I used to only shoot JPEG, from 1999 to 2016 thats all I ever shot, unless asked to shoot RAW by a client. However I finally realized that I was wrong, even though I don't have much regret I am glad that I finally saw the light. See I'm a photojournalist and am I long time, experienced professional with a lot of years under my belt and had some of the top photographers in the world as mentors. I have been published in everything from the LA Times to Sports Illustrated on multiple occasions, along with many others. Although I can and do get it right in camera almost all the time, I now see advantages of shooting RAW and the advantages are WAY bigger than I had thought for many, many years. So I'm the first person to admit I was wrong about JPEG being enough for me, and I am also the first to admit that pretty much everyone, except journalists like myself, should shoot RAW. Even now a lot of the time when on assignment I shoot RAW+JPEG. This allows me to quickly get the images out to an editor while still having the RAW files just in case. However I would say that I do highly recommend 12bit RAW to most people, unless your a landscape photographer or something to the effect and need the absolute most dynamic range and color info. If your like me and shoot action or wildlife, there is just no reason to shoot 14bit in my opinion. It's pretty much impossible to see any noticeable difference, but for most cameras there is a difference in buffer space like Steve said, so thats huge to me, especially on my two D4s's, which is where there is a noticeable difference in buffer. On a D5, D850 or D500 there is less of a buffer reason to shoot 12bit, but for me it's more than just buffer, I just can't see a noticeable difference between the two and trust me I've tried and I have 20-10 vision, which is world class eyesight. So if someone like me with better than "perfect" vision can't see the difference I have a hard time believing those who say they can. Now this is just visual, I get that math is math and more info is more info.
While I've been hard pressed to see the difference between 12bit and 14bit on my D850 (and maybe it's all been in my mind), I'm like Steve. I use 14bit unless I'm shooting either high ISO or high fps, where the added buffer for 12bit is enormous. So, for darker scenes and for sports, I use 12bit. In fact, I have the NEF (RAW) Recording option as a setting on the MY MENU page (which I invoke using the Fn2 button) so I can bounce between the two. Maybe it's a waste of memory card space using 14bit at all but I'm not running low space so I figure that it probably doesn't hurt to get the added shadow depth. I should add that I mostly use card slot 1 for RAW and card slot 2 for JPEG so I have the option to decide later. Works for me, may not work for others.
@@slny5065 I get it, when I realized how much I could do with the RAW files I too shot in 14bit a lot. However one day I read that there was no discernible difference so I decided to test it myself. I personally didn't see a noticeable difference and I've yet to see proof there is one. Maybe if we were in front of a large and bright 4k or 8k monitor and with an image that had extreme dynamic range, we would. Like I said before the math is correct and more is more, but at what cost. My computers are already full and I'm constantly going through my LR catalog to delete images to make room for more. That's why I sold my beloved D850 as well, it just made everything slower and I can't have that. Also I don't need 45mp and I do need the best high ISO ability possible. I had a D5, but the dynamic range at base ISO was not what I was used to. Now I'm shooting with two D4s's and a D500. I'm very happy with those camera's and I realize I'm in a niche. As a photojournalist and I don't need more than 16mp, but I realize that a lot of people prefer more. I really did love the D850 and the files it produced. I can't say a bad thing about that camera, it's probably the best camera ever made. For me though I'm happy with less and 12bit is enough for me.
Patrick Smith I hear you. You could be right. I’ve never tested and I did see some folks post tests that showed no perceptible difference in usual use; it required really pushing the envelope (high underexposure or unusual light situations) to find much. But I do know that I like the quality of the photos I get and , unlike you, I’ve no problems with too many photos. But I’m an amateur and don’t shoot day-in-and-out so I never outrun my capacity. And the only days I’ve ever shot a few hundred photos, they were of sports and most just got tossed rapidly. The D500 is a great camera and I’ve not used a D4 and I’d bet you know how to make them work for you!
Excellent explanation and I totally agree on the value of RAW over JPG. As someone who grew up with 35mm film and getting prints from the drugstore, I was told that shooting only JPG or deleting the RAW image is almost the same as throwing the negatives in the trash. You'll never get that information back.
Every beginner should see this video. Your side-by-side comparison is an excellent way to show the difference. The only argument I could see that a beginner would be able to say is that using .jpg/.jpeg is that they do not have to use a software program to adjust their images. They would be fine to use right out of the camera. I checked my Nikon's and have them dialed in just like yours.
Following Steve is like signing up for a very complete and complex tutorial, but one that made simple by a great teacher. i bought all his books, viewed all his videos, many multiple times, and even sent donations above the buying of the books, which i fully recommend getting. I even listened to his blogs, the only blogs i have ever listened to.
Very, very, very nice! Steve is that kind of person who knows not only how, but also why. He knows what is happening behind the hood, the rear engineering. And, a very important thing, he can speak very easily about all of this, he is able to present this complexity in a very simple way, understandable, almost for everyone! This is a great quality. Steve, you are a real teacher!
Thanks Steve - yet another clear explanation. If I may suggest another analogy: to my mind, shooting JPEG is like getting a print from a mini lab and then throwing away the negative. You'll always have more options with a negative than a print!
I began shooting RAW since 2013 when I was enrolled in a photography program at a local college. I already know the difference between RAW and Jpeg yet I am here watching your tutorial simply because I appreciate your teaching style.
Steve, just watched this video, and it is the best explanation of the difference between JPeg vs RAW images and the limitations in processing the images; excellent video.
JPEG is great for sports after setting WB and using a lightmeter for accurate exposure (wire services often require max 3Mb files), whereas for people, landscapes RAW is the way to go imo. Thanks for another informative video Steve!👍🏻
Steve, I'm a foto Newbie (One year shooting this month's end), I'm stoked to have YOU as my PMI (Primary Marksmanship Instructor) sooner rather than later! No doubt it takes a gifted individual to know these specifically-taught subjects' complexities, reformat the info, then using every relevant medium, make fun lessons, have me anxiously waiting to both practice the newly- taught material, and watch/learn the NEXT lesson! I'm also VERY grateful I've subscribed to your channel, it's my ONE STOP SHOP! I get awesome fotogrăfē lessons, while simultaneously developing proficiency & understanding with my newly-acquired Nikon D7000 (previous models used: Canon SX50hs>D3000>D5000). Your Channel and Content are the BEST for Nikon Shooters! Please keep up the HARD but AMAZING wurk you do!
Clear, concise and great explanation. I just recently switched to RAW and what a difference the post-editing makes. Looking at older jpegs and realize that I am stuck. I still have older transparencies and starting to rescan some of these to see if there is a difference in RAW scan and Jpeg scan. Thanks again for your great effort in demystifying these topics that you tackle.
With all the ranting, did I happen to mention that I really enjoy your tutorials, and that you are my must recommended site? Even for none critter shooters.
I shoot always raw and jpeg. The reason: when a picture is good, editing it in raw may result in a worse picture such as over progressing, certainly as I'm an amateur who has to edit hundreds of pictures of his holiday as they are memories, not potential sales. Although a little more or less exposure and colour change can be done. But, when the picture is under or over exposed or the dynamic range is large, raw is best to recover details. Thus, certainly for amateurs, I think it depends upon the situation whether to use jpeg or raw.
I have been shooting RAW only for the last 4 years and I love how much I can improve my photos in post processing. I also love the LEGO analogy you used to explain what you are losing with JPEG's - brilliant way to put across a difficult concept. Thanks Steve for another top notch video. Stay safe.
I don't have a Z7 but the menu options seem extensive for processing a jpeg. One thing about processing a RAW file in post is you can see what's happening. With a jpeg, a photog is just guessing in advance. With ACR set-up for basic modifications, it's almost never that images need more fine-tuning.
Steve Perry, your reply to Aaron Anhalt sums up everything about JPEG - "....... it's not always true to the scene...." From my experience, different camera brands gives different JPEG images straight out of camera from shooting the same scene due to different algorithyms used in each camera. For serious photographers shooting JPEG only, you must know your camera three basic exposure settings - WB, exposure compensation and ISO. Tune each of them for the scene you are shooting and the JPEG images will be 'more' true to the scene. Of course there are other features like Nikon's Active D-lighting, Picture Control, etc that enable camera knows exactly what you are shooting and more precisely the results you are expecting from the JPEG images. Thus, the output is getting 'even' more true to the scene your brain can remember. In everyday photography, JPEG image quality is more than enough for most people. Just look at images from handphones.
Love the photos you used. Having going to Cades Cove many times I know what your looking at and how they should look. Great explanation on the difference of the two files.
I think that raw files are much better in terms of quality. On the other hands I admit that the time required to process them could be not worth it for some. I shoot in raw+jpg in order to use snap bridge, I find a very nice underrated feature of nikon cameras. Great video as always!!
