I've shot Fuji since the days of the S5 Pros and I always shot RAW+Jpg. I rarely looked at the jpeg files, thinking of them only as backups to the RAW files. RAWs into Lightroom and process them. Last year I happened to look at the jpg files after I'd processed a wedding in Lightroom, taking of course, many hours. I was amazed that I had literally spent hours processing the RAW files, only to have them look like the SOOC jpg files! I still shoot RAW and jpg, but now I look at the RAW files as the backups, just in case I am not happy with the jpg and need to seriously edit it!
When I first started out everyone said you have to shoot raw. I followed suit and it went well. As I’ve progressed I’ve learned that raw isn’t always the way to go. Especially with family and traveling. I prefer a simple workflow that doesn’t seem like work. I shoot JPEGs for all non paid work and shoot aperture priority. For client and studio work, raw and manual exposure.
Exactly. I hate how when starting out people always give you a hard time about having to shoot in RAW. And I understand where they're coming from but on the same end if your photos look great what difference does it make.
It costs you nothing but SD card space to shoot RAW+JPEG on any substantive camera in the last 15 years. If you get what you want from the JPEGs then you can just wipe the card and carry on. The one time you accidentally over/under an image that you can never recreate you will immediately regret that decision. You don't wear a seat belt when you drive because you're planning on having a car crash, sometimes things just go wrong.
I freelance for other wedding companies and they just want me to upload JPEGs to them, so I shoot Raw & JPEG on my xt5 or xh2 on those weddings. I told myself I'd have the RAW files if I ever had to really save an image before uploading it to the company that hired me, but I've never used them and all of those clients are happy!
I've always shot RAW and Jpeg. I archive the RAW's and work with Jpegs. If an image is way off, I just go grab the raw file and fix maybe a couple that I have. Especially since I switched to Fujifilm, the JPEG's are incredible.
You are amazing! I have been stuck in my attempt to startup because of earliest training. You have spoke to questions I have. Thank you for your wisdom and I will be joining with you soon. JPEG is for me as a new shooter. I will start where I am. Square space will be my choice because of you!! Thanks so much and I wish you total sucess continually. Joy! Joy! Joy! I shoot with Canon equipment but and I know you don't but I still trust you can be my teacher/mentor. So glad I continued watching you.
Just playing shooting things in this room in Jpeg the the same things in Raw. The G16 Canon I'm using for this experiment makes a larger photo in JPeg than in Raw. When I convert the Raw to Jpeg it stays the same size at the Raw picture. Just in this room not a lot of difference in color or focus.
Years ago when I started taking photos with digital cameras (20 years ago, maybe one year before that I had bought point and shoot film camera) I shot JPEG only because it was only option. Lateer I bought DSLR and after that I have shot mostly RAW, but on last couple of years with Fujifilm I have shot JPEG + RAW since I noticed that RAW + same film simulation profile in Lightroom does NOT look similar than camera JPEG. Well, since I bought Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) a month and a day ago I have shot only JPEG again after years with RAW photos. I have not even tested the RAW on this camera. I have noticed that I like the quality of the Dynamic Black & White JPEG profile, I get small and good quality photos straight out of camera, JPEG works with every device and there is no any compability issues with anything, it is easy to backup etc. and most importantly, I do not need to edit anything. It is what it is. If I get bad photos with JPEG, I know it is my fault and I just need to learn to be better photographer :) Somehow I kind of thing JPEG similar way than my film camera shooting - when it is shot, it is what it is and I cannot do much about it except print it and learn about what things I need to learn to shoot better next time. Of course, I shoot only just for fun. If I would be shooting for paid customer I would probably use my Fujifilm X-T2 or Canon R50 and would shoot RAW + JPEG, but since I am shooting only for the enjoyment of the photography I like to stay with JPEG and master my skills. Less hassle, less need to be spent with computers (I work with computers so I sit already long times on computers) and lots of benefits for me with this kind of shooting.
A bad exposure in RAW is not editable. Nowadays JPEGs have a lot of latitude to correct light and shadows. In many many times, huge range to correct. For some cameras, like Ricoh GRs, I don’t even see a difference in how much light and shadows I can correct in Raw vs. jpegs. In new 40mp Fuji JPGEs, if simulations is not crazy but natural, if WB is not totally off, there’s also lot of information, lot of dynamic range to work with.
