After 20 years of wedding photography shooting raw, I've changed my mind. I'm going out today and will be 100%jpg. The end result will be very much superior for my clients, while being only somewhat easier for me. jpgs are the color of life! Beautiful.
I wouldn’t suggest anyone change what is working for them, what I would say is there is a place for both raw and jpeg, I’ve used both through the years, it just depended on what was needed at the time, I don’t think there is a one size fits all but when doing 4 to 6 assignments a day and on deadline as a press photographer, jpeg is how I roll 😆
@@DavidPattonPhotography The Brownie camera certainly didn't kill photography, so no. Having said that, PS will certainly redefine "Fine Art Photography" downwards (again) and that's a shame, because there are gifted people ut there who're trying really hard to do good work.
Yep. Turn the shadows up and highlights down, don't bother learning what good light is or how to make it. Get your settings dialed in nice and make your joeg settings the way you want for the different scenarios like portrait, landcape, etc. You can edit a jpeg more than you'd think as well, its 8 bit versus 14 but the camera half half the data for just the brightest stop of light and the last bits are basically single photons, wheras jpeg is 8 bits but tuned to equally store them according to a swnsitivity curve that matches our eyes better.
Coming from a film background I can see why people would want to shoot in just JPEG. Limitation forces you to think creatively to get better compositions and shots.
Well said. Thanks for making this video. I never understood why the Jpeg vs Raw has become such a toxic subject. I use and respect both formats. Photography is an Art form and meant to be enjoyed.
Irishkilt67 thanks for stopping by the channel, I think people taking sides in JPEG vs RAW is just silly with so many not willing to accept there could be a place for both.
OK, take a deep breath, and listen. I shoot JPEG and RAW simultaneously as part of my workflow. In camera JPEG’s are an invaluable record of the colours of a scene, the RAW file as a digital negative is invaluable for describing the luminosity of that scene. So, my take is to edit the 16bit RAW file to get the very possible monochrome image, and to then add the 8bit JPEG to coat the luminosity of the scene in colour. It works very well for me. The debate of RAW vs JPEG is just a nonsense.
I was looking at other videos having to do with this argument and this one popped up. I always thought this was a strange phenomenon. My position is not which one is better. I already know that RAW is. What I never liked is how people are maligned by others if they shoot JPG. It's such an underestimated format. I'm not sure who started the idea that it automatically makes you an amateur. Working at a photo lab for 19 years and working almost exclusively with JPG images taught me how versatile they can be! We had some REALLY bad stuff come in sometimes, and it's amazing what can be done to recover a JPG image! It's not perfect, of course, but it's way better than most of these "pros" would have you think! Let's face it- even RAW can have it's limits! GIGO!
Lol, yes there are trade offs for most things in photography, as you know, if you know what you are doing, a lot can be done with a jpeg file, no matter what fuzz top says 😂 When I first started looking at photography content on RUclips after leaving journalism, I was shocked that there was even a debate about RAW vs jpeg, I always shot RAW for my personal nature photography work but that wasn’t even an option in my professional field of photography back then, we didn’t have the time to use RAW, nor did we have the space to archive all those images in RAW, sure we gave up some image quality but to a photojournalist, speed is as important if not more important when working on very tight deadlines. Something else I notice when coming to RUclips was there didn’t seem to be many real working pros making photography content, I guess the pros where too busy working on photography assignments to make RUclips videos 😂 Thanks for sharing your experience Brent!