An absolutely superb presentation of the differences between jpeg and raw. I have never seen it explained better. Thank you. For years I shot jpeg mostly because I thought it was very expensive to process raw. I was wrong! If you have a Nikon, then it’s free as you can download Capture NX-D, which is pretty competent for free software. After I found that, I switched to raw. After three months I outgrew NX-D and migrated to Lightroom and Photoshop. I wish I had done this years ago. I have thousands of jpegs I really can’t do much with. Ho hum. You live, you learn
Just a suggestion. Could you please do an extended presentation on how to use this programme? Would definitely benefit many viewers greatly. Hope you consider. Cheers. P.s. I’m suggesting this because you’re such a great explainer - even difficult issues. Thanks.
Thank's Steve, great video straight to the point and very well demonstrated, I knew that Raw was the best way to go but like a lot of other people I forgot how much data is lost just using Jpeg format, I have set my Nikon D 810 to lossless compression at 14 bit Raw. The video of the old cart in the barn was excellent, showing the vast difference between Jpeg and Raw I am now a converted Raw shooter thank's to you, Steve..!!
Steve, great content, great explanations and perfect examples of what you might be giving up shooting in jpeg. I shot in jpeg for years but as I got better I wanted more control over the final image. Yes, I spend more time behind the computer and the files are much bigger on the hard drive, but the results IMHO are much better. Another great Steve Perry video.
Thanks for the video.. Totally understand the difference between Jpeg and Raw but there is one thing I am unsure of. If you shoot in Raw does it effect how you take the photograph knowing that you can process it later? Of course I don't know if the shots you used as examples were shot intentionally that way but the question is, how much improvement could you have made with the camera while in the field or should you be concerned with it . As Patrick smith mentioned "Although I can and do get it right in camera almost all the time". Hope this question makes sense.
Hey Steve excellent video. Since I am a amateur/hobbyist photographer and mainly shooting vacations, holidays and grand kids. I am currently shooting in jpeg/Raw. I can’t justify buying the subscription for Adobe Lightroom for post processing. So I decide to purchase Adobe Photoshop Element 2019 (last year) to start learning post processing on Raw files. I don’t believe you have any books on photoshop elements correct? Any suggestion on a training book for photoshop elements. As always looking forward to your next video.
When I first bought a dslr I didn’t understand the difference between raw and jpeg . I am a hobbyist so I am not making money with my photography but i look at old photos and wish I had someone to teach me the difference and the pros and cons of each. I now shoot raw/jpeg. I am also a painter and I sometimes take my own reference files so not worried about a super detailed photograph.
Thanks Steve. Good thorough explanation. Now, what about when I take an unprocessed RAW (ARW Sony, NEF Nikon) into Topaz DeNoise and end up with a TIFF. Is that TIFF lossless - do I have all the RAW info in that TIFF for processing further? Or would you only bring processed RAW files into, for example DeNoise? Jack
My advice is to make all color / light corrections in your RAW editor first. Then, send to topaz. Once it's back into your RAW software, then do things like sharpness, contrast, clarity, etc.
Thank you!! I've shot RAW pretty much exclusively since I switched to digital. And I was aware of all you told/showed in this flick. But I watched all of it; fantastic detailed and presented presentation. I've followed you for years, this is a step above a few others. Now, if you would tame down that intro music... :) Regards, Charley
Once I started shooting RAW (+JPG) full time, there have been a few times when I had a photo that was massively overexposed, because I thought I knew what I was doing, and had to correct it. With the RAW file I was able to bring everything back and make a keeper photo, but with the JPG file no matter what I did it still ended up looking like shit. The blown out areas were brought back down to a flat gray, while the same areas in the RAW file had texture and color variations. And even with a properly exposed scene like a late evening scene with bright sky and dark shadows, processing the RAW file gave me a sort of virtual HDR look that worked quite well, while I could have never done the same with the JPG. The most confusing part was finding the right editing software because there are many different ones for processing RAW files, but I ended up settling with Lightroom because it was just simply the easiest one to use.
Will you do reviews on your new Sony equipment? I would love to see you compare mirrorless cameras based on the point of view on a wildlife photographer. As an amateur wildlife photographer, I love watching your videos and reading your books :)
@@backcountrygallery Glad that you're not going to just throw out something. Taking time to really learn and understand what you're writing about is rather rare and honorable these days.
Good and nicely done explanation, Steve. As for me, I only shoot RAW for my paid photography work.. I shoot JPEG for my everyday/personal photography usage. RAW file images are untouched color file information of the photo wherein the photographer can control/play around the entire colors for post processing. JPEG are compressed color information recorded and processed by the camera.. That's my simplest way to explain it and that's how i understood it. This RAW vs. JPEG topic, it is really up to the photographer's talent and skillset on how to correct/fix/manipulate/play around the color of the image during post processing. I just hope this tutorial/topic will not turn into heated argument/discussion/debate.. Just like what happened 2 years ago between jared polin and tony northrup. Thank you, Steve.
Thanks :) And the truth is, that's where I use Jpegs as well. RAW isn't for everything, and like you say, it's up to the shooter to determine what works best.
@@backcountrygallery i am a nikon user/shooter as well for 10yrs now.. I started first with D3000 then D90.. (both cameras, i used it for paid photography work and everyday personal usage). I just recently bought D610 to upgrade from dx to fx. It took me 10yrs to upgrade because i really pushed the capability and limit of my 2 dx nikon cameras...
i've only been shooting with a modern camera since start of the year, 8 months now, as my camera is and entry level one, canon M50 i chose jpeg over raw for the buffer issue, i have known that the raw files are 2 or 3 times better but with wildlife i do like i can hit burst in high frame rate when specific action shots take place, eg a fox i was shooting at a normal single shot was playing with others then it started to have a scratch so i did a burst of 20 pics and just one of them had it scratching with its tongue sticking out. so when it comes to raw vs jpeg buffer size can be a consideration, if and when get a higher level camera i probably will go back to trying raw, also the other consideration i took was i have only just begun to learn the way around the exposure triangle and histogram etc, still learning, so for simplicity i took getting new software to edit raw out the equalization while i concentrate on getting great out the camera shots. as you mention at the start, for a beginner jpegs do look decent enough and there is still plenty you can do if needed, but yes obviously you are left with a smaller amount of data. one of the biggest improvement jumps was working out how to put the histogram into the evf on the M50 while shooting.
I used my DSLR for snapshots too. So I used most RAW+JPEG and discarded the RAW for the files I would never process. Now, the smarphones are getting better, so I just use it for daily images and reserve the DSLR for special ocasions.
Interesting - I find myself doing the same thing more and more. I sometimes still get out a DSLR or mirrorless for family stuff (and usually shoot RAW for those), but most of my family / vacation snaps shots are now with my phone.
I’m a little different. I rarely use the camera on my phone. I wouldn’t trust family photos. My wish is that Nikon would bring out a mirrorless or DSLR camera with NO video capabilities. High specs at a lower price. The video cameras of the past were able to shoot stills, but nobody used the function. I have only shot video once on my DSLR since I bought it.
I shoot raw virtually all the time, even bought a couple of I Shoot Raw shirts. My question has to do with the eventual JPG replacement, probably High Efficiency Image File (HEIF) format that produces a higher 10 bit versus the 8 bit. Currently Apple iPhones have this available as does the new Canon 1DX MkIII. My guess is that most new cameras will have this option 5 years from now. The question is, have you had an opportunity to look at this format for pluses and minuses versus the JPG format? I heard that these files somehow take up even less space (more compression perhaps?).
I've honestly not had a chance to use the HEIF format. However, anything that anything derived from a RAW file and processed isn't going to be quite as good as the RAW file - it simply can't. However, a lossless HEIF file might be so close that you cannot tell (at some point, we get to diminishing returns). When it becomes more mainstream, I'll do a test. For now, I'm just sticking with I really don' know :)
Dear Steve Perry-you have great postproduction skills & as well as knowing how a dslr works, really I con't believe what you describe about RAW & JPEG . the photo graphy world & post production world should definitely agree with you, thank you for your deep reserch & exelent video presentation. now onwords I shoot on RAW + JPEGfine
Brilliant! I have always used jpegs so your video was a real eye-opener. I had always thought i didn't want to be bothered with lots of processing but now I think differently. I have adobe lightroom so I suppose this should be good for dealing with raw images?
Thanks for the help in understanding these formats, may I ask, would not a soft flash fill and a little bracketing in the barn and exposure for the background do just as well without any post?
It may have. The trouble is, in that example there would have been two different WBs - one for the flash, one for the outside. Plus, if your bracketing with the idea of combining Jpegs with HDR, you're still post-processing (although, I'm not sure if that's what you meant).
