FUJIFILM - RAW vs JPEG
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2020
- In this video I discuss the two file types created by your camera, RAW & JPEG. I go over compression, bit depth & editing.
If you would like to support my channel, please use the link below to my PayPal account. I’m currently working on my online gallery and store, to generate funds for my channel. I will be offering digital downloads, prints and other merchandise. Thank you for your support.
www.paypal.me/JAPmedia
John Armstrong Photography
website: www.jap.co.za
instagram:
@japortrait
@japwedding
@japwildlife
#fujifilmxt4 #RAWvsJPEG #GFXfirmware
Thanks for your time
Thanks everyone for your time. Just to clarify, the three jpg and raw images I edited was to show dynamic range between files. The tone curve, colour and sharpening were all set to zero in camera settings. Obviously if you had setup correctly in camera and made the necessary adjustments on the tone curve, highlights and shadows, you would produce jpgs with far greater range. You would not be able to get the same adjustment range as found in post software with the raw, but you would get far better results with your jpgs. Cheers
The difference between lossless and compressed is that the latter allows for shorter buffering when taking photos in continuous mode, even when the files are almost the same size.
Fantastic tutorial. Great explanation on the difference between 8 and 14 bit depth. So glad I stumbled onto your videos.
Thank you for this great and clear editorial. I have shot analog for thirty years and kept digital away from me but after watching this video I feel like this is a fresh start. Thanks again.
This is the type of information I privilege.
We hear the explanation and see the practical application of the knowledge we hear, which is great for a better understanding. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
So peaceful the intro & photos
Extremely helpful and well explained...a great refresh course for me...Cheers and be safe!
Wonderful images! Thank you for doing these vids John. You are both a gifted teacher and photographer. Fuji - and Fuji shooters - are very fortunate to have you as an X Photographer.
Thanks so much Lyndon, I appreciate your kind words.
I'm so, so glad to discover your channel. Many thanks John for this such amazing explanation.
Thanks, John for your informative vlog, and the comments below have made me learn more about my camera and how to decide on what I like as well. Keep up the good job.😊👌
Good to know Ben, I appreciate your time.
The best video i have seen on this topic by far! Very well done! I have used photoshop and i can undrestand what you mean when you talk about pushing the image and having it fall aprat, yet i cant believe i did not consider this in my camera files!!! Its like i never knew what the benefits of raw really are! Thanks for the brilliant illustration!
Awesome Reza, good to hear. Thanks for your time.
i am watching from Indonesia.. Thank you so much Sir John for Instructing about Fuji Cameras.. I am a Novice and i just bought a Fujifilm X-A5 2 days ago...
Incredible video. Thank you for the in depth explanations!
Thank you Steve, glad I could help.
You are an Amazing World Class Camera Instructor..Bravo
Excellent explanation!!! Fujifilm is incredible and the chance that we have to "edit" file on the machine is really fantastic!! Excellent video!!
Thanks Victor, glad you enjoyed. Thanks for your time.
This by far the best video I have seen on this topic ! Very well done! @John, where you been hiding in last few years?....I am sure you will be gathering lot of followers in no time. Cheers
Thank you Asad, I appreciate it. Glad to hear it was helpful.
Great video. You deserve 100x more subscribers
Convincing! Thx!
Mate, I can see the passion you have for Photography, awesome, as a film shooter, now shooting the xpro2, I feel your passion.
Cheers Mick, I appreciate the comment. Glad to hear you are passionate about photography as well. Thanks for your time.
Highly educational! 👌🏼👌🏼
Cheers Daniel, glad you found it beneficial.
What an excellent explanation - thank you. I thought I understood color depths, but what you don't know, you don't know. Now I know.
Thank you Steven, glad I could help. I have another in the same series called RAW only, real eased last week, and one more releasing soon called Film Simulations. The three together paint an overall view of Fujifilms file options. Thanks for your time and support.
Excellent, mate.Thank you.
No problem David, thanks for your time.
Whenever raw vs jpg debate pops up in any photography forum it seems that no debate can even happen. Raw shooters think that anyone who shoots jpg are just plain wrong. The same goes for jpg shooters who think you must be crazy shooting raw. You explained the benefits of both formats well without degrading someone who just wants to shoot jpg. I also follow Dan Bailey, another wonderful teacher who likes to shoot jpg.
