With most digital cameras there is the ability to store photos in "RAW" format instead of the standard JPG/JPEG.

When you take shots to be stored in RAW, the first thing you notice is that it takes a really long time for the cam to finish storing the photo after taking the shot.

The second thing you notice is that it’s not the easiest thing in the world to work with if you don’t have the proper software to read the RAW format.

The third thing you notice is that it takes seemingly forever to get RAW format imagery off the camera because it’s just so honkin’ huge in file size.

Is there any particular advantage to using RAW?

Yes and no. More on that in a moment.

What does RAW mean?

RAW is a "minimally processed" digital image stored on your digital camera when the shot is taken. You can think of them as "unprocessed" photos.

Is RAW the same on all digital cameras?

NO. This is because digital cameras of different makes have different ways of producing an unprocessed image.

Yes, this is confusing but it’s the truth. When you take a photo "in RAW", the actual data of the image is different per make. Canon is different from Pentax is different from Casio is different from Nikon is different from Olympus, etc. You get the idea. RAW is not a universal format.

How do I work with a RAW image?

Typically you need the software that came provided with your digital camera to work with them at all.

Granted, Picasa does support many RAW formats from different manufacturers, however its editing capabilities are very limited. Better to use the software that came with the camera.

What is the reason I would want a RAW image?

Best possible quality and most editing capability. The RAW file gives you more control over the final image – particularly for print purposes.

When would be a bad time to use RAW?

When shooting/storing in RAW it takes the camera a long time to save the file because each one is humongous. If you’re doing fast-style photography, RAW is a bad idea.

When would be a good time to use RAW?

Portraits, i.e. shots where you can take your time, RAW may serve a good advantage to you.

If you want to learn more about the technical stuff concerning RAW, see the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

A debate in the world of digital photography that has been around for a while now is the question of whether more megapixels really make a difference or not.

Before answering that, let’s define megapixels first.

A megapixel is 1 million pixels, and no it is not in reference to the number of pixels in an image, but rather the number of image sensor elements.

The simple math: Multiply pixel width by height and you’ve got the megapixel rating.

Example: 3000×2000 = 6,000,000. 6 million pixels = 6 megapixels.

One assumes that the more megapixels you have, the more crisp and clear your photography will be.

Is this true?

The answer is no for the following reason:

Point-and-shoot digital cameras have inferior lenses compared to full-bodied cameras. And as any photographer will tell you, it’s all about the lenses (in reference to quality and choice). So even if you have a point-and-shoot that has 8MP or more, it’s still got a built-in lens you can’t change.

Does this mean a full-bodied digital camera with 6MP takes better shots than a 10MP point-and-shoot?

YES.

For example, if you have a full-bodied Nikon digital camera with a high-quality Nikon 35mm NIKKOR lens attached, you will get better quality photos.

You can have all the megapixels in the world in a point-and-shoot but the blunt honest truth is that it’s still a point-and-shoot, and cannot go beyond what’s built-in.

If the intent is to take digital photos for print use later, the full-bodied with good lens(es) is the only way to go.

The only time more megapixels serves to your benefit is when you’re upgrading from a previous full-bodied digital cam to a better one.

I use Flickr quite a bit and was wondering if there was any way to backup photos from the service using an application of some kind, and it turns out there is.

flickr backup will easily connect to your Flickr account and you can pick’n'choose whatever you want to retrieve. You can backup individual photos or sets. And yes you can mass-select easily.

In this example I’ll show how to backup a set:

Above: These are the sets in my photostream. I checked off the first one and clicked the "Backup Selected" button at the bottom.

The next screen asks me where I’d like to backup my photos to. I can choose to backup direct to the hard drive or CD/DVD. I can even ZIP them up if I want to (very nice).

I chose to backup to the hard drive and clicked the "Start Backup" button at the bottom right.

This is what the backup process looks like.

Once the download is finished, that’s it. Your Flickr photos are backed up. Simple and easy.

The application by the way is free.

Download flickr backup here.

You can be the worst photographer armed with the cheapest digital camera and still get great shots if you’re willing to seek out subjects that look interesting.

Here’s a few examples of what I’m talking about.

(click any image for larger size)

This is the prop car from Back to the Future, taken at Universal Studios in Orlando Florida in March 2007. This shot was an absolute no-brainer. Center the car in the shot, point, shoot, done. There is absolutely no thinking necessary (other than centering the subject) when taking a photo like this. Not only is the subject interesting but the background is also complementary as well.

This is a shot of some sunrays breaking thru a cloud. For all intents and purposes, this is a bad shot. There’s a big ugly phone pole and an ugly sign to the right, but for some reason this shot actually works. I couldn’t tell you why. To get a shot like this, it’s real simple. Wait for dusk. You can get a shot like this just driving home from work. (This is why I tell anyone to always have a digital camera in your car whenever you go anywhere – you never know when a shot will present itself.)

I took this shot while out on a date. It’s a theater that’s built-in to a mall. There was enough light blasted out by the neon and signs to “get away” with taking a shot like this. To be honest I didn’t even know if it would come out correctly, but it did. I took a risk and it worked. Luck? Yes.

Location doesn’t necessarily mean exotic (like Universal Studios); it means anything that looks particularly interesting.

The best advice I can give anyone is to always carry a digital camera wherever you go. If your camera is too bulky to do that, buy a thinner one. Then you won’t be kicking yourself every time you see something and think Oh wow, what a shot I could get.. ah rats.. my camera is at home… Locations will present themselves to you if you have your camera at-the-ready.

I am in the midst of writing an article that is going to compare online photo services plus a few freebie photo clients.

It occurred to me that in order to make for a better article, it would be good to ask the audience: Why do you use what you use and what features are important to you?

Your online options

With online photo management you’ve got several choices (and if I missed any please feel free to mention one or more in the comments):

• Picasa
• Flickr (which connects with Yahoo! 360)
• Zooomr
• Windows Live Spaces
• Photobucket
• MySpace
• .Mac/MobileMe

Your client options

I personally find it absolutely necessary to have a locally installed program to manage my photos so I can tag, categorize and upload to the web easily.

For the ones of note, this is what I could immediately find:

• Picasa
• Windows Live Photo Gallery
• iPhoto
• F-Spot (Linux)

Once again, if you know of any that are readily available for download, please feel free to post a comment or two.

Of the ones listed above, the only one I haven’t tried is F-Spot (although it looks really good).

It also just happens to be that F-Spot is the only one that can connect with the most online services (Flickr, Picasa and so on). And yes, this means Linux scores a win once again for its ability to connect with the most stuff.

Windows Live Photo Gallery will connect to Windows Live Spaces and Flickr.

iPhoto only connects to the .Mac service to the best of my knowledge.

Picasa only connects to Google’s Picasa service to the best of my knowledge.

What do you use? Why do you use it?

Is there any particular reason why you would use one online service over another? Do you even use a photo managing program?

At the present time I’m using Windows Live Photo gallery because it appears to be the only Windows client that will connect up with Flickr easily.

But before I fly out that article – your opinion counts. What do you use?