I shoot in raw only when I want the extra data. I find the software processing on the new cameras is improving (I use sony a7t4). If I know the sony in camera profiles better it saves worktime that I can use elsewhere. Eventually one hasto convert to jpeg - whether one uses thein camera software -the native sony raw software or a 3rd party. Whether one prefers a manual rendering to a semi automatic one as there is a lot of tweaking that one can do even with jpegs. The question is when does one need the extra information and which rendering software
I think it also depends on what you shoot. The reason I shoot RAW is because, as a wildlife, I don't want to have to pause before each scene and decide if it's better with RAW or if Jpeg can handle it. I'd miss way too many shots, so I stick with RAW.
ok... have watched 2 of your vids... both are absolutely superb. I agree with your conclusions. What I find though.... is that life is short: I often evaluate my processing ability (and patience) within LR. More often than not I cannot do better than what the engineers at Canon did when programming my RF. However, if I create an underexposed image, like u did at the start of this vid, then I am happy to have my RAW file available.. In those instances, I can do better than my jpg. Maybe I need to get better at LR? Regardless, thanks again for this excellent video.
I am surprised that this even needs discussing anymore. Started to get into this with a friend and then found a way to bail out of the discussion. There is only one time I shoot RAW+JPG basic. And that is when shooting tethered. The JPG is what gets transferred quickly to the tethered monitor. When I DL to my desktop for post, I delete the JPG's and work with the RAW's.
That is a very good video for beginners! I recently edit and upload my pictures based on the JPG of my camera, flat profiled with the colors I'm aiming for in the first place. I'd never use it for professional work for obvious reasons and do keep the RAW files. It's just that it involves less time in editing and I get a more consistent look over a series of photos. Also, nobody cares on Instagram :)
A friend sent me the link to this video & I'm going with this the next time I get out for a good day behind the camera. I was shooting in both, also. I subscribed & will have to binge watch your channel. I looked at the books that you have but was terribly let down to see that they are all ebooks! Do you offer an option for printed copies? I realize that it would drive the cost up but there would be some of us purists that would be willing to pay for a hard copy.
Thanks for the kind words - the books are all e-book though. The cost would be at least triple and I wouldn't be able to issue regular, free updates as I do now.
Excellent, Excellent, Excellent! Great video! So is 16 bit in “medium format” smoke & mirrors or is the sensor large enough you’d actually see more than 14-bit?
Honestly, I don't know follow medium format all that closely. I do seem to recall that MF sensors were capable of more DR. Plus, there is a bit of overhead in the files, so you can't squeeze 14 stops into a 14 bit file as I understand it (more like 12 or 13 stops). So, if MF sensors are delivering 14+ stops of DR, they would need 16 Bit to hold that kind of range.
There's no advantage to the Tiffs as far as I know - and I think they are usually larger than lossless compressed RAW. So, I personally don't use them. I can make the Tiffs later from the RAW files if I want.
This video was really informative and the lego crazy kid who's still somehwere in there loved that car analogy. I'm a hobbyist photographer myself and mostly shoot birds. I shot jpegs mostly because the cameras I had were JPG only for a while but now that I have the option i shoot raw +jpg on the dual card slot incase i need to share quickly. I've been putting off post processing on a lot of my images and might make the leap towards light room. I hope to see post porcessing tutorials on your site/channel soon. Lets hope the corona emergency ends soon and I can get a decent monitor. Till then its my laptop and its 57% srgb coverage🙁
Love Love your work and info:) The best, however I can shoot jpeg and edit with no problems at all in Lightroom. Been doing it for over 12 years!!! Just me 2 cents:))
@@backcountrygallery Well since i shoot 75% sports, i don't. But when i shoot portraits in certain locations and lighting i do shoot RAW. But, still seem to be able to pull out the same results. Thanks Steve, you are the best. You make everything so easy to understand.
Excellent explanation for a photo enthusiast like me, for the past 30 years, who has gone back and forth over the years. Your authenticity and command of the comparison is impressive. But you appear to be pragmatic. Therefore, I would sincerely be interested in your impression of Luminar 4 photo editor from Skylum, which I did purchase within the last month. I have no financial interest with Skylum or any of their partners. So this is not an attempt to ‘sucker punch.’
I'd like to do comparisons like that, I currently just don't have the time. I'm deep into a new book project and have two other major projects after that.
I shoot in RAW since 2014, having acquired a software quite simple but rather complete. Since 1 year and a half I use a new software with which I have a lot of satisfaction. Now, I've been told that my photos may sometimes be a little "over-worked". So I decided to do the next images with the RAW +JPEG setting. Thus, I will be able to compare my edition of the RAW file with the JPEG as the camera "sees" it (with some basic settings in Picture Control). Do you think that's a good idea?
It can be, just to keep yourself in check. I was an overcooked myself (some may say I still am LOL) and it's easy to do. If you use Lightroom, you can always hit the "\" key in the develop module to compare your original to the processed version then you don't need to shoot RAW + Jpeg. :)
I understand now! Thank you for creating such a wonderful video-the "show-me" images and Lego visual really tell the story. It makes me want to buy your book, but first I need a Nikon so... could someone please comment what Nikon model will relate closest to your book? Reasonably priced, please, as a hobbyist I won't need the latest-greatest-super-camera. FYI, my camera is the Sony RX100 M3, 24-70 1.8 non-changeable lens pocket-camera and darned good on the M setting. Thanks.
Without a lot of background, it's tough to say. I'd probably recommend starting by taking a look at the D7500 - it's a good mid-range camera at a reasonable price.
very good review. I usually shoot jpeg as I don't need to print and I show on media like FaceBook. NOW I'll save Raw too. Many thanks! But I'll need to get to use some pp software. Still, as I'm stuck at home, its a good chance to learn a new skill!
I primarily shoot travel photos and up to now, I’ve shot in RAW only. I’m causing myself a huge workload after every trip. I’m seriously thinking about shooting both, writing to different cards. If the JPEG has issues I can always process the RAW file. I haven’t tried it yet, is there a downside to this approach?
Here’s an alternate solution to your dilemma. JPEGs have the huge advantage of being smaller in file size and are more easily opened by different programs. I shoot both. I shoot JPEGS almost all the time. I check the screen on the back of the camera and when I get a difficult to shoot scene I switch to JPEG plus RAW. It’s quick and its easy. This way I have the best of both worlds. I find that tens of thousands of shots are great with JPEGS and when I encounter a difficult scene I add in the RAW. I have a lot of JPEGs and few RAWs to clog my hard drives. Problem solved. You may need to anticipate some subjects in advance but it’s worth it. I shot RAW exclusively years ago but it just wasn’t worth the trouble.
LOL, it's not really a dilemma for me, I'm perfectly happy shooting RAW :) Alternatively, you can also shoot just RAW and very easily export all the images as Jpegs later if you like. It's more storage, but storage is cheap. Still, whatever works :)
I’ve been looking for a software that doesn’t wash out my raw files. I want the raw files but I want it to look exactly how I saw it on camera. I do like jpeg colors but when you shoot in raw the colors are gone. I understand that you have to edit the raw files but I don’t want them to look washed out. I’ve been trying to find softwares that makes raw images look like jpeg previews. So if I was to import a raw image onto a software I want to see what I saw on the back of my camera.
Most RAW software will show render the file using its default settings. However, most software will also hav profiles you can apply with one click that will simulate the profiles your camera uses. In Lightroom int eh develop module you can apply this with the Profile part of the Basics panel. Click the little 4 square looking icon on the right side. Note that you can also apply these settings on import to all of your images if you like or make it the default.
love your work Steve, i must admit to only ever shooting in jpeg, I've tried RAW in the past but I find post processing takes more time than I;m willing to put in. I only shoot as a hobby and jpeg seems to suit me for now, good informative video buddy
Mark Gilmour I enjoy your videos Steve, but I’m with Mark! Light Room for me is just too frustrating, non intuitive and complicated. I’ll leave that to more serious types or professionals. I do gather raw on my XQD card so an occasional very good image may be post processed on one of the more user friendly sites.
After watching this video I decided to go out and shoot a few images in RAW+JPEG just to see if I could get a better image than I get with just shooting JPEG. I took approx 150 images in total ,the first thing I noticed was the length of time it took to down load to my PC, nearly 15 mins compared to say 2 mins when I shoot just JPEG, I'm currently using Capture one for my A7iii, the images were displayed as a RAW file next to a JPEG, great for making comparisons :-). I had a play with the RAW files and I must admit I could not get the image to look any better than the camera JPEG'S. I find ths A7iiI is very good at nailing the exposure, the focus is always good too. I only shoot as a hobby and I only have a cheap PC Monitor (be it a large screen) not sure what I can do to improve the already good (in my eyes) JPEG'S that my camera takes. I tend to shoot landscape with the odd wildlife thrown in here and there, I have tow native len's and one third party lens (Tamron 17-28 f2.8) I know people can be very passionate and very defensive about RAW shooting (to the point of being condescending and rude), but for me I can't see the point with all the extra downloading time and post processing time required.
