from bad deals and give you real advice is a nice thing to have and it's easier in person sometimes even when you have people willing online.  Then again, buying used even for lenses and the like is going to save you a lot in the long run.  This is just a preference thing I think, but I thought I'd raise the idea of it just in case.

It is a tough decision, especially with money being tight.  I'd love to be able to just grab a pocket sized P&S to carry with me at all times too, but I'm barely scraping by with just the one camera.  I think you need to consider what is more important to you.  Do you want the best out of the events and locations that you -know- you will want pictures of, or do you want to have the quality of your P&S for everything and have it around for those surprise moments.

Though if I recall correctly you already have a decent Kodak?  I wouldn't worry about another P&S if you have one that is servicing you well already.  That it can't take sports shots is something a newer one might correct slightly, but you know you'll get results (and an entirely new experience) with the DSLR.  It'd be kind of like buying another microwave to replace the slightly outdated one you have when you're considering buying an oven to be a better cook.  It's faster and more convenient and may even cook your hot pockets better, but what about when you want a standing rib roast and Yorkshire pudding?  It's not something you eat everyday, but when you want it you better have an oven


----------



## hsuthard (Jan 6, 2010)

I use my SLR all the time I know there are picture opportunities. Otherwise, I use my iPhone. The only exception is when we're at the beach or waterpark, then I take my waterproof point and shoot. It is a pain to carry, and it is big and heavy, but I really treasure my photos. And I've learned the only way to get them reliably is to take my SLR. I got over that several years ago and now I'm okay with it. I even carry along a tripod occasionally, that's how badly I want good pics. LOL It's even more addicting than the Kindle if you can imagine!


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

hsuthard said:


> I use my SLR all the time I know there are picture opportunities. Otherwise, I use my iPhone. The only exception is when we're at the beach or waterpark, then I take my waterproof point and shoot. It is a pain to carry, and it is big and heavy, but I really treasure my photos. And I've learned the only way to get them reliably is to take my SLR. I got over that several years ago and now I'm okay with it. I even carry along a tripod occasionally, that's how badly I want good pics. LOL It's even more addicting than the Kindle if you can imagine!


Tripods really help for certain types of pictures. At one time I tried to come up with a list of things of how you knew someone was "competent" at various hobbies just by looking at them. I came up with wearing a wet suit for a snorkeler (that one was actually given to me by someone else and I stole it) and I remember adding "they are carrying a tripod" for amateur photographers. Can't remember others, but a tripod really does help a lot with landscapes, low light, and some other situations.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

My tripod is broken and I'm afraid of getting one of those cheap ones (those being about all I can afford right now) that I've seen online.  I've been looking at those Gorillapods too which seem interesting but it looks like something you would want in addition to a more standard tripod.  Anyone have any suggestions?  Are those $50 and under tripods really any good?  They can definitely make or break a shot and you need a remote shutter release too.  Luckily those are pretty cheap.


----------



## The Hooded Claw (Oct 12, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> My tripod is broken and I'm afraid of getting one of those cheap ones (those being about all I can afford right now) that I've seen online. I've been looking at those Gorillapods too which seem interesting but it looks like something you would want in addition to a more standard tripod. Anyone have any suggestions? Are those $50 and under tripods really any good? They can definitely make or break a shot and you need a remote shutter release too. Luckily those are pretty cheap.


Short answer--Assuming you don't want to spend a ton of money, but are willing to spend some, I'd look for a Velbon tripod with a ball head that includes some sort of quick release plate. This is an example:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670221-REG/Slik_617_520_Sprint_Pro_II_Photo.html (note that I haven't used this specific tripod).

Otherwise I'd look for a walking stick as described at the end of this post.

Long-winded answer:

I've owned a $20 tripod that I received as part of a camera promotion. It wasn't durable, wasn't too stable, and I used it only as a support for off-camera flash. It broke after a year or two, and I replaced it with a slightly better tripod that I bought at Best Buy (remember, this is only being used to support a flash). that one broke a couple of years later, and I'm now on tripod number 3. This is not from extensive use, but from being used for a day or so perhaps three times a month, riding in my car trunk most of the time, and packed in a suitcase for travel a few times a year. The breakage was from general handling and wear-and-tear, not from the weight of the flash.

Bogen/Manfrotto (they are the same company) and Gitzo are generally thought to make the best tripods, and of course they are priced accordingly. I use Gitzo carbon fiber, and they are great, but you pay for it. You might check used at adorama.com or bhphotovideo.com. Among less costly tripods, I hear fairly good things about Velbon, and almost as good things about Slik, but haven't used either myself.

My instinct is to tell you to scorn the ones you see at Best Buy (for instance), but in fairness, I'd have to say that even a cheap tripod, would be better than nothing in terms of your picture quality--It would provide some support and stability. But your frustration factor would be higher--Things like when you tried to carefully set up your shot, and the tripod head droops slightly when you tighten the head down and let go of the camera. And based on my experience described above, the tripod is likely to fail in some way after a modest amount of use. My prediction is that the cheaper tripods, unless you get a bottom-of-the-barrel one, will take a penalty in durability and in a higher frustration factor as much as any decrease in the quality of the image you'll finally get.

