Tony Northrup's CONFUSING RAW VS JPEG Video: My Thoughts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 жов 2024
- A lot of people asked me what my opinion was of a recent video that Tony Northrup made with the title "jpg vs raw, Why i started shooting jpg more". Here's my take on some of the confusing statements that were made.
Tony's JPG vs RAW video • Raw vs JPG: Image Qual...
I decided I would take a bunch of quotes form the video and give my take on them.
The App I use to PROTECT and Organize my gear, MyGearVault mygearvault.co...
Where I get all the Royalty Free Music for my videos goo.gl/nvTxie Epidemic Sound. Get a 30 day trial right here.
Please help us continue to make FREE content by purchasing one or all of the FroKnowsPhoto Educational guides. To check out previews of each guide click here.
froknowsphoto.c...
The Gear I use the most
I love my Nikon D5 amzn.to/2xnehyD
My New Favorite Camera Nikon D850 amzn.to/2hi2xnP
My absolute FAVORITE camera bag ever bit.ly/2scQRt7
Where I get my I SHOOT RAW T-Shirts bit.ly/2vG2igB
The Microphone I use for Vlogging amzn.to/2fjb8K5
Wireless Microphones I recommend amzn.to/2yqe24y
My FAVORITE Portrait and Sports Lens amzn.to/2xmPafq
Follow me on
UA-cam: bit.ly/frotube
Facebook: / froknowsphoto
Instagram: / jaredpolin
Twitter: / froknowsphoto
Get The FroKnowsPhoto Guide To Building Your Online Presence FREE right here as a download froknowsphoto.c...
USE CODE FRO at squarespace.com... to get your 14 day FREE Trial.
Such a strange bunch of contradicting statements in his video, do you agree?
I think it was some kind of clickbait. He must have enough experience to know he was not making sense. It hurt his credibility if you ask me.
I saw the video the other day and was confused by some statements. I can nail exposure most of the time, I still shoot RAW. I laughed when I saw this pop up in my notifications.....Nice one Fro!
Jared Pol
Tony is a fool , his wife gonna comment she’s wears the pants and puts Tony’s grey balls
In her
Purse
Tony I think didn’t think first and just made a video
When he said, "shoot raw for things that are important" I lost it. Almost flipped my table over. If you are a photographer, what photo isn't important?!
Because “I shoot jpeg” on a t-shirt would look stupid...
I have a distant memory of him on a video tackling a mannequin with that shirt on
"I
@@musishoon7950 lmao
I Edit JPEG!
I shoot raw + jpeg, but delete everything that isn't any good. I'll keep jpegs of memorable things, but I'm not really editing birthday photos or whatever. I sometimes edit jpegs SLIGHTLY if I WiFi them to my phone. If you dont want to edit, get your jpeg settings the way you want and get good exposure and white balance and such, and then you can use those often and the raw is in case you get something really worth editing.
A jpeg snapshot with my camera is a whole lot better than a snapshot on my phone, it's just not comparable. I MIGHT use jpeg for electronic shutter bursts on the R6 for birds, because the dynamic range of electronic shutter is ass anyways, within the potential for jpeg tweaking the little bit if nessesary. But yeah, I try to get it right in camera so the jpeg looks good, but if its great, I have the digital negative to polish it in the future.
For a film analogy, you can get straight 4x6 prints from your drug store and the very best shots, use the negative to dodge and burn it to perfection like ansel adams.
I took the time to watch Tony's video and there doesn't appear to be anything ambiguous in there. He opens by saying that sometimes you should shoot jpeg and sometimes you shoud shoot raw then goes on to explain why and the advantages and disadvantage of each file type. Are you sure that this video isn't just a knee jerk response because you are butt hurt that someone is challenging your opinion and that you have unconciously taken certain points out of context.
strongandco You nailed it.
Where's the views in sticking with context?
+1
Nailed it! #unsubscribed
I don't need to shoot JPEG I can just shoot RAW and instead of doing manual post processing I just apply in camera like preset and export to JPEG ... result? the same .... yeah it takes few moments to import/apply/export but do you guys need your computers at night?
Give Tony a break, he's still using Windows Vista
🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣
🤣
Possibly windows XP
Lmao!
That was brutal ah hell!
🤣🤣🤣🤣
In my opinion Tony shows advantages and disadvantages of both formats in easy to understand way.
in my opinion jared makes more sense.
YEAP BUT THIS GUY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT TONY IS EXPLAINING ABOUT EXPORTING RAW FILES AND JPEG FOTOS IN TO A FORMAT THAT SOME PEOPLES DONT KNOW ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME I TAKES TO EXPORTING AND THAT BENEFITS OF A LIGHT ROOM O WETEVER PLATFORM TO WORK WITH I THINK THIS GUY IS ANOINTING AND WAN LIKES AND ATENCIÓN THATS ALL
tony says bullshit in a formal way, without ranting. don't judge a book by it's cover.
Northrup is an idiot...too full of himself...especially of his bullshit...he should join the “flat earth society” ... bet his religion is “scientology”...
@Freerider hmm kinda like claiming ISO doesnt matter huh? Lolz....besides I'm an IT engineer...so who do you think knows better? Jpg vs RAW is similar to midi file vs FLAC for example (audio files in case you didn't know)...besides...ppl who blindly believes in youtube posters...are idiots as well...dont be a lazy ass...do your research...google is a good start...books, photography stores...etc etc etc....just a free hint/piece of advice...oh and lol at the infantile comments in CAPITAL LETTERS!!! MAKES IT MORE TRUE!!! hahah :D
Who cares what other people think? Why does it matter to you if Tony shoots JPG?
Clos MasMas Jared cares because Tony is spreading misinformation
Actually he isn't, which you would know if you had actually watched the video.
Having "I shoot RAW" on a man's underpants is... very easy to misinterpret. hehehe
nO RUBBER INIT
@@lijinlohithakshan9295 I Shoot J with my PEG
Lol
Tony's video was a really long way of saying "shoot RAW unless you have a very specific reason not to". That's the whole video.
He actually said that RAW was basically for pros and people with money, while JPEG is for those with consumer grade cameras and small budgets. RAW for those with data storage and JPEG for those who buy $10.00 cards for their cameras. RAW=wealthy pro, JPEG=poor amateur with a small buffer.
