FROKNOWSPHOTO WILL BE ANGRY WITH ME! I SHOOT JPEG FOR A DAY! Digital image format SHOOTOUT!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Head to squarespace.co... to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code SIMON
Sign up for my email list and get a free e-book on How to Shoot Backlit.
www.simondentr...
Want to take amazing wildlife photos? Check out my new course with 20 modules and over 5 hours of content, no fluff!
journalofwildl...
My name is Simon d'Entremont and I'm a professional wildlife and nature photographer from Eastern Canada. This video will show you how to choose the best digital image format for you, even JPEG!
I use Topaz Labs software for noise reduction, sharpening and upscaling:
topazlabs.com/...
Music in intro: "Nicer", by Houses on the Hill. Find that, and other sound effects at Epidemic Sounds
share.epidemic...
My equipment:
Canon R5 body amzn.to/3S5jtBf
Canon R6 body amzn.to/3ZYu6HC
Canon R8 body amzn.to/3M0Xoj7
Canon R5 battery grip amzn.to/3PVg8Sy
Canon RF 600mm f4 amzn.to/494Zd8S
Canon 100-400 EF II amzn.to/3FhWrPP
Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 amzn.to/45zDP8F
Canon 17-40 L lens amzn.to/3y71MGt
Canon RF 16mm f2.8 amzn.to/3M3i0HI
FLM Tripod (CP 34 L4 II) and Levelling Head (HB 75) www.flmcanada.com?aff=sdentrem
Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 lens amzn.to/3FjGkkW
Sigma Art 20mm f1.4 lens amzn.to/3Fhj7zD
Rokinon 135mm f2 lens amzn.to/3QfqIFi
Sirui x-k40 ball head amzn.to/3rRzIHf
Sirui lightweight Traveler 7C tripod with head amzn.to/3M0XDe1
Manfrotto Video Head amzn.to/3tpUzBO
Wimberley Gimbal Head amzn.to/3rSijhC
Hollyland Mars M1 field monitor amzn.to/3rQCRaa
Jackery portable 240 lithium-ion battery amzn.to/3QgBmvg
ProGrade Gold 128 GB CF Express amzn.to/46wv40g
ProGrade Cobalt 325 GB CF Express amzn.to/3RSUtNo
ProGrade Gold 256 GB SD amzn.to/48R3CMq
Zoom H1n field recorder amzn.to/3tAoJCE
Comica shotgun mic amzn.to/3REWN73
Rode Videomic NTG shotgun mic amzn.to/3tCeAW8
Rode Wireless GO II mic set amzn.to/45vsIxw
Lenscoat neoprene camera bags amzn.to/3SNiqmz
Lencoat rain cover for 500mm F4 amzn.to/3SGtyl2
Falconeyes F7 LCD panel amzn.to/3y75z6F
Lowepro 450 AW large backpack amzn.to/3xZOHyL
Lowepro Flipside 300 small backpack amzn.to/3SOTWt7
Mindshift 36L (closest available) backpack amzn.to/3ZXIiAH
GuraGear 30L bag for 600mm f4, use Code Simon for 10@% off
guragear.com/?...
DJI Mavic Air 2S drone (flymore combo) amzn.to/3M3ijSS
B&W circular polarizer, 77mm amzn.to/3SKc6Mx
B&W 2 stop ND Filter amzn.to/3URyIN6
B&W 6 stop ND filter amzn.to/3y6gs8G
B&W 10 stop ND filter amzn.to/3fwRIjs
Nikon Monarch 5 8x42 binoculars amzn.to/3rXt2qX
Blackrapid retro-classic shoulder strap amzn.to/3y0wUHt
FjallRaven trekking pants amzn.to/3rSisSc
Heat 3 gloves (shell only) www.theheatcom...
Heat Company Merino Wool liners www.theheatcom...
HP Omen 17.3" performance laptop amzn.to/3S1vd7O
Synology NAS storage amzn.to/3RVfFSX
16 TB hard drives for NAS amzn.to/3S03Hrk
Follow me on:
Facebook / sdentrem
Instagram / simon.dentremont
Website www.simondentr...
What format do you shoot and why? I’d love to know!
On my Fuji I shoot JPG probably 80-90% of the time. On my old Sony, RAW was required because their color science was poor (at least 10 years ago)
I only bother with RAW when the lighting is absurdly bad and I *know* I’ll have to go back and correct white balance/recover highlights/shadows. Low light shooting tends to come to mind. As does any astroscape.
People don’t realize it, but JPEGs have enough malleability assuming you nailed the exposure the first time.
I always shoot in RAW > because I'm not "good enough" to shoot in JPG :) lol Also, I almost always shoot quite a bit under exposed, like 1 full stop, to prevent any blowouts, or hot spots, then I need to pull them back up quite a bit in PP. Shooting in RAW allows me to do this as much as I need to.
I use compressed raw. I can't tell the difference on my camera with uncompressed and I get faster buffer clearing.
Raw
I shoot RAW w Nikon and Olympus, JPG with Fuji. Fuji X-T20 handles highlights in JPG amazingly well. In test shots, I've gotten better highlight detail with Fuji JPG than Nikon D850 raw.
I would love a video on astrophotography!
He already has one
Check out nightscape images. You're in for a treat!
Same!
I do for milky way, but I’ll make one for deep sky.
@@simon_dentremont can you also do one for the eclipse in april?
thank you
Thanks Simon. This is very useful information. I will definitely try compressed raw on my cameras.
Glad it was helpful!
I shoot jpg for work because we don't get to edit before the images are prepared for print sales. This means we need to get everything right in camera. The files from my R6 ii or 1DX ii look amazing. For personal work I shoot RAW.
First, hats off to Simon for challenging the paradigm. There are a lot of people that will do well with JPEG and its simpler, non-proprietary workflow.
I came from film and honed my skill with the more limited latitude of slide film, then print film. This trained my eye to avoid the most extreme situations, which the human eye would struggle with anyone.
