Howdy, Stranger!

If you're just starting out in the world of photography and want to learn how to get the most out of your camera, then this forum is your new secret hangout spot!

Take better photos today with my Nikon D3200 Cheat SheetsCheck 'em out!

In camera editing

edited January 2016 Posted in » Nikon D3200 Forum
If I edit a picture in the camera, how do I save the changes to that picture?


  • edited December 2015
    It should do so automatically. When you are done with an operation, hit the [OK] button, and you'll get a message that the image is saved. In the case of JPG changes, each time you finish a change, it will be saved, and the new image will appear on the screen. In the case of Raw changes, you do all you need and then hit [OK] to save as a JPG, and that image will then appear on the screen.

    When you process a JPG file or use the JPG changes on a Raw file, each single change will result in a new file. That file appears on the screen, then you can add another modification to it. The new file with that added modification is saved, and appears on the screen, and so on. Each time you make a modification, it saves a new file, leaving the starting file. So if you change five things you'll end up with five files, the last containing all five changes.

    Modified files will show with a little "paintbrush in a square" icon on the top left, when you view them in full screen. They will be added to the card at the end of the folder, and they will always be in JPG format.

    If you do RAW processing on a Raw file, you can do multiple operations in one go and then save the result, which will always be a JPG, as will be any change you make in the regular menu. So if you're starting with a Raw file, make sure you do the Raw processing first.

    You cannot undo the changes you make on a file, but because the in camera editing never changes originals, you can go back and restart. Most of the editing changes can only be done once to a file, and the option will be grayed out in subsequent editing steps, so if you find that you have made a mistake, you'll have to go back to the image you made that change to.

    Editing this way can leave you with a lot of extra files, which you can of course delete as you wish. But it's very safe, since nothing is ever overwritten.
  • edited January 2016
    My question would be, what type of lens would you recommend for taking wild life or nature photos as a new comer into photography? I love taken photos and I really want to get more into it.
  • edited January 2016
    I would start by trying to determine what, if any, shortcomings your present lens or lenses are showing. The kit lens is cheap looking and not very fast, but it is sharp and competent. A better lens can increase some capabilities and make some things easier but the magic is behind it. If your current lens meets the needs of your vision, it will make a good picture, even if a better lens might make the task a little easier or more fun.

    If you find you wish you were always closer to your subjects and could get them bigger in the frame, and find yourself cropping your images, look for a telephoto or a telephoto zoom. The 55-200mm Nikkor is often a good bargain. Others are out there, Nikkor and third party. On DX format, 300mm gives very good reach. The faster the better, but get what you can afford. Remember too that the D3200 has lots of pixels, lots of room to crop if you're not printing very large. Don't be afraid to edit. Every rule can be broken and should be from time to time, but many photographers make the mistake of not getting close enough. Dig in. I have the 55-300mm DX zoom myself. A good bit more expensive than the 55-200mm, similar quality, it was heavily discounted when I bought it with the D3200. A very good lens, if not spectacular at its longest, it has served very well for traveling, and gone with me, along with the lowly 18-55mm, to the Galapagos, Antarctica and Costa Rica! I have some other lenses, but the only other one I've traveled with on those trips was an old 28mm f/3.5 manual lens.

    If you like the "bokeh" or blurred background you see in some portraits, but cannot afford a good fast portrait lens, the longer lengths of a telephoto zoom can stand in very well, if you can stand far enough away.

    If you find you wish for greater coverage and regret that you can't stand further away, look for a wider angle. 18mm is pretty good (about equivalent to full frame 28mm, a standard wide-angle), but far from radical. 16mm is noticeably wider, and everything wider than that is very wide indeed. Very wide angles are pretty expensive, but while you can crop an image to make it closer, you can't go wider unless you stitch images in post processing. When you get much wider than 16mm in DX, you will find results can be very dramatic, but composition difficult, and distracting elements easy to miss. Wide angles can be stunning when you get them right, dull when you don't. A mistake many people make in wide scenic shots is to look only in the middle and miss distracting elements at the edges and foreground. Keep an eye on that branch, blurry blade of grass, and so forth, that can ruin a good scenic shot.

    If you wish for faster speed in low light, and shallower depth of field (for blurry backgrounds in portraits, etc.) decide whether you like a "normal" perspective of 35mm or a closer one for portraits of 50mm, and get either the 35mm f//1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. Both very good, relatively inexpensive, and beloved by many. See Moose's review on this site, of the 35mm. Many people consider this one of the great lens bargains. A non-zooming prime lens can be very good for building photographic skill and vision. Though you may notice little improvement in sharpness over the already-sharp kit lens, a prime will give you a little better sharpness, a little better focusing speed, and a little better contrast and flare resistance, all adding up. You have to learn to "zoom with your feet," but being stuck at a single focal length can help you to see compositional elements that you zoom right past.

    If you need to do sports indoors, and shoot in difficult light with telephoto, start saving up your pennies for a fast lens. A slower zoom like the 55-200mm is a bargain. Even a couple of stops difference, such as a faster long prime or an f/2.8 zoom, will cost you many bucks.

    If you want to shoot birds and wildlife far away, save up some more, and look at the super-zooms offered by Tokina, Sigma and Nikon. Expensive but sharp.
Sign In or Register to comment.