My first digital camera ( a Canon point and shoot) didn't even have the option! Your choice was either TIFF or JPG! My 1st DSLR (a Pentax) had RAW, but I didn't use it because I wasn't sure what it was. By the time I switched to Canon, I had learned about it, as the "Grand Poobah" George Lepp had suggested it! (so then it was officially OK!) I think I had LR 1.2 by that time and started playing around with RAW. I could tell it was better, but not by much. All was fine until I got a new camera and couldn't use RAW because of the proprietary aspect. "You mean I have to update my software every time I get a new camera?!?!?!!!" That's when I really fell out of love with RAW. Short romance! RAW and I are still friends and still collaborate on projects, but JPG is my true friend. Always there - always reliable - always readable. Today I view the formats as what they are - tools to get the job done. When I know the shooting conditions are going to warrant it, I shoot RAW or both. (Eagles in flight come to mind - dark bodies, white heads - moving in front of dark trees and washed-out winter skies and then swooping down in front of water surfaces. - That's the perfect case for RAW!). But like you, I found the arguments and heated debates about it surprising. Can you imagine people in the film days arguing over print film vs slide film?! It's really all about application, work flow, and as I mentioned above, compatibility. The photo lab I worked at was not a custom lab. It was a lab that produced one thing only - youth sports photography. Our clients (mostly our franchises or privately owned photographers shooting the same) were instructed to send only JPG. That's what we worked with, that's what we stored. It was fully compatible. Occasionally we'd get some RAW images because someone forgot to set their camera back to jpg after using it for personal stuff. And we would certainly encourage photographers to shoot both if they could, in case of really bad exposure. As for my own work, I shoot both. My LR is not up to date, and I'm not really in a place where I feel I need (or can afford) an update. It's a hassle. So when I shoot RAW with my R5, I have to send it through Canon's RAW converter and then on to LR (usually as a TIFF). I watched those RUclips videos with "fuzz top" vs "yuppy-boy", and the back and forth. To their credit, I think both of them made and defended their points well. I think both of them are right in their own way, but unfortunately, the on-screen personalities get in the way of the facts. I think it's important for professionals who want to give advice to leave it at just that - advice. I always thought Martha Stewart is pretty good in that she always says, "What I like to do is..." and this leaves it open to you as to if you want to do it that way. It's not "Do it THIS WAY or you're a complete LOSER amateur!"
If I had to edit the shit outta every image it just wouldn't be that much fun for me if it doesn't turn out take another one I can see an adjustment here and there if you wanna spend all your time editing great.
I'm not a pro but I always shoot in raw because I like to be able to do more in post. Lately tho I have considered shooting in JPG only to save time. I mean my pics are just for personal use anyway. Is there much of a diff between the three diff JPG modes? Quality wise I mean. LIke JPG fine, standard and basic.
It depends what you're shooting. In Riding the Edge Photography's situation it makes no sense shooting in RAW, because as a news photographer, they HAVE to get the images out quickly for their business, so it makes NO sense whatsoever to shoot in RAW, and maybe also weddings depending on whether said client needs the photos on the spot or not. But for everything else, it makes sense to shoot in RAW. Especially if 5-10 years down the track clients need photos re-edited for them. If you shot in RAW, you could. But if you shot in JPEG, you're pretty much SOL because you can't do as much editing in a JPEG like you can in a RAW. And for people that are going to say 'oh well get your settings right in camera', yeah okay that's great but if you want to get the most out of your images even if you DID get your settings right in camera, shoot in RAW. Because debate it or not, again depending on the situation, editing a photo isn't just a suggestion or a request. Nowadays it's expected.
How do you handle the horrible banding in for example skies? That is the only problem I have with jpegs, if that could be solved I would shoot only jpegs..
Interesting, I shot exclusively jpegs for probably 20 years as a staff photographer for a daily newspaper and never really had that problem. I'm not sure what camera you use so it might be different for you, all of my experience shooting jpeg is with Nikon cameras. My approach is to expose for the highlights and bring up the dark areas in post. A quick way I would do that in Photoshop while working at the paper was to take a snapshot of the image before I lightened it, then lighten the image which of course would blow out the highlights, then use a brush to put the highlights back to where I wanted them. That's just a quick and dirty way because I needed to work fast, there are a lot of ways to get the same result. I always set my camera up to a neutral or flat setting in jpeg, low to no sharping and a wide-gamut RGB color space like Adobe RGB. Jpeg files will hold up to some editing if exposed correctly and if the scene isn't too extreme when it comes to dynamic range, but Raw will always give you more room to edit an image. Even then you still have to be careful not to push it too far or you will still have issues with noise. Raw will always have more information to work with, so if you have the time its probably to the best way to go for many people, but if time is short and you are on a tight deadline, the jpeg file is what many news and sports photographers are working with. It really doesn't matter if you shoot Raw or jpeg, what matters most is you are getting what you want out of your images. Have a great day!