I shoot JPEG, always have. I edit with awesome freeware called GIMP. It's a great, cost and time-effective workflow. With modern cameras and sensors. it's easy to get the exposure and white balance right or close, keeping Simon's warning about blowing the highlights in mind. My photos tend to be slightly underexposed then lifted in processing.
Yes, there are some extremely contrasty scenes that would warrant the power of RAW and its manipulation, but I've learned to work around these. Besides the rendition of these scenes would be artificial, forced.
Don't be shamed by other photographers including Fro, of how you work. Abode does not need it's hands in your pants.
Just imagine how horrible it would feel to go through a photo shoot and only find jpegs on the memory card rather than the typical 14 bit raw files. While jpeg can be useful in some cases, the furthest someone should really go is Raw+ JPEG, though ideally, raw only should be fine especially since the camera's picture profile can be applied in post anyway, and raw files are still quite small, and with modern photo editors, especially the GPU acceleration in photoshop and ACR, makes working with raw files work just as quickly as working with jpegs.
It depends on what I'm shooting. When I'm doing a photocall for example and the light is fixed including flash I shoot jpeg on my D800. And even then jpegs can tolerate a good level of process.
For the DX format canera I always shoot raw. And would shoot DX raw on the full frame when there might be variations in light.
Full frame raw for stock images especially landscape.
Great video Simon. I've been using CRAW for sometime with no issue that I have found. You're in a great part of the country to do astrophotography, so would love to see some of your pictures and maybe you could throw in a few tips and tricks.
right here!
yes please. teach us astrophotography
Excelent , can you show the lossy compress raw ?
That’s what Craw is
I would love to see you astrophotography
Staying warm up there Simon? Been watching everyone tearing apart justin Castro lately and it's hilarious!! Hope all is well not to far away from your area!!
Simon - You are an excellent photographer, but you are an even better communicator/teacher. I get burnt out pretty fast by most of these “experts.” Not so with you. You get right to the point, there is no superfluous information and you cover a huge amount of information in a reasonable time. Keep up the good work. Thanks.
I'm from Guatemala, my native language is Spanish, so is very cool for me to hear english speakers with good rhythm and clear pronunciation, but also with excellent transmission of the main idea! Simon is too good at each one. Thanks for everything Simon!
Could not agree more. In the world of online photography tutorials and tips Simon is an absolute stand-out.
Simon is the definition of a great teacher. You're a master.
Currently shoot RAW for post processing. Why buy a really nice camera that captures all that data and then throw most of it away...so JPEG was never an option for me, but I will now consider Compressed RAW. I'm not as much worried about file size as I am with the camera's data processing speed so CRAW may be the way to go. If I want a quick snap for myself or social media, I use my phone. Thanks for another great video Simon!
RAW + JPG always. This way I'm always covered for all situations and I don't need to waste a moment thinking about it. RAW for greater range / color / quality. JPG goes to secondary card for backup, and shoot & share days (family outings to quickly post, etc.). You never know when a portfolio image or wall-hanger will happen, definitely want a RAW "negative" for them. But also overall, my RAW files just look and edit so much nicer.
In my Nikon Z bodies they offer a newer RAW format called "High Efficiency * ", I (and others) have yet to see ANY difference vs uncompressed, like you mention. This is a perfect setting for me, as the files are only about 1/3 larger than its highest-quality JPG version.
Both / all formats have their use case for sure 👍🏻
That may on the newer Z bodies or perhaps full-frame bodies only. I have the Z fc and, unless I missed it, it doesn’t appear to have a compressed RAW format.
This is what I do too! I wrote a simple program to resize the jpgs and video clips for easy sharing viewing. I pick out my favorites and if I think any could use more of an edit, I grab the corresponding raw file and use that for editing.
Indeed! The only way to go
Yeaah we shoot in jpeg a lot haha for our land stuff. But underwater it's a lot easier to pull info with RAW. Though often when everything is said and done and edited, our stuff doesn't look too different surprisingly.
Yep!! I shoot Jpeg too. I buy a camera to shoot scenes and other subjects, NOT to sit in front of a PC endlessly worrying about what FroPack LightRoom enhancement I should use on each and every shot. Cheers
If you take the time to learn basic processing, you can edit a whole folder very quickly. Just recover highlights and shadows and make any necessary correction to overall exposure. That's often all that's needed. Plus, edit one image, apply to many. JPEGs often result in images lacking saturation and contrast, especially if you use a flat picture style to minimise loss of highlights and shadows.
😂
I shoot Raw because I want the photos I take the take the time to go and shoot are the best possible image the camera can capture.
I don't sit in front of the computer when I could be out taking photos.
Even most Jpegs need the odd tweak amd this point you may as well just edit the raw file.
You shouldn’t really have to worry about which preset to use as you should have your own style, which makes it much easier to sync every edit quickly or tweak every file quickly
@@froknowsphotoabsolutely!
As a Fuji guy I almost forgot people think RAW images are what make you a "professional" lol. I have piles of dialed in recipes for all sorts of looks, no need to waste time sitting editing (mostly!).
I always shoot dual JPEG/RAW but at this point the JPEG often looks better than the mood Im trying to match in the RAW anyways. Same for video.
I love that you just come out and say if you prefer jpeg just use it. As a new to the hobby wildlife and astrophotography I have yet to dive deep into lightroom. I plan to but right now I am enjoying learning the changes between aperture, shutter speed, and ISO while shooting in jpeg.
I made the same decision about 25 years ago and I'm still on jpeg! My fotos are better because I have upgraded my skills, moved to better lenses, usually shoot in aperature, and have mastered the simple jpeg editing that exists. Get it right in camera, edit it in less than 1 minute, and you are done. Good enough for posting online or doing little prints and photo books.