The Plain Truth I have low budget and I'm 17 and yet I still shoot in RAW. External drives and hardrives and even SSDs are cheap now
+The Plain Truth I disagree with some of your statements. If you watch his video again, he says that JPG's might be suited for pros rather, because they may be able to get the exposure correct in-camera since they would have done the right planning for correct lighting, time of the day, location, etc.
You're correct luckyblueduck. I listened to it again and he's got it totally backwards in his advice. But I still think the overall message is "just shoot RAW". Not sure why Tony spent all that time to basically vote for RAW in the end.
@The plain Truth: man seriously? are you that stupid?
Take a breath, relax, then watch the video again. You’ve taken this out of context. I think you’ll find you’re both trying to say the same thing.
I have been a professional commercial photographer for 26 years. I think you both have some good points on your videos, but I think you are 100% right on this one. ALWAYS SHOOT RAW ! JPG is for amateurs or quick reference only.
First of all ! That background music doesn’t fit .
best comment so far
sounds like sleeping jazz music while you are driving to work.
Man, cry cry cry. You'll be happy to know that he's informed me that going forward he will incorporate Norwegian Death Metal, so you're safe there.
Simo Harjane is that a flute or sopranino
the music was fine . . . not a problem
Jared you say Tony has incoherent argument, yet the title of your debate is also completely misleading and misrepresenting the situation. This is not a battle on JPEG vs RAW, as many single minded viewer of yours sees it. Rather, it is Jared: shooting RAW all the time regardless, vs Tony: shooting a mix of RAW and JPG depending on the circumstances and the photographer's workflow/preference.
jared is totally right tho...all those statements by tony make no fucking sense
"Beginners have no clue what they're doing with RAW files."
Me, a beginner: "Yup."
Shoot in raw or else you will regret it later
Then you're not even a beginner
@@itsamario What do you mean by that?
re-read your comment one more time then re-read mine
@@itsamario I still don't know what you're getting at. I was simply agreeing with the idea that beginners don't know what they're doing with RAW files because I am a beginner and I don't know what I'm doing with RAW files.
I think Tony Northrup's video was meant for the average amateur photographer. He has a point. I is not always better to shoot "every single shoot" in uncompressed RAW, when an amateur shooter aims to merely produce photos for his own purpose. For example for watching family photos on the tablet. An amateur shooter produces JPEGs in the result and it is OK to skip the development process from RAW to JPEG sometimes, especially in situations Tony Northrup talked about.
An no, you are not right about data storage. It is an issue for the average beginner photographer. Most people use SSDs on their laptops or limited capacities on their smartphones. 128, 256 or 512GB are most common. More than a 512GB SSD is rare and very expensive. Always using external hard drives is less comfortable and has not the same mobility. Clouds backupping is also not cheap; the average price is 10 bucks a month for 1TB.
It seems clear that Jared didn't even try to understand Northrup's video. He was too excited about the chance to upload a click-baity thumbnail and pretend there is some drama.
I don't understand why so many dislikes. This man tells truth. First time I had my camera I said "what is this shitty file I cannot open"
I think Chelsea can beat Jared up.
Jason Latorre what does that have to do with photography?
Lee Cason you are wound up too tight. It was a joke.
Jason Latorre I wouldn't mind wrestling 3 rounds with Chelsea. Looser has to go down on the winner.
Lee Cason for one it would make a great picture.😂
Chelsea could own him in everything, except being a hack.
Jpeg is for people taking pictures with their DSLRs for fun but RAW is for people really trying to make the best photographs possible. Thats how it is in my mind
Exactly what my take is.
You do realize your histogram - even in live view - are JPEG processed. So we do rely on JPEG processing capabilities of the DSP behind the sensor a lot. This is more than "fun stuff" and is really quite powerful and useful.
That makes zero sense. I did not buy a dslr to not make the best photos possible. And fun is making the best photos possible. Hence, there is no reason to shoot jpegs, ever, unless you work for someone who needs the image soon after you take the shot and there is no time to process jpegs.
connorb19 so sport shooters are taking pictures with DSLRs for fun????
My two cents, Jarod...?
There is nothing wrong with the perspective to teach, advise, whatever, newbies to shoot raw. There is also nothing wrong with the perspective to teach, advise, whatever, newbies to shoot JPEG.
I have learned so much about photography from both you and the Northrup’s and have a high level of appreciation for both of your channels. I can definitely appreciate the passion the three of you have for it!
Shoot RAW + JPEG. End of argument.
One Orbit Studios indeed....
Nooo, then you'll fill up your cameras buffer too fast on burst... havent u been paying any attention? Geez :P
@@theK174 if you're doing pro burst shotsbthat require that high volume, you should know to shoot raw to begin with.
@@theK174 then that negates he need to shoot jpeg at all
Why can't people just shoot whatever format they want ? Just because it's said on UA-cam doesn't mean it's the gospel or written in stone , right or wrong ?
Dude some of this was good but some was ridiculous. Shooting a wedding is important shooting my dog hump his pillow isnt. I shoot the wedding in raw and the humping in jpeg. The fact is jpeg is a little easier. Example: One of my favorite cameras won’t transfer raw to my cell phone. So I can’t quickly transfer (without a card reader) from my camera to my phone then send it to friends or post to social. I do this frequently when I travel. That is a great case for jpeg.
All of my paid work is raw and most of the rest is jpeg
I feel that this should be the gold standard for all camera manuals. JPEG: use when Dog humps a pillow Raw: Wedding Photography
Richard Grenfell I think so too
this comment made me bust a lung laughing wtf😭
ok.. so the time it takes to switch from one mode, to the other.. you missed the shot. then what?
When I hired a photographer for my wedding, and when I do for my bi-annual family photos, I only care about the quality of the final images, I definitely don't give a shit about whether or not they "got it right" in camera or not... It kind of seems like intentionally limiting your post processing tools as a form of pretentious arrogance. I'm an engineer and this would kind of be like me bragging to a client that I did all the calculations in my head and didn't use a calculator or software program once because I'm an "expert". That seems a little asinine to me to limit the tools at your disposal and would not impress my clients... Now if someone does that on their free time as a challenge or way of adding to the pressure and suspense of the experience, that would be different. I think some people still stick with film for reasons like that.