Mark Gilmour I think you hit it on the head... It’s a trade-off. It’s nice to have choice, but it’s a trade-off. I think there is a larger audience for JPEG (like myself and you) and it does it’s job well, making post-processing decisions to meet your needs 90% of the time. But for more professional (who make a living off their craft) RAW offers more post-production possibilities. The debate often gets framed as one being better than the other. When really, I think it’s more about, when does it make more sense to use one over the other. But Steve Perry’s explanation is very clear about the differences and one of the best comparisons I have seen.
You have your capitalisation precisely back to front. 'What you write as 'Jpeg' is an acronym, so should be capitalised 'JPEG'. What you write as 'RAW' is an adjective, so shouldn't be capitalised, 'raw'.
Hi Steve excellent video clearly explains everything you need to know. I shot using D500 in 14bit for Landscape and Aviation for that extra dynamic range and 12bit for portrait and general run of the mill family photographs. RAW wins every time for me. However your description on how much you loose in JPEG info is spot on and even to my eyes I can see a difference. I shot a firms party and when processing what I thought was RAW was JPEG when pushing darker shots could see a lot of green noise which meant I had to adjust in HSL to correct now if I had shot in RAW I would not have had this problem other than normal colour noise. Your example of the Barn photo showed this well and was spot on......! Great content and yep I have your books looking forward to Develop course.
Depends on the app doing the processing. If you have the full RAW data, you should be able to do anything to the file in the app that you can do on the computer. The format isn't holding you back - but the app may be.
@@backcountrygallery Thanks! I have Photoshop (have not really learned it yet - I'm new to all of this), so I will try it. Lightroom must have additional/alternative features to Photoshop, or it wouldn't exist... Is it worth it to get Lightroom for these additional/alternative features?
@@mgelinfilms7344 Lightroom has cataloging features that Camera RAW doesn't. However, for RAW processing, Camera RAW can do pretty much everything Lightroom can. Still, I like having Lightroom and Photoshop - I think it's a better workflow.
As a beginner (just learning) photography I'm confused about alot of the different settings and lenses and such. But you sir have just unsolved the RAW VS JPEG part of this for me. However i am currently trying to learn the different things i can do with my Canon eos rebel xsi that i bought used at a camera repair shop after my previous point and shoot digital camera kicked the bucket a few years ago. I have been somewhat afraid to mess with any of the settings other than auto on the settings dial. So i might try some of the other presets and menu items. Thank you.
my Fuji gfx 50r is delivering so Nice Jpg that i dont se the point and time to shoot raw and spend the time on my pc i have tested raw and saved to 16bits TIFF but i don't see the quality difference my 16 bit TIFF is 292 mg in file size vs my 8bit 30mg jpg i dont se the quallity improvment
well you dont shoot jpeg to edit it that much, I shoot jpeg and RAW and sometimes the jpeg is perfect the way it is so it does not need correction. If I need to change something I have the RAW file. Dont shoot jpegs expecting to edit them much. Beginners should start on RAWs until they can do a good job in camera
Steve, I love you videos and work in general. I am going to watch your story patiently. But, when you begin saying a raw file has had little processing, I have to - immediately - interrupt and make the point that a raw file is extremely well-done. To get to the raw file, a lot of maths has been applied to the sensor-cell readouts, first to do the analog-to-digital conversion, then the "invention" of RGB values (the initial readouts are monochrome - the sensor has no "pixels" as each pixel has an RGB value and the pixels claimed by the camera manufacturer are the result of invention based on subjective algorithms - subjective to the taste of the manufacturer and subjected to their budgets as well as within the constraints posed by the camera's processing power) and there is a form of anti-aliasing or sharpening going on. Knowing this, now if we assume that all "profile" settings only impact JPEG, then we have to look at ~raw flat video footage from the Nikon Z cameras. The flat profile applies less sharpening in camera. Somewhere in the cooking chain, de-Bayerization (Moiré pattern removal) is applied, and who knows what else. Not bloody raw, but extremely well done.
As to Steve's point later in the video about the camera's buffer. Here, the JPEG advantage "depends." My Z 7 has a relatively small buffer and at 14-bits RAW (lossless) can buffer 19 images. 12-bits will result in 23. And JPEG gets to 25 images. (A D500 has a buffer 4x as big.) Here we have to understand that the JPEG file starts as raw, first. That raw file gets a profile and sharpening applied and in the meantime the bitdepth is reduced. 14 bits becomes 8 (losing 6 bits means we lose 64 gradation levels) followed by compression so areas of pixels are identified with similar properties and stored as area with property rather than individual pixels. This is a lot of processing and takes time. With JPEG only, the camera may start its AD conversion with 12 bits, if that results in easier processing. At some point, when the JPEG processing is done, the JPEG file needs to be written to the memory card. We see that the end result of JPEG balances between more processing and writing a much smaller file to card. In order to get the maximum buffer results, we still need to have a fast memory card.
Steve, when you say that going from 14 bits to 12 bits we loose dynamic range, then my question is, where did you read this? My perception was that AD conversion in the case of 14 bits is 4 times more precise than 12 bits but the dynamic range is equal. Or, we loose gradation resolution, not dynamic range. When we show our photos on an 8-bits monitor, you expect not to see the difference, but be aware that converting your images into 32-bits in Photoshop gives visible changes.
I won't argue that there is some processing, however, it varies a LOT by manufacturer. Also, there are two types of processing here - image processing and data processing. The sensor is processing the data to make it useable, but it hasn't assigned any RBG colorspace yet and the file still needs processing to be used. The thing is, there are far too many directions to take this, so I kept it basic in the video. It takes us down a rabbit hole that really doesn't change the message of the video - it would simply take up time for no reason. Every video is a balance between getting making the point in the most concise way possible without leaving out critical info. Getting into the steps taken by individual manufactures - or guessing at them since it's proprietary - it beyond the scope of this video. By saying no processing or minimal processing, I'm referring to the kind of processing we'd see in the Jpegs. :)
@@jpdj2715 Keep in mind you're using a very specific example and this video applies in a general sense to all cameras, not just the Z7. There are other cameras that see a more significant increase in buffer capacity with Jpeg.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
I used to only shoot JPEG, from 1999 to 2016 thats all I ever shot, unless asked to shoot RAW by a client. However I finally realized that I was wrong, even though I don't have much regret I am glad that I finally saw the light. See I'm a photojournalist and am I long time, experienced professional with a lot of years under my belt and had some of the top photographers in the world as mentors. I have been published in everything from the LA Times to Sports Illustrated on multiple occasions, along with many others. Although I can and do get it right in camera almost all the time, I now see advantages of shooting RAW and the advantages are WAY bigger than I had thought for many, many years. So I'm the first person to admit I was wrong about JPEG being enough for me, and I am also the first to admit that pretty much everyone, except journalists like myself, should shoot RAW. Even now a lot of the time when on assignment I shoot RAW+JPEG. This allows me to quickly get the images out to an editor while still having the RAW files just in case. However I would say that I do highly recommend 12bit RAW to most people, unless your a landscape photographer or something to the effect and need the absolute most dynamic range and color info. If your like me and shoot action or wildlife, there is just no reason to shoot 14bit in my opinion. It's pretty much impossible to see any noticeable difference, but for most cameras there is a difference in buffer space like Steve said, so thats huge to me, especially on my two D4s's, which is where there is a noticeable difference in buffer. On a D5, D850 or D500 there is less of a buffer reason to shoot 12bit, but for me it's more than just buffer, I just can't see a noticeable difference between the two and trust me I've tried and I have 20-10 vision, which is world class eyesight. So if someone like me with better than "perfect" vision can't see the difference I have a hard time believing those who say they can. Now this is just visual, I get that math is math and more info is more info.
Thanks for the comments! I'm pinning this one!
While I've been hard pressed to see the difference between 12bit and 14bit on my D850 (and maybe it's all been in my mind), I'm like Steve. I use 14bit unless I'm shooting either high ISO or high fps, where the added buffer for 12bit is enormous. So, for darker scenes and for sports, I use 12bit. In fact, I have the NEF (RAW) Recording option as a setting on the MY MENU page (which I invoke using the Fn2 button) so I can bounce between the two. Maybe it's a waste of memory card space using 14bit at all but I'm not running low space so I figure that it probably doesn't hurt to get the added shadow depth. I should add that I mostly use card slot 1 for RAW and card slot 2 for JPEG so I have the option to decide later. Works for me, may not work for others.