I conducted my own RAW-cRAW-jpg tests a few years ago when Canon introduced cRAW. There is no discernible difference 99.9% of the time. But, even though storage is cheap, the big advantage to cRAW is faster camera and computer processing. The camera works better (faster) with cRAW files and download/processing times are cut in half. Smart move going to cRAW-I’ve been preaching it to my fellow photographers for years.
Same!
As an amateur, I make mistakes. RAW can and has saved my butt plenty of times.
I like to shoot RAW+JPEG so I have the RAW for editing and a JPEG to see what the camera cooked and a fast method of sharing before looking at the RAWs.
I'd use CRAW if I could, the file size is huge but the flexibility of RAW makes it worth it.
You can for sure just shoot jpeg, but you'll need to get better at photoshop. I'm not an expert even after majoring in graphic design, however PixImperfect is, and I've learned a ton. The key ones are WB JPEG, JPEG in 32-bit, and the enlargements. Those cover your wb, color, and resolution.
Even blown out jpeg files can be brought back via stacking.
Like he said, just underexpose slightly and you're good. Also never be too ashamed of just flipping your camera to P (program mode). These cameras have some tricks to make you much faster than shooting manual.
Did you watch the video? Craw is close enough to being the same as a raw file (in terms of flexibility in editing) but only half the file size.
@@cooloox I did and I made mention in my other comment.
C. Raw is great but it's only about 2mb smaller than Lossless Comp. HE or Heif are also good options but a Jpeg will still give you significantly smaller file sizes (3x smaller).
Most ppl don't know to edit in 32-bit then convert back to 8-bit after editing. Using the eye dropper is more precise for WB than the slider's for both raw and jpeg. To me there's no longer a reason to shoot RAW.
I'm back to my old D200 for the CCD look and I'll go down to 5.5mp. 99.9% of the shots are going on the Internet, and most sites stop at 2mp. Uploading to stock sites I'd use RAW and max resolution, but most times I use Ai to make enlargements, b/c regardless of how I shoot, I'm not saving large jpegs, and I'm for sure not saving raw files anymore. I think saving raw files is a waste of space.
@dct124 if you are editing images then trying to mess around with Jpegs is absolutely pointless. You may as well just edit the raw file and have zero change of the image being degraded as a result of editing.
@@Johnny641 LR fixed the degradation problem when it was first released years ago by using a virtual file for edits.
I also already said, Raw is for heavy editing.
Those that need it, are niche shooters that require heavy cropping or the half stop of highlight recovery it has over jpeg. You're not doing photo manipulation (graphic design) in RAW, you're doing it in TIFF or JPEG and the vast majority of graphic artists use jpeg.
The only benefit to raw is recovering maybe a 1/3 to 1/2 stop of overexposure in comparison to jpeg. That shouldn't even occur if you're shooting -1 or -2.
The whole WB argument is a myth imo, b/c PS killed that argument nearly 20yrs ago. The eye dropper method in my experience is way more accurate than using the RGB sliders raw provided if I need WB correction. If you want to avoid degradation in PS, you edit in 32-bit, or TIFF.
To each his own. I've been shooting jpeg a very long time and probably only needed raw 0.5% of my photography career. Shooters I used to know shot jpeg for weddings, and sports. They shot on the Nikon D3, D3s, D4, D600, D750, and D800 that I can recall. Honestly I can't say it's the same experience across brands, but Nikon handles files way better than other brands. I think everyone has caught up at this point. Fuji was always good.
Still to this day the Olympics are shot in and edited in JPEG. All those big ads since they switched to digital come from jpegs not raw.
Lastly, technology has advanced so if I absolutely need raw and didn't shoot raw+jpeg, I can put it in Topaz Raw. When it comes to ai, there's a high end photographer who did an experiment comparing Ai to his Hasselblad and I'm telling you, you don't need Raw.
If you get the chance to search PixImperfect insane jpeg overexposure recovery video from some years ago, he went beyond even what raw files can do on a jpeg. Jpegs have a lot of data, it's just how you get access to it.
You said "Andromeda Galaxy" and I was expecting a speck of some kind. The image that popped up was spectacular!!! Blew my mind!!
If you think normal photography is expensive, Astro photography is on a whole different level.
Did Fro get upset with your previous title, i think i remember seeing his name mentioned???? hahaha I bet you're making Ken Rockwell happy.
Another great video, thank you so much. I've always shot JPEG and nothing else, ever since getting my first digital camera in 2004. It seems crazy to judge people for not shooting RAW, as a few RUclipsrs out there do. Surely it's the pictures that matter. I'm happy with mine and love the idea of letting the camera do the work for me, subject to some input from me (R8, Z50).
My issue with JPGs: The two AI denoise tools I find _indespensible_ only operate on raw images. DXO PureRaw3/4 & LRC's Denoise AI.
Not kidding. Shooting ISO 6400 & making it look like 400 is more useful than my 50 years of darkroom magic. Allows shooting fast action, in lower light, with slower lenses (zooms). Usually not all at the same time (there ARE limits) but I'm producing results no competitor gets.
Pry my cold dead fingers off these tools. If/when they work on JPGs I'll change my tune.
I confess I clicked mostly because of Jared Polin hahaha good bait Simon! ;) RAW shooter here, but I'm sure many people fully benefit from shooting Jpeg, especially those who need to deliver photos super fast. I will definitely experiment CRAW from now on: I didn't think of it as an option, but if you don't see any difference on 45mp R5, I suspect it will be the same on my R6!
Anyway, like everything else on your channel, I appreciate that your content does not focus on ''purist'' crap like ''shooting Jpeg or APS-C is for amateurs'', etc... You give the neutral pros and cons and let the people decide what works best for them. At the end of the day, 99% of published photos are in Jpeg!
Good video and great channel: could be renamed Simonknowsbestphoto ;)
Don't ask if we want astrophotography video. WE WANT all the videos possible from you ! You really help my photography (wildlife mostly). I don't think there is better photography source on youtube than your channel. Thanks a lot, keep up the video !!!! (Désolé pour mon anglais car je suis du Québec 🙂)
Noted, et merci!