You wasted your time writing this long essay. I have watched both videos and Jared is only give you half the story. LOL
Thank you Jared for telling beginners to shoot in raw/jpeg because if it wasn't for you I wouldn't have had those raw files to fall back on once I had more knowledge on raw files.
Seriously? 😂
Yes, you should always shoot raw unless you've got a specific reason not to and have great technique.
You misunderstood many statements Jared. 1. Tony said that beginners can use RAW. Also he has guided in other videos about what to do with RAW2. By important shots he meant shots which one gets paid or has to be printed.3. The memory card running out issue was for beginners and for the situation where one carries less no. of cards.4. I use a 700D and it starts buffering after 2 continuous shots in RAW.
The ironic thing about this video is that i'm guessing it's Jared's most disliked video but in reality this might be the most valuable video he's ever made in terms of giving us photographers advice.
ur dumb
In reality a huge number of sports shooters shoot JPEG (only) as those under pressure to get images out just don't have time to edit during or after a game and picture editors couldn't care less so long as the image fits the brief and is good enough to publish and arrives on their desk quickly. That's the reality of the editorial market in 2017 although I appreciate it might not fit with you're personal style of shooting and what your channel is trying to promote.
I've shot pro sports part time for local media and I tried to explain exactly the same reasoning you mentioned to friends who are RAW-or-nothing fanatics, it's like talking to gun nuts about gun regulations lol!
This is not my field of photography, but I've already noticed how a lot of people have an entirely different idea of what constitutes a bad picture. Technical brilliance is simply less important to them than one should think and they are much easier to please than somebody who really knows what to watch out for in a picture. And if these people are paying you money for pictures and also expect them to be delivered fast then you just can't expect them to have the patience for a bit of delay even though it might result in better pictures. Sad but true.
+Breeg2011 Please explain your idea of 'technical brilliance' in relation to photojournalism and sports news photography.. Just because editors wanted images quickly does not mean their standards are less strict, you'll be surprised. Remember they have a deadline to meet. Shooting sports under uncontrolled mostly badly lit condition requires absolute technical proficiency in shooting, not necessarily on editing.
And shooting JPG increases the buffer and reduces the write time when shooting burst.
My employer wants jpeg so they're getting jpeg. For them, it's about speed of workflow. And the statement beginning at 7:58 is just plain false. You can walk by some of the sports shooters on the sidelines and hear them firing their Canon at 14 fps for 5 seconds or more.
Opinion made about specific and usable output options on a camera...
MUST ATTACK THAT! THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I shoot RAW 98 percent of the time, but every once in a while I use JPG for the exact reasons Tony mentioned. How is this even an argument? SOMETIMES for less important stuff and if you can get a perfect exposure it is an option some people will use to save time and if basically no post will be done.
Lmaoooo thank God I took my lessons from you!!! I have my oldest photos in RAW format + JPEG because I didn't know what to do with the RAW files yet! Now I have been able to use Lightroom and bring back some of the pictures I thought I had lost to under/over exposure 😍 thank you for giving me the best tip a beginner can ask for!!!
I've always saved both RAW and JPEG images to my cards. More than once, my bacon has been saved because I had the RAW file to salvage a blown image. Another interesting aspect for me, has been that when Adobe comes out with updated and improved RAW processors in Photoshop, I can go back to my old RAW files and re-process with the new technology and it's often noticably improved. If I pull up an old JPEG, there is only so much I can do with the image, even though the new Photoshop CC 2018 has a RAW processor built in for JPEG editing? Not even close to having the RAW data to draw upon. I buy the best gear I can find, use the fastest cards that have pro quality and dependability and back everything up for future use. I kick myself when someone askes for an image from 2007, I pull it up and it's a JPEG... but then I was only using 8gb CF cards then, but could have given them something so much better if it had been RAW. I did watch Tony's explanation regarding how many camera owners don't have the money for larger capacity cards etc... I'm always looking at these issues from the professional working photographer vantage point and often forget that many hobbyists are looking for the least expensive options. Both have good points. Thanks Jared! RAW is my safety net.
Exactly this!!! I am a hobbyist, and in the beginning I saved both RAW + JPEG to my SD card, because 64 GB SD cards are not that expensive anymore. When I learned to use Photoshop, I imported the old RAW files and tried to fix them (I learned a lot from this as well). Now I only shoot RAW. Quick editing is not an issue anymore with how easy Lightroom is for bulk editing. And if the image doesn't need editing (because the exposure is perfect), then just do a bulk export to JPEG from Lightroom. If an image is not perfect and needs more attention, but it's the only image you have of that very important subject, just drag it into Photoshop to fix it (you can't do this with JPEG). The only time I use JPEG is when I take a picture with my phone.
Good comment!
How about people make your own choices , just because some UA-cam guy say it , doesn't make it the gospel
I still regret not shooting raw when my baby was newborn back in early 2000s. I'm honestly not even sure if the camera did have raw, but I think it did. I have pictures that could have been so much better. White balance is almost impossible to salvage on old jpgs for instance. Luckily now we are finally at the point with AI processing, so I have gotten some stuff improved due to that, but still the Raws are indispensable.
@@tomsveen3671 I started with RAW as soon as I could, it was around 2004 for me. Lots of photographers stuck with JPEG not realizing that those were also referred to as "lossy" files. RAW has come a long way for sure! I jumped on the format as soon as it was available. :)
Taking things out of context to diss someone just for a few cheap clicks. This is very disappointing.
7k dislike? This has got to be your most disliked video ever.
Anytime you have a well known youtuber criticizing a well known youtuber, you're going to get a lot of dislikes.
True but let’s be real. There are some good videos that still get a lot dislikes.
Jared... your clickbait is hanging out.
What is that background music, I don't think it fits.
A Will it's a dare or a bet.
Has to be.
A Will porn-iesc right?
That background music is Tony's sex music that he plays when his wife straps on and slams it into Tony's ass, no spit.
Coz hes gay
Why is your hair always wider on your right side than your left side?
I shoot film
hipster
Hipster
I shoot polaroid! Who's the hipster now?
Same
Broke photographers worldwide unite!