It depends on how much editing you want as well as lighting conditions. I shoot both and have had good results with JPEGS.; you can still edit JPEG's , but you will be limited (it's surprising how much detail some of these files can retain).. I don't shoot professionally and being able to quickly share a photo is nice. But if the lighting is tricky, or it's a special subject, then I will always shoot RAW in those instances.
JPEG for sure when doing personal projects. Even for high-end projects like personal portrait sessions with a friend or a model that's not client work, I'll shoot JPEG.
I own a video production company and using my work cameras for family stuff was not inspiring at all lol so I picked up a Fuji xs20 and I already love the experience of the small camera and great jpegs. Any favorite settings or recipes to help me avoid editing my family stuff? Thanks!
Here's a question for all of you: If I shoot RAW & JPG, when I download all files to my computer, the JPG's come out very similar to the RAWs, meaning with dull and muddy colors, slightly dark, etc. (even if the photos looked super nice on my camera's display right after I took them). On the other hand, if I shoot in JPG only, the photos come out great, vibrant colors, correct exposure, etc. (just as they appeared on my camera's display). That means that shooting RAW & JPG doesn't help that much. Any ideas why this happens? Does your camera behave like this?
Yes. I'm thinking about doing that for weddings. So I can just use the JPEGs but then if I need to touch something up a little bit I still have the RAWs.
Shoot everything in RAW or RAW+JPEG. Shooting in JPEG only when you have the option to shoot both either means you don't care about the thing your photographing or you don't know better, it's that binary. Accidents are called accidents, not purposes. Nobody (even the most experienced photographers) shoots with the intention of overexposing or under exposing an image. It happens, by accident and RAW gives you the potential to recover from that. If space is an issue then shoot, edit, export as JPEG then delete the RAW files .... I 100% wouldn't recommend doing this but if you have no choice then you have no choice. Using a session based workflow (like Capture One) is SIGNIFICANTLY better than a catalogue style workflow when it comes to managing disk space.
So your family memories are worth less to you than your commercial work? Shoot everything in RAW or RAW+JPEG. Shooting in JPEG only when you have the option to shoot both either means you don't care about the thing your photographing or you don't know better, it's that binary.
@@iShaymus ???? RAW doesn’t equal better. So no I don’t care about it less. I just don’t see the point of taking hours of my time to edit photos all the time. Family photos are great in JPEG it’s pretty much the same idea as shooting film (which I also do when I’m with my family).
@@jbivphotography a RAW file can be everything that a JPEG file can be. A JPEG file cannot be everything that a RAW file can be so RAW is better from a technical image quality perspective. That's not a subjective assessment, it's objectively true. Now that doesn't make it better from a workflow, file management perspective which is why I said, just shoot RAW+JPEG simultaneously and if you get what you want from the JPEG then just disregard the RAW files if you don't care about them. RAW is the digital equivalent of your film negatives. A JPEG is the photo you get after you take it to a lab to print for you and they touch it up, sharpen it etc. I worked in a lab for years ... the photos you got printed WERE NOT a straight representation of what your negatives looked like, they were always adjusted for colour balance and exposure,
@@iShaymus Of course RAW is more flexible than JPEG, guess no1 is arguing about that simple fact. I shoot RAW+JPEG, but in 95% of the cases i only transfer the JPEG's to my NAS, because i nailed my JPEG profiles that i dont need to edit anything. If i do client work, i take 5 Test shots with different profiles, let the client decide which profile they like, and go on. So even there i mostly use SOOC JPEG files (but i store the RAW's just in case) - it makes Life sooooo much easier and efficient.
It would be amazing if Lightroom added a function for seamlessly shooting both. Like show the jpeg and at a buttons press move the raw to the top of stack when you need a raw version.
