RAW vs JPEG: The Real Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- www.steeletrai... - Which is better, RAW or JPEG (JPG)? Finally learn the real truth about the endless compression controversy in this Photography tutorial by Phil Steele.
For more of my tutorials, visit:
www.steeletrai...
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch more of my free tutorials that are not on RUclips:
www.steeletraining.com/
I made the mistake of telling some of the members of my local photography club that I submitted pictures in local and online competitions that were taken in Jpeg. Then I compounded the admission by telling them that I used a Micro Four Thirds camera. Now hardley anyone will talk with me at the meetings. Now it seems like I have been ostracised in the group. I have found that photography is more about image than the image.
Its the picture that counts. At my job we have a yearly photo contest. Winners get their pics printed and hung on the wall. Ive submitted several photos. The 3 that were picked were all taken on a 10 year old 12 mp point n shoot in jpeg with very minimal editing.
There is an insufferable tech snobbiness among a certain kind of men (it seems to always be men) in photography. That was part of my reason for making this video. I know professional photographers who make their entire living from photography and who nearly always shoot JPG. One wrote to me the other day after seeing this video, "I shoot 98% JPEG, don't tell anyone." Don't let those jerks get you down. Shoot what works for you.
Keep up the good fight, you’re NOT alone
I made the mistake of wasting time participating in such a group a few years ago. I was under the impression it was a group of photogs who actually earned a living from photography and I wanted to learn more about the business side of things. I discovered I was doing more paid work (as side gigs at that time) than the vast majority of the members, most of whom had never sold an image, much less been paid up front to shoot an event or session.
Serious photographers don't join clubs. Leave now!!
I have learned more in a 10 minute video than in the last 10 years of owning a DSLR. Your content is rich and presentation skills are outstanding and am grateful I came across your channel. Thank you and look forward to exploring your other videos.
I appreciate this discussion. I have thousands of raw files I haven't had time to post-process, so more large jpg in the future.
This was really helpful. After 50 of doing photography im still learning a lot about digital. Most of my years was film. No problem. Since 08 I've been in the digital world which is great but a new learning curve when it comes to using rge technology. I'm having a great time .
JPG because I hate editing and love going to sleep early
very informative !
Nice explanation and I agree on most of it. I don't know if using RAW has something to do with snobbery. In my experience it has more to do with just plain ignorence. So in that sense your video can help. What I do not understand is why when comparing these two file types (RAW versus JPEG) only compression is mentioned as the factor of importance, because it really isn't. The biggest difference between these files is the bit depth which determines how many colors can be reproduced. A JPEG is an 8 bit file, while a typical RAW file is at least 12 bit of even more. That doesn't sound like much, but the difference is huge. A 8 bit JPEG can reproduce 16,000,000 colors while a RAW file can reproduce 68,719,476,736. So in a JPEG file 68,719,476,736 minus 16,000,000 = 68.703.476.736 colors are just thrown away. This has nothing to do with compression. And it is this difference that makes it hard to recover or improve JPEG's a lot if needed. You just cannot recover something that has been thrown away. And yes, I know and agree that this difference it not always important or even visible depending on the image. So in general I agree, but people should really understand why RAW can be so important. You throw a lot of information away in JPEG that can't be recovered. May be not important when taking snapshots but even a 'family portrait' often needs post processing to get that wow-factor. RAW can make the difference then.
Using RAW has to do with long term efficiency and quality. Some like fast processed food others are fine with a nice slice of bread baked with care and a glass of water. Some think short term, others long term (and health ;o).
I would bet that human eyes cannot tell the difference between color 10,000,000 and color 10,000,001, in a jpeg file, let alone the difference between one color and the next one in a 16 billion colored raw file, no matter what the bit depth is and that’s assuming a file contains ALL the colors one would never be able to discern. We live in a 3-D world, so adding a few more would change nothing for us, since we cannot perceive them…if they exist!
Ok good I’m not tripping , wa staking photos of my son boxing in Jpeg and raw and was like “wtf” after adding contrast and changing the skin tones the raw just look so much better and wowish
That’s why I came to this video just now 😂
I was using the add Clarity option in light room, the jpeg didn’t look awful but the raw just utilized it so much smoother and just better
Even if you shoot RAW, after post production you have to store the processed image in a file format other than RAW. Most likely that image format will be JPG. At that point, all the extra color information will be lost in the new image. That new image may contain nuances of colors that would be hard to get if you just processed a JPG image in post production. Hence the definition of "art" in the video, you have greater control of the quality of the FINAL JPG.
BUT: using a file format that allows this extra control does not mean that you are creating art. RAW will not enable you to make art from a bad photo, and truly great photos can be taken without using RAW.
@@espenm.andersen3434I agree and if you print your image a further loss of colours occurs so unfortunately only you really get to see the extra colours in raw on your own monitor. Once you share it a lot of the advantages are lost.
This is the clearest and best expiation of RAW vs. JPEG files that I've ever seen.I now fully understand the differences and when to use each format. Thanks Phil
Glad it was helpful!
An excellent clear detailed presentation without any over excited delivery. And no unnecessary irritating music which adds nothing and makes the dialogue often difficult to hear.
A huge advantage to shooting RAW is copyright. If you own the RAW (customer generally doesn’t get the RAW), you have legal proof of ownership which is held up in court.
Bc I dont know, can I ask, if you have the original jpeg, even if you modified it a little with light etc, why would that not hold up in court? Thanks in advance
@@firefeethok_tui2355 I'm not a lawyer. But I think the jpg will hold up in court just fine. It just harder to proof you are the original. Unless you have a reliable and unalterable time stamp to proof that you hold the oldest copy of the photo. Aka just upload you files to the 3rd party storage like Google drive, Mirosoft Onedrive, etc before ship it to the customer.
