New camera

[Jim]

Just upgraded from my Canon SD600 to a G9. While still qualified as a Point and Shoot camera, the image quality is really good and it has a 6X optical zoom compaired to the 3X on the SD600. I also wanted the RAW capibility without the size of a DSLR.

Now to decide between PS Elements or Lightroom.

These are Fall colors in So. Cal. ;)

http://Boatworker.smugmug.com/photos/219408949-L.jpg

[DaveDragon]

Nice!

I wish the digitals I use had Raw Format. Perhaps in the future.

[FridayBob]

Hi Jim,
I'm a huge fan of PS Elements, never tried Lightroom. Anyway, that's my recommendation.

Congrats on the new camera. Looks like a really decent lens.

[drmajor]

OK. why should I care about RAW..?

[Jim]

Hi Jim,
I'm a huge fan of PS Elements, never tried Lightroom. Anyway, that's my recommendation.

Congrats on the new camera. Looks like a really decent lens.

Thanks, Bob.

I have downloaded the trial versions of both programs to get a feel for them. Between all the functions of the camera and trying to get a handle on the different processing features of the two programs my head hurts. :confused:

Having fun though.

[Jim]

OK. why should I care about RAW..?

RAW gives you a chance to fiddle with the digital info just as it was captured by the camera before it applies the compression to get it into JPEG.

[andy]

Why RAW format? Simple.

JPEG, as neat as it is as a format, is a lossy compression of the image data. That means that the image that results from uncompressing a JPEG image is never the same as the image that was used to create the JPEG file in the first place. This means that every time you manipulate a JPEG file with any type of photo editor you propagate the losses, imagine copy of copy of copy of copy on a XEROX. even with the best tools you will get to a point where the picture is worthless because it lost too much.

RAW files on the other hand are EXACT copies of the image and even if you manipulate that picture 10 thousand times the outcome will still be the same, good or bad picture it was in the beginning, or in other words you have no propagation losses.

Another advantage with RAW files e.g. is that you can (and have to) set the white point (color temperature) in a (every) picture. That means that even though you are shooting digital you finally have predictable colors. Why is that important? Ever tried to shoot a panorama with a point and shoot? On every shot you take the camera TRIES to guess what colors are white and sets the color temperature what that leads to is slightly different colors on every shot. Something that is desirable nor acceptable when you want to make decent shots.

The drawback on RAW files OTOH is that they are usually between 6-10MB/picture compared to the 300-800kB for the same JPEG.

Long story short: if you are trying to make good pictures that can be manipulated afterwards there is no other way other than using a format in the camera with a non-lossy compression and those are either TIFF or RAW. where RAW has a distinct advantage , but TIFF is acceptable.

[Randy]

OK. why should I care about RAW..?Here (http://www.bmwlt.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25165) is my take on it.

[Jim]

Randy,

Thanks for reposting that. I was looking for that explaination yesterday with the picture of the arch. That is a great visual example of the benifits of RAW.

[dmatson]

Hi Jim,
I got Light Room last month and really like it. Once you get used to it I think it is much quicker to use and is much more "photo" based. Still having fun with the Ural?
Doug Matson

[Jim]

Hi Jim,
I got Light Room last month and really like it. Once you get used to it I think it is much quicker to use and is much more "photo" based. Still having fun with the Ural?
Doug Matson

Hi Doug,

I am playing with both programs a bit each day. I have a bit more than 3 weeks to go on the trial. It sure is great to be able to try before you buy with something like this.

I brought our boat home to fiberglass the decks and house so the Ural is trapped in the garage for a bit. I can get the GS out though.

[MarkG]

Jim, I've been considering the G9 for awhile, but can't get past the lack of exposure data in the viewfinder...I have to wear glasses for reading. Are you finding it a hassle to have to look at the LCD screen to see what your exposure readings are, and/or adjust them?

[Jim]

Mark,

I read your earlier post asking for cameras with that feature. While it is true that there is no info shown in the viewfinder, the display is very big and clear so I have no problem with reading it. I also wear glasses full time.

You can chose what is shown on the screen between three modes or configure a custom display to show just the information that you are interested in. The brightness level is also adjustable.

The other thing that might be of interest is the diopter adjustment on the optical viewfinder. I have it set up so I can use it without my glasses.

Probably the best thing for you to do is go to a store that carries them and see if it would work for you. If the lack if info in the viewfinder is not a deal breaker, I think you will really like the rest of the camera.