I love the Fuji simulates and like to modify them to my taste. I think one of your keys points is "what are you going to do with the photo"? If your are not planning on printing anything then jpg is fine. Your examples showed in extreme conditions, (which can be often) yes raw is the way to go. If I'm shooting in those conditions I switch to raw + jpg but in everyday shooting, I mostly shoot jpg. The dynamic range at lower ISO has really changed the way you photograph. It's really amazing how much information can be pulled and pushed. Thanks for a very informative video with great examples that shows there is room for both types of shooters to co-exist.
Hi Mark,
Yeah I also like the FujiFilm info and videos Dan Bailey produces as I indicated here before. I wonder if you are familiar with the Ritchey Roesch blogpost on his FujiFilm recipes. If not check it out here: fujixweekly.com/recipes/
Cheers Mark, thanks for sharing, good points.
Well, that was an extensive explanation. I am a Fuji shooter so glad to have finally found you. I appreciate all your time and work and knowledge that you are sharing . Crazy, but my Fuji XT four does not give me the option of only raw. Maybe I haven’t updated the software? I’ve been playing around with blend mode and wanted my final blended image to be a raw file- currently it is only a jpeg. I was hoping I could work around it and just shoot only raw but again not offered.!? If you happen to read this and have an answer would be happy to hear. Thanks again.
Thanks for your technical information about bits, you forgot something that is the use of Gnd filters or any type of physical filters that can preserve highlights in jpg. I shoot normally in raw + jpg but I use filters, and sometimes I use the sooc jpg.
Today is the day when I understood bits
A bit deep, but not too with respect to color bit depth. Very helpful. I do shoot RAW + JPEG and work with RAW 99% of the time. Thank you for addressing the "get it right in camera" Excellent explanation. I can now relax and know that I mostly shoot to edit, but can also be comfortable if I just want to shoot to capture an event or moment. Fairly new to your channel, excellent content. And, I am an avid Fuji shooter. Thanks for your time.
Thanks Ron, I appreciate your time and comment, glad I could help. A bit deep, very good!
Hey, John. I now understand bit depth. Good on you. After watching this video, surprised that you don’t use Capture One. Many thanks.
Good to know Christopher, glad it was beneficial. I have briefly looked into capture 1, and I should consider it, considering the good results for Fujifilm files, but I have so much invested in adobe and thousands of jobs cataloged, that thought of the change over is holding me back. Thanks for your time.
Regarding exposing correctly in camera. Photography is an art form and there’s nothing like an objectively correct exposure. You sometimes want the possibility to transform the image in post to express what you want. And sometimes you don’t. You are perfectly happy with the camera produced jpgs. Especially with Fujifilm.
What a lovely video. I’m going through a dark place at the moment but that cheered me up. Thanks
Hey David, I’m glad to hear you enjoyed the video and it lifted your spirits, I appreciate your time and I hope things improve your side, God bless.
Super and instructive post, John; love the opening footage and stills - sea otters, harbor sights, nailed focus on gull eye! 👍 Points well made and illustrated. “Shoot to edit” sums it up well - far better than “ETTR”, etc. LCD’s can indeed mislead. Spot on bit depth explanation, and “so what” factor, too. YT makes it difficult to notice banding, though. Do raw processors effectively “unzip” compressed raw files (or even recognize them as such) when manipulating the file data? Don’t editors like LR also display embedded JPEGs - e.g., in LR library previews? As to highlight and shadow recovery, ever try Capture 1 - said to excel at that ability? BTW, say “hi” to Cody😁.
Cheers Paul, glad you enjoyed. To be totally honest, I’m not sure exactly what’s happening with the lossless compression in camera and the way the editing software extracts the file data from the lossless file. I just use the terms “zip and unzip”, but in reality, it could be a totally different process. Yes, lightroom and other editing programmes do use and display the embedded preview jpeg created in camera, but it also depends on if the software produces its own preview or not. So if lightroom hasn’t created full or smart preview on import, when you view the images in library or develop module, the image initially shows the in-camera created preview with all the in-camera settings and profile, but as soon as lightroom creates its own preview seconds later, the preview changes and looks like the unprocessed RAW with only certain in-camera adjustments shown, like WB and film simulation. I personally would love to see the option in camera or in software to choose which settings that were made in camera, like tone curve, to show the change in RAW in software when the preview is created. I’ve only briefly tried Capture 1, really should give it a better look, I’ve just got so much invested in adobe and thousands on jobs cataloged, that the thought of a change over is daunting. Will let Cody know you asked after him😁, Thanks again.