*Cries broke tears*
Tony was simply arguing that there are reasons to shoot RAW more often. He admits that RAW is superior, but if you need the faster framerate, can nail exposure in camera, have no intention of editing, or simply need a faster workflow, then it is OKAY to shoot JPG. The title says "Why I started shooting JPG more", not why I only shoot JPG. A lot of people get hung up on ALWAYS shooting RAW and going through the process of editing it. What Tony is saying is that once you get to a certain level of confidence in yourself and the ability to use your camera, it's okay to shoot JPG if gives you an edge over a situation. For example, I'll shoot JPGs of sports matches on my d7200 because it gives me that extra framerate that helps me catch a spectacular moment. I only upload these photos to Facebook so it makes no sense to capture the full detail and go through the motions of editing. If I accepted a lower framerate I may not have captured so many wonderful moments as I did.
At the end of the day, his argument was full of nuance which I feel many people missed. Maybe Tony could have made it clearer on what he was saying, but also maybe we as viewers can start to think actively and digest arguments rather than passively do what we're told.
An additional argument, but there's this notion that with RAW we can always be safe and always optimise our image. But this comes as the cost of time and storage space. Sure storage space is cheap now if you're willing to pay, but your time is not. When I take sports photos my audience is other residents of my college hall (I do university sports). They don't care about image quality, only the moment I capture. So instead of always shooting RAW at 5fps, I can shoot at JPG and 1.3x crop and get 7fps. I caputre so many more moments because of that.
At the end of the day, a lot of arguments behind shooting RAW is that if there is ANY benefit we should do it. But we also need to consider the negatives of RAW as well. Sometimes there's no reason to optimise image quality and it's up to us to understand the context we're shooting in and weigh the balance of what to shoot with and how to shoot. Instead of always doing what's 'best', we should do what's actually best for the situation.
Kai Clark Exactly!
I'm glad at least some people here got it.
@@kaiclark6955Yep, and for me the raws are so slow to load and go through when checking for focus and such to cull. I shoot jpeg + raw and can go through and cull the bad jpegs that load instantly, plus can cull the RAWs of photos I kinda of want to keep for the memory but it's not worth ever editing. The select ones I might edit in the future are the ones I keep the RAWs of. It's worth changing your jpeg settings though to get them close to how you like, right out of the camera if you do want speed or to post on socials or such.
Not all of us can afford the best camera and lenses, but why sell yourself short by not giving yourself the best image file the camera can produce? Shoot RAW and JPEG because as Jared says, you never know when the most important photo of your life will happen!
Dude, I think you misunderstood Tony's video.
tetsujin210 I think you misunderstood this video
Jared certainly was....
how hard was it to stay calm? The Ken Rockwell line was hillarious.
That was a superb line! :-D
Jared, are you keeping and storing all your RAW pictures or just the ones you’ve classified as keepers?
Since no one has answered for him: He keeps all of them. Maybe deleting the obvious "nobody would ever need this" ones, but he keeps them all RAW.
Shooting unimportant images...
How about just a quick selfy on your pro camera in jpeg to send straight to your phone to upload...
Perfect example of an unimportant image get over yourself
Agreed. Just because Tony says not every picture has to be perfect doesn't mean he's advocating for throwing out the baby with the bathwater and saying that the picture quality doesn't matter. That's a "slippery slope" argument most high-school debaters realize is fallacious and it surprises me that Jared makes that argument. It seems Jared believes he has to disagree with everything in Tony's video. Jared criticizes Tony's preference for JPEG, but also criticizes Tony's acknowledgement that RAW has many benefits? Does he just want to disagree with EVERYTHING in Tony's video just because he disagrees with the overall premise? Being unwilling to acknowledge anything in Tony's video seems quite clickbaity and immature.
Does it really matter? If you want to shoot Raw, shoot Raw if not shoot jpg. This whole jpg vs raw debate gets triesome to be honest. If you nail a jpg you don't need to shoot raw. If you mess things up you need to shoot jpg or if your like me and your camera allows it, shoot both. Simples.
Howie Mudge Photography Of course it matters ! There is so much more shadow and highlight detail in raw files . Anyone seriously about their photography should be shooting raw for so many different reasons .
It’s kinda of like how the full frame vs crop is old
It's not that Simple
Correcting a "mess up" is only one of the many benefits of shooting raw.
If there are subtle Hue, WB, Tint, and Dynamic Range adjust that are needed to take a photo from "good" to "great" shooting raw allows you to do that while producing less digital noise and compression artifact resulting in a better image.
These things (other than WB) are aspects of photography you can't easily adjust on the fly and must be done in post.
Howie Mudge Photography, yes, this debate matters, because people listen to these guys when they are learning to be better photographers. Your answer has an identical validity to theirs, so you including your suggestion shows that the question matters. :-)
@jaredpolin I have a question. Trying my best, I can’t match Canon’s JPG incredible color rendering. What’s your opinion about using JPG to avoid waisting time adjusting RAW colors? Thanks for taking your time to answer. (I use 5Dmk3 & EOS R)
U create some presets to edit raw files. So u can edit 200 photos in 10 sec.
If the color is good leave it alone or color grade and edit the photo so it's better most cameras don't have perfect colors tho canon does have great color I'd recommend color grading and editing like other person said just create presets in Lightroom
Long time since this question was asked, but perhaps Canon's Digital Photo Professional will be good for you?
I haven't used it myself, as I'm a Nikon user and use Nikon's Capture NX-D. But my experience with the Nikon software is that when you open up the raw files, they are set by default with the same colours as you see with the jpegs. Perhaps the Canon software works in a similar way?
Beats trying to use Lightroom when you don't really know what you're doing (I'm well and truly in that category), and you can still make many of the same adjustments (exposure, contrast, saturation, etc).
Also, the price is right - free.
For paid work i always shoot raw. For home, birthdays and random outings with family i will always shoot jpegs. I don't need raw files of the kids playing in the park or on the beach or blowing out their birthday candles, i will nail exposure, upload and store them away, i don't need to edit them and pull out the colours and 'make it my own' or whatever.
There's a time and a place to shoot raw and its when you're on a paid job needing professional images for clients and for everything else well that's your choice.
Yeah memory cards and hard drives are not crazy expensive but i shoot both photography and video at weddings and come home with about 500-600GB of data per wedding so it adds up very quickly.
Ryait Digital yep me too! Unless it’s lowlight
«…but i shoot both photography and video at weddings and come home with about 500-600GB of data per wedding so it adds up very quickly.»
