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 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Thank you Simon. This is a revelation. We are portrait/headshot/pet photographers, sometimes all three are combined in one client session. Lighting is controlled, making shadow noise and blown highlights a non-issue. I am switching my R5 settings to compressed RAW.
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.
I respect your opinion and watch all of your videos. The choice of format is always a personal choice. I only shoot raw and have seen the benefits of having all the data available for post-processing. I added a NAS system this year, and it won't run out of storage for years, even if I keep all of my raw images. My processing and storage methods are best for me. They are not for everyone. Concerning compressed raw, I am skeptical. There may be some unknown drawbacks, but I'll let others discover those before I downshift.
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 ;)
Wow you are a natural teacher, explaining this topic in an easy-to-follow manner without being boring at all. I'm so happy I found your channel, I'm subscribing immediately.
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 shoot 99% en RAW, because I like to take my time to get the most of the details. JPEG is doable with some limitations but most photojournalists use it specially in sports or impromptu events that have urgency to be delivered.
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.
Hi, Simon I shoot both file formats in the highest size and because harddrive storage is inexpensive it makes sense to have both so any differences are covered for great photos.Shoot both and save them without regrets.
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.
Simon, that was the BEST video on Raw vs JPEG I've seen and I've watched many. Also that was the BEST Squarespace ad I've ever seen and I've seen Countless of those. Nice job. 👌
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.
Great video, Simon! You have a gift of teaching. Another reason to consider the smaller size of compressed RAW (C-RAW) is for cloud storage (say, for those using Adobe’s Lightroom cloud storage).
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.
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.
Thanks a lot Simon! You are an expert in explaining complicated matters so it’s easy to understand even for amateurs. And I’d love to see a video on shooting with a telescope. I got all the gears for shooting myself, but the physical dimensions makes impossible to focus my camera.
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.
This is an amazing piece of content. Some people are born to be the educators - I believe you're one of them. At no point in this video was I bored or distracted. Couldn't stop watching. Informative and to the point. Great job.
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.
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.
@@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.
Good info Simon. With regard to your changing formats. Compression of any file or format will have decreased information....be it photo, video, audio etc. Most compression these days is so good it is not possible to either see or hear to the average person. Where compression can be an issue is when you need as much information...such as recovering an image. Your photos equal if not surpass many others. Personally if I had your portfolio and standing as one of the very best wildlife and nature photographers I would be reluctant to change from a fomat that had served me well.....or if it ain't broke dont fix it.
Thanks for being objecctive and not slamming jpegs like so many 'experts' do. I prefer using them and I've no problem with taking a moment to get the exposure right via the histogram. And one other point, all those extra bits of DR in Raw - they never make it onto the print.
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.
Thank you for this video. I just got an R8 and was excited to shoot in C-RAW until I heard that it was lossy and particularly that it reduced information in the blacks. I shoot in a lot of dark settings so being able to pull details out of the blacks is important. But your tests encouraged me to try some of my own, and I was seeing that whatever loss of detail due to the format was miniscule compared to the noise in that space. Even at extreme exposure changes (4-5 stops). So I'm now happily back on the C-RAW train!
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
Simon, you're such an asset. Your videos are the only ones I keep watching. You really know how to structure a topic and keep cranking out vital information at such a density and pace it's breathtaking. Your success on YT is well deserved. I hope you keep on making videos until everything has been said. :-) Unfortunately there is an inflation of purely technical comparisons or clownish entertainment - what a waste of time. This here is just experiences based, real world photography. Love it.
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 🙂)
Thank you for the information, I have often thought about using compressed radon my r5. I’m attending the 12 hours of Sebring soon and will give it a try
@@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?
Another super interesting topic! I've been shooting lossless compressed raw on my Nikons for over 10 years. However, I also save images as JPEG's as a way to critically assess my camera settings for the shot. I especially want to evaluate exposure and white balance during post processing, just to see if I could do better. To me, JPEG's are like shooting slide film was back in the day. I probably should note that I got my first serious camera in 1965, so I have shot a lot of slide film. A properly exposed positive image required more precision than negative films due to the lesser dynamic range of slide films.
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.
@@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.
Hello Simon! I love your channel and have been following along since the beginning. I would love to see a video about finding places to go for wildlife photography. I’ve improved my photography on the technical side so much recently, largely thanks to you, but I often find that the most difficult part can be finding animals to photograph in the first place! I think hearing your thoughts on where different types of animals like to be and when, as well as land access & not breaking rules, would be very helpful to a lot of folks. Cheers and thank you for sharing your knowledge!