Keep in mind that an inexpensive tripod (probably even an inexpensive Velbon or Manfrotto) will probably be designed so that you have to screw the camera onto the tripod head. This takes time and can be clumsy. The gold standard is a "quick release" which is a small plate that screws onto the bottom of your camera, and fits into a clamp on the tripod head. You leave the small plate permanently attached to your camera, and lock the plate into place on the tripod head by throwing a lever. Much faster and more convenient. Good ones are expensive, though the high end cheaper tripods may include a plastic one that I think you'll find is MUCH more satisfactory than screwing the camera onto threads.

You may have to go with the type of head on the tripod you can get at a low cost. If you have a choice, I think you'll be more satisfied with a ball head than with a "fluid head" or "three way head" both of which are really designed for video cameras that have to be moved slowly and precisely.

Next-to-last suggestion--Consider using a hiking/walking stick of some sort. Some are designed with a cap that unscrews from the end and gives a threaded support for the camera. But even a plain stick of unfinished wood will let you position the stick at an angle out in front of you so that it forms the front leg of a tripod (your feet are the other two legs) and brace your camera against the stick with a thumb sticking out under the camera lens to get quite a bit of stability.

Last suggestion--Consider making a bean bag--Just a bag of fabric or somesuch filled with dried beans or styrofoam pellets. Easy to carry, practically free, and if you can find a place to set it, it will hold your camera stable in a very nice way. Much more stable than a hiking stick, but you have to find a rock, fallen log, wall, car hood, or something to hold your camera in a given place, you can't just position it anywhere.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Yeesh, tripods have either gotten way more techy since I got my old one or my old one just sucked and I didn't know any better.  I definitely hated having to screw my camera in every time.  I'll have to look into this a little deeper, thanks for all the advice!  I would have never thought of the walking stick thing.  My main concern, I think, is portability.  It was such a pain carrying my old one.  The legs only telescoped twice I think so it was still pretty big even collapsed.  Now I am also seeing monopods... are you familiar how do those work exactly?  I can't find anywhere that really explains how they operate.

Edit: Okay nevermind... the monopods look like they're just fancy iterations of your walking stick idea


----------



## libros_lego (Mar 24, 2009)

Scheherazade, can you post a sample picture taken by your camera? Thanks.


----------



## KindleGirl (Nov 11, 2008)

Well, I checked out my friends D60 last night, and although I know it's an older model I'm sure it's similar to what is offered now. I really liked it and it didn't seem too big. Definitely bigger than a p&s and but not unreasonable. I think I would be able to find a reasonable size bag to carry it also, so that would make it more portable. I do have a nice Kodak so that could be the one I carry if I'm not sure I will need a camera, etc. 

Yes, I really liked the guy at our local camera shop and I feel he was being totally straight with me. I think he pulled out the models that he did because they were entry-level and probably the cheapest in that range. Knowing that I came in not specifically looking for an SLR I'm sure he didn't want to scare me away by showing me a high dollar camera right off. He showed me p&s that he felt would be best and then introduced me to the DLSRs. Since the places I have compared them to were very much the same prices, I will most likely buy it from the camera shop. Since I am new to the DSLR, I think they can provide a nice service for me. I'm sure they would help me get it set up to go and if I ever had a question I wouldn't feel bad about returning and asking for their help. If I bought it online I wouldn't feel it was right to go in and ask for their help. Everyone on here has been great with the advice and information, and I appreciate that so much, but if I ever had issues with the camera then a live person would definitely be a big help. 

I'm pretty much convinced this is what I want and my husband said right from the start that he didn't think I'd get what I wanted from a p&s so I'll probably be getting a new camera soon!!

After reading the info. on the tripods it looks like ours is a really nice one and the right kind, so I think I'm all set there for now. We used it with the camcorder during football season and it worked out great, so one less thing to buy!


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

KindleGirl said:


> Since I am new to the DSLR, I think they can provide a nice service for me. I'm sure they would help me get it set up to go and if I ever had a question I wouldn't feel bad about returning and asking for their help. If I bought it online I wouldn't feel it was right to go in and ask for their help.


Exactly, that relationship is more important than $100 assuming you have it to spare. And I will definitely post some pictures. I'm going to go out and get some shots as soon as my clothes are dry, just hope I get something worth posting. I'm going to be snapping RAW and the highest quality JPG setting just to do a comparison for myself, so I'll be sure to post something in this thread and maybe even show what I found out with that little test, though there's plenty of RAW vs. JPG sites out there. I have to go by the camera shop first and get some filters and -maybe- a tripod, so check this thread later


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Okay I went out to Williamsburg intent on getting some colonial shots, but then I remembered having gone to The Pottery a couple months ago looking for a gift and going to what they used to call Skid Row, it was a street of shops set off a bit from all the larger warehouse style buildings of the main Pottery. Well, The Pottery is quickly going out of business, and Skid Row now really lives up to its name. I'll post just one shot for now but will try to get a few more up with some variety through the night. All three of these are the same shot. I took them in RAW + JPG Large/Fine so I got two copies of each shot I took.