I 99.9% shoot in jpeg. I am capturing memories with my wife and family. We travel 6 months a year taking pictures and sharing them on Facebook. I prefer taking pictures on my Sony A74 with 28-200 f2.8 lens as I able to get shoots much easier than with a cell phone.
Look, in my opinion, both have pros and cons. Im a beginer photographer, so i make mistakes and i use darktable to fix it, which is better to do in RAW than Jpeg. However, RAW takes an unholy amount of storage, so it depends on your situation and your available space. Fro isnt really wrong, but neither r u
I did this exact same independent study on my own after upgrading from the Sony A6500 to the Sony A7IV. After a few weeks I switched completely over to Sony's Compressed RAW format as well. Just like you said 99% of the quality with half the file size.
Great video, & simplified explanations of the various modes. I'm a senior, hobby photographer that shoots primarily in JPEG & I try very hard to get it right in the camera. Post usually requires a minor tweak in exposure & I'm happy with that . I will try compressed though, but I'm not one to spend a lot of time tweaking my photos. Fujis tend to underexpose so that's easy to compensate for when composing the shot.
I shoot jpeg. Go ahead, judge me. 😆 It’s easier for me because I only use my phone for editing.
I shoot only RAW, but I might give compressed RAW a try. Color temperature is my bigger concern, more than exposure and I 'd rather tackle it in Lightroom rather in camera.
I started doing color separations using analog methods at National Geographic in the mid 1970s and managed the transition to digital for color separation starting in the 1980s with Hell Scanners and transparencies and in the early 1990s with first digital cameras and versions of Photoshop which didn’t have any color management until around version three.
JPEG encoding actually takes the RGB pixel data and converts it to Lab color coordinates before compressing it. The reduction in file sizes comes from averaging blocks of pixels and from the fact that in Lab format the yellow-blue and magenta-green channels are very flat so you can average very large blocks of them with relatively less loss of image fidelity vs. trying to average blocks of RGB data.
In the early days of digital bit depth of files was a big issue because of banding which would occur in subtle gradations of tone such as skies. The more bit depth at capture and pixel density per square inch increased the less and less those things became a factor.
Another huge difference with the current generation of mirrorless sensors camera is that exposure control at capture is much better meaning few times extreme measures are needed to optimize exposure when editing.
So yes, with today’s cameras one can do as well as raw by shooting JPEG. But at the same time the processors are so fast and CF Cards so fast and high capacity and low cost per MB compared to ten or twenty years ago there isn’t any real burden shooting RAW unless trying to maximize frame per second when shooting.
The differences time-wise editing RAW vs JPEG isn’t that significant especially if the user is not aware of how to do things like blending channels to pull out detail in RAW files in Lab format that can’t be done in RGB format. Read books by Dan Margulis and try some of the techniques he teaches as I did and you’ll better appreciate the nuances of shooting and editing in RAW and what happens differently “under the hood” in the editing software with the different file types.
I agree.
My low-range D3500 really benefits from shooting jpeg on bursts, since it can spit 20 to 30 images in a tow, but it will overflow its buffer after 5 RAWs.
In practical terms, that is the only moment where choosing one or the other format really changes the capabilities of my camera.
The other deciding factor is if I fancy editing the photos or not.
Current editing software can't recreate discarded information, but it still allows a lot of editing flexibility even on jpegs.
I have heard from some pro sports photographers they use JPEG. They need to upload their pictures quickly without the extra fiddling RAW requires.
yup!
Astrophotography with telescope: YES YES YES!!!! I need this video!!!
RAW is cumbersome and if you're not a Professional photographer, it's 10X more cumbersome...I used to shoot RAW years back, but as jPegs have evolved overtime, I'm fine with the cons of jpeg vs the hassle of RAW
No it's not.
Raw is not cumbersome, and I’m not a professional.
On my FujiFilm GFX 50s II it gives me these choices, SUPER FINE (minimum compression), FINE (low compression), or NORMAL (high compression) to record JPEG images.
Really informative! Recently I've been shooting JPEG for events to simplify my workflow for fast-paced work, but I think I may give cRAW a try for an event I'm working this weekend and see how it turns out. I always saw cRAW as a bit of a pointless halfway house, but your video clearly shows that it isn't.
I'd suggest not only using JPEG but using it in Medium size settings. Avoid the Largest setting, as you likely won't print something as large as A3 anyway. The difference between Medium and Largest settings is noticeable only when pixel-peeping. Using the Medium (twice as small) JPEG setting does not mean you are effectively using a smaller sensor with fewer pixels. That's a misconception. The entire sensor is used for capture, and then the image is downscaled with proper filtering. For pixel-peepers out there, such files are much more pleasant to scrutinize because they have fewer visible artifacts and appear to be higher quality compared to pixel-peeping the largest file. Because in Largest, you often see more noise, more debayering artifacts, more color fringes, and more consequences of poor focusing, but anyway these don't transfer to prints unless you crop and enlarge to a non-practical size.
Even Small size is more than sufficient for online posting and produces excellent 5x7" prints with generous room for cropping.
Skip RAW. Minor corrections can be made in JPEGs, while the need for significant corrections (such as pulling too much from shadows or significantly shifting the white balance) indicates poor shooting. Adjust the in-camera picture settings (saturation, sharpness, contrast, ALO/ADL) to your preference and create a few profiles for different scenarios. This will save you time in the future. Use the built-in HDR (multi-shot) mode in complex cases. Use a real gradient filter for skies when possible, this is much better than underexposing and pulling out shadows.
Focus on using light effectively to enhance your photos rather than relying on post-editing. In other words, stop shooting in RAW and break free from the photo-editing obsession. Your photos will improve. JPEG also often offers the advantage of an infinite buffer when shooting bursts. HEIF files save space better than JPEG with comparable quality, but they lack widespread software support, so JPEG is still the best choice.
