>>4345254>Histogramsgive at a glance information to whether or not you're clipping highlights and shadows, and if your midrange is nice and full. Clipping is what you call it when your detail is gone and replaced by pure light or dark.
>switch to rawsNo. There is no right answer here, since one is not inheriently better than the other. RAWs are just the most amount of data your camera sensor can pick up, but on their own normally look kind of flat and are huge filesizes. JPEGs are processed images, whether that be processed by your camera, or you took a RAW (or JPEG) and edited it yourself in some photo software. RAWs get turned into JPEG 99% of the time for sharing, printing etc. The real distinction is that if you take the JPEG out of your camera, you're leaving the processing up to the camera. You control that with things like your in-camera picture settings; contrast, satutation, clarity, sharpness etc. Taking the time to grab a RAW file and process it yourself gives you more control and raw data to work with, but takes time, learning, trial and error, and normally expensive software. Some basic things like cropping and leveling can be done to OOC JPEGs to correct mistakes on an otherwise good photo.
>RAW: Most data, takes time to process and knowledge to make useful. Best suited for post-processing. >JPEG: Fast, ready to go, can use straight out of camera.Generally when exporting JPEGs you use a compression level of 80-90% to reduce filesizes. You lose basically no detail but save the world a shitfuck of bandwidth. Friend of mine had a basic HTML site back in the 2010s where he embedded RAWs and the fuckin thing took half a minute to load.
>rape the apertureYour camera uses an APS-C sensor. Because of this I wouldn't push it past f/11 and more ideally f/8 unless you really needed the DoF. Anything higher induces something called diffraction and it's a cunt. Basically things start getting less sharp as you narrow the aperture.