For those who don't know, RAW (a file with the extension NEF for my Nikon anyway) basically takes all of the information from your shot and saves it instead of saving it as an actual picture. RAW is not a picture, it is simply the data from the shot. When you shoot JPGs the camera automatically takes the RAW data and converts it to the JPG, removing bits that human eyes won't notice gone and compressing the files based on the quality you have set. A RAW picture takes up roughly the same bytes as your camera shoots pixels, so my RAW shots vary from 10-12 MB and my Large/Fine Quality JPGs were about 4-6 MB. Taking shots in Large/Basic had files of about 600-800 kb to give you a point of refernece.

There is an advantage to RAW shots, but some photographers will claim good photographers only take shots in JPG because they get it right the first time. Personally, I -love- the whole Photoshop experience. I think that half the fun of taking pictures is getting in Photoshop and messing with them. With RAW photos you can simulate almost everything you could have set when taking the picture the first time. If your exposure is off you can tinker with that, same with white balance, contrast, vibrancy, etc. etc. You may be saying, but I can do that in Photoshop with filters already, but this is totally different. It's lossless in terms of pixels, so you can really draw out the best out of your shots without losing detail. It actually simulates the elements of the shot as if you were there taking it instead of making changes to the picture as a whole. I am kind of new to the whole RAW thing, but this is how I understand it to work.

So here are my shots. I had the focus on the first nail on the board with a wide aperture to get the blurriness in the foreground and background. The sky in the background is a tad overexposed since I was in the shade and was correcting for White Balance based on the shaded area. I could have probably used a flash fill to not blow out the sky so much, but I wanted the natural light.

First is the Fine JPG. It's obviously been resized, but otherwise untouched in Photoshop.









This one is the RAW converted into JPG and resized to the same size and saved at the same quality. This has corrections made in post during the RAW conversion which are necessary to create the photo, but I did tinker some beyond that.









And this is a crop of the original photo (RAW conversion) at full size and probably the single image I like best from this shot. This is to give you an idea how large the Large size is without it being resized and how much detail you can zoom in and get even when you take a wider shot.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Here are a few more shots. I love these locks at Williamsburg and can't leave with a camera without having taken a picture of one, so we have on here! The sky shot isn't great by any means, but it's the only one I really got of it and I wanted to include it so you could see how the camera handled sky exposures. The ivy I really like and it was one of the more colorful shots I got today. All of these were adjusted in post for RAW conversion to the smaller jpgs. RAW shots will not be as vibrant as straight JPGs, hence the color adjustments before converting.


----------



## hsuthard (Jan 6, 2010)

Fantastic pictures! Looks like it was a great day to take the camera out. BTW, I HIGHLY recommend downloading a free trial of Adobe Lightroom for your RAW processing. It looks like you were doing a great job with the Nikon RAW editor, and if you found that intriguing you'll really love Lightroom. I'm a professional photographer and I do 90% of all my post processing work in Lightroom now (instead of 100% photoshop a few years back). You can download a free 30-day trial of Lightroom at www.adobe.com and also check out http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/ for free presets, tutorials, and great info in general. I always shoot in RAW and love the versatility it gives me, especially for situations where I don't quite have the exposure perfect.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Thanks!  I'll have to check that out, I was using Photoshop for those.  I'm not sure if I want to mess with Nikon's at all, though I guess they -do- have their automated settings more in tune to their files since the whole RAW format is proprietary from camera to camera.  Do you find those presets useful?  I've seen places selling them, free is better of course.  I can see how you might want something like this for converting entire batches, but for now I'm having more fun adjusting on a shot by shot basis.


----------



## hsuthard (Jan 6, 2010)

Scheherazade said:


> Thanks! I'll have to check that out, I was using Adobe CS4 for those. I'm not sure if I want to mess with Nikon's at all, though I guess they -do- have their automated settings more in tune to their files since the whole RAW format is proprietary from camera to camera. Do you find those presets useful? ? I've seen places selling them, free is better of course. I can see how you might want something like this for converting entire batches, but for now I'm having more fun adjusting on a shot by shot basis.


Lightroom uses a similar engine for RAW processing as CS4, it's just much easier to use and has more versatility and functionality, so you should find it a little familiar. There are free presets on Lightroom Killer Tips to automatically apply the Nikon settings; they are useful and I do use the Canon ones, although they aren't necessary. It was about a year or so before they even introduced them and I did just fine without them. I wouldn't pay for any presets just yet, there are just too many free ones out there that are darn good. I have bought a few, but not many at all. I adjust white balance, etc., usually as a group, but I prefer doing it shot by shot, too.

Google "free lightroom presets" and you'll see what I mean about there being a lot out there. It's a much easier way to make your photos pop than going through all the hassle of Photoshopping each one.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

Keen, thanks.  I'm downloading as we speak


----------