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
Great presentation and I agree with you 100% My cameras don't have compressed RAW so I soot RAW+JPEG. About half of my photos are for family and friends of them at some event in which case JPEG is fine. For my artsy stuff I prefer RAW. I just don't bother switching the camera back and forth. For the family and friends photos it is easy enough to delete the RAW at post processing.
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
great tips Simon, for the last year or so on my z9 i use one cf express card to shoot raw, and jpeg on the other , its a great option to have a choice of both
I shoot RAW and JPEG. For the most part, I am very happy with the JPEGs that my Nikon Z8 and D810 produce. The reason why I shoot both is two fold: 1. I drop the RAW files in the CF card and the JPEGs to the SD card as they are smaller. 2. RAW files are handy when you need to adjust the image settings prior to cropping.
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
I always shoot in lossles RAW as it gives me so many more options in post. I export in jpeg. Your channel is great but so is Jared Polin’s ! You both do a great job and I don’t think he would be angry as you explain the differences
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.
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.
Oh man! i waited till the end of the vid just to see what you decided to shoot in and was pleasantly surprised when you decided CRAW. That is exactly what i shoot in and have been for some time. Absolutely great explanation on the different formats. Thanks you again for another great vid!
I shoot in dual Raw plus Jpeg. Raw still give more editing options and the recent addition of AI to Lightroom to reduce noise is very useful. I shoot in low light and the noise reduction is great (like inside a church where I cannot use a flash.
I've read a lot of online battles where people argue between different formats. Even though most of the time it doesn't matter people still stick with their ideas. I agree with you that it is the extremes of the range where there is some advantage to RAW. Also if the exposure of the original photo is off, or especially the white balance, you can recover better with the RAW file. I shoot raw + jpg and almost always use the jpg but if I need to for the reasons listed above I can always use the RAW file. I could benefit from a compressed raw but I don't think my cameras offer it. I have cameras from different eras so I need to go back and check the manuals.
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.
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.
Another brilliant and very useful video! I shoot in JPG+RAW so I have both with my OM System OM-1 cameras. the OM-1 produces excellent JPGs so for many uses I have very little post work to do, but I still have the RAW file for those shots which need work or have much greater potential.
Great video, great info and great pictures. The algorithm you described for jpeg compression is actually what is usually used for lossless raw. Jpeg uses a very complex mathematical decomposition based on FFT. What I didn't know is that jpeg tends to discard information on the bright and dark edges! Which makes sense, as humans we're not good at telling the difference in those regions.. Great stuff, many thanks!
I do both ,it gives more flexibility in post processing..I just make sure I got multiple SD cards with me when I go shooting.A video on your astro would be cool!
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
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 shoot raw+jpeg on my camera and on my phone. Most of my photos are for sharing thus jpeg and those that I print the raw image works the best. Using Darktable & Gimp for photo editing. Thanks for another great video !
What a lesson. What a great concept. Oh my head. 😂 In all seriousness I have shot raw since I bought my first dslr in 2004. But that was a whole nuther world. In my world, I do not delete files. Any files. But, like you sId, raw files, especially from my Nikon D850, can be a but big. When you begin to consider how many files you save over a period of a few years, and how much space you consume, it's easy to see how perhaps looking at compressed raw could be an option. Just one problem. Now I need to look into how to make that change. Awesome video!!
Canon R5 & R7: cRAW, because 1) File size is not the issue it used to be - storage is cheap, and computers can easily display RAW images e.g. Windows explorer 2) Flexibility in post-processing - rescuing some otherwise discard-worthy images 2) cRAW rather than RAW because I can't tell the difference, and, as you pointed out, easier on the camera's buffer.
My favourite genre s landscapes and I find shooting raw files suits me as I am very parsimonious about how many images I end up keeping so I don't spend that much time editing. However, I am slowly getting better with bird photography and might find JPEG preferable. In any case, I shoot raw+JPEG just for an in-camera quick check. Great comparison and it shows that it's important to keep abreast of technical developments and not to stick religiously to older methods of photography. Thank you Simon.
Hi Simon, I really found this video useful to me. I didn't know with JPEG files if you overexpose it's hard to recover. Great example with your buddy Owl, easy to understand and no information overload. I shoot NEF RAW + JPEG. Thanks Simon always learning small things that make a big difference in my photography. 😊
As usual, Simon, another home run. Thank you for sharing and cutting through the mud of all the settings and behind the scenes tech. You've sold me to try C-RAW and I'm heading out to try it today.
03:40 didn't know that the shutter method you use affects the quality of the file, can we get a more in depth explanation why there are less bits stored?