@@firefeethok_tui2355 jpeg doesn’t prove ownership. A RAW does as a photographer does not give the RAW photos to their clients, thus making them the official copyright holder. Hope that makes sense.
@@TommyDaSavage well, kinda . Seems the photos are time stamped these days. And the image taken theough camera settings, auto or manual, would still be the original. I understand the raw as in like a negative of a film? At least that’s how it seems. The proof, but not quite sure…. since everything is digital, why a JPEG would not be the same different negative bc no RAW would exist, but that’s OK I’ll learn lol. I’m just now starting to learn about editing and raw. Thanks for the reply. Appreciate it.
@@firefeethok_tui2355 furthermore, you can remove all info from a JPG, but the RAW (which client wouldn’t get), will remain intact thus proving ownership.
Sorry but RAW is superior. Higher bit rate/depth of colors and more options including White Balance in post. For a busy photographer, JPEG is faster and uses less storage- that's it.
A simple option- shoot both. I almost always shoot RAW and have no regrets. My Nikon will produce a file I can send to my phone via an app and text it if I need to.
I keep it simple by using RAW+ on my cameras. When I take a picture it saves it in both RAW and JPG. That way I can chose for my needs later.
I wish it was that simple.
What I find in practice is that my JPEGs mostly do require a bit of post work, especially in raising shadows and correcting exposure. Which by the way I find that my JPEGs are very well suited for.
The only thing I find does not work well with high quality JPEGs, is fixing white balance. I find that if I forgot to set a custom WB, my JPEGs are all just about throwaways. In fact I find it quite amazing how little Photoshop can do about it.
I really appreciate objective photography videos such as this one. The average photographer has been brainwashed to believe that Jpegs are only used by rank amateurs. I have been photographing professionally for over 30 years and about 20 years of that career has involved digital capture. I have almost never shot Raw in place of Jpeg, and have never had a negative comment from a client -- that includes weddings, portraits, real estate, and corporate events. I can say with complete assurance that my corporate work required shooting Jpegs due to fast turn around times for prints, and on-site daily uploads during conference events. I currently have prints hanging in two different exhibits that have received excellent reviews, and no one can tell whether I shot Raw or Jpeg.
In addition, I currently shoot Olympus cameras and my current camera has a number of useful and amazing features, such as in-camera focus stacking, live composite, and in-camera keystone compensation, and others features that produce Jpeg files that are simply stunning.
Your explanation is objective, professional, and right on the money -- thank you.
Greg, thanks for sharing your experience. It really helps when pros like you weigh in to balance the RAW-only snobbery that seems to dominate among the online "experts," many of whom have far less real-world experience than you do. Thank you!
@@steeletraining @Greg M
JPEG stands for Joint Photographic EXPERTS Group
So, those who shoot RAW are not "experts" then.
You have to be an expert to get great photos in JPEG ie. able to DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME in the camera.
I consider those who must shoot in RAW as people who bought an automatic Bread/Cake maker and only use it to "kneed the dough". Then they need to buy another oven and hire a (software) baker etc to finally get their bread or cake.
My Canon cameras can take 4 shots and merge them in-camera for HDR picture. It can also merge 4 shots for low light noise reductions. There is also "highlight tone priority" that can be turned on. There is also editable/custom Picture style settings which I put to good use when using a film error vintage lens with different coatings.
(I am a son of a photographer and had worked in dad's studio and darkrooms and help sell cameras and photographic equipment and supplies in his shop my young days).
This is definitely not objective. It presents facts, some of which are totally erroneous but serve the subjective approach of the speaker, in a biased way.
@@BrunoChalifour It would be very helpful if you would specifically point out the 'totally erroneous' facts. As it stands right now your comment is just an opinion with no support.
@@gregm6894 Fair comment. My first hint is if I asked you whether the author shoots JPG or RAW, I think you could easily answer. That should cover the lack of objectivity. Second calling those who do not think the way you do (and who cannot defend themselves) arrogant shows a lack of serious argument, or a serious problem of insecurity. Saying that by shooting JPG in Medium compression one uses the central part of the sensor is totally erroneous, so ridiculous that I could not believe my ears, I had to listen to it twice. Saying that you can reduce the dimension of pixels is as erroneous and ridiculous [all pixels/photosites have a set dimension on any sensor. You cannot modify the actual size of each pixel on your camera. It is defined by the manufacturer and cannot be changed. It is such a ridiculous assertion that I was totally flabbergasted hearing it. If other teacher are knowledgeable and "arrogant" I know one who is pretty ignorant and pretends to teach others, quite problematic, don't you think? The example of the black sky in the moon picture is pathetically flawed (yes if you photograph a black rectangle or do not remove the cap from your lens the information conveyed by the pixels is "black" just a bunch of "0s" which means all the information whether in a JPG file or a RAW file will be "0s"-what is not mentioned is that once you stop photographing pure black rectangles (or purse white ones), and you need more accurate and detailed information a RAW file will give you 16 772 shade of any color, JPG only 256 (that crucial piece of information is not even mentioned). Explain to me what is the point of photographing a black rectangle, and is any who does that, how many among the viewers of this video ;o)? And there are more... if some day you get a serious video on the subject you will realise that.
Raw files do not have to need extensive post production. If you use the default profile of your raw conversion application they probably will. But you don't HAVE to use default profiles. You can create/use a punchier profile that is automatically applied when you import the image files.
Keep in mind that what you see on your screen is NOT "THE raw file", it is only one possible interpretation of the monochromatic luminance values contained in the raw data. How that looks depends on the conversion profile used to create a JPG-like conversion of the raw data that is shown on your screen when you open a raw file. That's why opening the same raw file looks different when you open it with different raw conversion applications.