I'm with other viewers who don't understand why Jpeg/Raw is even an issue. I would not want to do without either. If I'm at a sporting event, taking 100's of pictures, I use Jpeg, keep the good ones, delete the bad ones. If I'm taking portraits, shooting that special scenic view, or attempting to create art, I shoot raw. It's like saying you can't have apples AND oranges.
OMG, You can edit JPG’s! Who knew? Hell I edit JPG images all the time with no complaints from anyone who sees my photos. Like you said, it is getting a bit silly this RAW vs JPG debate. I tried RAW for a while, but was not impressed. I like JPG better.
i have tried gfx 100 camera and i shot TIFF 700 mg each Picture in file size perhaps raw has more data to work With but i don't have the time on a long day i can shot 500 Pictures
I've found I have to take most RUclips videos with a grain of salt. They are heavily biased toward full frame/raw/video/professional or wannabe professional, and extensive post processing. I suspect most of the viewers are hobbyists who shoot jpeg on crop cameras and don't have the time or desire for extensive computer time. We stumble thru endless videos hoping we can get a little info of real use to us. Photography for me is an excuse to get out in the field. The photos are glorified souvenirs, a reminder of a good day out doing something. If I do 80% shooting and 20% processing and file management that is a great ratio for me. To do 20% shooting and 80% computer time would negate the point of having the hobby.
It sounds like you have a good grasp of what you want out of your photography, enjoy your time out with your camera Leland, otherwise, as you say what’s the point. :)
Interesting that sRGB is mandatory, now days I mostly shoot RAW and jpg to second card for backup, so I guess it doesn't really matter much which I use, I still keep my camera color profile set to Adobe RGB because I might want a wider color gamut, old habit, I should probably just set my camera to sRGB.
For sure Robert, it seems any job photography related has changed a lot over the years, I imagine even just leaving photojournalism 4 years ago there has been a lot change, unfortunately its not always for the best.
Not sure I can agree with JPEGs out of the D810. I would love to shoot jpeg but the D810 jpeg output is just not great. I really think the D810 is very much optimised for raw output.
Luckily, the D810 isn't considered a great choice for news photography but at the size, your prints are printed in the paper and online, the difference will not be noticed by anyone unless you were to do a side by side comparison. Shooting raw wasn't an option in my photojournalism career, the files are just too big to archive and slow to load on old computers, which is the point of the video, there are times where shooting jpeg makes sense. Now that I have left that kind of work I shoot RAW with jpeg as backups. I don't think Nikon has ever been known for great jpegs :)
All that matters is you are happy with the images you are making, whether it be RAW or JPEG, there is no one right way, only what works best for you and your needs!
Excellent! This supports my jpeg interest! As you said, you still use raw but definitely haven't kicked jpeg to the curb! Thanks!!
After 20 years of wedding photography shooting raw, I've changed my mind. I'm going out today and will be 100%jpg. The end result will be very much superior for my clients, while being only somewhat easier for me. jpgs are the color of life! Beautiful.
I wouldn’t suggest anyone change what is working for them, what I would say is there is a place for both raw and jpeg, I’ve used both through the years, it just depended on what was needed at the time, I don’t think there is a one size fits all but when doing 4 to 6 assignments a day and on deadline as a press photographer, jpeg is how I roll 😆
So do any of your wedding clients ask did you shoot RAW or JPG?
Love this video! I’m one of the Luddites that photographs JPEG . You
get much more detail with jpeg!
I honestly believe in photography today the push for editing is overshadowing the push to learn how to properly use your camera .