If you understand why you need RAW files, go ahead. But if you're just starting out and want to emulate "professional photographers", you'll only end up wasting time.
Hi Simon. To appreciate HEIF you need that your hardware and software support it. It is not only about having10-bit vs the 8-bit of JPEG. It is also that the HEIF (HDR) pictures use a much wider dynamic range that JPEG (SDR). That is where the hardware comes in. A standard display, as they exist since the '90s, have about 500-600 nits of luminosity. The whole digital imagery pipeline was built around that and that is what JPEG is designed for. So the image is stored in a way that assumes an SDR display. On the other hand, as Canon save the HEIF images in a .HIF file, the dynamic range is extended to support a display with 1600nits of luminosity, the PQ standard, that is much much brighter. That is the HDR standard, or HDR PQ for Canon. (do not confuse the classic meaning of HDR in photography i.e bracketing shots to work around the limited dynamic range of the sensor or rather bring it within SDR, this has NOTHING to do with the HDR display technology and is targeting old tech SDR displays). So if your display is a true HDR display (the 12.9in iPad Pro only, some high end iPhone Pro, some XDR MacBook Pro, etc), then if the software supports HDR then you will see the picture in true HDR. If your display and software is not true HDR some conversion happen in the background to show the picture in SDR and this is usually poorly done. But with true HDR hardware it is quite amazing looking a picture of a sunrise, sunset, a city scape at night with lights, etc. The bright object are shining like in real life. Final note, if you capture a HIF picture and want to look at it on a SDR display, you need to first properly convert it to SDR. The tone curves must be mapped intelligently or else poor images quality results.
All in all, SDR display technology is so old and we are so used to it, it is hard to move to HDR. The movie industry is moving quickly. The photo industry, which is so conservative, goes much slower. But it will get there. The one piece that cannot move to HDR is printing, which by nature is a very low dynamic range medium. It produces no luminosity at all being passive. Our brain guess what is bright. Print will never be able to show HDR images. That is certainly something holding back photography and cinematography is not bothered with that, obviously.
As you can guess I have tested HEIF and I love it for pictures with a bright lights part of the image (sun, stars, artificial lights, etc). It creates images that JPEG cannot show and never will. A final note it is easy to created a HIEF image from a RAW file, the RAW already contain all the required information, The software essentially render to an HDR tone curve instead of the SDR tone curve. Latest versions of photo editing softwares can do that. I use Photomator, but Lightroom and others can do it as well. So from RAW you can produce HIF or JPEG images. From HIF you can also produce a JPEG. You cannot however produce a HIF from a JPEG, the information required is simply not there. Cheers.
HEIF/HEIC will be a thing when all screens we use work on 4k with HDR.
Until then, it will remain a format very few people will even be able to benefit from.
Just like how laserdisks were awesome, but never took off because too few people bought into the hardware needed to enjoy its quality.
@@lesath7883 I agree. But movie watching is already driving the deployment of HDR displays and photography will then benefit from it. HDR screen are no more expensive, I bought a 28in 4K HDR Samsung display for CAD$300. As people replace their existing screens it will happen I think but that takes years obviously.
Great information. The Ipad pro display is insane (in a very good way). Thanks
@@cristibaluta It is just that you are used to see bright spots as dull white. In real life there are object that project lights, not simply being passive white. When those are in your shots HEIF/HDR really shine. But if your shot only include indirect lighting then HEIF add little. Night time photos, sunrise or sunset, really pop when using the much expanded dynamic range of HEIC/HIF/HDR.
Froknowsphoto promised me to shave his head bald, if you can prove JPG is better than RAW - ha.. ha.. _(on a serious note: I've seen some astonishing things, what you can do with RAW and darktable, which weren't possible on JPG)_
I like shooting both raw and jpg on separate sd cards. Its faster for me to review the jpegs cause they load faster . Sometimes i use the jpeg as is tbh
Hi Simon, thanks for comparing of formats, cool video.
I'll keep using RAW because I hate idea of editing JPEGs :) not only due highlights clipping.
So, as Fro says: I shoot RAW :)
Maybe, one day, I will give CRAW opportunity to show its qualities :)
Great title LOL! As a casual photographer I do mild editing so I shoot jpeg. I've never turned it into a demanding career so I never needed it. Your lessons have improved my digital photography that I frame as gifts for friends and family 16x20 max and they look great. It makes me happy to share my art as you share your knowledge. Thank you Simon
Except for technical photography and High-End Weddings, I always shoot JPG, and nobody can see it, not even my own photography buddies... which is just proving the point, that .... with correct exposure, its JPG all the way..... 😂
Yes please astro photography
100% RAW (as I do a lot of processing).....my 5D and 7D do not have these new formats.....perhaps my next camera will have that option.....thanks for the information... 🙂
As far as file size, website, sharing images, etc., I shoot RAW, then export most images as sRGB JPEG, and get to where you are, but I retain the file depth that works well in my post processing workflow for my landscape, and nightscape photography. For everyday shots, JPEG is undoubtedly a faster workflow.
Every month or 2, a youtuber claims CRAW is a s good as RAW. News flash - it isnt.
C = Compressed, and is not lossless.
My R5 dynamic range drops from 14bit to 12bit when switching from RAW to CRAW,.thus, recovering highlights might be impossible sometimes just because you shot in CRAW.
But the biggest isssue for me is denoising higher isos, eg iso 6400, 12800 & 25600.
On my R5, I can usually cleanly denoise RAW files@ 6400, with 12800 being difficult, but bot impossible (masking, Topaz, etc) and iso 25600 possible, but not perfect.
Bur, I during my extensive testing of CRAW, I found denoising iso12800, ir even iso 6400 effectively, I found vertually impossible - there was a lot of artifacts. ISO25600 could not be denoised effctively for my taste.
This is to be expected. The compression has to come from somewhere, and CRAW clearly is smearing the noise pixels - just like a jpeg does. This means the fine grained noise structure found in RAW has turned in to larger blotchy noise that is difficult (or enven impossible) to process out.