@@slny5065 I get it, when I realized how much I could do with the RAW files I too shot in 14bit a lot. However one day I read that there was no discernible difference so I decided to test it myself. I personally didn't see a noticeable difference and I've yet to see proof there is one. Maybe if we were in front of a large and bright 4k or 8k monitor and with an image that had extreme dynamic range, we would. Like I said before the math is correct and more is more, but at what cost. My computers are already full and I'm constantly going through my LR catalog to delete images to make room for more. That's why I sold my beloved D850 as well, it just made everything slower and I can't have that. Also I don't need 45mp and I do need the best high ISO ability possible. I had a D5, but the dynamic range at base ISO was not what I was used to. Now I'm shooting with two D4s's and a D500. I'm very happy with those camera's and I realize I'm in a niche. As a photojournalist and I don't need more than 16mp, but I realize that a lot of people prefer more. I really did love the D850 and the files it produced. I can't say a bad thing about that camera, it's probably the best camera ever made. For me though I'm happy with less and 12bit is enough for me.
Patrick Smith I hear you. You could be right. I’ve never tested and I did see some folks post tests that showed no perceptible difference in usual use; it required really pushing the envelope (high underexposure or unusual light situations) to find much. But I do know that I like the quality of the photos I get and , unlike you, I’ve no problems with too many photos. But I’m an amateur and don’t shoot day-in-and-out so I never outrun my capacity. And the only days I’ve ever shot a few hundred photos, they were of sports and most just got tossed rapidly. The D500 is a great camera and I’ve not used a D4 and I’d bet you know how to make them work for you!
How were you "wrong"?
Excellent explanation and I totally agree on the value of RAW over JPG. As someone who grew up with 35mm film and getting prints from the drugstore, I was told that shooting only JPG or deleting the RAW image is almost the same as throwing the negatives in the trash. You'll never get that information back.
Every beginner should see this video. Your side-by-side comparison is an excellent way to show the difference. The only argument I could see that a beginner would be able to say is that using .jpg/.jpeg is that they do not have to use a software program to adjust their images. They would be fine to use right out of the camera. I checked my Nikon's and have them dialed in just like yours.
Following Steve is like signing up for a very complete and complex tutorial, but one that made simple by a great teacher. i bought all his books, viewed all his videos, many multiple times, and even sent donations above the buying of the books, which i fully recommend getting. I even listened to his blogs, the only blogs i have ever listened to.
Amazing tutorial! Thank you Steve......That’s the reason why I bought Steve’s books which are great!
Very, very, very nice! Steve is that kind of person who knows not only how, but also why. He knows what is happening behind the hood, the rear engineering. And, a very important thing, he can speak very easily about all of this, he is able to present this complexity in a very simple way, understandable, almost for everyone! This is a great quality. Steve, you are a real teacher!
Thanks Steve - yet another clear explanation.
If I may suggest another analogy: to my mind, shooting JPEG is like getting a print from a mini lab and then throwing away the negative. You'll always have more options with a negative than a print!
Yup, that's a good one! Very true.
I began shooting RAW since 2013 when I was enrolled in a photography program at a local college. I already know the difference between RAW and Jpeg yet I am here watching your tutorial simply because I appreciate your teaching style.
Steve, just watched this video, and it is the best explanation of the difference between JPeg vs RAW images and the limitations in processing the images; excellent video.
JPEG is great for sports after setting WB and using a lightmeter for accurate exposure (wire services often require max 3Mb files), whereas for people, landscapes RAW is the way to go imo. Thanks for another informative video Steve!👍🏻
Steve,
I'm a foto Newbie (One year shooting this month's end), I'm stoked to have YOU as my PMI (Primary Marksmanship Instructor) sooner rather than later!
No doubt it takes a gifted individual to know these specifically-taught subjects' complexities, reformat the info, then using every relevant medium, make fun lessons, have me anxiously waiting to both practice the newly- taught material, and watch/learn the NEXT lesson!
I'm also VERY grateful I've subscribed to your channel, it's my ONE STOP SHOP! I get awesome fotogrăfē lessons, while simultaneously developing proficiency & understanding with my newly-acquired Nikon D7000 (previous models used: Canon SX50hs>D3000>D5000).
Your Channel and Content are the BEST for Nikon Shooters!
Please keep up the HARD but AMAZING wurk you do!
Steve, thanks SO much for the best explanation of the subject I’ve come across - very much appreciated :)
Clear, concise and great explanation. I just recently switched to RAW and what a difference the post-editing makes. Looking at older jpegs and realize that I am stuck. I still have older transparencies and starting to rescan some of these to see if there is a difference in RAW scan and Jpeg scan. Thanks again for your great effort in demystifying these topics that you tackle.
Always love a good LEGO analogy 🚗
With all the ranting, did I happen to mention that I really enjoy your tutorials, and that you are my must recommended site? Even for none critter shooters.
That was, by far, the best explanation I've seen of the difference between raw and jpeg. Well done...
I shoot always raw and jpeg. The reason: when a picture is good, editing it in raw may result in a worse picture such as over progressing, certainly as I'm an amateur who has to edit hundreds of pictures of his holiday as they are memories, not potential sales. Although a little more or less exposure and colour change can be done.
But, when the picture is under or over exposed or the dynamic range is large, raw is best to recover details. Thus, certainly for amateurs, I think it depends upon the situation whether to use jpeg or raw.
Steve, that was an outstanding presentation! Simple and to the point. It just does not get any better. Thanks!
My God! This is a gold mine. So much to learn here at your channel. Thanks for breaking down efficiently.
I have been shooting RAW only for the last 4 years and I love how much I can improve my photos in post processing. I also love the LEGO analogy you used to explain what you are losing with JPEG's - brilliant way to put across a difficult concept. Thanks Steve for another top notch video. Stay safe.
I don't have a Z7 but the menu options seem extensive for processing a jpeg. One thing about processing a RAW file in post is you can see what's happening. With a jpeg, a photog is just guessing in advance. With ACR set-up for basic modifications, it's almost never that images need more fine-tuning.
Hello, this is one of the best comparison between RAW and JPEG I've ever seen. Thanks!
Steve Perry, your reply to Aaron Anhalt sums up everything about JPEG - "....... it's not always true to the scene...." From my experience, different camera brands gives different JPEG images straight out of camera from shooting the same scene due to different algorithyms used in each camera. For serious photographers shooting JPEG only, you must know your camera three basic exposure settings - WB, exposure compensation and ISO. Tune each of them for the scene you are shooting and the JPEG images will be 'more' true to the scene. Of course there are other features like Nikon's Active D-lighting, Picture Control, etc that enable camera knows exactly what you are shooting and more precisely the results you are expecting from the JPEG images. Thus, the output is getting 'even' more true to the scene your brain can remember. In everyday photography, JPEG image quality is more than enough for most people. Just look at images from handphones.
Love the photos you used. Having going to Cades Cove many times I know what your looking at and how they should look. Great explanation on the difference of the two files.
Great work Steve, another top quality explanation. Your videos are keeping me going during self isolation many thanks!
I think that raw files are much better in terms of quality. On the other hands I admit that the time required to process them could be not worth it for some. I shoot in raw+jpg in order to use snap bridge, I find a very nice underrated feature of nikon cameras. Great video as always!!
Thanks for the quick reply Steve. I was not expecting it and it is much appreciated.
This was a really informative video. I liked how you used the real-world examples and demonstrated with the photos.
The barn shot really drove home the advantages of shooting RAW. Thanks.
An absolutely superb presentation of the differences between jpeg and raw. I have never seen it explained better. Thank you.
For years I shot jpeg mostly because I thought it was very expensive to process raw. I was wrong! If you have a Nikon, then it’s free as you can download Capture NX-D, which is pretty competent for free software. After I found that, I switched to raw. After three months I outgrew NX-D and migrated to Lightroom and Photoshop. I wish I had done this years ago. I have thousands of jpegs I really can’t do much with.
Ho hum. You live, you learn
Just a suggestion. Could you please do an extended presentation on how to use this programme? Would definitely benefit many viewers greatly. Hope you consider. Cheers.
P.s. I’m suggesting this because you’re such a great explainer - even difficult issues. Thanks.
Thanks, other videos cover the same topic, but your explanation is concise and examples make the point.
Thank's Steve, great video straight to the point and very well demonstrated, I knew that Raw was the best way to go but like a lot of other people I forgot how much data is lost just using Jpeg format, I have set my Nikon D 810 to lossless compression at 14 bit Raw.
The video of the old cart in the barn was excellent, showing the vast difference between Jpeg and Raw I am now a converted Raw shooter thank's to you, Steve..!!
Extremely well explained, great video, thank you very much.
Steve, great content, great explanations and perfect examples of what you might be giving up shooting in jpeg. I shot in jpeg for years but as
I got better I wanted more control over the final image. Yes, I spend more time behind the computer and the files are much bigger on the hard drive, but the results IMHO are much better.