I agree with you Steve, that could be a good vlog topic in the future, asking the question, Is Photoshop killing photography?
@@DavidPattonPhotography Of course PS it's doing that
@@DavidPattonPhotography The Brownie camera certainly didn't kill photography, so no. Having said that, PS will certainly redefine "Fine Art Photography" downwards (again) and that's a shame, because there are gifted people ut there who're trying really hard to do good work.
Totally agree! Todays cameras are little computers and we can set a myriad of settings to help the photo!! LEARN how to use your 3500 dollar camera!!
Yep. Turn the shadows up and highlights down, don't bother learning what good light is or how to make it. Get your settings dialed in nice and make your joeg settings the way you want for the different scenarios like portrait, landcape, etc. You can edit a jpeg more than you'd think as well, its 8 bit versus 14 but the camera half half the data for just the brightest stop of light and the last bits are basically single photons, wheras jpeg is 8 bits but tuned to equally store them according to a swnsitivity curve that matches our eyes better.
Coming from a film background I can see why people would want to shoot in just JPEG. Limitation forces you to think creatively to get better compositions and shots.
Well said. Thanks for making this video. I never understood why the Jpeg vs Raw has become such a toxic subject. I use and respect both formats. Photography is an Art form and meant to be enjoyed.
Irishkilt67 thanks for stopping by the channel, I think people taking sides in JPEG vs RAW is just silly with so many not willing to accept there could be a place for both.
The I shoot raw cult
OK, take a deep breath, and listen. I shoot JPEG and RAW simultaneously as part of my workflow. In camera JPEG’s are an invaluable record of the colours of a scene, the RAW file as a digital negative is invaluable for describing the luminosity of that scene. So, my take is to edit the 16bit RAW file to get the very possible monochrome image, and to then add the 8bit JPEG to coat the luminosity of the scene in colour. It works very well for me. The debate of RAW vs JPEG is just a nonsense.
Good exposure + good color Managment + Good composition = greatness!
I was looking at other videos having to do with this argument and this one popped up. I always thought this was a strange phenomenon. My position is not which one is better. I already know that RAW is. What I never liked is how people are maligned by others if they shoot JPG. It's such an underestimated format. I'm not sure who started the idea that it automatically makes you an amateur. Working at a photo lab for 19 years and working almost exclusively with JPG images taught me how versatile they can be! We had some REALLY bad stuff come in sometimes, and it's amazing what can be done to recover a JPG image! It's not perfect, of course, but it's way better than most of these "pros" would have you think! Let's face it- even RAW can have it's limits! GIGO!
Lol, yes there are trade offs for most things in photography, as you know, if you know what you are doing, a lot can be done with a jpeg file, no matter what fuzz top says 😂 When I first started looking at photography content on RUclips after leaving journalism, I was shocked that there was even a debate about RAW vs jpeg, I always shot RAW for my personal nature photography work but that wasn’t even an option in my professional field of photography back then, we didn’t have the time to use RAW, nor did we have the space to archive all those images in RAW, sure we gave up some image quality but to a photojournalist, speed is as important if not more important when working on very tight deadlines. Something else I notice when coming to RUclips was there didn’t seem to be many real working pros making photography content, I guess the pros where too busy working on photography assignments to make RUclips videos 😂 Thanks for sharing your experience Brent!