Beware,
I shoot CRAW where there is good light. This risk is however, that CRAW is inadvertanly left on when RAW is needed, ie @ high isos, or high DR.
IF you have a fast card, then just shoot RAW all the time. Night time, weddings, dark areas - shoot raw. My CFEXB card does not limit my shooting of RAW + high quality jpeg. If you are using a slower SD card, then CRAW might be a good option for you when shooting action.
Why such high isos you say ? Last weekend, shooting @ 500mm, f9 (for the dof) 2000th sec (moving boat and fast critters) in a dark baxk water, nealry all my shots were iso12800. Iso12800 can be denoised from a RAW, but... hit and miss denoising (I say not prectical) from a CRAW.
I shoot high isos all the time too. iso 12800, bring it on.
Your view makes a lot of sense, and I don't think that Froknow would be angry. Basically, everyone shoots RAW and almost everyone publishes their final images in JPEG. Something somewhere performs the conversion, in the process throwing away a lot of the initial data. You can have your camera's computer chip do the whole conversion or run the raw image through a processor like Lightroom. Lightroom gives you a lot more control and gives you more time to make artistic decisions. You can cut the time down by using presets, either yours or someone else's. Your choice. The problems crop up when you try to modify a JPEG, since you've then thrown away almost all of the data that would have helped you make the modification.
No, not everyone shoots RAW. Best way is to shoot RAW + JPeg
@@georgedavall9449 , sorry if I was unclear. Basically every digital camera shoots raw images. JPEG is a highly compressed form that must be calculated by a computer somewhere. Even if you shoot JPEG only, you are using the computer that's in your camera. Many desktop photo editing programs accept RAW or JPEG as input. Giving such a program the RAW image means that many adjustments can be made before the RAW to JPEG step. This final step throws away a lot of data that is "no longer needed". So, do you want the computer chip in your camera to make all those decisions or do you want a crack at changing colors, how you do noise reduction and sharpening, and how you want to allocate the detail in the final image to highlights, midrange values, and shadows?
I certainly think that for many people JPEG+RAW is a good option.
@@stuartschaffner9744 Hi Stuart and thanks for the reply and clarification. There are a few cameras that do NOT have RAW capability. But I do agree with You, and I might add, that some advocate to shoot only in RAW, as some cameras like Nikon, have a small ‘Jpeg’ buried in the RAW file. So they argue there is no need to shoot RAW and JPeg. Obviously shooting in RAW is the best option if One desires the ultimate in editing and processing of images. Thanks for reply.
I shoot C-RAW + JPEG because I have a Fuji system and a Ricoh system and I want that sweet "film simulation" which make beautiful colours.
But I do want the RAW in case I want to go further with the picture. Best of both worlds.
And storage is really cheap to be fair, you don't need a 500 Mbps SD card except if you are a professional photographer doing sports/wildlife and want that 120 Fps burst.
The issue with photography is that it's stuck in 2005. PNG is a vastly superior format, compatible with any device, but never was used for some reason. No computational photography either and we begin to have AI in some high-end sensors. For that amount of money, this is disgusting, not gonna lie.
Unpopular take: I’ve never seen a Jared photo that I thought was anything special. However, Simon just drops these amazing photos so casually 😂
Agreed.
Totally agreed.❤
Jared is very much a classically trained hyper technical photographer. That doesn't mean his photos are bad, but they're often more digestible and "technically" superior. Especially when you consider that he shoots things like sports and portraits most of the time.
I agree too 😂, it’s crazy cuz I said it before I love he’s Chanel tho
I shoot RAW + JPEG but the JPEG is purely for redundancy in case my CFexpress card fails or becomes corrupted. I know it's highly unlikely to happen, but it's not a zero chance.
I am glad Simon spilling the beans. Jpeg photography has its place. For Raw I use compressed Raw of course as with my amount of photos taken, storage is an issue. Every now and then I go Jpeg-only which overall improves my photography as it is more fun to get things right in the photo than trying to save something in post.
Well presented information - thanks. I mainly shoot Sony and HEIF implementation is excellent there. I use it for sports photography and it is like having a very editable jpeg. Problem is Photo Mechanic is eliminated from the workflow because it crawls. Lightroom is good with HEIF. For everything else I have shot RAW since 2001. When I look back on some of my older work I am so happy I shot RAW: my post-processing and the software available have both greatly improved.
I started shooting in 1970 and made 1000’s of slides. To me JPEG’s are rather like shooting slides back in the day. I pretty much under exposed most of my images by ⅓ to ⅔ under. Hotspots or pure white areas were way worse than dark shadow areas. I’m going to try out compressed RAW on my Canon EOS R and Nikon Z7 and maybe even my GFX 50SII. I’m for sure going to shoot JPEG the next time I’m at the hydroplane races. My last boat race I took 4000+ images in 2 days. That was way too much processing. Thanks for the great comparison and all the useful info
But you know you have an Auto mode in Lightroom and most other image processing software? This does something similar than what your camera does when processing a JPEG, but with the difference, you still have the possibility to get more out of specific images. Yes, you will need more storage space, but storage is getting cheaper by the minute.
Excellent presentation! I’ve been thinking about making the switch from Rae to compressed Raw on my Nikon Z8! Now I’m convinced! Thanks so much!
I shoot RAW but I will give compressed RAW a try now. Thanks Simon, excellent video as always!
Honestly, editing RAW files in LR is quick and simple. Id rather as much data as possible. Even JPEGs will require littlest tweaks.
You cant beat RAW.
If you want JPEGs and either dont want to edit or struggle with it, get a Fuji
New thumbnails please😬
Interesting video Simon,
I recently replaced my 1DX ii with an R6 ii and I've used compressed raw exclusively as I heard that it's indistinguishable from raw.