@@jbivphotography Well, if I shoot RAW & JPG, when I download all files to my computer, the JPG's come out very similar to the RAWs, meaning with dull and muddy colors, slightly dark, etc. (even if the photos looked super nice on my camera's display right after I took them). On the other hand, if I shoot in JPG only, the photos come out great, vibrant colors, correct exposure, etc. (just like they appeared on my camera's display). That means that shooting RAW & JPG doesn't help that much. Any ideas why this happens? Does your camera behave like this? (I've posted this question twice, sorry for that).
@@AF-jp5vi That sounds like it's your cameras settings for how it's creating the JPEGs. Also, when you make your JPEGs you have to take a different approach to your photos. If it doesn't look good in camera then the file isn't going to look good.
@@jbivphotography Hey, thank you for your response! The photos ALWAYS look good in camera, either when I'm shooting RAW+JPEG, or when I'm shooting JPEG only. The JPEGs just come out differently when I download them on my PC (dark and dull in the first situation, bright and colorful in the 2nd). But I will check my camera settings for creating the JPEGs, hopefully there's something in there than needs to be changed. Thanks and keep up the great work you're doing!
My wedding photographer shot on Fujifilm GFX's and delivered straight out of camera jpegs. They were 95% there. He def was exposing for my pale white wife, and there were some instances where my black friends were to overexposed. There were some other instances where we were in a meadow and I was super green. No one else notices these things but photographers!
I've shot Fuji since the days of the S5 Pros and I always shot RAW+Jpg. I rarely looked at the jpeg files, thinking of them only as backups to the RAW files. RAWs into Lightroom and process them. Last year I happened to look at the jpg files after I'd processed a wedding in Lightroom, taking of course, many hours. I was amazed that I had literally spent hours processing the RAW files, only to have them look like the SOOC jpg files! I still shoot RAW and jpg, but now I look at the RAW files as the backups, just in case I am not happy with the jpg and need to seriously edit it!
When I first started out everyone said you have to shoot raw. I followed suit and it went well. As I’ve progressed I’ve learned that raw isn’t always the way to go. Especially with family and traveling. I prefer a simple workflow that doesn’t seem like work. I shoot JPEGs for all non paid work and shoot aperture priority. For client and studio work, raw and manual exposure.
Same here. SOOC is such a relief
Exactly. I hate how when starting out people always give you a hard time about having to shoot in RAW. And I understand where they're coming from but on the same end if your photos look great what difference does it make.
It costs you nothing but SD card space to shoot RAW+JPEG on any substantive camera in the last 15 years. If you get what you want from the JPEGs then you can just wipe the card and carry on. The one time you accidentally over/under an image that you can never recreate you will immediately regret that decision. You don't wear a seat belt when you drive because you're planning on having a car crash, sometimes things just go wrong.
I freelance for other wedding companies and they just want me to upload JPEGs to them, so I shoot Raw & JPEG on my xt5 or xh2 on those weddings. I told myself I'd have the RAW files if I ever had to really save an image before uploading it to the company that hired me, but I've never used them and all of those clients are happy!
I've always shot RAW and Jpeg. I archive the RAW's and work with Jpegs. If an image is way off, I just go grab the raw file and fix maybe a couple that I have. Especially since I switched to Fujifilm, the JPEG's are incredible.
Nice. That's an awesome workflow!
You are amazing! I have been stuck in my attempt to startup because of earliest training. You have spoke to questions I have. Thank you for your wisdom and I will be joining with you soon. JPEG is for me as a new shooter. I will start where I am. Square space will be my choice because of you!! Thanks so much and I wish you total sucess continually. Joy! Joy! Joy! I shoot with Canon equipment but and I know you don't but I still trust you can be my teacher/mentor. So glad I continued watching you.
great question, both possibly depending on context. informative video thanks John.
Exactly. Context always makes a big difference.
Just playing shooting things in this room in Jpeg the the same things in Raw. The G16 Canon I'm using for this experiment makes a larger photo in JPeg than in Raw. When I convert the Raw to Jpeg it stays the same size at the Raw picture. Just in this room not a lot of difference in color or focus.
Years ago when I started taking photos with digital cameras (20 years ago, maybe one year before that I had bought point and shoot film camera) I shot JPEG only because it was only option. Lateer I bought DSLR and after that I have shot mostly RAW, but on last couple of years with Fujifilm I have shot JPEG + RAW since I noticed that RAW + same film simulation profile in Lightroom does NOT look similar than camera JPEG.