Another great Steve Perry video.
Thank you. Excellent explanation. The best and you even walked me through my Nikon D810 menu as I watched. THANK YOU
Thanks for the video.. Totally understand the difference between Jpeg and Raw but there is one thing I am unsure of. If you shoot in Raw does it effect how you take the photograph knowing that you can process it later? Of course I don't know if the shots you used as examples were shot intentionally that way but the question is, how much improvement could you have made with the camera while in the field or should you be concerned with it . As Patrick smith mentioned "Although I can and do get it right in camera almost all the time". Hope this question makes sense.
Hey Steve excellent video. Since I am a amateur/hobbyist photographer and mainly shooting vacations, holidays and grand kids. I am currently shooting in jpeg/Raw. I can’t justify buying the subscription for Adobe Lightroom for post processing. So I decide to purchase Adobe Photoshop Element 2019 (last year) to start learning post processing on Raw files. I don’t believe you have any books on photoshop elements correct? Any suggestion on a training book for photoshop elements. As always looking forward to your next video.
Only Lightroom at the moment - and only the liberty module. (The develop module is coming later this year - sooner if we end up cooped up for months).
When I first bought a dslr I didn’t understand the difference between raw and jpeg . I am a hobbyist so I am not making money with my photography but i look at old photos and wish I had someone to teach me the difference and the pros and cons of each. I now shoot raw/jpeg. I am also a painter and I sometimes take my own reference files so not worried about a super detailed photograph.
Informative and helpful....thanks.
Thanks Steve. Good thorough explanation. Now, what about when I take an unprocessed RAW (ARW Sony, NEF Nikon) into Topaz DeNoise and end up with a TIFF. Is that TIFF lossless - do I have all the RAW info in that TIFF for processing further? Or would you only bring processed RAW files into, for example DeNoise? Jack
My advice is to make all color / light corrections in your RAW editor first. Then, send to topaz. Once it's back into your RAW software, then do things like sharpness, contrast, clarity, etc.
The LEGO analogy was brilliant. Great explanation.
Very well explained (as usual) - I jut sent this on to a buddy who is a newbie Nikon owner!
Thank you!! I've shot RAW pretty much exclusively since I switched to digital. And I was aware of all you told/showed in this flick. But I watched all of it; fantastic detailed and presented presentation. I've followed you for years, this is a step above a few others. Now, if you would tame down that intro music... :) Regards, Charley
It’s nice to see you add Sony into the mix. Great video like always
Once I started shooting RAW (+JPG) full time, there have been a few times when I had a photo that was massively overexposed, because I thought I knew what I was doing, and had to correct it. With the RAW file I was able to bring everything back and make a keeper photo, but with the JPG file no matter what I did it still ended up looking like shit. The blown out areas were brought back down to a flat gray, while the same areas in the RAW file had texture and color variations. And even with a properly exposed scene like a late evening scene with bright sky and dark shadows, processing the RAW file gave me a sort of virtual HDR look that worked quite well, while I could have never done the same with the JPG. The most confusing part was finding the right editing software because there are many different ones for processing RAW files, but I ended up settling with Lightroom because it was just simply the easiest one to use.
Will you do reviews on your new Sony equipment? I would love to see you compare mirrorless cameras based on the point of view on a wildlife photographer. As an amateur wildlife photographer, I love watching your videos and reading your books :)
Thanks - and I'm not sure. I'm still in the learning process. I'll probably have stuff out eventually.
@@backcountrygallery Thank you! Hope to see them one day. Have you fully shifted into the Sony systems?
@@backcountrygallery Glad that you're not going to just throw out something. Taking time to really learn and understand what you're writing about is rather rare and honorable these days.
Excellent as usual. Very well explained.
Good and nicely done explanation, Steve. As for me, I only shoot RAW for my paid photography work.. I shoot JPEG for my everyday/personal photography usage. RAW file images are untouched color file information of the photo wherein the photographer can control/play around the entire colors for post processing. JPEG are compressed color information recorded and processed by the camera.. That's my simplest way to explain it and that's how i understood it. This RAW vs. JPEG topic, it is really up to the photographer's talent and skillset on how to correct/fix/manipulate/play around the color of the image during post processing. I just hope this tutorial/topic will not turn into heated argument/discussion/debate.. Just like what happened 2 years ago between jared polin and tony northrup.
Thank you, Steve.
Thanks :) And the truth is, that's where I use Jpegs as well. RAW isn't for everything, and like you say, it's up to the shooter to determine what works best.
@@backcountrygallery i am a nikon user/shooter as well for 10yrs now.. I started first with D3000 then D90.. (both cameras, i used it for paid photography work and everyday personal usage). I just recently bought D610 to upgrade from dx to fx. It took me 10yrs to upgrade because i really pushed the capability and limit of my 2 dx nikon cameras...
i've only been shooting with a modern camera since start of the year, 8 months now, as my camera is and entry level one, canon M50 i chose jpeg over raw for the buffer issue, i have known that the raw files are 2 or 3 times better but with wildlife i do like i can hit burst in high frame rate when specific action shots take place, eg a fox i was shooting at a normal single shot was playing with others then it started to have a scratch so i did a burst of 20 pics and just one of them had it scratching with its tongue sticking out.
so when it comes to raw vs jpeg buffer size can be a consideration, if and when get a higher level camera i probably will go back to trying raw, also the other consideration i took was i have only just begun to learn the way around the exposure triangle and histogram etc, still learning, so for simplicity i took getting new software to edit raw out the equalization while i concentrate on getting great out the camera shots.
as you mention at the start, for a beginner jpegs do look decent enough and there is still plenty you can do if needed, but yes obviously you are left with a smaller amount of data.
one of the biggest improvement jumps was working out how to put the histogram into the evf on the M50 while shooting.
Your video are always straight to the point, very informative
I used my DSLR for snapshots too. So I used most RAW+JPEG and discarded the RAW for the files I would never process. Now, the smarphones are getting better, so I just use it for daily images and reserve the DSLR for special ocasions.
Interesting - I find myself doing the same thing more and more. I sometimes still get out a DSLR or mirrorless for family stuff (and usually shoot RAW for those), but most of my family / vacation snaps shots are now with my phone.
I’m a little different. I rarely use the camera on my phone. I wouldn’t trust family photos. My wish is that Nikon would bring out a mirrorless or DSLR camera with NO video capabilities. High specs at a lower price. The video cameras of the past were able to shoot stills, but nobody used the function. I have only shot video once on my DSLR since I bought it.
I shoot raw virtually all the time, even bought a couple of I Shoot Raw shirts. My question has to do with the eventual JPG replacement, probably High Efficiency Image File (HEIF) format that produces a higher 10 bit versus the 8 bit. Currently Apple iPhones have this available as does the new Canon 1DX MkIII. My guess is that most new cameras will have this option 5 years from now. The question is, have you had an opportunity to look at this format for pluses and minuses versus the JPG format? I heard that these files somehow take up even less space (more compression perhaps?).
I've honestly not had a chance to use the HEIF format. However, anything that anything derived from a RAW file and processed isn't going to be quite as good as the RAW file - it simply can't. However, a lossless HEIF file might be so close that you cannot tell (at some point, we get to diminishing returns). When it becomes more mainstream, I'll do a test. For now, I'm just sticking with I really don' know :)
Dear Steve Perry-you have great postproduction skills & as well as knowing how a dslr works, really I con't believe what you describe about RAW & JPEG . the photo graphy world & post production world should definitely agree with you, thank you for your deep reserch & exelent video presentation. now onwords I shoot on RAW + JPEGfine
Brilliant! I have always used jpegs so your video was a real eye-opener. I had always thought i didn't want to be bothered with lots of processing but now I think differently. I have adobe lightroom so I suppose this should be good for dealing with raw images?
Lightroom works great. I use it all the time.
Thanks for the help in understanding these formats, may I ask, would not a soft flash fill and a little bracketing in the barn and exposure for the background do just as well without any post?
It may have. The trouble is, in that example there would have been two different WBs - one for the flash, one for the outside. Plus, if your bracketing with the idea of combining Jpegs with HDR, you're still post-processing (although, I'm not sure if that's what you meant).
What about the use of Nikon VX? Once you open the image in PS or LR aren't you losing all of your settings?