Thank you for your useful video. Since it’s not possible to open jpeg in FujiRAW software, do you prefer jpeg simulations in Lightroom for reviewing and soft adjustments? Even RAW images in Lightroom or FujiRAW?
What an Excellent education to eat my breakfast by. A perfect way to start the day. Thanks for all the consice information. I try to shoot by saturating the sensor with information to adjust in post, one question though, in video, raw generally pertains to highlight retention, so when shooting video in C-log it is generally advised to shoot a stop over...in photography however when shooting, would you rather favour shooting better exposure for shadows or highlights? The rule I have always gone by is to under expose but with raw in photography would you say if it comes to the crunch would you rather under expose the subject for highlight retention or better expose your subject and bring the highlights back later?especially if you are shooting higher iso, or is it somewhere in the middle...?
Cheers Stuart, glad you enjoyed. It really does depend on what you have in mind for your image and what you want to do in post. If you don’t really have an idea yet of what you want from the image in the edit, you would try your best to balance between exposing for shadows and for highlights. People often use their histogram and do what is referred to as ETTR, or expose to the right. Now this doesn’t mean over exposure, this just means you use your histogram to get the highlights as close to the right as possible to retain as much shadow detail as possible, but knowing for sure that your highlights are intact. If you have a lot of experience in many shooting situations, you could probably get this done without using the histogram. So even though you are doing what’s called exposing to the right, you may still be underexposed according to your meter and you’ll find this when you are dealing with intense highlights. In some situations you may want to intentionally expose for the highlights, darkening your shadows as much as possible to create what is called a low key image, or the opposite, where you exposure for the shadows and create what is called a high key image. When using a histogram, a low key image will have the highlights centred on the graph, clipping the shadows and a high key will have the shadows centred, clipping the highlights. If you use flash photography outdoors, you generally shoot slightly more low key with your ambience and use the flash to light your subject, balancing out the scene. RAW in photography gives you way more leeway then Log in videography, so videographers generally have to make these decisions in camera and shoot as close as possible to the final look they want. Video Log is also around 8 to 10bits, depending on camera. Top digital “film” cameras can go up to 16bits. Hope that helps. I appreciate your time.
Thank you so much for all this info and the video after this one regarding raw etc. It really has cleared up a lot of unknowns for me that I'd been wondering about for some time. Also i need to say Sorry, I didn't see that you replied to my message or I missed the notification. Must have been getting too many pop ups about the canon R5 overheating 😂. Have a great day and again many thanks! Keep the education coming👍😎
Kris DroBan
I was shooting RAW with my Nikon. Transferred to "Photos" on my iMac. After transferor every pictures in every upper corner I see small letter "RAW". Then manually pickup one image and put to my desktop. Now I see the small ikon on desktop of the picture and short description with letter on the end "jpeg". I don't understand what it means.
Hi John,
Thank you first of all for you time making these brilliant videos. Your work is very impressive and inspiring.
I wanted to give a bit of precision (for your viewers, as I myself had to double check) over the transition that you make around 11:40 regarding bit depth and dynamic range. I think that you glanced over too fast as to why raw (hence 14 bits encoding) is better for post production and retrieving shadow/highlights. It is not so much that the whole range of visible colors is more precise, it is the fact that these extra colors available in the 4 trillion available, after you map the visible spectrum with enough precision, allow the format to encode millions of different black and white pixels. These black and white pixels look alike in the initial raw but actually carry the information about their own color, hence the ability to retrieve it in post.
I think that this part, explained in a diagram for example, was missing to make your video perfectly didactic.
Thanks again for sharing your knowledge, cheers and stay safe !
Thanks Clément, I appreciate your comment. You are absolutely correct, more detail on certain aspects would have definitely helped. My final edit before posting had my video at over an hour, where I included additional info on colour, colour space and so on. Was way too long. I thought I’d separate the video in two, but from previous experience, people tend to watch the first and because of auto play, only half watch the second part. I decided in the end to make it bit simpler. I may touch on this again sometime.
Thanks for the additional info and your time.
Nice shot the mountain one :) 10-24 at 11mm?
Hi John, thanks for sharing, my question is about the TIFF export option, have you tried? I’m curious about that new option because in theory TIFF is lossless and, if I understood this feature, you can have your color profile and also more range to highlights and shadows, and if this is the case what’s the difference to the raw option it self? Only size? Don’t know, what is your thoughts?