With Canon you can go even further. If you open a .cr2 or .cr3 file using Canon's DPP software the default conversion is to use the in- camera settings active at the time the photo was taken. So opening a raw Canon file in DPP will look almost exactly the same as an in- camera JPG by default.
I get what you're saying but isn't that basically what the camera does if you make a custom picture profile for JPGs?
Another advantage of shooting RAW is when you're shooting in light from different sources that make the white balance tricky. I shoot events where the light changes constantly.
"I shoot events where the light changes constantly."
Same here. Night sports.
If you're setting JPEG to shoot in B&W, in the first place, none of that matters. For dramatic B&W shots, you should be looking, first of all, for scenes in which there is bright light and long, deep shadows. Nothing is more boring than an image in which everything is bland grey tones. Shooting JPEG, set to B&W, doesn't prevent dramatic, contrasting images, and it may even help you to visualize the final image. I started in 1971, when there wasn't anything digital at all. I shot both color and B&W film for 26 years before going digital. Now, admittedly, I've shot in color for conversion and editing in B&W for years. But, when I encountered a glitch in my camera that turned out to be in RAW mode (in downloading my images, most became uneditable), I tried switching to JPEG mode and this solved the problem. Realizing that I now had the option of shooting in B&W, I decided to go that direction, rather than spend hundreds of dollars getting my camera repaired, or hundreds more for a new camera.
Zippy, I also shoot events, as in live music events and I simply must agree, Raw, is the way to go in those instances. ALL THE WAY. In the ever changing scenario where light is sporadic, unpredictable, and always changing colors, with rapid moving subjects consistently, I definitely prefer RAW over the JPEG.
RAW doesn't make sense for me because most of the time the JPEGS look exactly as i want them to look right out of my camera. Nikon spend millions to make sure their JPEGS look great and they did a great job at least for me.....
I prefer shoot in RAW because it's simply easier for editing(with more option). Anyway good video, thanks for sharing!
excellent ! I only shoot jpegs at the fine settings and do only minimal post processing. I am very happy not to be sitting for hours at my computer.....instead I'm out and about shooting! thanks for the very thorough explanations. zen billings in canada
My thoughts too Zenon.
You don't need to spend hours, I pretty much treat raw as jpeg and do quick edits, and when I need the information is there, also you don't really need tons of time to edit raws beyond what you could do to a jpeg, unless you do photoshop then that could easily be 1 hour per image (also depending on what you do). But I also think that if you like jpeg and are satisfied with your work that is awesome, ppl need to understand that a good technically achieved jpeg can have all the info you might need
You can post process raw files automatically even better than a JPEG can, if you want. Learn to use your program, save time and all your photo data. The only reason to not shoot raw is because you don’t have enough data storage.
If you get it right in camera, a RAW will take 10 minutes to edit. Not hours. Its rather mind blowing to see just how different your photo changes with how you edit the raw as well, and just how much you can change. I shoot both, since most of the time jpeg works for me, but the occasional raw has been really nice to have.
if you get it right in the camera you won't to do anything !
Excellent video. Clear, concise and sensible. I've been doing things Phil's way for years... RAW for landscapes and architectural photos, JPG for sports, family gatherings and anything else where I'm just recording events and I'm not the primary shooter, such as weddings, baptisms, etc.
My camera only does JPEG (Nikon P900) from day one it's been on the finest setting for quality. Does a great job for the most part but since I invested in Luminar AI and just recently got Luminar Neo the limitations in fine tuning the photos have been almost completely removed.
I've experienced the same in using Snapseed for iPad. When a glitch in RAW shooting left me with images that couldn't even be viewed, let alone edited, I started using my Sony NEX-5N in JPEG, set to High Contrast B&W. No more problems and no one can tell the difference from my photos shot in RAW. In Snapseed, I no longer need to convert to B&W and the contrast in my JPEGs is so good I barely need to edit at all, sometimes.
Insightful as usual.
I'm not a pro, photography is just a past time for me.
I mostly shoot in RAW and if I need the JPG quickly I use the import feature via the Canon Camera Connect app to my phone.
Please shoot RAW and if you need JPEGs you can either choose RAW and JPG where you will get 2 files or when you load RAW file into editing software you can click AUTO on any editing software and VOILA! Thats what you would see if it was a jpeg with one exception... You dont lose all the DATA. The argument of RAW being larger is a moot point with the size of memory cards available today. I have a 32gb Card in my backup 24mp Z6 and I get over 1300 images in RAW. If one of those images is more than 1 Stop over or under exposed I can bring it back with no degradation to the image but if that file was a jpeg I will auomatically get artifacts in a jpeg file. Even camera companies are researching a replacement for JPEG due to its limitations in their own software!
This is the best and most thorough explanation of this subject I’ve seen. You have a gift for explaining things in a way that makes them very understandable, Phil (I also have your Lightroom and Photoshop courses).
Thanks for the kind words, Bart! And thanks for buying my courses. People like you keep me inspired to do more.
Bart Hovis, could not have said it better.
Sorry to disappoint you but definitely not thorough and quite a few ridiculous errors in fact. {and I am not even mentioning starting one's argument by insulting others that think differently which may prove how insecure one is].
@@BrunoChalifour I’m not disappointed, but thanks anyway for that pointless and meaningless comment.
7:52 "not using the full image sensor..." I think the full image sensor is still used, but the camera then reduces the dimensions of the saved image during compression. If the full image sensor were NOT used, the captured image would be seriously cropped! Otherwise, great video with useful and clear explanations.
Hi Dave, that's a good point. I've always heard it described as "using the central part of the sensor", but you're right that that would be cropping the image. On a mirrorless with EVF that would not be a big problem (because you'd see the true field of view), but on a DSLR with an optical viewfinder you would not capture the full field of view that you see. So I think you're right. Which means the camera is doing a resampling operation, which is an inherently destructive downsampling right out of the gate. Another good reason not to use smaller sizes if you're trying to create "art" rather than simply documenting events.
