Thank you Mr. McCordall. Your videos are very informative. I shoot in RAW and my wife is JPEG, we both just have your habits. All is all, we have fun traveling and capturing moments.
pTVb Team I"ve done the same here. Both RAW and JPEG. I keep the RAW as archives and she keeps the jpeg for instant online viewing. And when we want to get some printed, or when one is wrongly exposed, it is good to have the option to restart from raw. Best of both worlds.
What's most baffling is that there are many experienced reviewers and 'professional' photographers on RUclips who always say, "This is a jpeg straight out the camera! The colours are so wonderful there is no need for editing!" They should be ashamed of themselves, yet using only jpegs and often unedited jpegs, seems almost a badge of honour for them.
One hears a lot of mistakes are made on youtube, I've probably made some as well !. The important thing is to do the best shots you can, in future years one might want to do large prints, that's when they will regret not having a raw file. The colors on a computer screen are limited to around the same as a jpeg but it's nice to choose which ones will be seen. The thing that amazes me is how many people only look at shots on Facebook etc. All that money on lenses and cameras, when the same quality is available for so much less. Thanks for the comment.
That's funny I said to a camera club exactly that last night :) I actually said you only get the overcooked steak without salt pepper and chips but it's still a steak :)
A minor critique from over the pond. The difference between RAW and JPG is more than number of colors. JPG was invented to create a compressed 24 bit representation of the 16 million colors that our equipment can display, and we can see (though both in practice quite less). RAW, is the scientific, if you will, output of a digital sensor. Each pixel has either a red, green or blue filter placed over it, and cameras generally capture a 14-bit value for each of those pixels which are output as RAW. Yes, as you point out, the range of colors from RAW (14+14+14) or 52 is greater than JPG (8+8+8) or 24. bits. However, RAW gives you more than more colors. Because there are different algorithms for creating a single color at each pixel (keep in mind, all photos start with a matrix of R,G,B), your PC can combine them with its more powerful CPU better than the camera. Or, you can select an algorithm that has the strengths that you want. Further, even if you combined RAW into a full-color image, a TIFF say, it would be super large. Therefore, a RAW image, in a weird way, is small for what it deliver because it only has that one channel value at each pixel. I know you'll say that you just wanted to explain the basic reason to shoot RAW. I would just answer that unless you dive into some heady stuff, it probably is best to just stick with JPG. Love your videos!
That's interesting but I can see very big differences on prints , the technical knowledge has never been my strength, being dyslexic. For me it's easier to get great exhibition prints with RAW
Agree! But the analogy to optics is one of theory to the practice of wearing glasses, which is wide. The connection between the theory of RAW, or sensor data, and the practice of image editing is very close. Whether one wears glasses is yes or no. What KIND of glasses one wears will benefit from an understanding of optics. The more one understands about the technical details of RAW the better they can use RAW editing software. I'm just pointing out that Philip might has just added at the end, "there are many benefits to using RAW data which are too complex to go into here. Suffice it to say, for color depth alone, you should use RAW"
Enjoy them very much indeed. I think some people are oversold their cameras making them believe the impossible, all have their own strengths and weaknesses but non are capable creating a jpeg without massive loss of information.
Well I've been reading about the said Fuji :) it seems it does do them, but when will people remember, it's not the camera but the lens and the person behind it. All the rest is relatively unimportant :)
I usually shoot in JPEG when taking hundreds of pictures and make a movie out of them. For example, taking tons of pictures of a squirrel running around can be turned into a 30 secs movie. Going through each picture in camera raw to make that movie would be hideous.
There is no excuse for not shooting in RAW. A decent new or good second hand laptop costs a fraction of the price of even entry model cameras like the 750D and can process the images at a good speed and memory cards are massive and less than a fraction of the price of an entry model camera, so storage is not a problem. I was an idiot, I shot my first couple of hundred semi serios photos in JPG and they looked good: composition great, in focus, the only problem was I was getting used to working in manual and I had some potentially fantastic photographs that were under/over exposed and useless. IF ONLY I HAD USED RAW!!!!! It gets worse, I have a friend, my friend has a £5000 Canon, my friend has tens of thousands of pounds worth of lenses, my friend has a state of the art laptop, my friend spends thousands of pounds travelling the world every year taking wild life photographs, my friend has the latest all inclusive (?) Photoshop, My friend takes all his photographs in JPG! I tried to explain to him the benefits/image quality/recoverability of photos shot in RAW. His reply, "I don't have the time to mess about editing photos"!!!!!! I hope he is eaten by a tiger or a lion and his wife, sorry widow sells his equipment to somebody who will use it in RAW! ANOTHER GREAT INFORMATIVE VIDEO. Thank you.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
brilliantly explained
Thank you Mr. McCordall. Your videos are very informative. I shoot in RAW and my wife is JPEG, we both just have your habits. All is all, we have fun traveling and capturing moments.
Make sure she shoots both, it's worth it because she might just get that one special image one day.