Thanks for the question Felipe, I have not exported to tiff in camera before, but have worked with tiff images for print in photoshop. You correct in saying that a tiff is lossless, so more then likely the file out of camera will retain the high bit depth, maybe even the full 14bits, which would be great for editing. But unlike RAW, were the original data remains intact no matter how many times it is rendered into a usable image file, being non destructive, the tiff will be similar to the jpeg in the sense that it is a destructive file. The camera settings, colour space and profiles are baked in and the editing software will treat it like a jpeg. Cheers
You don't even have to wait for correct light when you capture the image, you can just add it with AI later!
Watching and enjoying your reviews, I'm again struck by how much your videos change both in terms of quality - image and sound. Watching a few in succession the sound levels vary greatly (along with the vid quality.) even when you static indoors. Hopefully some constructive feedback - Keeping your sound somewhat more equalised and lighting etc similar would really make your great presentations a whole lot better to enjoy - esp. when watched sequentially.. Thanks for all your good work - really great info in every episode!
Cheers Craig, thanks for the feedback and your time. I totally get what you are saying. As my channel doesn’t bring in any financial benefits to my overall business, at this point its just priorities and how I can manage my time. During the hard lockdown, the first three videos during this time, I spent more time (I had time) lighting and in edit making sure sound was a bit more accurate, those videos were shot and edited over a couple days. When Im doing photography work or trying to drum up other business, I try formulate an idea to talk about in my head, not scripted, then when I get a small gap with time, I do a basic setup for sound and video and edit it in a couple hours on my iPad or iPhone on LumaFusion, so non of my video you’ve seen are edited on my bigger computers and probably is why it’s harder for me to create a more steady look and sound. As my channel has grown, I’m slowly prioritising it and bringing in gear to improve the look and sound. I’m currently building a studio area now that I can setup for that constant look and it’s almost done. Hopefully as things come together I will be improving in this area. From a sound perspective, and what you’ve said, I’ve tried to balance sound with headphones, but clearly lumafusion is not the best application to mange this properly. I’d be interested to know which sound of me speaking you prefer, the RAW vs JPG video where I used a lapel mic or my recent video, shoot to edit, where I used a condenser mic with separate recording, which I’m planning to use in the studio. I’d appreciate your feedback there so I can make changes to that if necessary. Thanks again for your time and support, I’ll work harder to improve. Cheers
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography Cheers John - I will check them out and get back to you. I have just picked up Rode mics for a song that are great! I did some vid at La Parada Constantia Neck of "Rene" using the Rode stereo mike on the XT4. It is astonishing. I run Artlab in the Old Biscuit Mill by the way. Large format and Fine Art printing etc. Also decor applications, wallpapers, textile printing etc. Not sure if you have been in or used us? I'm busy putting a channel together for tutorials on digital textile printing and only hoping I can match your "delivery" - you do a great job. I was marveling at how long each take is! (Music Clearance in Northgate is selling Rode mics for ridiculous prices. Try R995 for a R5k mic.) By the way - just got the XT4 from Orms. They purchased one of my textile printers and I did a deal with Mike. I love it but still processing bamboozle by all the setup options so channels like yours really help. I'm sitting next to an Epson P5000 printer I would like to sell if you are interested or know of anyone who might be. Less then 50% of cost inc. R11k inkset. It's a brilliant machine but of course with Artlab I have access to all our own gear, just got this to play with during lockdown.
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography ps Shoot to Raw sounds clearer but could do with a bit more gain. J vs R is a bit wooly on the low end or saturated. (Can tell I'm not an audio engineer)
Cheers Craig, I appreciate the feedback, will look to increase gain with condenser mic. Good to know that you run Artlab, I must definitely pop into the Old biscuit mill and have a look. I do print for clients from time to time, so definitely will connect with you. Good to hear you are getting good results with the xt4. Rode mics are well respected, and used by most. As I try improve my channel, I’ll might need to take a closer look at new sound gear and will check out Music Clearance. Let me know once your channel is up and running. If I hear anyone is interested in a printer, I’ll let you know. Take care and thanks again.
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography Righto! Pop in anytime. Would be great to meet you. Cheers
CW
Hmmm. This guy knows what he is talking about and is telling us..........interesting .......
80s called. They want their mellow piano tunes back.
😂sounds about right, I grew up in the 80’s listening to Depeche mode. Thanks for showing my age.
8th.
There’s no denying the post production power of RAW. However, one of the best reason to shoot jpeg for a lot of people, even some “professionals” is they are horrible post production editors. Many times a SOOC photo can look much better than an over processed RAW, or someone without a calibrated screen, working with murky understanding of LR sliders or curves or worse yet just plain bad artistic style. Both extremes of flat “cinematic” looks or over saturated/sharpened photos best come to mind. Some people should just stick with SOOC jpegs.