@@steeletraining There are cameras that will use the center of the sensor, but those are usually ones that are using "digital zoom." As in using a smaller portion of the sensor and interpolating to the previous image dimensions. It's one of the first settings that I always made sure to disable on cameras that offer it. You can do the same thing on the computer at home and use more powerful algorithms to get a better result. Or just stick with a smaller image.
If it was just using the central part of the sensor, then it wouldn't be just a different dimension on the image, it would be a completely different image as you'd be cropping substantially to make it happen.
Agreed because if only part of the sensor were used, you would be seeing exactly the same impact as you would when shooting with a crop frame sensor (APS-C or mFT rather than FF). The image would seem to be taken with a longer focal length based on the crop factor. The camera uses the whole sensor and recalculates the data to give the smaller image dimensions.
With dedicated monchrome astro cameras it is referred to as binning. 2 x 2, 4 x 4 etc, meaning that the adjacent n x n pixels are averaged into a single pixel. The image field of view stays the same but the resolution is lower. I guess the colour cameras do something similar but have to account for the bayer filter.
With modern cameras and affordable huge capacity fast memory cards, the disadvantages enumerated for shooting raw no longer hold...the only advantage of jpeg is shoot and share immediately...barring this one convenience (not really an advantage) raw is better in every way...the advantages of shooting raw are Huge :1.Denoising/Demosaicing in Post processing software that are huge step up in image quality...had i shot raw years back ,even unusable photos then can be wonderfully restored employing Topaz Noise AI or DXO Photolab deep prime...this is one single most reason why raw is indispensable...and denoising algorithms are getting better and better. 2.Chromatic aberration correction for landscapes and Bird photography .3.Greater dynamic range of raw files....I shoot raw +jpeg and it is not at all true that raw files will have to be processed a Lot before they can be finished...Most post processing software have presets (some even a 100 or so!) and just by a single click they turn out something quite close to what we would like to see and finetuning can be done as needed.
Finally, a true teacher. Thanks, you know how to explain a difficult situation to newbies.
A true teacher does not start his video insulting other teachers; a true teacher has double-checked his facts and does not spread misinformation which is happening here.
The biggest RAW file advantage is the bit depth. A 12-14 bit color depth is exponentially more colors than 8 bit JPEG. If you are bending and stretching your colors in post, JPEG will fall apart very fast. Raw's bit depth and light compression is vastly superior. But, yes,...you kinda really need both raw and jpg file copies. Jpeg's will give you a great observation file when working in the field for judging if a photo is good or not.
So what I'm hearing is that, for street photography for example, using Jpeg is the superior format, but if you're going for more controlled pictures with more complicated colors, shooting RAW is the 'better' one? Better is between brackets because it comes down to what you want to do with the picture, of course.
@@yeanisch Jpeg is not superior in any way...except in small file size. With cards being so cheap and 4 TB storage drives being about 65 dollars? I think its just best to shoot raw and jpg together. If you capture a really good moment, i promise you,...you'll wish you had the master raw file for it.
I always have my camera set up to take large RAW and Large JPEG files.. I work on Raw files because I adjust them and print them on different materials. Yes.. you're right ... I hate to see the banding in Jpegs.
I am glad I finally found a pro photographer talking about this. I've done pro photography since film era and now digital. I never found advantage to shoot in RAW. I always shoot JPEG. My friends and majority of photographer I know are always saying "oh no" you have to shoot RAW. JPEG is not professional. Then I listen to what they argue. It's all about "enhancing" the image using software when not "recuperating" a photo when not well exposed in first place. My photos come out of my digital cameras not needing any adjustment of exposures. I do it correctly right when I am shooting. My goal with photography is to be out there shooting and not seat down on a computer for hours and be twinkling my photos with software A, software B, C, D etc... I come from a generation that photography is the moment of capture and nothing else. Great video! I could write a book about this! LOL would rather be out there shooting! Have a good one!
JPG or RAW has nothing to do with being professional or not. It has to do with how fast and little control you want to have over your production. Speed in many areas, including photography, has little to do with best quality. It is true here too.
I don't shoot sports or events that need immediate viewing. Large memory cards are cheap now, as is large computer memory. So I always shoot RAW to give me the ability to get the best images possible. Also, with the newer RAW noise reduction available by converting RAW with DxO PhotoLab, I can pretty much forget about any limitations from using high ISO settings, even with my smaller-sensor Sony RX100M3.
TBH, I think he doesn't understand JPG as well as most of the other stuff. Normally his videos are great, but this one appears to be one where he's ticked at being called an amateur and looked for reasons to justify the position. The only situations where omitting the raw file really makes much sense would be if you're legitimately going to be running out of space on the cards or you're likely to run out of buffer. Pretty much all the other ones would handle raw + jpg just fine. You're still better off getting the settings right when you take the picture, but you have more options later on.
Yeah, if you're going to immediately submit the files and aren't being paid to post process them, skipping the raw files makes some sense, but I'm curious what happens if the event organizer comes back and offers some money for an improved version of some of the photos or wants to pay for larger versions of some of the captured photos, it seems like that would be a valuable service to offer, even if the raw files are deleted a couple weeks later to save on space.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Shoot in both jpeg and raw.