Well, since I bought Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) a month and a day ago I have shot only JPEG again after years with RAW photos. I have not even tested the RAW on this camera. I have noticed that I like the quality of the Dynamic Black & White JPEG profile, I get small and good quality photos straight out of camera, JPEG works with every device and there is no any compability issues with anything, it is easy to backup etc. and most importantly, I do not need to edit anything. It is what it is.
If I get bad photos with JPEG, I know it is my fault and I just need to learn to be better photographer :) Somehow I kind of thing JPEG similar way than my film camera shooting - when it is shot, it is what it is and I cannot do much about it except print it and learn about what things I need to learn to shoot better next time.
Of course, I shoot only just for fun. If I would be shooting for paid customer I would probably use my Fujifilm X-T2 or Canon R50 and would shoot RAW + JPEG, but since I am shooting only for the enjoyment of the photography I like to stay with JPEG and master my skills. Less hassle, less need to be spent with computers (I work with computers so I sit already long times on computers) and lots of benefits for me with this kind of shooting.
A bad exposure in RAW is not editable. Nowadays JPEGs have a lot of latitude to correct light and shadows. In many many times, huge range to correct. For some cameras, like Ricoh GRs, I don’t even see a difference in how much light and shadows I can correct in Raw vs. jpegs. In new 40mp Fuji JPGEs, if simulations is not crazy but natural, if WB is not totally off, there’s also lot of information, lot of dynamic range to work with.
It depends on how much editing you want as well as lighting conditions. I shoot both and have had good results with JPEGS.; you can still edit JPEG's , but you will be limited (it's surprising how much detail some of these files can retain).. I don't shoot professionally and being able to quickly share a photo is nice. But if the lighting is tricky, or it's a special subject, then I will always shoot RAW in those instances.
I personally don't remember the last time I shot in JPEG. My camera has been set on RAW for the last 4 years.
If your camera has great color profiles JPEG can be a game changer
Wow, I’ve been shooting Raw so long, I never even thought to shoot jpeg anymore. I could be saving so much time.
@@dragnfly138 JPEG is great if your approach to is makes sense and works in your workflow.
Do you use square space for your business website and then pic time just to deliver photos to your clients.
Jared Polin is pulling his fro out right about now hearing this!!! 😂
😂😂
JPEG for sure when doing personal projects. Even for high-end projects like personal portrait sessions with a friend or a model that's not client work, I'll shoot JPEG.
I own a video production company and using my work cameras for family stuff was not inspiring at all lol so I picked up a Fuji xs20 and I already love the experience of the small camera and great jpegs. Any favorite settings or recipes to help me avoid editing my family stuff? Thanks!
Here's a question for all of you:
If I shoot RAW & JPG, when I download all files to my computer, the JPG's come out very similar to the RAWs, meaning with dull and muddy colors, slightly dark, etc. (even if the photos looked super nice on my camera's display right after I took them).
On the other hand, if I shoot in JPG only, the photos come out great, vibrant colors, correct exposure, etc. (just as they appeared on my camera's display).
That means that shooting RAW & JPG doesn't help that much. Any ideas why this happens? Does your camera behave like this?
Wow, I’ve been shooting Raw so long, I never even thought to shoot jpeg anymore. I could be saving so much time.
JPEG is awesome when you don't need the flexibility of FAW files. You should totally try it out.
Formerly I shoot RAW. Today until now shooting FINE. Good color & quality converted to JPEG. RAW shoot is good but the file very big.
Yep yep. I think both RAW and JPEG have their places. it's really up to the photography to know how to use them.
One option I really love with Fuji is that you can shoot raw & jpeg simultaneously.
Every camera brand can do that
It's true.
Yes. I'm thinking about doing that for weddings. So I can just use the JPEGs but then if I need to touch something up a little bit I still have the RAWs.
👍👍👍 EXCELLENT !!! ... THANKS
Glad you liked it!