…And you think it is because of the raw photos? I only shoot raw, I have two 128GB SDXC class ⑩ UHS-II U3 cards in a 24Mpx camera, and I never get them half filled. Then again, I don't shoot video. The point is, if you shot all your stills in JPEGs, you will still come home with 500-600Gb of data. If you shot no stills, you would still come home with 500-600GB of data.
Karim Hosein How have you worked out that if i shoot a wedding all in jpeg i will come home with the same amount of data than if i shot in raw? Have i read that right?
But anyway my point was Jared saying storage was inexpensive but it soon adds up when coming home with 500-600GB data nearly every weekend between April and September but i obviously always shoot raw for paid work and don't feel the need to shoot everything else in raw to save on storage and not having the need to sit and edit and picture in LR of my kids going down a slide!
Went Iceland lastweek with the family and shot in jpeg, got amazing shots that didn't need further editing, they are being viewed at home and put up on Instagram and not much else - again time and a place. Cameras nowadays produce great jpegs so it works for me.
Same! Personal stuff jpeg. Paying or customer work 14 bit RAW Large
I agree with you and commented similarly. I will shoot raw when it’s a paid project. Otherwise jpg all the way.
Not informative at all. You lack nuance, but that's not new. Still enjoy your vids, but this vid is terrible.
Spot on. I've unsubbed, resubbed multiple times because of this same reason! xD
Wanna see the worst cringe worthy video watch his canon trip video.
I like Jared, sure, he's massively egocentric, BUT he's entertaining and has awesome friends and I like Philadephia over Connecticut where Chelsea and Tony live :) how many times does Tony's channel use Chelsea's good looks to lure us in only to derail the topic to something else? That is true "click-bait" Jared is just being honest about why he does what he does, Tony is more calculating and viewer savvy.
After thought, IF Jared had a Hot Girlfriend working with him, his viewership would DOUBLE instantly.
Spot on JP!
One other consideration for always shooting in RAW+
Photo editing software continues to evolve and algorithms for noise reduction and other artifacts continue to improve. I've pulled back some old RAWs from more than 10 years ago and was able to really clean them up much more than was possible when they were originally shot. This trend will continue until there's no longer a need to discuss signal to noise ratios.
If you ask anyone who started shooting in the film days whether they wanted just their prints and to forget about the negatives you'd get a very perplexed look in response to the question. It's interesting to hear comments like; "Oh, editing your photos in post is cheating" because if I'm not mistaken, I remember the opposite response to any photographer who post processed their own film.
For most people, your images are stored memories to be enjoyed for hopefully generations to come. It is always best to capture images today in the highest possible resolution so that they stand up to the test of time.
100 dollars here, 500 dollars there, 50 dollars... and so on and so on... "its so inexpensive!" Yes, a Ferrari for 50,000 dollar would be inexpensive too, but I DON'T HAVE 50,000 DOLLAR!
My wife LOVES taking pictures, mostly landscapes and the grandkids. She is NOT a professional photographer. She has NO editing skills. She is NOT computer literate so external drives and fancy editing software is useless. She has limited storage space so she ends up deleting a good 90% of her photos and she only has one memory card. What should I tell her, to shoot RAW just because you think it's better or should she continue to "live in denial" and shoot JPG? I think you missed the whole point on this one.
You should explain to her the importance of backing up her precious photos of her grandkids so they have them in case her hard drive crashes. I don't care what format she shoots in. But I do care that for the sake of her grandkids that you or someone else in the family takes the time to back up those memories and don't rely simply on one hard drive.
The question was JPG over RAW. How do backups fit into that equation? It's okay to have a stance, but common, even you have to understand there is a time and a place for everything, including what format to use. In the case of my wife's pics, she will never shoot RAW because she will never benefit from it.
Charles Unitas Actually, you missed the whole point. At 3:38 and 8:30 Jared clearly said that people tend to not shoot RAW because the are intimidated or not savvy in editing, storage, and/ don’t care for extra detail. Which matches exactly why your wife shoots JPEG. So he is correct.
Additionally, he is not saying that you should recommend your wife to shoot RAW, but that she might be missing out on getting more data for detail in her images.
No, I did not miss the point. You did. My wife has no interest in ever shooting raw. She has no desire, no need and willingness to bother since JPG does everything she needs it to. For her needs JPG is the answer and no amount of reasoning will ever change that. That is my point in even posting this argument.
Charles Unitas Not sure what your point is! If your wife just wants to take jpegs then go ahead, you don't have to tell her anything otherwise. He said over and over again that he recommends that people shoot both in case at a later date they may want to go back to them and do more. He didn't say YOU HAVE TO! It's good advice for most people. Nothing to get worked up about.
Fro got me out of jpeg really quick when i first started. I learned alot from fro.
It's simple. Shoot what you want. Shoot only Jpeg, shoot only raw, shoot both! Who cares as long as you are happy with the results you get. Don't feel that you need to change because someone on UA-cam said so. It's all subjective. Now...get out there and shoot, because that's more important!
Fro is thinking from a very different perspective from Tony's, which means, neither is wrong. For professionals who sell their photos like Fro, RAW is a must-have, but most people - considering the opportunity cost of their time and other stuff Tony mentioned - might be better off with properly exposed JPEG plus some light post-processing like snapseed/VSCO.
«…considering the opportunity cost of their time and other stuff Tony mentioned….»
Like buying a DSLR with lenses and two card slots. Tony does not make videos for most people. Consider his audience, the people who buy his books, Adobe Lightroom CC Video Book, and Stunning Digital Photography.
Yeah, but even if you're bad with computer graphics, most cameras ship with software that can convert the RAW file using the metadata to give you a better quality shot than the jpg coming out of the camera directly. Computers just have more RAM and processing power to run better algorithms than cameras do. And you can do the same photo several times with different amounts of noise reduction applied without being any sort of technical genius.
Although I agree with everything you said, and I’ve learned a tremendous amount from you. You’re actually one of my favorite UA-camor‘s in the photography.
That being said I’m uncomfortable with you making a video with the sole purpose of criticizing another UA-camr. This falls under that “just because you can’, does not mean you should” category.
Let the viewers decide which advice they want to take. I think it’s a slippery slope, when people start to criticize other youtubers.
Man, UA-cam photographers are touchy
I guess the only person who got confused by tony's video is jared polin...
2019 Tony says 10 things he always changes, one being change from jpeg to raw.
You didn't get it dude... Tony is right, after 2 years of shooting just RAW I can now afford to start JPG for casual photos.. Like photos I know are not going to go to big prints you know, just a memories.