Good idea, I will just change the setting to both and "forget" to tell her :)
pTVb Team I"ve done the same here. Both RAW and JPEG. I keep the RAW as archives and she keeps the jpeg for instant online viewing. And when we want to get some printed, or when one is wrongly exposed, it is good to have the option to restart from raw. Best of both worlds.
Forgot about having the RAW for future prints. Thanks for the hint.
Good point well made.
What's most baffling is that there are many experienced reviewers and 'professional' photographers on RUclips who always say, "This is a jpeg straight out the camera! The colours are so wonderful there is no need for editing!" They should be ashamed of themselves, yet using only jpegs and often unedited jpegs, seems almost a badge of honour for them.
One hears a lot of mistakes are made on youtube, I've probably made some as well !. The important thing is to do the best shots you can, in future years one might want to do large prints, that's when they will regret not having a raw file. The colors on a computer screen are limited to around the same as a jpeg but it's nice to choose which ones will be seen. The thing that amazes me is how many people only look at shots on Facebook etc. All that money on lenses and cameras, when the same quality is available for so much less. Thanks for the comment.
I guess it is like ordering the steak and finding out the restaurant precooks them thus limiting the ways they can serve or prepare your steak
That's funny I said to a camera club exactly that last night :) I actually said you only get the overcooked steak without salt pepper and chips but it's still a steak :)
A minor critique from over the pond. The difference between RAW and JPG is more than number of colors. JPG was invented to create a compressed 24 bit representation of the 16 million colors that our equipment can display, and we can see (though both in practice quite less). RAW, is the scientific, if you will, output of a digital sensor. Each pixel has either a red, green or blue filter placed over it, and cameras generally capture a 14-bit value for each of those pixels which are output as RAW. Yes, as you point out, the range of colors from RAW (14+14+14) or 52 is greater than JPG (8+8+8) or 24. bits. However, RAW gives you more than more colors. Because there are different algorithms for creating a single color at each pixel (keep in mind, all photos start with a matrix of R,G,B), your PC can combine them with its more powerful CPU better than the camera. Or, you can select an algorithm that has the strengths that you want. Further, even if you combined RAW into a full-color image, a TIFF say, it would be super large. Therefore, a RAW image, in a weird way, is small for what it deliver because it only has that one channel value at each pixel. I know you'll say that you just wanted to explain the basic reason to shoot RAW. I would just answer that unless you dive into some heady stuff, it probably is best to just stick with JPG. Love your videos!
That's interesting but I can see very big differences on prints , the technical knowledge has never been my strength, being dyslexic. For me it's easier to get great exhibition prints with RAW
Agree! But the analogy to optics is one of theory to the practice of wearing glasses, which is wide. The connection between the theory of RAW, or sensor data, and the practice of image editing is very close. Whether one wears glasses is yes or no. What KIND of glasses one wears will benefit from an understanding of optics. The more one understands about the technical details of RAW the better they can use RAW editing software. I'm just pointing out that Philip might has just added at the end, "there are many benefits to using RAW data which are too complex to go into here. Suffice it to say, for color depth alone, you should use RAW"
Brilliantly explained.
Thanks Mark, what an interesting discussion yesterday :) glad you enjoy the tutorials.
Enjoy them very much indeed. I think some people are oversold their cameras making them believe the impossible, all have their own strengths and weaknesses but non are capable creating a jpeg without massive loss of information.
Well I've been reading about the said Fuji :) it seems it does do them, but when will people remember, it's not the camera but the lens and the person behind it. All the rest is relatively unimportant :)
What would you like the next tutorial on , nothing to do with retouching though ?.
Phillip McCordall I think you may be asking the wrong person because I'd love to see more analogue stuff, which I think may have me in the minority,
I usually shoot in JPEG when taking hundreds of pictures and make a movie out of them. For example, taking tons of pictures of a squirrel running around can be turned into a 30 secs movie. Going through each picture in camera raw to make that movie would be hideous.
There is no excuse for not shooting in RAW. A decent new or good second hand laptop costs a fraction of the price of even entry model cameras like the 750D and can process the images at a good speed and memory cards are massive and less than a fraction of the price of an entry model camera, so storage is not a problem.
I was an idiot, I shot my first couple of hundred semi serios photos in JPG and they looked good: composition great, in focus, the only problem was I was getting used to working in manual and I had some potentially fantastic photographs that were under/over exposed and useless. IF ONLY I HAD USED RAW!!!!!
It gets worse, I have a friend, my friend has a £5000 Canon, my friend has tens of thousands of pounds worth of lenses, my friend has a state of the art laptop, my friend spends thousands of pounds travelling the world every year taking wild life photographs, my friend has the latest all inclusive (?) Photoshop, My friend takes all his photographs in JPG!
I tried to explain to him the benefits/image quality/recoverability of photos shot in RAW.
His reply, "I don't have the time to mess about editing photos"!!!!!!
I hope he is eaten by a tiger or a lion and his wife, sorry widow sells his equipment to somebody who will use it in RAW!
ANOTHER GREAT INFORMATIVE VIDEO.
Thank you.
Wonderful I love your friend :)) would you mind if I use this text in a blog I'm about to write?
You can use it with pleasure
Thanks very much :)