Shoot everything in RAW or RAW+JPEG. Shooting in JPEG only when you have the option to shoot both either means you don't care about the thing your photographing or you don't know better, it's that binary.
Accidents are called accidents, not purposes. Nobody (even the most experienced photographers) shoots with the intention of overexposing or under exposing an image. It happens, by accident and RAW gives you the potential to recover from that. If space is an issue then shoot, edit, export as JPEG then delete the RAW files .... I 100% wouldn't recommend doing this but if you have no choice then you have no choice.
Using a session based workflow (like Capture One) is SIGNIFICANTLY better than a catalogue style workflow when it comes to managing disk space.
I was expecting “You don’t have to do anything…..but BBAD” at the end 😂
Jpeg for family, Raw for works.😂
Yep yep
So your family memories are worth less to you than your commercial work? Shoot everything in RAW or RAW+JPEG. Shooting in JPEG only when you have the option to shoot both either means you don't care about the thing your photographing or you don't know better, it's that binary.
@@iShaymus ???? RAW doesn’t equal better. So no I don’t care about it less. I just don’t see the point of taking hours of my time to edit photos all the time. Family photos are great in JPEG it’s pretty much the same idea as shooting film (which I also do when I’m with my family).
@@jbivphotography a RAW file can be everything that a JPEG file can be. A JPEG file cannot be everything that a RAW file can be so RAW is better from a technical image quality perspective. That's not a subjective assessment, it's objectively true.
Now that doesn't make it better from a workflow, file management perspective which is why I said, just shoot RAW+JPEG simultaneously and if you get what you want from the JPEG then just disregard the RAW files if you don't care about them.
RAW is the digital equivalent of your film negatives. A JPEG is the photo you get after you take it to a lab to print for you and they touch it up, sharpen it etc. I worked in a lab for years ... the photos you got printed WERE NOT a straight representation of what your negatives looked like, they were always adjusted for colour balance and exposure,
@@iShaymus Of course RAW is more flexible than JPEG, guess no1 is arguing about that simple fact. I shoot RAW+JPEG, but in 95% of the cases i only transfer the JPEG's to my NAS, because i nailed my JPEG profiles that i dont need to edit anything. If i do client work, i take 5 Test shots with different profiles, let the client decide which profile they like, and go on. So even there i mostly use SOOC JPEG files (but i store the RAW's just in case) - it makes Life sooooo much easier and efficient.
It would be amazing if Lightroom added a function for seamlessly shooting both. Like show the jpeg and at a buttons press move the raw to the top of stack when you need a raw version.
Raw + Jpeg is probably the best way to go if you have the space for it.
Exactly.
@@jbivphotography Well, if I shoot RAW & JPG, when I download all files to my computer, the JPG's come out very similar to the RAWs, meaning with dull and muddy colors, slightly dark, etc. (even if the photos looked super nice on my camera's display right after I took them).
On the other hand, if I shoot in JPG only, the photos come out great, vibrant colors, correct exposure, etc. (just like they appeared on my camera's display).
That means that shooting RAW & JPG doesn't help that much. Any ideas why this happens? Does your camera behave like this?
(I've posted this question twice, sorry for that).
@@AF-jp5vi That sounds like it's your cameras settings for how it's creating the JPEGs. Also, when you make your JPEGs you have to take a different approach to your photos. If it doesn't look good in camera then the file isn't going to look good.
@@jbivphotography Hey, thank you for your response! The photos ALWAYS look good in camera, either when I'm shooting RAW+JPEG, or when I'm shooting JPEG only. The JPEGs just come out differently when I download them on my PC (dark and dull in the first situation, bright and colorful in the 2nd).
But I will check my camera settings for creating the JPEGs, hopefully there's something in there than needs to be changed. Thanks and keep up the great work you're doing!
My wedding photographer shot on Fujifilm GFX's and delivered straight out of camera jpegs. They were 95% there. He def was exposing for my pale white wife, and there were some instances where my black friends were to overexposed. There were some other instances where we were in a meadow and I was super green. No one else notices these things but photographers!
How much magenta can a jpg handle?
😂😂😂
I use Faithful profile on my Canon for that extra hit of magenta, can't get enough of that $#!7