Newbie questions

Please be kind to the newbie....I've read some posts and it seems
that some of you guys can be *brutal* g

Anyway, I'm am *very* new to photograpy, but have been bitten by
the bug and am in love with it as a new hobby. Although I have a good
point & shoot, I became frustrated with shutter lag, lack of control,
etc. and have just bought my first dslr (Pentax *1st digital slr).
Since I'm new and am doing this primarily out of love of photography,
and not as a possible source of income, would it make more sense for me
to work in .jpeg format as opposed to raw? To my inexpericienced naked
eye, the difference in quality in not discernable and RAW takes up so
much of mem. card and files are much bigger. Second question is now
that I own a dslr, of course I am bitten by lens lust. I am anxious
for feed back what would be a good first (and will not be able to
afford another one for a long time) wide angle lens? I live near the
beach and will be photographing pics of shoreline, birds, etc. Cost
is also of prime consideration as I have recently retired (that's why I
have time for this hobby) and am now on a fixed income.

Thanks in advance for your help.

The learning curve is a bit steeper with RAW...
Personally - I depends on where you want to end up. I made a conscious
decision to shoot RAW - this give the ability for greater manipulation of
shots within a RAW editor.
I'm hoping to one day generate 'some' income from my shots and for me using
RAW gives a greater scope to edit the images than JPEG would.
the big trade off is time spent sat at the PC editing pictures...
If all you want to do is take pics and not sit behind the PC fine tuning
them - then shoot JPEG.
From what you say.. JPEG may well meet your needs...
however, if good quality is what you crave then the ability to recover
details from over or under exposed images using RAW may
well appeal to you... (unless you get it right first time all the time
....then you'll not need to do this...)
[doubtless someone else will be along soon with more techincal details]

Congrats on camera choice by the way. I use the *istDL as well.
I find it to be an excellent camera.
With regard to lenses - you'll probably find a wide angle isn't going to be
much use for capturing bird shots... but will serve you well for
landscapes.. (depends how close you can get to the birds... but with a wide
angle - they are going to be small in the frame unless you can get really
close...)

Don't believe anyone who tells you that you MUST buy super expensive
lenses.... buy what you can afford...
Take a look at sigma - you can get a twin pack of lenses 18-50mm and
55-200mm for a very reasonable price. (£180)
look here, scroll right down to the bottom. (This assumes that you are in
the UK - although you should be able to find them in the US too..if that's
where you are...) http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/page20.htm
this is the lens pack that I use - although I've since supplemented it with
a second-hand tamron 28-200mm from ebay.
something like that might be a better lens for you..

and,
If you're looking for help and advice in a freindly atmosphere..
you could do worse than check out
www.photography-cafe.com
and
www.photochimper.com
you'll find lots of help there.

hope that helps...
Simon.

check out my galleries at
www.srsteel.co.uk






"mdsnurse5" wrote in message
oups.com...
Please be kind to the newbie....I've read some posts and it seems
that some of you guys can be *brutal* g

Anyway, I'm am *very* new to photograpy, but have been bitten by
the bug and am in love with it as a new hobby. Although I have a good
point & shoot, I became frustrated with shutter lag, lack of control,
etc. and have just bought my first dslr (Pentax *1st digital slr).
Since I'm new and am doing this primarily out of love of photography,
and not as a possible source of income, would it make more sense for me
to work in .jpeg format as opposed to raw? To my inexpericienced naked
eye, the difference in quality in not discernable and RAW takes up so
much of mem. card and files are much bigger. Second question is now
that I own a dslr, of course I am bitten by lens lust. I am anxious
for feed back what would be a good first (and will not be able to
afford another one for a long time) wide angle lens? I live near the
beach and will be photographing pics of shoreline, birds, etc. Cost
is also of prime consideration as I have recently retired (that's why I
have time for this hobby) and am now on a fixed income.

Thanks in advance for your help.

mdsnurse5 wrote:
Since I'm new and am doing this primarily out of love of photography,
and not as a possible source of income, would it make more sense for me
to work in .jpeg format as opposed to raw? To my inexpericienced naked
eye, the difference in quality in not discernable and RAW takes up so
much of mem. card and files are much bigger.

There is much debate about jpeg vs. raw. Check out the following link
from a (somewhat opinionated) professional:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

In article .com,
"mdsnurse5" wrote:

Please be kind to the newbie....I've read some posts and it seems
that some of you guys can be *brutal* g

Anyway, I'm am *very* new to photograpy, but have been bitten by
the bug and am in love with it as a new hobby. Although I have a good
point & shoot, I became frustrated with shutter lag, lack of control,
etc. and have just bought my first dslr (Pentax *1st digital slr).
Since I'm new and am doing this primarily out of love of photography,
and not as a possible source of income, would it make more sense for me
to work in .jpeg format as opposed to raw? To my inexpericienced naked
eye, the difference in quality in not discernable and RAW takes up so
much of mem. card and files are much bigger. Second question is now
that I own a dslr, of course I am bitten by lens lust. I am anxious
for feed back what would be a good first (and will not be able to
afford another one for a long time) wide angle lens? I live near the
beach and will be photographing pics of shoreline, birds, etc. Cost
is also of prime consideration as I have recently retired (that's why I
have time for this hobby) and am now on a fixed income.