I switch back to jpeg, because I like the color compression
My camera shoots in both RAW and JPG simultaneously. Yes, I get two pictures for every one I shoot, but then I get to choose which one looks better after the shoot. :)
The differences in editing in 8-bit vs. RAW's 16-bit are huge. Exponentially huge....
when you make changes to a picture shot in JPEG and then save the image in the computer, is there any degradation in image quality each time that you repeat this process to the same photo ? (modify picture and save to hard disk)
I always shoot both Raw andJpeg. 21MB + 6-7MB. 14bit Raw gives many post processing options if needed. Often the jpeg is good enough. Canon 5D MKII and Galaxy Tab S20 Ultra.
I do mostly music photography so therefore I shoot RAW to have as much leeway in post as possible. If I was shooting portraits under studio strobes I could get away with hi-res jpegs.
Both formats have their place
Another difference that should be pointed out is a JPEG is only 8 bit color. This has a larger effect on color banding than compression does. Other than that great explanation.
Yes. I wonder if we will get a 10-bit jpeg someday.
@@jboutame9113 HEIF seems to have a 10-bit option.
@@UnconventionalReasoning thanks. I found more info here: www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/raster/heic-file.html
JPGs are 24-bit color, 8-bits per channel. Raw is 12-bit or 14-bit monochrome. Contrary to all of the cute RGB drawings of Bayer masks on the internet, the three colors used in actual Bayer masks are NOT the same three primary colors emitted by our RGB screens. The "blue" filter is usually about halfway between blue and violet. The "green" filter is a little yellower than pure green. And don't even begin to call the third filter "red". It varies the most from one manufacturer to another, but is usually somewhere between an orange-tinted yellow and a yellow-tinted orange color that is most transmissive at around 590 nm, which is closer to 545 nm "green" than 640 nm "red" emitted by our display screens.
@@michaelclark9762 which has no effect on the reality that jpgs toss out a significant portion of the sensor data.
RAW +jpg shooter here... also a once upon a time sports photographer, learning long ago to refrain from machine gunning during an event, a triathlon for example. this is not because of the camera buffer filling up, although that did happen with my older camera bodies after eight or so photos, but my aversion to looking at 10 or 20 images of the same subject to pick the one (or two) worthy of passing up the chain of command, so to speak. I tend to go for the two, maybe three shots, then move to the next athlete and so on. always a fun time especially at the start of a race. each to their own of course as I feel it is a lot like the Canon v Nikon for/against discussions that happen from time to time. but trust me, RAW (+jpg) will save your bacon of you know you have that one time shot and it is way over/under exposed. finally, not that it probably means much, but I'm also a Back Button focuser.
*edit - forgot to mention, a RAW file is also considered a digital negative, which having been on the victim of image theft, I've found that having that RAW file really does help when recovering costs when the unauthorised user is informed of this. while I am not a pro-shooter, I can hand on heart say, that a couple of years back, I made more money recovering costs (using my RAW files as proof of copyright ownership), than actually shooting sports events.
cheers
This is a very good point. Thankyou for sharing
A clear and concise introduction to RAW and JPEG, for me as a beginner, just what I needed. I've seen a number of steeltraining videos, they have all been very good.
Thanks for the kind words, Oscar, glad it was helpful!
Then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
What a great video you did an outstanding job❤ I am not a photographer I was interested in learning everything I could about photo files and SEO so I can build my Business website I watch a lot of RUclips videos your format and information was incredible very clear and concise not sure if you have but would love to see a video about editing for the web as I have a feeling you know more than most
Great tutorial ! Very informative, no frills explanation… other experts could learn a lot about communication skills by watching this video…
I've had "advanced" amateurs turn their nose up at me because I shoot JPG instead of RAW despite the fact that I'm the one making money at photography. LOL 99.9% of my photography involves both fast moving action AND the need to have the final product available quickly. Needless to say, I seldom shoot RAW.
Very nice explanation but you failed to mention the fact that most (but admittedly not all) RAW formats capture images at a higher bit depth than the 8-bit jpeg, allowing for more colors to be captured and stored in the image.
Okay now I am going to have to watch the video. That difference is huge; shooting 12 bits per color per pixel allows to recover an image 3 to 5 f-stops underexposed and STILL have the full 8 bit per color colorspace in JPEG.
In the Raw vs. Jpeg debate I always thought of it as the comparison between film negatives vs. Polaroids. One being for when you know there will be a need for post processing and one for when you need a quick shot. One other thing, and this is very likely an old digital wives tale, I had heard years ago that jpeg degrade with time and use. Pretty sure that this is false but was curious if anyone else had heard this one.
Thanks, Chris. I think the old myth about JPGs degrading with time is a misunderstanding of the fact that if you re-save the same JPG multiple times, each time re-compressing it over and over, the quality will go down with each subsequent save. But obviously that is just bad file management. If you need to edit a JPG you should always start over with the master image, rather than edit and save the same file over and over, compressing it each time.
It's also worth mentioning that most modern photo editing software allows for non-destructive editing with all changes applied dynamically to the original image. So a second round of compression only occurs if you export the edited photo after all edits are complete. These days, this is even true for the free Photos app that comes with my Mac. So degradation from repeated save/compression steps really shouldn't be an issue anymore.
The whole augment that JPG's are better for sports or events is way off base. First off processing RAW isn't any slower than shooting JPG's. Most photos need some correction no matter how clean you shoot. RAW is much faster for me, because when I am shooting at an event or sporting event, lighting can be different from shot to shot depending on the source and where your subject is located. I have far more control in post. I don't have time to zero in on the best exposure for every shot. There can be a 2 stop difference on any playing field, also at an event the your exposure can be off by that much depending on where you are standing and what the ceiling are like. RAW gives me the security that I can adjust later. You have more control in your post work over the images and if you have a solid work flow, it goes very quickly. Anytime you are in a situation where you don't have complete control over the lighting and things can change from shot to shot you are much better off shooting RAW so you don't miss shots. Don't tell me a bout auto, balance anything, if your a pro you control of your settings. To many things can go wrong if you are letting your camera think for you.