But, why would that change anything? If anything that's just an argument for RAW+S. Fine JPG and then deleting most of the RAW files later on.
Anyone watching this after Tony's response? XD
Sourajyoti Paul anybody?
Saying that you can always nail the exposure when you get better seems kind of bs to me. People will always make mistakes, shit happens. And if you don't have variable ND filters, sometimes it might not even be possible to get both the exposure of ground level and the sky right: either your sky will be blown out or your ground too dark. With raw you can often keep both.
Totally agree with Jared's points on this one.
Sort of. With more experience, you tend to under-expose a bit, and know what to expect in terms of blown highlights. Also, in many types of photography, you'll have the ability to look at the histogram to see that the exposure was right.
Obviously, that's not always the case, especially in areas like sports photography.
Shots fired!
no pun intended? Lol
I think you read too much into this. From what I got from his video was that RAW is great but sometimes JPG is just fine, which is true. RAW=Optimal. JPG=Just fine in certain situations. I get your whole "I SHOOT RAW" brand but JPG is in fact just fine sometimes, lol.
DCAMM720 If "fine" is what you strive for then thats cool . Anyone who wants to be the best photographer possible will shoot RAW as they are far far better files
Precisely. Sometimes people are fine with "fine." He said multiple times RAW is superior but using JPG isn't the end of the world. What works for you doesn't always work for everyone else the same way. I know wedding photographers that use JPG only and no one has ever noticed. Would they look better processed as RAW? Sure. But they're...fine.
DCAMM720 So wait, on top of everything else one has to consider (or should have to consider unless you also shoot “green”), having to decide whether this image/shoot should be in raw or jpeg for “just fine” results needs to be added? How many images have you missed making these decisions and then menu diving to switch? Oh no, you don’t have a button programmed to select raw or jpg do you?
Yeah, I just don't get the point of shooting JPEG. Even if it's "fine".. you can just shoot raw, apply a preset and export, and it'll still be "fine". If you actually need a flexible edit, then you have that option. What's the point of shooting JPEG? Space? Buy a better card and shoot raw.
Or shoot RAW+JPEG. I do that. Shooting strictly JPEG just seems really dumb.
I am amazed to see that the likes and dislikes almost match on this video. This thing jpg vs raw will never end, there will always be tons of arguments on both sides, its like being at a pub and discuss whos the best, god or Goku, superman vs batman, cap america vs iron man. There will never be a 100% satisfactory answer on this one. Love the video Jared. Have a nice day
Jared, I don't care what some guy at Sony told you about shooting uncompressed RAW but it is NOT necessary to do so in order to save all of the data in the image! It's just plain wrong!!!! Lossless compressed has all of the data in it. Please show an example of an image that was shot in compressed lossless that fell short off an uncompressed one.
It's all your call of course but there is no reason to do this. You didn't really convince me to shoot uncompressed because you told some anecdotal story by a guy at Sony that might be connected to their R&D department. Sorry, but I've worked in IS for 20 years and know that lossless compressed == lossless uncompressed.
that's what I asked them. They said in some situations you "may" see loss of detail in some shadow areas.
I'd would really like it if that guy could have provided some examples. Also did you ever reach out to a Nikon, Canon, or Fujifilm guy to ask what they thought?
Certainly on Nikon lossless is just that, lossless. In theory you could take a compressed NEF and turn that into a bit for bit identical uncompressed NEF with the correct algorithm.
No software engineer would call something lossless if there is a loss of some data, if you did it would be lossy, when you zip up a Word document and then unzip it again you don't expect it to suddenly have a few spelling mistakes.
You can enable compression on many file systems, I would expect cloud providers already use such compression, you backups are probably compressed right now but when you download them again you expect them to be the exact same file you uploaded.
FWIW here is a link offering a simplified explanation: photographylife.com/compressed-vs-uncompressed-vs-lossless-compressed-raw
I love the jpegs straight out of my Fuji. I've not seen any great benefits to shooting RAW for my photography. It baffles me that you get so exercised about other people's preferences.
Simon Trezise Then you clearly are either a beginner or really are not that bothered about your images . If you cant see the difference between a RAW file and a jpeg when lifting shadows , bringing back highlights , adding contrast etc then I dont what to say . Your "preference" is to downgrade your images significantly straight out of the camera by shooting jpeg .
Please try not get offended by my comment either . I shot JPEG when I started out too . It was actually one of Jareds videos made me switch to RAW . The difference is night and day . Please try RAW yourself and you will never go back
No, I'm not a beginner and I do care about my images. I can do all the things you describe with jpegs. I respect your preference and feel no urge to insult you.
Simon Trezise But the quality is nowhere near as good . If you badly underexpose a great shot for e.g . And you need to lift the shadows to 100 . The raw file will look far far better than the jpeg , likewise with highlights . Just try it for yourself . Shoot RAW only for 1 month . Edit as you normally would . Then compare your old jpegs to edited raw files and you will see an incredible difference
«I've not seen any great benefits to shooting RAW…»
Then you have not watched Tony's video. He shows several examples of the benefits of raw, and none of them had anything to do with not getting it right it camera.
Jared your argument is spot on. Why the hell would anyone buy an expensive camera and lenses to shoot JPEG? Ugh! If your going to shoot JPEG just stick with your cell phone ! Shoot RAW or go home
I don't understand why you have to intentionally misunderstand him just so you can make a video about how he's confusing. If you pay attention to what he says then the video makes sense and needs no explanation.
Polin knows exactly what Tony is saying, the only reason for this video and the headline is to click bait. I've worked in media for a long time, the only reason for doing something like this is to try and take down a bigger fish. Polin is insecure and jealous. #unsubscribed
it was a publicity stunt by this douche, you can see in Tony's response video Jared approached him to do a collab with him to get more views lol
Love your channel, but find such a response against another UA-camr a bit childish, especially when it is a gentleman like Tony.
I didn’t buy the 5Ds, and now the R5, to not squeeze every bit of resolution and detail out of my images. Full Raw, uncompressed--without compromise; all the time, every time.
I will make a shirt with a "I Shoot JPEG"
Jayel Lagrada 😂😂😂
I don‘t understand Tony. But no hate in the comments please!
I regularly import 300 to 500 photos into lightroom and these load almost instantly in LR.