The results are much superior to my old DSLR especially in low light and of course the AF and tracking are in a different class
Thanks
Noel from New Zealand
Gosh I’m glad this guy exists. I’m learning so much with every video. I can’t wait to try this experiment out. I’ve got so many raws stashed away that I never touch but was too afraid not to have.
Good luck!
I use lossless compressed RAW on Fuji and just do batch import into LR where I can apply Fuji color processing e.g. to Astia or Pro Neg Hi very easily. Can’t do that with JPEG. It’s simple. Storage is cheap. LR processing enables batch handlingof denoise and setting white and black points with incredible ability to bring out shadow details. RAW for me.
I love shooting raw ! Editing is just that much better
I wish JXL would gain some traction. It's an international standard improvement to JPG, but google doesn't like it because they think it threatens their browser monopoly. A key advantage of JXL over HEIF or google's webp is that it can transfer to and from JPG without any further loss. Usually decompressing a lossy image (JPG and etc) and recompressing it loses more information again, but JPG to JXL or back doesn't incur further loss somehow.
I shoot RAW + JPEG because storage is dirt cheap and it's nice having the option to either instantly share the image or process it with more latitude.
Try shooting video and saying that 😅
@@coin777 I do shoot video, actually I'm a video first photographer. I'll repeat: I shoot in the maximum bitrate my camera allows because storage is DIRT CHEAP and there's no use in reducing the quality of your files.
@@definingslawek4731 Raw files can fill up a memory card fast and CF express cards are super expensive. Besides that most cameras shoot a higher fps with compressed raw. Mine is 50% faster.
@@definingslawek4731 I mean if you have the money. For me 10gb per minute of footage is quite a lot. I need hundreds of TB of storage for that. That's thousands of dollars for hard drives. End even more if I make a backup. And multiply it by 3 if you want ssd
@@cristibaluta Double dirt cheap is still dirt cheap, storage is no longer and hasn’t been a problem for photographers and filmmakers for a decade now.
You either have cheap gear and you probably don’t actually make many files so you don’t need much storage or you have gear so expensive that a 100 dollar 4TB hard drive is nothing to you.
Are you telling me you’re an edge case who simultaneously created 4+ terabytes a year but also has no money and cheap gear?
Nobody uses RAW files on their websites. The HTML Img tag just won't show RAW files so you would need to convert to JPG/PNG/... no matter what. In those days of cheap and ample storage I don't see storing RAW in card or hard drives as being an issue.It's down to personal preference when it comes to file type for storage and I agree with you it really does not matter which type you use (in normal exposure) unless one pixel peeps on large images and then one really needs to get a life 😄. Your explanation however, are super clear and always welcome. Au top le Simon comme d'habitude :)
I have been shooting CRAW since I had the setting available. I have never seen an issue. I use this on my R5 and R7.
A friend of mine was complaining about all the time it was taking him to process his images from his son's sporting events. He was shooting RAW. I asked why. He said because he saw online he needed to. I suggested he shot in JPEG for a while to see what he thought. He realized that for his expectations and needs that JPEG worked great. It saved him a ton of time that could be better spent doing other things, like playing with his son.
When i come across a similar situation i say this: when you take a photo the image is actually raw, but instead of you doing the work to get it to look good, the camera can do it for you and save you time
Another home run. You’ve become the Barry Bonds of photography videos on RUclips!
I shot in JPG for years and years, but I recently switched to RAW. I always post-process, and I have several programs that read the format. If I had the choice of compressed RAW, I'd probably switch to that. Until I can afford to upgrade my camera, RAW it is.
I've run into one problem with compressed RAW which is a real issue for me. My workflow - which I don't want to change - starts with culling in Photomechanic. I photograph wildlife so culling is often a big job and Photomechanic is the software I've settled on to make it as quick as possible. 99 per cent of my files are full RAW - but I sometimes use RAW Burst Mode on an R7, and this creates cRAW files which have to be extracted from a weird container file that Canon uses. Once extracted, the individual files are normal cRaw files to the best of my knowledge. These files do not render properly at all in Photomechanic and it's impossible to cull them. I have to import the files to Lightroom and cull them there - which is a real pain. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but cRAW files won't work for me in Photomechanic, which is a shame because there are plenty of times when I'd happily switch from full RAW.
I used to shoot both, but stopped using raw when it was eating up too much storage space and find my JPEGs are just as good for what I do.
I've never shot RAW, and do find the JPEGs adequate, so I appreciated your comment and experience.
Great video, I can't imagine shooting some types of work without JPG. For my backyard wildlife I shoot RAW because of that extra bit I can get. As an amateur photographer I find backyard shooting an efficient way to learn.
As an editing professional I've used many RAW conversion applications and RAW files from many different cameras and the RAW concerters all, with the applications publishers default settings used will preview the same RAW file differently.
The thing I see is while the RAW converters will allow highlight recovery better than JPG files the RAW files blow out too. The RAW file does not buy you a great deal of head room in the highlight area as most think. In the dark ares there is more room for mistakes. In either case the RAW applications many times provide better tools for adjusting the extremes.
Training myself for the varied editing techniques for the different ISOs to reduce ISO noise is an interesting challenge.
I shoot raw + jpeg but I make too many mistakes and have been surprised by even some of my worst shots, I’ve been able to edit and salvage them
YESS i love taking my RAW file and using every one of those MBs lol! Zooming in 10 times and dragging every slider from left to right, feels like you have more control
Horses for courses.
I use JPEG for 90% of my photo's but if I think a scene is a bit too tricky I shoot RAW+JPEG then when I get home I check the JPEG. If it's Ok, I delete the RAW file. If it's not then I delete the JPEG.
For the most part JPEG gets it right and even then you can still do a lot with a JPEG file using free software.
As someone said earlier. I want my camera to take the photo's. I don't want to spend hours in front of a PC creating them.
What a contrast from the so called Pros! I love it. Thanks Simon!