Shooting in RAW only makes sense if you intend to do a lot of
manipulation of your image files in a photo editing package such as
Photoshop. If you don't plan to do munch in the way of enhancing your
photos, than high qualit jpg is probably fine for your needs.

"pixel_a_ted" wrote:
mdsnurse5 wrote:
Since I'm new and am doing this primarily out of love of photography,
and not as a possible source of income, would it make more sense for me
to work in .jpeg format as opposed to raw? To my inexpericienced naked
eye, the difference in quality in not discernable and RAW takes up so
much of mem. card and files are much bigger.

There is much debate about jpeg vs. raw. Check out the following link
from a (somewhat opinionated) professional:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Ahemmmm. Rockwell is probably not a credible source.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

If you stick with it and get better year by year your needs will change with
your abilities. If you shoot RAW you can go back and remake your images. It
really comes down to whether you want a few photos for the wall or a bunch
of snaps for the album. I go for the few and so I shoot RAW. When hired to
document an occasion where I just hand over a cd and let them print what
they like....I shoot JPG. Otherwise, for portraits, landscapes, products...I
shoot RAW.

I saw a documentary on the assassination of JFK. There were dozens of
cameras in Dealy Plaza but no one was set up right to get a good image. You
don't know when you are about to take the best or most important image of
your life...so be ready at all times!.

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Shawn Hirn wrote:

Anyway, I'm am *very* new to photograpy, but have been bitten by

Shooting in RAW only makes sense if you intend to do a lot of
manipulation of your image files in a photo editing package such as
Photoshop. If you don't plan to do munch in the way of enhancing your
photos, than high qualit jpg is probably fine for your needs.

And if you're unsure of how you want to finalize the image.

Raw is great for changing the white balance or exposure settings without
affecting image quality. If you're careful with a jpg, you can mostly do
the same, but there will be image degradation - how much depends on the
changes and how they're done.

I'll say this...for most of my casual shooting, I use Large/Fine jpg,
and switch to raw for those "odd" shots, or ones that I intend to fiddle
with on the computer.

In article 8Vbxg.24343$V41.15935@trndny08, Gene Palmiter wrote:
I saw a documentary on the assassination of JFK. There were dozens of
cameras in Dealy Plaza but no one was set up right to get a good image.

So set your cameras to raw, folks, and keep 'em trained on Dubya. You may
be lucky and get an image that'll keep you in clover the rest of your
days.

Roger

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
There is much debate about jpeg vs. raw. Check out the following link
from a (somewhat opinionated) professional:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Ahemmmm. Rockwell is probably not a credible source.

I believe him. What has he said about this matter that's untrue?

Roger

"mdsnurse5" wrote in message
oups.com...
Please be kind to the newbie....I've read some posts and it seems
that some of you guys can be *brutal* g

Anyway, I'm am *very* new to photograpy, but have been bitten by
the bug and am in love with it as a new hobby. Although I have a good
point & shoot, I became frustrated with shutter lag, lack of control,
etc. and have just bought my first dslr (Pentax *1st digital slr).
Since I'm new and am doing this primarily out of love of photography,
and not as a possible source of income, would it make more sense for me
to work in .jpeg format as opposed to raw? To my inexpericienced naked
eye, the difference in quality in not discernable and RAW takes up so
much of mem. card and files are much bigger. Second question is now
that I own a dslr, of course I am bitten by lens lust. I am anxious
for feed back what would be a good first (and will not be able to
afford another one for a long time) wide angle lens? I live near the
beach and will be photographing pics of shoreline, birds, etc. Cost
is also of prime consideration as I have recently retired (that's why I
have time for this hobby) and am now on a fixed income.

Thanks in advance for your help.


Hi.

It is not simply a choice between Jpeg and Raw.

As you have heard, Raw requires some more work at the computer before you
get a usable or editable file.

Jpeg provides this straight off, but incorrect camera settings cannot be
rectified, and with every save made after an edit, there will be some
degradation of quality.

It might initially be simpler to shoot in Jpeg until you have gained some
experience, because that way you will be more aware of your errors

But as soon as you import the files into your computer change them to Tiff.
Tiff can be edited and saved without any degradation, and you still have the
benefit of only having the smaller Jpegs on your Camera Card.

It is more of a compromise situation, until you decide that Raw is the way
to go, if you ever decide.

Of course if you are not going to do much editing then just stick to Jpeg,
but you are almost certain to be tempted into more and more editing.

As far as lenses are concerned, stick with what you have until you discover
whether you MUST have a Wide Angle or MUST have a Big Tele. The decision to
spend biggish bucks, always has to be taken on a NEED basis, and you will
soon find out what that need is.

You might also discover you need a Tripod, and a solid tripod will be fairly
expensive, cheaper tripods often turn out to be useless.

Remember that this is a very personal activity, and your requirements may
well be entirely different to the average photographer's.

Roy G

Dubya is alive for the same reason Nixon was never shot....we have to get
the VP first. (Just Kidding Homeland Security!....not even an aspiration
plan)

--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group

"Roger Whitehead" wrote in message
...
In article 8Vbxg.24343$V41.15935@trndny08, Gene Palmiter wrote:
I saw a documentary on the assassination of JFK. There were dozens of
cameras in Dealy Plaza but no one was set up right to get a good image.

So set your cameras to raw, folks, and keep 'em trained on Dubya. You may
be lucky and get an image that'll keep you in clover the rest of your
days.

Roger