As for the space issue, If you are a pro, step up and buy the equipment you need. That includes the fastest cards, long gone are the days of me overshooting my buffer even with SD cards, but if you are truly serious get the XQD cards (I'm nikon) that are super fast you will never have an issue. I always know what I will need and have the appropriate amount of card space. The same goes for my computer at home. Yes I spend a little more on external drives, but its worth it. I just bought a 64 gig card for 12 dollars the other day. It's not that expensive.
Lastly, if a client wants to take my card for instant turn around, I can always shoot RAW+JPG.
This is a case of bending reality to make a point.
Superb, Phil. Clear, concise explanation.
As you say, there's often a snobbery attached to the RAW ONLY crowd. But as you point out, it's really horses for courses, formats for functions....
Excellent video, most of the time I usually shoot in JPEG, congratulations on the content.
I would argue that RAW is for amateurs (snobs???) and JPG is for professionals. Specially if working for newspapers, magazines etc. JPG is faster and cheaper (both processing time and storage space) and that’s more important. I know professional photographers that hardly ever have touched a RAW-file. But they do know how to shoot a perfect picture in camera - no need for much post processing.
This was the most specific tutorial I’ve come across between the differences. Thank you!
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
I only shoot in RAW. It has no drawback for be, because I wont fill my 512GB SD card and I like the post processing.
REAL REAL TRUTH, I was recently was on a cruise & the only one with a DSLR, every using a cellphone.
Thank you very much for this very valuable information... it cleared up any and all of the confusion that I had previously.
Thank you so much. I photograph wildlife and birds in flight and always use JPG
Relatively to Raw, a Jpg is always inferior quality. In post processing the possibilities of raw are ten to one against jpg, or more.
Great video and extremely informative! I always shoot RAW + JPEG when shooting stills. File size is no longer such a big consideration anymore, since large-size, fast media is more ubiquitous and less expensive than before. Too many times I have stumbled across a fabulous scene, only to have that terrible banding or inability to tweak the contrast, saturation, etc.
Soooo... you noticed that the video was advocating for shooting JPGs, not RAW ;o)
Keep making these ♥
With wide-gamut HDR displays now standard 8-bit JPEGs are obsolete.
I usually shoot in RAW and make JPEGs, TIFFs, and PNGs as needed in post.
I always shoot RAW + JPEG Large (Fine). I accept compromising space for highest quality photos. However I'm glad I watched this video because I didn't know that shooting at RAW can slow down the write speed to the card when taking fast pictures.
It can, but you have to be shooting very quickly. Most cameras have a certain FPS of burst capacity and when you hit the limit on the buffer, the rate will slow down significantly. If you're trying to take a picture of fast action like somebody sliding into home plate or the final crossing of the finish line of a race, it can be an issue.
But, the correct thing to do is virtually always shoot raw + JPG unless you've got a compelling reason to do something else. The main things being storage space or buffering. If you don't need or want the raw afterwards, you can always delete it.
Thank you thank you thank you. There is a certain channel we all know that think RAW is king.
You didn't mention raw file compression. My Nikon has two levels of raw compression, lossy and non-lossy. The lossy raw files are about half the size of the non-compressed raw files. So that helps a lot if you're short on space. I'm not sure how it affects write speed though. I'm also not sure how it affects image quality either, since I've never used it. Presumably it does something similar to jpeg processing, since it discards information. I wonder how these lossy raw files compare with jpegs?
Me too! (shoot more jpg, and certainly don't consider myself an amateur)
Your videos always amaze me. Thanks!
Excellent video giving clear descriptions of what JPEG and raw files are and their uses.
Just one small correction: When you choose Med sized JPEG, it does not just use a smaller area of the sensor. That would result in a crop factor, which does not happen. It uses the full frame and then down-samples the image to smaller dimensions while saving to a JPEG.
Once again, great video for those who were unaware of the differences between and best uses for raw and JPEG files.
Hi Cooloox, I agree. Another commenter (Dave Millman) pointed out the crop issue, and I agreed there that it must be a down-sample instead, which is a compromise right out of the gate. Another reason not to shoot smaller sizes unless you need to, or the photos are just snapshots where quality is not really important.
@@steeletraining I'd never seen your videos before and now I've watched a couple more and they're excellent. Keep up the great work. 🙂
@@cooloox Thank you!
@@steeletraining "Size" is ambiguous; it might be file size or image pixels. I can shoot full size (pixels) in three different compressions. All are still the same number of pixels, but considerably different file size depending on the compression ratio. But I can also choose smaller pixels and it does that by re-sampling in the camera. For night sports, a 50 percent reduction in pixels nearly eliminates noise so I shoot at ISO 2000 to 3200 with very little noise because the resampling integrates the noise. It does that even for RAW and also speeds up storage.
Yes, quite an obvious issue here. The shooting a black rectangle (black area around the moon) is also a weird if not flawed argument.Besides shooting in RAW format has nothing to do with "arrogance" just quality versus speed. No need to insult anyone (who is absent) here.
Very informative, thank you. I'm a Fuji user and love the styles you can preset in camera prior to shooting, so am using jpeg more than previously. As you rightly point out, with two card capability life has certainly become easier since the old film days.
It does not prevent you from using RAW and JPG (RAW for the future and JPG for the present [you may regret some of the choices you made yesterday once your taste has evolved. What is possible with RAW is not with JPG).).
@@BrunoChalifour Yes totally agree, which is what I do - so much easier to predict with mirrorless these days - am enjoying Fuji Weekly too. Cheers.