Bo
Been shooting CRaw ever since I got my R7. Amazing image format considering it's near identical to RAW for half the file size: 15MB for a 32.5MP shot!
I always shoot compressed RAW because I do want to always process my images, especially with evening street photography to get a more filmic look. And the file size is so much more easier on my storage.
I only use JPEG for that moment I need to share the photos directly without the ability to process at all. Which was twice now.
Please more of these kinds of videos. We don't seem to have as many of these, or at least not as apparent as they need to fight 'how to make your images sharper' videos.
This one as well as the image profile/picture style video were just amazing and eye opening.
Hi Simon, I have an R5 and for the least 1.5 year, I have been using the Compressed Raw. I see no difference, unless it is a very under-exposed shot. One day, doing some test I forgot to put it back in Raw and shot Jpeg, I was so surprised by the result that I was questioning myself if I should use it more often. Tried HEIF, not worth it. Keep it up, great to the point videos and just long enough.
hahaha hilarious topic title,...i rarely shoot raw
great video! Some peopl dont want to edit, so I tell them to use RAW+JPEG. About the CRAW it surprised me, since I couldnt find the difference with RAW in my Canon R7
i would love to see a video where you actually go out into the field and take photos, it would be a good break from your recent, unoriginal video styles.
His channel is very informative. But since you left that comment I’ll add this, how about you start your own channel about photography and post videos so we can see your original and very educational videos.
I discuss that in my end-of year video. they do 1/10th as well as educational, and twice as long to make.
i just shot an entire weekend of racing last week on CRAW, didnt notice a difference besides having a bigger buffer and more storage space. from now on itll be what i use for everything besides concerts, theres too much going on with lights smoke machines and what not in live music so RAW its the best option in that case
Summary - If you can nail your camera settings and exposure, shoot jpeg. If you have any doubts or are pushing the extremes shoot RAW.
I shoot RAW. 😉
I would shoot CRAW if I had it but my a bit older camera only has RAW and so I shoot that.
Since I shoot APSC and 95% handheld noise and exposure are a problem in difficult scenes especially in the dark.
Raw saved me so man photos.
I am really looking forward to HEIF beeing a mature format.
It will take some years but it can deliver way higher quality pictures with lower size compared to JPG.
JPG was fantastic and a milestone but it is old now and it shows.
Hey….Ive seen some of you milkyway photos…..I love them….so pretty ang inviting……and didnt know those were yours! Neat!
I think JPG is closer to the experience of the average photographer when only film existed. Less creative control-no darkroom skills. RAW and photoshop (after it became affordable) came along and opened a broader world of creative control to weekend shooters. Shooting JPG for a while might help to hone some forgotten skills that lead to better in-camera results.
I shoot both jpeg & (compressed)raw, but 80% of the time, my jpeg is sufficient for my usage. I have tested heif & like it, but (as you noted) it’s not ready due to weak support in post processing tools.
I shoot lossless compressed with my Nikons. From an engineering perspective, always capture the best data you can as you loose fidelity when using image processing algorithms. Also remember that even better monitors are 10 bit AdobeRGB. The monitor itself reduces the image data, but some printers, like my Canon pro 1000 may actually print better than you can see on a monitor.
So why not just export your raw files to jpeg to share them when you're done processing them? Lightroom allows you to set many of these in-camera jpeg profiles to your raw files. Also, storage cost isn't really an issue anymore, so it doesn't feel like a compelling reason to pick jpeg over raw.
To be fair though, I think there are compelling reasons to pick jpeg:
1) Knowing how to get the exposure right in camera as opposed to leaning on post-processing.
2) Less time spent of post-processing your images and more time sharing and printing them.
Very interesting video. Good to see you going in "to bat" for JPEG in certain situations or for ease of sharing. However I suspect you may have some purists looking for your head Simon! Like others below I tend to shoot in RAW + Jpeg but really only access the RAW files when I have shot a special landscape or trying to lift the impact of a good wildlife shot when the effort of a bit of editing time does pay off.
Would it make sense to shoot jpeg in an exposure comparison of -1/4 or -1/2 stop? To protect over saturation
Yup, for sure when the risk is there.
I shoot raw and jpeg on my 7dmkii. At 20mp the files are not unmanageable and they have a saved a few shots for me that jpeg did not capture well. When I review them on the computer I use the jpeg version most of the time but like having raw to fall back on. Wish I had CRAW but my camera is a little old lol.
I have some scans that i saved in JPEG 2000 format, using a Photoshop plugin. I hope i can still open them. 😉 (this was about 20 years ago)
As a beginner i shoot RAW... Make mistakes and as I'm editing the photo remembering the shot. Then working out how it would have been better. Jpeg Isn't bad. But i like the control raw gives
@12:30 If people do such a test, they would inevitably end up shooting RAW - i.e. RAW has more latitude, like doh. Hence people all over the planet proudly state how they only shoot RAW.
However, modern mirrorless allow one to see what they are shooting before they click. A lot of the time a jpeg is absolutely fine - and the part that needs saying is, it takes less time to complete the image - sometimes no work is necessary at all!
The same cannot be said for RAW.
Since I rarely need high speed shots where the buffer is an issue, I shoot in RAW+JPG mode, so I get both. To me, the RAW version is just a backup, in case something went wrong. If all goes well, I delete the RAW files and save the space.
As of right now i cant shoot in raw. I just got my first camera (canon r10) and i dont have a laptop yet. I've been uploading my photos onto my pixel 8 pro but my phone can't upload the raw files for some reason. Even though i can take raw photos on my phone.
Shooting jpeg in S (small) format is useful if you need to shoot and upload as fast as humanly possible in tricky/slow connection environments. I.e. photojournalism. If you have time to download into a computer and can afford the one minute for the software to auto-process then please stick to raw as it can save you when you need to tweak those highlights or change the white balance. I don't worry about image size for storage: Hard disk drives are nowhere as pricy as they used to be and I don't shoot a thousand frames every day.