Good points Sam, I agree. The amazing level of quality that can be obtained with in-camera adjustments and profiles certainly makes SOOC a great option, and as you say, even better then what can be produced in software for many. Cheers
Given the fact you are using a FujiFilm camera and have set a FujiFilm profile in your raw-developing for your RAW files I find it very strange that your jpeg-image would have a basic Adobe-profile "color" as your starting point when bringing in the JPeg image.
I think this needs more looking into to find out how this really works and how it affects the processing in Lightroom Classic and ACR in Photoshop 2020. In both Lightroom and ACR (same processing-engine) you can now set the programs to read the profile that was set in camera. The question is what that will mean for processing the Raw-files in Photoshop or Lightroom. There are a great number of FujiFilm profiles or film-simulations to choose from in camera. In fact there are a number of blog-post sources for finding different recipes for classic-films that can all be set in different FujiFilm camera's depending on the image-sensor they have. It is possible now to set the ACR processing-engine to read the film-simulation or profile from camera. This means that the image in ACR will look the same as the image on the LCD or EVF in camera. It needs to be seen how this works? Is this a degraded image with the typical reduced processing-power of the Jpeg image or will it behave as a regular raw-image with a profile or filma-simulation as a starting-point. The Raw image you processed of the surfer showed a FujiFilm profile. The Jpeg-image did not. That is strange.
Thanks Wouter for the feedback and good points. The jpeg you see loaded into lightroom has no profile added. It says colour in the profile section, but hasn’t been assigned a profile. If adobe had assigned a profile, it would have said Adobe colour. You will see no settings in Lightroom are adjusted on importing the jpg, the WB is 0, the sharpening is 0, everything is zero, because the info in the jpeg is baked in and not read by lightroom. You also cannot add a profile to a jpeg, you can however make limited editing adjustments. When you load a RAW, lightroom accesses the info in the metadata and sets certain adjustments on import to match what was set in cameras, like profile and WB. The sharpening is also set, but not related to a sharpening setting in camera, but more a general starting point.
This is something I’ve been pushing fujifilm to do and that’s to allow photographers in camera to set which adjustments will be made to the RAW image on import, so if you make tone curve adjustments in camera, when loaded, the tone curve will show the change in Lightroom. Remember RAW in non destructive, so these settings can be zeroed out without any damages to the file. So hopefully not only lightroom will be able to show the exact representation on the adjustments in camera as presented on your lcd, but you can choose certain adjustments over others. If lightroom can read WB and profile, I’m sure other info can be read as well. The only settings that will remain zeroed out would be in the basic panel in Lightroom.
Thanks again, cheers
@@JohnArmstrongPhotography Hi John, thanks for your long reaction, much appreciated. I would like to point out that both Richey Roesch and Dan Bailey do a lot of FujiFilm Jpeg shooting with recipes and/or profiles in camera. These may not show up in Lightroom or ACR but will be baked into the Jpeg-files and will be applied to the RAW-film-simulation when brought into developing (both Lightroom, ACR and CaptureOne can be perfectly set for FujiFilm files that way). In your video I noticed you compared two basically incomparable files from a landscape image. One had no (visible) film-profile and seemed way over-exposed (the Jpeg-one). The other had, as you showed far better colour renditions in both the sky and the mountains and sea-water (but this RAW-image clearly showed a Velvia or Provia film-simulation as a base-setting for processing). That makes quite a difference for colour to start with. With taking a very well chosen film-profile or recipe as a starting point for the in-camera Jpeg (based on one of Richey Roesch many recipes) it will be possible to get a very good Jpeg image and a very good starting point for Raw-processing when stored in camera as RAW+Fine. I think much of what you showed is absolute true for almost all camera-brands, but less so for the FujiFilm cameras, with their great profiles and in-camera settings to modify these. So I really think that it is no surprise it is mostly FujiFilm shooters that advocate Jpeg shooting.
Thanks Wouter, will definitely check them out. The jpg of the mountain seascape was in fact velvia as well, but what I didn’t do was use the tone curve and make big adjustments to highlight and shadows and colour in camera, which would of in fact created a better jpeg. The settings in camera for the jpeg were all set to 0 for that shot. It was more to show the dynamic range. But you are right, If you spend time and work those settings and film profiles in camera, you can get amazing results. Thanks again for the feedback, take care.