That was the best segue I have ever seen. To the point where I sighed in amazement, thinking you were gonna suggest using raw for the best quality and to show the photos at their best. Well done.
Started shooting RAW but clients required JPG's for smaller file size and reduced time to transfer. This is especially true when thousands of files from an event need to be transferred.
@@phillipbanes5484 Yes it is good for a small set of photos where you have time to do the editing but when you are photographing an event like a race, or a marathon, or a major PR job that needs photos as quickly as possible the best approach is get the photo right the first time and have everything needed baked into the custom JPEG profile for the client. Have it saved as a large, highly compressed JPEG for transmission to the client and on their end with Photoshop or Lightroom they can expand it out as needed.
Hi Simon, great video as always 👍 ... Yes, it would actually be nice to see some of your astrophotography work; the technique used while capturing the image and the post processing. You surely are aware of the total solar eclipse coming up in April (And planning to shoot it?). Let's hope for clear sky on the day! 🌞🌚🔭📷🤓
I may give craw a shot, but raw is my preference. If you don’t get jpeg right in the camera from an exposure and white balance perspective, it is not usually repairable, so not a format I would use. To be sure, if you are a pro I don’t think file size is an issue and pro’s usually use cameras with fast processors and large memory buffers allowing for very high bursts. And cameras are getting better and faster so it’s becoming less an issue. Editing on the other hand does require some work but honestly the most work is culling through the photos to decide which are keepers that you will edit.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
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
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.
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!
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.
What's so refreshing about your channel is that you don't follow the crowd but do your own real world analysis and explain the results. No agenda.
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!
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!
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.
One of the most useful photography channels without noise .
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Thank you Simon. Always the most thoughtful, instructive and focussed advice. Peerless.
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.
Thank you Simon. This is a revelation. We are portrait/headshot/pet photographers, sometimes all three are combined in one client session. Lighting is controlled, making shadow noise and blown highlights a non-issue. I am switching my R5 settings to compressed RAW.
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.
I respect your opinion and watch all of your videos. The choice of format is always a personal choice. I only shoot raw and have seen the benefits of having all the data available for post-processing. I added a NAS system this year, and it won't run out of storage for years, even if I keep all of my raw images. My processing and storage methods are best for me. They are not for everyone. Concerning compressed raw, I am skeptical. There may be some unknown drawbacks, but I'll let others discover those before I downshift.
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 ;)
Wow you are a natural teacher, explaining this topic in an easy-to-follow manner without being boring at all. I'm so happy I found your channel, I'm subscribing immediately.
thanks for the sub!
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 shoot 99% en RAW, because I like to take my time to get the most of the details. JPEG is doable with some limitations but most photojournalists use it specially in sports or impromptu events that have urgency to be delivered.
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.
Hi, Simon I shoot both file formats in the highest size and because harddrive storage is inexpensive it makes sense to have both so any differences are covered for great photos.Shoot both and save them without regrets.
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
Man - you are asking rhetorical questions like "Would you like to see how I do...?" - OF COURSE! Your experience is priceless! (And thanks for that!)
Astrophotography with telescope: YES YES YES!!!! I need this video!!!
Simon, that was the BEST video on Raw vs JPEG I've seen and I've watched many.
Also that was the BEST Squarespace ad I've ever seen and I've seen Countless of those.
Nice job. 👌
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.
Great video, Simon! You have a gift of teaching. Another reason to consider the smaller size of compressed RAW (C-RAW) is for cloud storage (say, for those using Adobe’s Lightroom cloud storage).
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.
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.
Thanks a lot Simon!
You are an expert in explaining complicated matters so it’s easy to understand even for amateurs. And I’d love to see a video on shooting with a telescope. I got all the gears for shooting myself, but the physical dimensions makes impossible to focus my camera.
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.
This is an amazing piece of content. Some people are born to be the educators - I believe you're one of them.
At no point in this video was I bored or distracted. Couldn't stop watching. Informative and to the point.
Great job.
Wow, thank you!
I love shooting raw ! Editing is just that much better
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.
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.
Good info Simon. With regard to your changing formats. Compression of any file or format will have decreased information....be it photo, video, audio etc. Most compression these days is so good it is not possible to either see or hear to the average person. Where compression can be an issue is when you need as much information...such as recovering an image. Your photos equal if not surpass many others. Personally if I had your portfolio and standing as one of the very best wildlife and nature photographers I would be reluctant to change from a fomat that had served me well.....or if it ain't broke dont fix it.
I shoot RAW but I will give compressed RAW a try now. Thanks Simon, excellent video as always!