*I only shoot RAW for my naked selfies* ;D
Angriest Photographer lmfao
No wonder your angry
I enjoy Jared's videos, but one thing I've learned is that he talks in absolutes. I personally use RAW most of you time because my camera's buffer can keep up shooting sports and I don't mind the editing workflow RAW requires. However, Tony makes a good point. If you understand how to use RAW and you have specific reasons to use JPEG instead, that's okay. In fact, you might be better off in certain scenarios shooting JPEG.
yeah, however, if you're just taking a snapshot, you can just pull out your galaxy s21 Ultra and get an amazing photo that serves its purpose. As Jared mentions, you might be taking snapshots, when all of a sudden something happens that is a once in a lifetime event, and now you've got jpegs only .
I watched both videos. Jared is very unprofessional here I think. I’ve never seen anyone making a video discussing a fellow photographer and their comments. Horses for courses as they say. Sorry Jared but I’m gonna unsubscribe after this.
You chopped up their story, and rearranged stuff. Not cool, act like a professional.
Basic cameras shoot 30fps... Are you high?
Or did you mean in video mode 🤣
Not surprising. Polin also shoots in uncompressed raw because he thinks he's losing something with LOSSLESS compression. This guy uses his file format as an extension of his small hands. He's a potato head. #unsubscribed
He didn't say basic cameras shoot at 39 fps. He said you could shoot 30 photos before the buffer filled, even at 4/5 fps of basic cameraS.
this guy seems personally attacked by jpg's existence
I agree with you. While I generally enjoy the Northrups' channel, it seems like he produced the jpeg segment just for the sake of producing a segment.
Steve Heckel he was just teasing Jared. I can picture him and Chelsea laughing their asses off as they were uploading it, _"omg can you imagine his face when he watches this?? lmao"_
Steve Heckel That was my thought too. should have skipped it. losing some creds with me.
I agree with almost everything you said except the lossless compression part.
Lossless is lossless (or at least it should be). It is like you ZIP a text file and you are afraid of loosing text.
As a computer scientist I can tell you that true lossless compression just have one “cost”: more processing... but all data should be there.
If Sony looses shadow detail, their compression cannot be called lossless.
Bernardo Silva Jared is dumb on technical data. Few years ago he mentioned he has no clue what LUTs are on his video when it was available in a monitor he was reviewing, and also makes no effort to understand them even at the end of the video.
I love when UA-camrs respond to each other's videos.
You misrepresented his video. He doesn't flip flop. He states which is better for each type of photographer. Tony's video was very clear, maybe you should watch it again..
Did you really proposed a collab video saying "it'd get lots of views"? Really?
I stopped shooting raw years ago. It's just unnecessary. Jpegs are good enough.
Just saw this today and... Come on Jared, you’re better than this. Publicly shaming your colleague and competitor is beneath you. I watch both of your videos for different reasons. You reminded me of the stark dichotomy of today’s politicians. Even if Tony made mistakes in this video that you’re responding to, you could have said your peace with diplomacy. Your motivation is irrelevant to me; the effect was a sour taste in my mouth. Just sharing my own thoughts. It doesn’t mean that I’ll boycott your channel. I hope that you find my feedback helpful, not condemning.
You're just drumming up contreversy where there isn't. You know Tony not actually dissing Raw for Jpeg right? He isn't flip flopping either, simply giving arguments for both sides..and still shoots raw professionally.
+Peter Philip Cootauco I️ gave my personal opinion.
Winner winner chicken dinner!
Jared makes some valid points and that’s OK, but Tony’s basic premise is that there’s not much difference between JPEG and RAW files and he’s spot on. Not only are jpeg’s easier to transfer and work with but people don’t want to spend endless hours in Lightroom touching up pictures. Like Tony says the cost benefits of shooting raw just aren’t enough to outweigh the versatility and adequate high quality of jpegs, Tony FTW !
I like both you guys. And both your views are valid and plausible. Tony isn't perfect, but he is very good, as are most camera vloggers. Your information here is on point, and hard to refute. As a total beginner, I appreciate you both very much. Thanks! (I use the Nikon D5600 and love it)
i think u over-reacted or purposely make it seem like so. the point tony wanted to make is actually simple but u seem to take every words too literally and indirectly painted him as a loser. But i guess that what ppl do nowadays instead of contacting the person in actual to clarify each others views, they make random videos to further complicate things to get attention. hmm.. not being professional i guess.
When I started shooting, I did use jpeg. When I quickly learned the limits of edits in jpg I went raw shortly after.
When I first started, JPG was the only option. I think there may have been a couple of extremely expensive cameras that could do RAW and a handful of others that would do TIFF, but that was it. JPG was probably the only option in most cases.
It’s like ppl arguing about which camera make is best. At the end of the day they are all tools to get the results the photographer wants, who cares what everyone else thinks, do what’s works for you.
The best camera is the sony alpha 1. Literally 😆
Different tools for different jobs. Understand that.
Why not just have your camera take both? Is there a disadvantage to doing that? I have been doing that for some time and it seems to work out well. The biggest issue seems to be the time spent separating file types. Generally, I will just work and post the jpegs up to Facebook. If there is something that I want for myself, I just work with the raw file. Just throwing that out there for what it's worth.
Yeah, I gave up watching his channel. When he does a review of a camera he has never touched, I called it quits.
I only watch them because they have nice voices. They are total normies, and kinda disconnected at the same time.
It was TKO once “Ken Rockwell wants his argument back” ! I just signed in to say I love the new content on your channel . Seems exciting like it was in 2011 when I found the Fro !
Ya gotta love UA-cam comments! Viewers, keep in mind that UA-cam is simply a business tool nowadays. Jared and Tony both use it as such. They do their best to try to help fellow photographers out there but in the end it's to promote their brand. They offer "suggestions" on how to shoot, if it doesn't work for you then don't use it. Jared, keep up the good work...but try not to have an opinion, UA-camrs can't handle it. :)
Aw Dang, I just clicked over to Tony's channel and see you guys collaborated on a video that was posted yesterday. Great to see everyone can get along.