I shoot in raw only when I want the extra data. I find the software processing on the new cameras is improving (I use sony a7t4). If I know the sony in camera profiles better it saves worktime that I can use elsewhere. Eventually one hasto convert to jpeg - whether one uses thein camera software -the native sony raw software or a 3rd party. Whether one prefers a manual rendering to a semi automatic one as there is a lot of tweaking that one can do even with jpegs. The question is when does one need the extra information and which rendering software
I think it also depends on what you shoot. The reason I shoot RAW is because, as a wildlife, I don't want to have to pause before each scene and decide if it's better with RAW or if Jpeg can handle it. I'd miss way too many shots, so I stick with RAW.
ok... have watched 2 of your vids... both are absolutely superb. I agree with your conclusions. What I find though.... is that life is short: I often evaluate my processing ability (and patience) within LR. More often than not I cannot do better than what the engineers at Canon did when programming my RF. However, if I create an underexposed image, like u did at the start of this vid, then I am happy to have my RAW file available.. In those instances, I can do better than my jpg. Maybe I need to get better at LR?
Regardless, thanks again for this excellent video.
I am surprised that this even needs discussing anymore. Started to get into this with a friend and then found a way to bail out of the discussion.
There is only one time I shoot RAW+JPG basic. And that is when shooting tethered. The JPG is what gets transferred quickly to the tethered monitor. When I DL to my desktop for post, I delete the JPG's and work with the RAW's.
That is a very good video for beginners!
I recently edit and upload my pictures based on the JPG of my camera, flat profiled with the colors I'm aiming for in the first place. I'd never use it for professional work for obvious reasons and do keep the RAW files. It's just that it involves less time in editing and I get a more consistent look over a series of photos. Also, nobody cares on Instagram :)
A friend sent me the link to this video & I'm going with this the next time I get out for a good day behind the camera. I was shooting in both, also. I subscribed & will have to binge watch your channel. I looked at the books that you have but was terribly let down to see that they are all ebooks! Do you offer an option for printed copies? I realize that it would drive the cost up but there would be some of us purists that would be willing to pay for a hard copy.
Thanks for the kind words - the books are all e-book though. The cost would be at least triple and I wouldn't be able to issue regular, free updates as I do now.
Thanks a ton for such an informative video. Please create more educational videos to learn more during the Locked Down period. Thanks in advance 😍
Can you make JPEG vs TIFF?
Outstanding explanation style.
Excellent, Excellent, Excellent! Great video! So is 16 bit in “medium format” smoke & mirrors or is the sensor large enough you’d actually see more than 14-bit?
Honestly, I don't know follow medium format all that closely. I do seem to recall that MF sensors were capable of more DR. Plus, there is a bit of overhead in the files, so you can't squeeze 14 stops into a 14 bit file as I understand it (more like 12 or 13 stops). So, if MF sensors are delivering 14+ stops of DR, they would need 16 Bit to hold that kind of range.
Great video, learned a lot. Steve you live in Knoxville or Maryville?
How did i miss this one? Thanks Steve!!
Thanks for the awesome tutorial regarding RAW vs JPEG. What about RAW vs TIFF as in Nikon D500?
There's no advantage to the Tiffs as far as I know - and I think they are usually larger than lossless compressed RAW. So, I personally don't use them. I can make the Tiffs later from the RAW files if I want.
@@backcountrygallery Thank you for the prompt reply. Very much appreciated.
This video was really informative and the lego crazy kid who's still somehwere in there loved that car analogy. I'm a hobbyist photographer myself and mostly shoot birds. I shot jpegs mostly because the cameras I had were JPG only for a while but now that I have the option i shoot raw +jpg on the dual card slot incase i need to share quickly. I've been putting off post processing on a lot of my images and might make the leap towards light room. I hope to see post porcessing tutorials on your site/channel soon. Lets hope the corona emergency ends soon and I can get a decent monitor. Till then its my laptop and its 57% srgb coverage🙁
Love Love your work and info:) The best, however I can shoot jpeg and edit with no problems at all in Lightroom. Been doing it for over 12 years!!! Just me 2 cents:))
Thanks :) I'd say give RAW a try and compare - you may be able to make your work even better.
@@backcountrygallery Well since i shoot 75% sports, i don't. But when i shoot portraits in certain locations and lighting i do shoot RAW. But, still seem to be able to pull out the same results. Thanks Steve, you are the best. You make everything so easy to understand.
I would love to see a Steve Perry review of the Sony A9ii.. Thanks for another great video, Cheers, From NewZealand.
Me too - but I haven't use it nearly enough to be qualified to do that level of review.
Excellent explanation for a photo enthusiast like me, for the past 30 years, who has gone back and forth over the years.
Your authenticity and command of the comparison is impressive. But you appear to be pragmatic.
Therefore, I would sincerely be interested in your impression of Luminar 4 photo editor from Skylum, which I did purchase within the last month.
I have no financial interest with Skylum or any of their partners. So this is not an attempt to ‘sucker punch.’
I'd like to do comparisons like that, I currently just don't have the time. I'm deep into a new book project and have two other major projects after that.
Thank you, I understand it now.
I shoot in RAW since 2014, having acquired a software quite simple but rather complete. Since 1 year and a half I use a new software with which I have a lot of satisfaction. Now, I've been told that my photos may sometimes be a little "over-worked". So I decided to do the next images with the RAW +JPEG setting. Thus, I will be able to compare my edition of the RAW file with the JPEG as the camera "sees" it (with some basic settings in Picture Control). Do you think that's a good idea?
It can be, just to keep yourself in check. I was an overcooked myself (some may say I still am LOL) and it's easy to do. If you use Lightroom, you can always hit the "\" key in the develop module to compare your original to the processed version then you don't need to shoot RAW + Jpeg. :)
@@backcountrygallery Thank you for your response. I don't work with Lightroom, but that shouldn't be a problem.
I understand now! Thank you for creating such a wonderful video-the "show-me" images and Lego visual really tell the story. It makes me want to buy your book, but first I need a Nikon so... could someone please comment what Nikon model will relate closest to your book? Reasonably priced, please, as a hobbyist I won't need the latest-greatest-super-camera. FYI, my camera is the Sony RX100 M3, 24-70 1.8 non-changeable lens pocket-camera and darned good on the M setting. Thanks.
Without a lot of background, it's tough to say. I'd probably recommend starting by taking a look at the D7500 - it's a good mid-range camera at a reasonable price.
@@backcountrygallery Thanks for the suggestion! I do see that model mentioned in so many videos and, further, in the comments below videos.
very good review. I usually shoot jpeg as I don't need to print and I show on media like FaceBook. NOW I'll save Raw too. Many thanks! But I'll need to get to use some pp software. Still, as I'm stuck at home, its a good chance to learn a new skill!
What about tiff? I just bought the Z6 and noticed that the tiff file is way bigger than even the raw files
No advantage at all - unless you have stock on a hard drive company :) After all, the tiff is created from the RAW file.
What raw program do you recommend to process your picture's?
I use Lightroom and I think it works well. I believe Adobe has a free trail. I think...
I primarily shoot travel photos and up to now, I’ve shot in RAW only. I’m causing myself a huge workload after every trip. I’m seriously thinking about shooting both, writing to different cards. If the JPEG has issues I can always process the RAW file. I haven’t tried it yet, is there a downside to this approach?
Just extra space - and it can fill the buffer a bit more.
Steve Perry thanks!
I think this has open my eye to possibility of RAW as against JPEG.
Steve you’re the best
Here’s an alternate solution to your dilemma.
JPEGs have the huge advantage of being smaller in file size and are more easily opened by different programs. I shoot both. I shoot JPEGS almost all the time. I check the screen on the back of the camera and when I get a difficult to shoot scene I switch to JPEG plus RAW. It’s quick and its easy. This way I have the best of both worlds. I find that tens of thousands of shots are great with JPEGS and when I encounter a difficult scene I add in the RAW. I have a lot of JPEGs and few RAWs to clog my hard drives. Problem solved.
You may need to anticipate some subjects in advance but it’s worth it. I shot RAW exclusively years ago but it just wasn’t worth the trouble.
LOL, it's not really a dilemma for me, I'm perfectly happy shooting RAW :)
Alternatively, you can also shoot just RAW and very easily export all the images as Jpegs later if you like. It's more storage, but storage is cheap. Still, whatever works :)
I took some pics in raw but net files too big to email I haven't figured a solution
I’ve been looking for a software that doesn’t wash out my raw files. I want the raw files but I want it to look exactly how I saw it on camera. I do like jpeg colors but when you shoot in raw the colors are gone. I understand that you have to edit the raw files but I don’t want them to look washed out. I’ve been trying to find softwares that makes raw images look like jpeg previews. So if I was to import a raw image onto a software I want to see what I saw on the back of my camera.
Most RAW software will show render the file using its default settings. However, most software will also hav profiles you can apply with one click that will simulate the profiles your camera uses. In Lightroom int eh develop module you can apply this with the Profile part of the Basics panel. Click the little 4 square looking icon on the right side. Note that you can also apply these settings on import to all of your images if you like or make it the default.
@@backcountrygallery Thank you so much. Have to check out Lightroom. Is it available in Lightroom 5.