@@avs4365but if you shoot simultaneously in both formats from the camera's evf/ screen you can only see/predict the result that come out of the jpeg format
@@liv0003 Thanks - that is how I've always done digital even in the Canon days when I first switched to digital. Now, using the Fuji Weekly system I find RAW mostly unnecessary unless shooting in extreme lighting conditions without a flash. With the improvements made in the adjustability of Jpg the parameters allow all I need with choosing the style I'm recreating, meaning less time on the computer.
Or you could buy a larger memory card. This misses the main advantage of RAW, the latitude it gives you in post. That latitude can mean the difference between a useable and an unusable photo if a setting for a one-time moment is even slightly off. It is insurance at the very least.
When taken full advantage of in post, it allows you to use all the dynamic range you paid for, JPEG images tend to look flat in comparison.
Great Video !
even though I studied photography for 4 years, I far prefer listening to these videos about this. Phil, please don’t stop making videos. Even though this was 5 years after some of your own videos, you must be presenting these in RAW, because the quality has not degraded a bit since those days. I have linked your website to any upcoming photoheads in my circle and I hope you continue with these excellent tutorials. Thank you for all your efforts, thank you for the wisdom. Your videos really have made an impact.
Thanks for the kind words!
I would argue that as an amatuer photographer, you should always shoot raw or raw + jpeg. When I was an amatuer film photographer, I kept all of my negatives. Technology has improved, and I was able to scan 30 year old negatives and clean them up and re-print the ones I wanted to display. As an amatuer digital photographer, I would argue that raw is your digital negative, and as technology improves, so does the potential of those digital negatives. There is nothing wrong with a jpeg image, but it has all of the camera settings baked in and is much less flexible. If you are into photography, and think you will continue to learn how to edit, color grade and do more advanced processing in the future, keep the raw around.
Best explained video on this topic 👏🏻👏🏻🙏🏻👌🏻
Thanks, it was an eye opener and compelled me to look at my working style. I used to shoot only JPG before and then RAW but now I am very clear when to use RAW vs JPEG.
Excellent explanation.
Very helpful thank you very much for posting.
Excellent in every respect. You possess remarkable teaching skills. I’ve learned more from this video and you sir, than I have struggling on my own in the past. Now where’s my camera! Many thanks.
Awesome, thank you!
Technique maybe but some very wrong facts. If you think this video is that good, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Finally someone I can understand and very well. You are great at getting what you are saying through to thick heads like me. I have found someone who doesn't bullshit their way through a long and boring presentation, which this wasn't by the way. I have found this to be the best help and is what I have been thinking for a very long time as I am a Jpeg shooter. And knowing what you have said just makes what I do all the more sensible as I am not trying to sell images I do it for me as I am a bird photographer who just likes to share. Thank you mate.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Wow i got all my questions answered thanks Phil
Now I understand , I think Lol Thanks. Jim
Very informative and understandable. Jpg is a technique evolved from numeric data storage from mainframe days when storage was very expensive and recurring data was compressed by adding repeat numerical values.
When I got a camera, I was very excited about the raw capability. But it soon became a nightmare with all those editing demands. Friends & Family would get upset for delaying so much, and also for spending no time with them.for the next 3 days after a tour.
So, I started shooting JPEG. And shifted a good amount of works to on-camera than post-processing. I like keeping close to reality, so I'm covered.
Given photography is just my hobby, I can't afford too high paid cloud storage either just for my memories.
I’d focus more on examples with images for RAW priorities, such as a sunset, harsh lighting, indoor portraits, vs outdoors in good lighting, or midday photos.
You failed to mention that JPG is only 8 bits. RAW is usually 12 or 14 bits, a significant increase in color depth. Thus when post processing you have more color depth to use when enhancing the images.
Your points about shooting sports and high speed burst were spot on accurate.
Raw is also only a single brightness value per photosite/pixel well/sensel. Not all bits contain the same types of information. "8-bit" JPGs have three 8-bit values per pixel, one each for the red, green, and blue color channels. So 8-bit JPGs are actually 24-bit color files whereas raw files are 14-bit monochrome luminance values. The advantage of raw is that the color channel multipliers used to display the demosaiced monochromatic luminance values in the raw data on your screen in color are not yet "baked in" the way they are with JPGs
@@michaelclark9762JPGs are made from in camera RAWs. The camera captures everything in RAW, but when shooting in JPG mode the camera makes a JPG copy and doesn't keep the RAW data.
@@dennirussel JPEGs have eight bits per color channel. 8 bits for the Red Channel, 8 bits for the Green channel, and 8 bits for the Blue channel. That's a total of 24 bits per pixel. Raw files in most current ILCs have 14 bit monochromatic values. That doesn't mean a raw file contains less information than a JPEG, it just means it stores the information in a different way. The color information in a JPEG is interpolated from the monochromatic raw values taking into account the properties of the Bayer mask (or other CFA in the case of cameras like Fuji's Trans-X series) in front of the sensor's photosites. It is then compressed by grouping pixels with the same RGB values together and listing which pixel locations have which common RGB values. With more aggressive compression, very similar RGB values are grouped together and will have the same value when decompressed for display.
@@michaelclark9762 Yes but it is 14 bits per channel ;o0 and in any case, the JPG derives from the RAW and cannot get information that does not exist in the RAW file.
@@dennirussel The camera / program in the camera does what you tell it to do. If you tell it not to keep the RAW file it produces, it won't if you choose to keep it it will. In the same way if you do not tell the camera to save the JPG file (but only the RAW one) it won't.
There's a lot of fancy RUclipsrs out there in the photography space but few come close to the simple, logical explanations that Phil gives.
Then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Sorry. Raw is just better for most uses if you are a professional. It’s not about space. It’s about getting the best quality available for flexibility future and use. You can always just shoot both if you want a quick JPG but when you need to adjust color, highlights and shadows Raw is always best.
Oh! Forgot to say this too. Do what’s best for you and your client.