Thanks for being objecctive and not slamming jpegs like so many 'experts' do. I prefer using them and I've no problem with taking a moment to get the exposure right via the histogram. And one other point, all those extra bits of DR in Raw - they never make it onto the print.
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.
Thank you for this video. I just got an R8 and was excited to shoot in C-RAW until I heard that it was lossy and particularly that it reduced information in the blacks. I shoot in a lot of dark settings so being able to pull details out of the blacks is important. But your tests encouraged me to try some of my own, and I was seeing that whatever loss of detail due to the format was miniscule compared to the noise in that space. Even at extreme exposure changes (4-5 stops). So I'm now happily back on the C-RAW train!
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
I'm a Fuji user, professional wedding photographer. JPGs are totally fine!! I often just edit the JPGs a little bit and hand over.
Simon, you're such an asset. Your videos are the only ones I keep watching. You really know how to structure a topic and keep cranking out vital information at such a density and pace it's breathtaking. Your success on YT is well deserved. I hope you keep on making videos until everything has been said. :-) Unfortunately there is an inflation of purely technical comparisons or clownish entertainment - what a waste of time. This here is just experiences based, real world photography. Love it.
I appreciate that!
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!
Thank you for the information, I have often thought about using compressed radon my r5. I’m attending the 12 hours of Sebring soon and will give it a try
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?
Another super interesting topic! I've been shooting lossless compressed raw on my Nikons for over 10 years. However, I also save images as JPEG's as a way to critically assess my camera settings for the shot. I especially want to evaluate exposure and white balance during post processing, just to see if I could do better. To me, JPEG's are like shooting slide film was back in the day. I probably should note that I got my first serious camera in 1965, so I have shot a lot of slide film. A properly exposed positive image required more precision than negative films due to the lesser dynamic range of slide films.
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 watched one of Simon’s videos a while back where he discussed this. I have been using c-raw since then. Great work Simon
Yes please astro photography
Hello Simon! I love your channel and have been following along since the beginning. I would love to see a video about finding places to go for wildlife photography. I’ve improved my photography on the technical side so much recently, largely thanks to you, but I often find that the most difficult part can be finding animals to photograph in the first place! I think hearing your thoughts on where different types of animals like to be and when, as well as land access & not breaking rules, would be very helpful to a lot of folks. Cheers and thank you for sharing your knowledge!
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!
Great presentation and I agree with you 100% My cameras don't have compressed RAW so I soot RAW+JPEG. About half of my photos are for family and friends of them at some event in which case JPEG is fine. For my artsy stuff I prefer RAW. I just don't bother switching the camera back and forth. For the family and friends photos it is easy enough to delete the RAW at post processing.
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
great tips Simon, for the last year or so on my z9 i use one cf express card to shoot raw, and jpeg on the other , its a great option to have a choice of both
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 shoot RAW and JPEG. For the most part, I am very happy with the JPEGs that my Nikon Z8 and D810 produce. The reason why I shoot both is two fold:
1. I drop the RAW files in the CF card and the JPEGs to the SD card as they are smaller.
2. RAW files are handy when you need to adjust the image settings prior to cropping.
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.
I always shoot in lossles RAW as it gives me so many more options in post. I export in jpeg. Your channel is great but so is Jared Polin’s ! You both do a great job and I don’t think he would be angry as you explain the differences
What a contrast from the so called Pros! I love it. Thanks Simon!
Bo
lol, love it! You and Jared are my two favorites. The friendly banter is fun.
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.
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.
New thumbnails please😬
Oh man! i waited till the end of the vid just to see what you decided to shoot in and was pleasantly surprised when you decided CRAW. That is exactly what i shoot in and have been for some time. Absolutely great explanation on the different formats. Thanks you again for another great vid!
I shoot in dual Raw plus Jpeg. Raw still give more editing options and the recent addition of AI to Lightroom to reduce noise is very useful. I shoot in low light and the noise reduction is great (like inside a church where I cannot use a flash.
hahaha hilarious topic title,...i rarely shoot raw
I've read a lot of online battles where people argue between different formats. Even though most of the time it doesn't matter people still stick with their ideas. I agree with you that it is the extremes of the range where there is some advantage to RAW. Also if the exposure of the original photo is off, or especially the white balance, you can recover better with the RAW file. I shoot raw + jpg and almost always use the jpg but if I need to for the reasons listed above I can always use the RAW file. I could benefit from a compressed raw but I don't think my cameras offer it. I have cameras from different eras so I need to go back and check the manuals.
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.
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.