I've seen the initial vid and the vid Tony did in response. I thought his response is unnecessary. Everything he said makes sense. You make a lot of sense too Jared. The conflict is uncalled for. Some folks shoot raw and some don't. Some people love mirrorless cameras while others can't stand 'em. Everything is a matter of personal preference. Sometimes that preference is determined by individual passion and sometimes by circumstance. Tony said it (jpeg/raw) was a polarising issue so I guess he knew what was coming. He says he spoke to you before he made the vid so if that's true why didn't you guys just 'duke it out' then? Is this all about increasing views and subscribers? I like watching your channels for the informative, supportive and helpful information and advice on photography. The drama just gets in the way of that!
Jared trying to pick apart Tony, oh god this is gonna be funny
Never shoot for more than 1.5 seconds continuously? Someone has never tried to shoot birds 🦅
I agree with Tony, but I still only shoot RAW. It’s just that there are professional circumstances where it’s advantageous to shoot JPEG, if you don’t shoot wildlife you might not understand the difference the buffer makes but chugging up and missing a raw shot is worse than getting the jpeg shot. And after big, short turnaround jobs, sometimes you just don’t have time to shoot raw. I often shoot a dance event, just got home from one in fact (at 1am), and the photos need to be uploaded by midday (11 hours). In that time I have to import 1500 photos, build 1:1 previews, edit them all, and upload on my shitty internet connection. And fit sleep in there somewhere. I do the workflow raw at the moment but it takes a long time, if I did this event more than once a week I would shoot jpeg and skip half the processing time. A 1500 import with basic preset applied, building 1:1 previews, and converting too DNG, takes 8 hours on my iMac, and then I can finally cull. Not practical sometimes.
Christopher O'Grady Thats pretty much exactly what Jared is saying though bar the wildlife . Shoot RAW unless you have no other choice ,simple as that . Also with the likes of the Nikon D500 the buffer on that is like 200 raw files before cutting out so if your serious about wildlife then no reason in the world to shoot jpeg . As another commented earlier , You pay thousands on your DSLR and lenses only to shoot a compressed , butchered version of what your camera is capable of ? Makes no sense .
It takes you 8 hours to copy as dng and build 1:1 for 1500 photos? You need a new machine man.
+Christopher, Why in the world are people converting to DNG? Your camera shoots a raw file, -be that NEF, PEF, CR2, or DNG- and the first thing you do is convert to DNG??? Whatever for? in case in sometime in the future your raw is suddenly no longer supported? Like the way Adobe no longer supports the original DNG 1.0 format? Doesn't matter. Adobe uses Libraw, based on DCRaw, to read your raw files, and DCRAW will be supporting them well into the future. Indeed, Adobe (through Libraw), supports over 500 raw formats, and, according to an Adobe expert, “For now, there is no imminent need to convert everything to DNG since undocumented raw formats can still widely be read.”
He then states why it may possibly be a good idea to convert. “Major operating system [Windows™] updates have been known to make older operating systems, [Windows™] and the software that runs on them, [Microsoft® & Adobe®] obsolete within a matter of a few years.” [Bracketed emphasis is mine]. Yes, Adobe has dropped support for their older software due to obsolescence of older Windows OSes, and Newer Adobe products do not support everything some of their older products used to support. In fact, newer Adobe products use a DNG format (DNG version 1.4) which older Adobe products may not necessarily be able to read, (depending on from what original raw file it was converted, and with what version of Adobe Camera Raw was used).
Good news is we still have DCRaw. The point is, stop doing things on import which is totally unnecessary.
…And a 1:1 preview, is not a preview; it is an image. And if all that takes 8 hours on your iMac, then perhaps you should give up using a “Professional ” tool which cannot use multiple cores/multithread, and cannot use GPU acceleration (and does not use a floating point pixel pipeline). My seven year old Phenom II X6 does not take that long. But then again, I use Rapid Photo Downloader to move images from one of my two Class ⑩ SDXC II U3 Lexar Professional 1000× to my 4-drive 6TB RAID5 array, and DarkTable to auto-apply basic camera/lens presets, both running on on 64-bit Ubuntu Linux, (GNOME 3), with a 4GB Nvidia GTX 760 GPU.
Fine, my GPU is not seven years old. A few years back I upgraded from a GT 440 GPU which is now seven years old. My HDD are also not that old, as I had to upgrade when my 1TB drive started to exhibit some errors. The cost of four 2TB drives then was less than the original cost of the failing drive, so I got faster performance, greater capacity, and better reliability for less cost. I also upgraded the RAM to 32GB 2600Hz DDR3 (from the 16GB 1200Hz DDR3 previously in it). Still, it is a seven year old CPU on a seven year old MB (on it's third Power supply, as one PS failed and one had to be upgraded to handle the GPU plus 4 HDDs), and it never takes me an hour from inserting my card to be ready to cull.
Truth is, I just upgraded my OS today from Zesty Zapus (Ubuntu 17.04) to Artful Aardvark (Ubuntu 17.10), and updating all my applications also. …AND EVERYTHING STILL WORKS! When I first got this, it was running Karmic Koala (Ubuntu 9.10), and I was using Digikam back then instead of DarkTable. Darktable was around then, and Digikam is still around today.
Karim Hosein Well that was an essay and a half lol.
DNG is better lossless compression than NEF, about 15% smaller files with no loss in quality, and wider compatibility with old weird third party apps I use sometimes. My computer would be much faster if LR used all the cores and GPU properly but there’s no viable alternative at the moment. And I need 1:1 previews for culling, even though LR still takes a few seconds to fetch the already built preview, when it should be instant.
The original point is, for high volume, short turnaround jobs, and wildlife, JPEG can ease the workflow of pros.
one argument against JPEG is that some level of sharpening is applied to every photo - the problem with that is that the things like radius/threshold are applied with a constant value, but in reality you want to select these parameters based on how big pixels or contrast areas you want the sharpening apply to ... that is the very minimum why RAW = BETTER
For some people. It's pretty hard to beat jpgs, preset, insta/phone filters and so on for most people, pretty easy to end up with something overprocessed or unbalanced for regular people who edit raw from scratch.
Jpeg only makes sense if you need to get the images out within minutes / seconds (like live sport events) or if it simply doesn't matter. (party photos for example ^^ -> shoot, upload, go to sleep :D )
Yes, but even in that case, you can always shoot in RAW + JPG. I'm not aware of any camera that mandates that RAW be only RAW files.
I have learned alot from this channel! Thank you for doing what you do man
I think I’m going to rock with Tony on this one given his photos aren’t trash.