@@jaaycesholiday388 I don't know, it's been awhile since I looked at it. I'm going to guess they are though.
love your work Steve, i must admit to only ever shooting in jpeg, I've tried RAW in the past but I find post processing takes more time than I;m willing to put in. I only shoot as a hobby and jpeg seems to suit me for now, good informative video buddy
Mark Gilmour I enjoy your videos Steve, but I’m with Mark! Light Room for me is just too frustrating, non intuitive and complicated. I’ll leave that to more serious types or professionals. I do gather raw on my XQD card so an occasional very good image may be post processed on one of the more user friendly sites.
@@danerrett3336 I'll be coming out with a Lightroom Develop Module course later this year that'll make post-processing easy :)
Steve Perry I’m sure you will do a great job with your new video. My wildlife “keepers” have greatly increased by reading your book on AF.
After watching this video I decided to go out and shoot a few images in RAW+JPEG just to see if I could get a better image than I get with just shooting JPEG. I took approx 150 images in total ,the first thing I noticed was the length of time it took to down load to my PC, nearly 15 mins compared to say 2 mins when I shoot just JPEG, I'm currently using Capture one for my A7iii, the images were displayed as a RAW file next to a JPEG, great for making comparisons :-). I had a play with the RAW files and I must admit I could not get the image to look any better than the camera JPEG'S. I find ths A7iiI is very good at nailing the exposure, the focus is always good too. I only shoot as a hobby and I only have a cheap PC Monitor (be it a large screen) not sure what I can do to improve the already good (in my eyes) JPEG'S that my camera takes. I tend to shoot landscape with the odd wildlife thrown in here and there, I have tow native len's and one third party lens (Tamron 17-28 f2.8) I know people can be very passionate and very defensive about RAW shooting (to the point of being condescending and rude), but for me I can't see the point with all the extra downloading time and post processing time required.
Mark Gilmour
I think you hit it on the head... It’s a trade-off. It’s nice to have choice, but it’s a trade-off.
I think there is a larger audience for JPEG (like myself and you) and it does it’s job well, making post-processing decisions to meet your needs 90% of the time.
But for more professional (who make a living off their craft) RAW offers more post-production possibilities.
The debate often gets framed as one being better than the other. When really, I think it’s more about, when does it make more sense to use one over the other.
But Steve Perry’s explanation is very clear about the differences and one of the best comparisons I have seen.
You have your capitalisation precisely back to front. 'What you write as 'Jpeg' is an acronym, so should be capitalised 'JPEG'. What you write as 'RAW' is an adjective, so shouldn't be capitalised, 'raw'.
Hi Steve are you using Lightroom?
Yes I am - and Photoshop as needed.
Hi Steve excellent video clearly explains everything you need to know. I shot using D500 in 14bit for Landscape and Aviation for that extra dynamic range and 12bit for portrait and general run of the mill family photographs. RAW wins every time for me. However your description on how much you loose in JPEG info is spot on and even to my eyes I can see a difference. I shot a firms party and when processing what I thought was RAW was JPEG when pushing darker shots could see a lot of green noise which meant I had to adjust in HSL to correct now if I had shot in RAW I would not have had this problem other than normal colour noise. Your example of the Barn photo showed this well and was spot on......! Great content and yep I have your books looking forward to Develop course.
Will RAW file gives same kind of flexibility when processed in photoshop or lightroom app in android phone
Depends on the app doing the processing. If you have the full RAW data, you should be able to do anything to the file in the app that you can do on the computer. The format isn't holding you back - but the app may be.
Any thoughts on JPEG Fine?
That's the setting I used for the Jpegs in this video, so while Jpeg Fine is OK, it's not a RAW replacement.
How does color space play into this
/
I don't have lightroom... should I shoot jpeg, or can I use photoshop?
Photoshop has Camera RAW with it and it works like Lightroom :)
@@backcountrygallery Thanks! I have Photoshop (have not really learned it yet - I'm new to all of this), so I will try it.
Lightroom must have additional/alternative features to Photoshop, or it wouldn't exist... Is it worth it to get Lightroom for these additional/alternative features?
@@mgelinfilms7344 Lightroom has cataloging features that Camera RAW doesn't. However, for RAW processing, Camera RAW can do pretty much everything Lightroom can. Still, I like having Lightroom and Photoshop - I think it's a better workflow.
@@backcountrygallery Thanks for your help!
As a beginner (just learning) photography I'm confused about alot of the different settings and lenses and such. But you sir have just unsolved the RAW VS JPEG part of this for me. However i am currently trying to learn the different things i can do with my Canon eos rebel xsi that i bought used at a camera repair shop after my previous point and shoot digital camera kicked the bucket a few years ago. I have been somewhat afraid to mess with any of the settings other than auto on the settings dial. So i might try some of the other presets and menu items. Thank you.
my Fuji gfx 50r is delivering so Nice Jpg that i dont se the point and time to shoot raw and spend the time on my pc i have tested raw and saved to 16bits TIFF but i don't see the quality difference my 16 bit TIFF is 292 mg in file size vs my 8bit 30mg jpg i dont se the quallity improvment
well you dont shoot jpeg to edit it that much, I shoot jpeg and RAW and sometimes the jpeg is perfect the way it is so it does not need correction. If I need to change something I have the RAW file. Dont shoot jpegs expecting to edit them much. Beginners should start on RAWs until they can do a good job in camera
Steve, I love you videos and work in general. I am going to watch your story patiently. But, when you begin saying a raw file has had little processing, I have to - immediately - interrupt and make the point that a raw file is extremely well-done. To get to the raw file, a lot of maths has been applied to the sensor-cell readouts, first to do the analog-to-digital conversion, then the "invention" of RGB values (the initial readouts are monochrome - the sensor has no "pixels" as each pixel has an RGB value and the pixels claimed by the camera manufacturer are the result of invention based on subjective algorithms - subjective to the taste of the manufacturer and subjected to their budgets as well as within the constraints posed by the camera's processing power) and there is a form of anti-aliasing or sharpening going on. Knowing this, now if we assume that all "profile" settings only impact JPEG, then we have to look at ~raw flat video footage from the Nikon Z cameras. The flat profile applies less sharpening in camera. Somewhere in the cooking chain, de-Bayerization (Moiré pattern removal) is applied, and who knows what else. Not bloody raw, but extremely well done.
As to Steve's point later in the video about the camera's buffer. Here, the JPEG advantage "depends." My Z 7 has a relatively small buffer and at 14-bits RAW (lossless) can buffer 19 images. 12-bits will result in 23. And JPEG gets to 25 images. (A D500 has a buffer 4x as big.) Here we have to understand that the JPEG file starts as raw, first. That raw file gets a profile and sharpening applied and in the meantime the bitdepth is reduced. 14 bits becomes 8 (losing 6 bits means we lose 64 gradation levels) followed by compression so areas of pixels are identified with similar properties and stored as area with property rather than individual pixels. This is a lot of processing and takes time. With JPEG only, the camera may start its AD conversion with 12 bits, if that results in easier processing. At some point, when the JPEG processing is done, the JPEG file needs to be written to the memory card. We see that the end result of JPEG balances between more processing and writing a much smaller file to card. In order to get the maximum buffer results, we still need to have a fast memory card.
Steve, when you say that going from 14 bits to 12 bits we loose dynamic range, then my question is, where did you read this? My perception was that AD conversion in the case of 14 bits is 4 times more precise than 12 bits but the dynamic range is equal. Or, we loose gradation resolution, not dynamic range. When we show our photos on an 8-bits monitor, you expect not to see the difference, but be aware that converting your images into 32-bits in Photoshop gives visible changes.
And, let me add, nice video. The metaphor with Lego was ingenious.
I won't argue that there is some processing, however, it varies a LOT by manufacturer. Also, there are two types of processing here - image processing and data processing. The sensor is processing the data to make it useable, but it hasn't assigned any RBG colorspace yet and the file still needs processing to be used. The thing is, there are far too many directions to take this, so I kept it basic in the video. It takes us down a rabbit hole that really doesn't change the message of the video - it would simply take up time for no reason. Every video is a balance between getting making the point in the most concise way possible without leaving out critical info. Getting into the steps taken by individual manufactures - or guessing at them since it's proprietary - it beyond the scope of this video. By saying no processing or minimal processing, I'm referring to the kind of processing we'd see in the Jpegs. :)
@@jpdj2715 Keep in mind you're using a very specific example and this video applies in a general sense to all cameras, not just the Z7. There are other cameras that see a more significant increase in buffer capacity with Jpeg.
Thank teacher
what about NEF vs DNG, is DNG a true raw?
Yes, DNG is a true RAW file format, at least according to what I've read.
I shoot only from my camera to my iPhone and iPad so your advice still holds? I don’t think so. SnapBridge raw files? I don’t think so.