My first digital camera ( a Canon point and shoot) didn't even have the option! Your choice was either TIFF or JPG! My 1st DSLR (a Pentax) had RAW, but I didn't use it because I wasn't sure what it was. By the time I switched to Canon, I had learned about it, as the "Grand Poobah" George Lepp had suggested it! (so then it was officially OK!) I think I had LR 1.2 by that time and started playing around with RAW. I could tell it was better, but not by much. All was fine until I got a new camera and couldn't use RAW because of the proprietary aspect. "You mean I have to update my software every time I get a new camera?!?!?!!!" That's when I really fell out of love with RAW. Short romance! RAW and I are still friends and still collaborate on projects, but JPG is my true friend. Always there - always reliable - always readable. Today I view the formats as what they are - tools to get the job done. When I know the shooting conditions are going to warrant it, I shoot RAW or both. (Eagles in flight come to mind - dark bodies, white heads - moving in front of dark trees and washed-out winter skies and then swooping down in front of water surfaces. - That's the perfect case for RAW!). But like you, I found the arguments and heated debates about it surprising. Can you imagine people in the film days arguing over print film vs slide film?! It's really all about application, work flow, and as I mentioned above, compatibility. The photo lab I worked at was not a custom lab. It was a lab that produced one thing only - youth sports photography. Our clients (mostly our franchises or privately owned photographers shooting the same) were instructed to send only JPG. That's what we worked with, that's what we stored. It was fully compatible. Occasionally we'd get some RAW images because someone forgot to set their camera back to jpg after using it for personal stuff. And we would certainly encourage photographers to shoot both if they could, in case of really bad exposure. As for my own work, I shoot both. My LR is not up to date, and I'm not really in a place where I feel I need (or can afford) an update. It's a hassle. So when I shoot RAW with my R5, I have to send it through Canon's RAW converter and then on to LR (usually as a TIFF). I watched those RUclips videos with "fuzz top" vs "yuppy-boy", and the back and forth. To their credit, I think both of them made and defended their points well. I think both of them are right in their own way, but unfortunately, the on-screen personalities get in the way of the facts. I think it's important for professionals who want to give advice to leave it at just that - advice. I always thought Martha Stewart is pretty good in that she always says, "What I like to do is..." and this leaves it open to you as to if you want to do it that way. It's not "Do it THIS WAY or you're a complete LOSER amateur!"
Fuzz top vs yuppy-boy! Best line in a comment post ever! 😂
If I had to edit the shit outta every image it just wouldn't be that much fun for me if it doesn't turn out take another one I can see an adjustment here and there if you wanna spend all your time editing great.
I'm not a pro but I always shoot in raw because I like to be able to do more in post. Lately tho I have considered shooting in JPG only to save time. I mean my pics are just for personal use anyway. Is there much of a diff between the three diff JPG modes? Quality wise I mean. LIke JPG fine, standard and basic.
Yes Del, I believe there a significant difference, JPG fine uses the least amount of compression and will give you the best quality jpg file.
@@DavidPattonPhotography Okay, I'll start experimenting with fine then. Thanks for the info!
It depends what you're shooting. In Riding the Edge Photography's situation it makes no sense shooting in RAW, because as a news photographer, they HAVE to get the images out quickly for their business, so it makes NO sense whatsoever to shoot in RAW, and maybe also weddings depending on whether said client needs the photos on the spot or not. But for everything else, it makes sense to shoot in RAW. Especially if 5-10 years down the track clients need photos re-edited for them. If you shot in RAW, you could. But if you shot in JPEG, you're pretty much SOL because you can't do as much editing in a JPEG like you can in a RAW. And for people that are going to say 'oh well get your settings right in camera', yeah okay that's great but if you want to get the most out of your images even if you DID get your settings right in camera, shoot in RAW. Because debate it or not, again depending on the situation, editing a photo isn't just a suggestion or a request. Nowadays it's expected.
Thanks , great video.....i shoot jpeg all the time. Raw is time consuming...
How do you handle the horrible banding in for example skies? That is the only problem I have with jpegs, if that could be solved I would shoot only jpegs..
