Lab notebook entry 2. I continued to agonize more over the RAW vs JPEG situation. I had a long email exchange with my uncle, a serious hobbyist photographer, where he suggested, and submitted evidence to support, that a photographer should always shoot in RAW. When I still wasn’t quite convinced given my study in the previous post, I tried a classic maneuver to ask a colleague who has done photography for a decade what he thought; he concurred with my uncle.

Not getting the easy answer I sought, I took a break, and then tried again to figure out why everyone insists that RAW files are more powerful and look better than JPEGs processed by the camera. The break turned out to be important, as in the interim, Corel published RAW support for the Nikon Z5 for AfterShot Pro. I was eager to give it a whirl. Unfortunately, the results were extremely disappointing. I was always somewhat suspicious of Corel’s software — surely any software that’s bundled with a beginner camera kit as part of the “free accessories” can’t actually be a high-quality software that professionals or at least serious hobbyists would use, right? And yet, photography forums and independent reviews continued to cite Corel’s software as a high-quality, powerful option for photo editing, on par with Adobe’s suite. So I continued to explore both AfterShot Pro as well as PaintShop Pro to see if I could edit RAW photos and uncover the magic everyone claimed was in them. Below is the original RAW file, with the foreground underexposed to capture some contrast in the clouds. The second image is one swipe to increase “fill light” in AfterShot Pro — the foreground is lightened, but the clouds turn a nasty gray/beige. The last image first imports the RAW file into PaintShop, without adjusting any sliders in the Raw Lab; then in PaintShop, I again do one swipe to increase “fill light” — the foreground is lightened, while the clouds retain contrast. Question 1: Why-oh-why does fill light behave so differently in two software programs made by the same company? Question 2: Why-oh-why does fill light in AfterShot make the image terrible? Or phrased another way, what else do I need to do to make it nicer? Question 3: While the PaintShop image looks decent (for a starting point anyway for further edits), am I still working with the RAW file in PaintShop, or once I left the Raw Lab, has the image been converted to a JPEG and further edits will be the same as if I started with a JPEG originally?

• 

• 

• 

Given these results and questions, I decided it was time to try out other software packages, to see if my RAW troubles were my fault or the Corel software’s fault. I started a free one and downloaded Nikon Capture ND-X, a RAW editor specifically for Nikon cameras. Perhaps I was just getting burned out and wasn’t focused on being systematic at that point, but it was so lackluster that I didn’t even save an image from it. The next obvious one was Adobe, arguably the most well-known photo editing software around. I resisted trying Adobe out for awhile, because I owned the Corel software, and Adobe is a subscription $10/month. I didn’t know if I’d be editing RAW files regularly enough to want to sign up for a subscription, but given my results heretofore, it was certainly worth a gander. Worst case, I thought, I could cancel after a month. The first thing I noticed is that the Adobe’s Camera Raw program had infinitely more adjustment capabilities than Corel’s Raw lab, as shown in the figure below. The two aren’t even on the same playing field. I have no idea how someone could even compare these two RAW file editors, much less say they are on par. I thought for a long time that I was just missing something as a beginner that the rest of the photography world new, but in the end, my experience trying both just simply does not support the use of Corel. If you think Corel is great and I’m just not using it correctly, do send me a message; I’m always happy to learn. But for now, I’ve simply abandoned Corel all together and moved on to paying Adobe $10/month for drastically better software.

• 

• 

The final piece of evidence that convinced me that RAW files are better than JPEGs, and that moreover Adobe is better than Corel, is the image set below. Ignore for a moment that the overall color is different — this surely can be adjusted with more time. Instead, focus on the close-up views on the bottom. The pine tree in the foreground is so much more vibrant and the tiny trees on the ridge in the background are so much criper when the RAW file is processed in Adobe Camera Raw (right side), compared to RAW file (presumably converted to a JPEG) processed in Corel Raw Lab / PaintShop Pro. While the overview images on the top row both look decent at a glance, I think it’s the details in the magnified views that people are thinking of when they say that a photographer should always work with the RAW files.

• 

• 

• 

• 

In conclusion, I wanted to get into artistic photography for fun; I didn’t want it to be work. I was getting really frustrated with dicking around on the computer with different softwares and different image types, when I just wanted to be out hiking and taking better pictures than my cell phone was producing. I’m glad I persevered, though (with breaks to prevent the frustration level from rising past “throw the camera at the wall”). I’ve gotten over the biggest hump of the learning curve, and believe that moving forward, I should be able to produce some decent images worthy of this website with minimal time at the computer. And of course, the RAW files will be available for further careful editing if I think I’ve got an image that’s worth printing or using for something beyond just sharing on the website. Moving forward, the photos you see will probably be RAW files lightly edited in Adobe’s Camera Raw program.