Great video. I shoot raw plus jpeg most of the time. Storage nowadays is cheap. One raw and one jpeg out of my camera is about 280mb each. When shooting bursts, sports etc I do switch to jpeg only at 50-80mb’s
Very interesting. I understand this much . Makes me know that lossless compressed option is very useful. Thanks.
You can always get a JPEG from a RAW, but you can't get a RAW from a JPEG.
Even better, there's a jpeg inside the raw file. With some cameras, that is a full resolution jpeg.
Jpegs have a LOT of loss information.
A very interesting video! I work for a large school photography business here in the UK, and we shoot to JPEG, although I sometimes wish we'd shoot RAW because often what happens is there'll be a lighting failure causing half the pupils face to be in deep shadow, and as we have up to about 20 photographers shooting at various locations at a time, they soon mount up for us editors to fix!
Anyway, I enjoyed your video and will subscribe so I can look out for more from you in the future...
Bulk shooting under (hopefully) identical lighting is one of the best scenarios to use JPGs if the lighting is from good, full spectrum sources that do not require much, if any, color correction. Set the camera to match the lighting in terms of color and exposure and you're good to go.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Loved your video it helped out. I thought it was going to be more complicated. I currently have my full frame Sony A7I camera set to both RAW and JPEG Fine. I have mostly taken 90% of my photos in JPEG and did a lot of custom settings with it. I want to get experienced with RAW processing and I bought 'Afinity' Photo software for me to do that. I have 50 years of photography experience started with a cheap 35 mm camera than a Pro 35 mm camera then 7 compact digital cameras then in 2019 my first PRO mirrorless digital camera a SONY A7 mark I which I've taken 107,000 photos with in 3 years and have a Pro Sony G F4 24-105 zoom lens. It's way better than my Pro 35 mm camera and to me it's got a Super computer built into it. I love it and so does everyone I show my photos to and those were all JPEG.
Thanks, that was great video. All of these things are familiar to almost every photography aficionado, but it is not that obvious in real fast-action life.
Best regards
Zoltan
Great video. Very clear and precise instruction. As a beginner photographer this is just what i need. Thank you Phil.
Then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Excellent vid. I have come to pretty much the same conclusion. Printing seems to be another minefield for the correct file type. My printer always want a Tiff file.
yes because it gives a better quality file/image than a JPG file. TIFF is uncompressed or lossless compressed so no disappearing data.
Clear and concise. Extremely well presented with no rambling. Thanks.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Phil - one major error when it comes to JPEG compression. Raw data is written as 16-bit while JPEGs are 8-bit, so most of the compression comes from throwing out data when converting from 16-bit to 8-bit. Cameras that shoot 12-bit or 14-bit raw are still stored as 16-bit because of the file structures used in our computers.
The other items on data compression are correct as you have written, but somewhat oversimplified.
Thanks Manfred, you are right, and "somewhat oversimplied" was exactly my intention here. Rather than present all the technical details that might be confusing (a lot of people tune out at terms like 8-bit vs 16-bit), I wanted to give viewers a simple, schematic understanding of why JPG compression reduces quality. At the level of this video, that's all that's needed to help viewers make the practical choice of which situations are better for RAW and which for JPG.
Raw files do contain more information, but the 12 or 14 bit raw files are single monochrome luminance values per sensel (a/k/a photosite or pixel well). JPGs are 8-bits per color channel for 24-bits per pixel.
The color channel multipliers used during demosaicing are "baked in" when exported to JPG (or even high bit TIFF files), as are the black point and white point. That's the big difference.
That's a very good video. I just switched to RAW as apposed to RAW + JPG. . I got fed up of scrolling through thousands of pictures on my ext hard drive device to find what I wanted. It was also confusing when choosing, uploading or deleting pictures; having two of everything. . All my better pictures go through Lightroom before posting on media anyway, even if it's just tweaking the exposure or contrast or cropping for viewing on smartphones. . Thanks.
When I shoot RAW + JPEG I always copy the RAWs to one folder and JPEGs to another. This way I never put a JPEG into Lightroom or put a unedited RAW file into my iCloud library. Mixing the files together is definitely a headache.
:) I don't even remotely understand how someone could decide to degrade his images in the camera to JPG. Especially when it comes to people, skin tones, family gatherings, etc.... I understand a sport photographer, although even in that case, the faces will always look ugly when compared in 100%. I have tested this so often and compared. The difference of the JPGs that Lightroom exports out of my 1DX RAW files is so many classes above anything that the Canon software does with the standard picture files or in camera, its far from close. Especially sharpness is extremely ugly in in camera JPGs. In direct comprise is basically garbage. So it say far not only for advanced exposure editing. Sharpness and details are extremely better preserved in RAW files. Even if you convert your RAW files to DNG and compress them to compressed DNG in Lightroom, which shrinks my RAW files from almost 30 MB to 6 MB, the quality is several classes above n camera JPGs. Its hilarious that people spend all this money to buy the newsiest camera just to produce the in camera garbage JPGs. Kind of funny. :)
The largest investment in camera R&D is in their jpeg processing. I think it's funny photo snobs don't take advantage of the amazing jpeg quality of the modern digital camera😊
Amazing review
Excellent and perfect .thank you
If the camera can shoot RAW, I'm shooting RAW. Since I learned about batch processing things, even just several images at a crack, getting through my post has been far easier. I've also created a fast and easy to use "best JPEG's" export setting to make a set of images in a hurry. One good thing about JPEG's, though, is that if you've set up picture styles on your camera, your editor may actually pick them up as a set of adjustments to start from for your RAW (if you're shooting both formats).
All cameras shoot RAW files. Very few nowadays do not give you the possibility to record them. Even cell-phones now give you the possibility to save the raw files they generate.