Another brilliant and very useful video! I shoot in JPG+RAW so I have both with my OM System OM-1 cameras. the OM-1 produces excellent JPGs so for many uses I have very little post work to do, but I still have the RAW file for those shots which need work or have much greater potential.
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!
Great video, great info and great pictures. The algorithm you described for jpeg compression is actually what is usually used for lossless raw. Jpeg uses a very complex mathematical decomposition based on FFT. What I didn't know is that jpeg tends to discard information on the bright and dark edges! Which makes sense, as humans we're not good at telling the difference in those regions.. Great stuff, many thanks!
I do both ,it gives more flexibility in post processing..I just make sure I got multiple SD cards with me when I go shooting.A video on your astro would be cool!
Thank you so much Simon, I can't tell you how much I have been learning from your videos!
Glad you like them!
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
I have been wondering about the different levels of RAW recently. Very happy to learn this from you. Thanks again for the top quality info!
Great to hear!
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 shoot raw+jpeg on my camera and on my phone. Most of my photos are for sharing thus jpeg and those that I print the raw image works the best. Using Darktable & Gimp for photo editing. Thanks for another great video !
What a lesson. What a great concept. Oh my head. 😂 In all seriousness I have shot raw since I bought my first dslr in 2004. But that was a whole nuther world. In my world, I do not delete files. Any files. But, like you sId, raw files, especially from my Nikon D850, can be a but big. When you begin to consider how many files you save over a period of a few years, and how much space you consume, it's easy to see how perhaps looking at compressed raw could be an option. Just one problem. Now I need to look into how to make that change. Awesome video!!
Canon R5 & R7: cRAW, because 1) File size is not the issue it used to be - storage is cheap, and computers can easily display RAW images e.g. Windows explorer 2) Flexibility in post-processing - rescuing some otherwise discard-worthy images 2) cRAW rather than RAW because I can't tell the difference, and, as you pointed out, easier on the camera's buffer.
One of the best explanations of image format I have heard. Thanks Simon :)))
Glad you enjoyed it!
My favourite genre s landscapes and I find shooting raw files suits me as I am very parsimonious about how many images I end up keeping so I don't spend that much time editing. However, I am slowly getting better with bird photography and might find JPEG preferable. In any case, I shoot raw+JPEG just for an in-camera quick check.
Great comparison and it shows that it's important to keep abreast of technical developments and not to stick religiously to older methods of photography. Thank you Simon.
Thanks Simon. This is very useful information. I will definitely try compressed raw on my cameras.
Glad it was helpful!
another great video Simon
Thanks 👍
Hi Simon, I really found this video useful to me. I didn't know with JPEG files if you overexpose it's hard to recover. Great example with your buddy Owl, easy to understand and no information overload. I shoot NEF RAW + JPEG. Thanks Simon always learning small things that make a big difference in my photography. 😊
Thanks Simon ☺️
As usual, Simon, another home run. Thank you for sharing and cutting through the mud of all the settings and behind the scenes tech. You've sold me to try C-RAW and I'm heading out to try it today.
My pleasure!
03:40 didn't know that the shutter method you use affects the quality of the file, can we get a more in depth explanation why there are less bits stored?
That was the best segue I have ever seen. To the point where I sighed in amazement, thinking you were gonna suggest using raw for the best quality and to show the photos at their best. Well done.
Started shooting RAW but clients required JPG's for smaller file size and reduced time to transfer. This is especially true when thousands of files from an event need to be transferred.
@@phillipbanes5484 Yes it is good for a small set of photos where you have time to do the editing but when you are photographing an event like a race, or a marathon, or a major PR job that needs photos as quickly as possible the best approach is get the photo right the first time and have everything needed baked into the custom JPEG profile for the client. Have it saved as a large, highly compressed JPEG for transmission to the client and on their end with Photoshop or Lightroom they can expand it out as needed.
Hi Simon, great video as always 👍 ... Yes, it would actually be nice to see some of your astrophotography work; the technique used while capturing the image and the post processing. You surely are aware of the total solar eclipse coming up in April (And planning to shoot it?). Let's hope for clear sky on the day! 🌞🌚🔭📷🤓
I may give craw a shot, but raw is my preference. If you don’t get jpeg right in the camera from an exposure and white balance perspective, it is not usually repairable, so not a format I would use. To be sure, if you are a pro I don’t think file size is an issue and pro’s usually use cameras with fast processors and large memory buffers allowing for very high bursts. And cameras are getting better and faster so it’s becoming less an issue. Editing on the other hand does require some work but honestly the most work is culling through the photos to decide which are keepers that you will edit.