Interesting, I shot exclusively jpegs for probably 20 years as a staff photographer for a daily newspaper and never really had that problem. I'm not sure what camera you use so it might be different for you, all of my experience shooting jpeg is with Nikon cameras. My approach is to expose for the highlights and bring up the dark areas in post. A quick way I would do that in Photoshop while working at the paper was to take a snapshot of the image before I lightened it, then lighten the image which of course would blow out the highlights, then use a brush to put the highlights back to where I wanted them. That's just a quick and dirty way because I needed to work fast, there are a lot of ways to get the same result. I always set my camera up to a neutral or flat setting in jpeg, low to no sharping and a wide-gamut RGB color space like Adobe RGB. Jpeg files will hold up to some editing if exposed correctly and if the scene isn't too extreme when it comes to dynamic range, but Raw will always give you more room to edit an image. Even then you still have to be careful not to push it too far or you will still have issues with noise. Raw will always have more information to work with, so if you have the time its probably to the best way to go for many people, but if time is short and you are on a tight deadline, the jpeg file is what many news and sports photographers are working with. It really doesn't matter if you shoot Raw or jpeg, what matters most is you are getting what you want out of your images. Have a great day!
You nailed it, for raw true believers it’s a religion. Watch their videos and read their comments... insufferable.
Joel Tunnah Their liberal colors come out. It's called being triggered.
I shoot what I what format I chose , I have 30 years experience in photography and my old school ways don't matter to these new so called pro's
I'm with other viewers who don't understand why Jpeg/Raw is even an issue. I would not want to do without either. If I'm at a sporting event, taking 100's of pictures, I use Jpeg, keep the good ones, delete the bad ones. If I'm taking portraits, shooting that special scenic view, or attempting to create art, I shoot raw. It's like saying you can't have apples AND oranges.
Yep Michael, I agree, there is no reason why we can't shoot both, just do what works for you.
OMG, You can edit JPG’s! Who knew? Hell I edit JPG images all the time with no complaints from anyone who sees my photos. Like you said, it is getting a bit silly this RAW vs JPG debate. I tried RAW for a while, but was not impressed. I like JPG better.
i have tried gfx 100 camera and i shot TIFF 700 mg each Picture in file size perhaps raw has more data to work With but i don't have the time on a long day i can shot 500 Pictures
I've found I have to take most RUclips videos with a grain of salt. They are heavily biased toward full frame/raw/video/professional or wannabe professional, and extensive post processing.
I suspect most of the viewers are hobbyists who shoot jpeg on crop cameras and don't have the time or desire for extensive computer time. We stumble thru endless videos hoping we can get a little info of real use to us.
Photography for me is an excuse to get out in the field. The photos are glorified souvenirs, a reminder of a good day out doing something.
If I do 80% shooting and 20% processing and file management that is a great ratio for me. To do 20% shooting and 80% computer time would negate the point of having the hobby.
It sounds like you have a good grasp of what you want out of your photography, enjoy your time out with your camera Leland, otherwise, as you say what’s the point. :)
In this part of the world we use sRGB (it's mandatory) in our jpeg's, but everything else regarding jpeg processing is the same...
Interesting that sRGB is mandatory, now days I mostly shoot RAW and jpg to second card for backup, so I guess it doesn't really matter much which I use, I still keep my camera color profile set to Adobe RGB because I might want a wider color gamut, old habit, I should probably just set my camera to sRGB.
Amazing how much photojournalism has changed since I was doing it back in the 80s!
For sure Robert, it seems any job photography related has changed a lot over the years, I imagine even just leaving photojournalism 4 years ago there has been a lot change, unfortunately its not always for the best.
💙🙏🏿💙
Not sure I can agree with JPEGs out of the D810. I would love to shoot jpeg but the D810 jpeg output is just not great. I really think the D810 is very much optimised for raw output.
Luckily, the D810 isn't considered a great choice for news photography but at the size, your prints are printed in the paper and online, the difference will not be noticed by anyone unless you were to do a side by side comparison. Shooting raw wasn't an option in my photojournalism career, the files are just too big to archive and slow to load on old computers, which is the point of the video, there are times where shooting jpeg makes sense. Now that I have left that kind of work I shoot RAW with jpeg as backups. I don't think Nikon has ever been known for great jpegs :)
Thanks for this video..I shoot JPEGS and edit in Lightroom .RAW takes up too much space on memory card and computer
All that matters is you are happy with the images you are making, whether it be RAW or JPEG, there is no one right way, only what works best for you and your needs!
Nah !