Thanks so much! I really never understood completely the why's of JPEG vs RAW, but your visuals and explanation are very convincing. I will continue to shoot RAW mostly when I'm shooting something which will demand some post processing. Perhaps not when I'm shooting family outings, the dog playing, or other informal kinds of shots, friends posing outside a restaurant, etc.. Thanks again.
Excellent detailed comparison. Thanks. I do like you and shoot a jpeg plus raw for family photography. It’s nice to have pretty good images right after an event.
Literally the same here and, I must say Blake, I've understood the major differences between JPG vs RAW for many years. However, like you, I haven't shot in JPG (with some exceptions like mobile handsets) in many years. It's nice to know that the tech is still relevant, if even moreso now thanks to advances in camera tech. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication!
I have shot RAW from day 1, and now 16 years later, my RAW files from a Canon 1DsMKII shine in Lightroom/PS with 4x the quality that I originally saw. It is amazing!
Bracketing the exposures for a landscape would probably help you maintain details if shooting jpeg. But I agree the Raw provides far more data in file with file sizes 3 or 4 times larger than jpeg, (depending on your jpeg setting), not to mention reclaiming highlights if overexposed a bit, and extending dynamic range from highlights to shadow.
Awesome debunk Blake as usual. Glad you joined the 42mpx Sony sensor users. Let's w8 to see what A7R5 sensor will put on the table... Yummy 😅 Nice landscape shot barn + storm 😎
Yes, Jpeg has 8 bits of dynamic range (at best) so the building in the dark on the lightning shot will be very pixelated when brightened so much, so here, the Raw file is clearly a better option. But on the Mt Rushmore photo, the artifacts in the jpeg and the sharpening are controlled by the level of compression (quality) and sharpening options. What did you use for these when you created your jpegs? I use only jpegs for PS since my CS6 does not support my camera, when I do the higher dynamic range shots, I use burst-bracketing and HDR, or I use Affinity Photo which does support my camera Raw files. Thanks for this informative video.
Another thing to consider is that your are applying more contrast with the highlight, shadow, etc.. ACR settings, the camera bodies do not do that, so try another process. Open the raw file in PS, convert to 16 bit, save it as a tiff file with no adjustments. Now use the same ACR settings on that tiff file and compare that to the raw file in PS. Then save the file in PS as a jpeg, and compare the jpeg. It could be that the artifacts you're seeing have mostly to do with the fact that a jpeg captures only the highest 8 bits of image data, whereas the raw file captures more, perhaps 14 bits, depending on the camera. Anyway, for sure you can always show that a raw file will look better than a jpeg if you use heavy adjusts, for example, sky banding at sunset.
I just did a similar test to what you showed for a blue sky using ACR to make a jpeg from a raw file. But I used a Canon 1dsmk2 body (8k$ in 2005), and I found similar results to you, but more pronounced. One thing I found was that even at the highest quality option for creating jpeg (max, 10-12), the resulting ACR jpeg was slightly noisier than the jpeg version made by the camera. However, the camera has noise reduction settings for creating the jpeg, so there are multiple variables here, but sensors are certainly better today.
Personally I am shooting both. Storage space is not an issue nowadays and having the JPG is convenient; saves me going through the export process when I want to view those pictures on a TV or another device without RAW support.
Could you tell me if the yellow circle around the photoshop tools you were using is a photoshop or system function. Also how do you create it, your only the second person I have seen do this and it really makes following a tutorial much easier. Thank you Bob
I use a software for recording my screen called Camtasia. In post production of the video I can add cursor highlights and animations. I don't actually see that circle.
hi Interesting its a bit like the debate one can have about say phone images v a decent camera with a larger sensor -when conditions are optimal things can work well with a phone or a cheap point n shoot camera however as soon as the going gets tough as it often does say with landcape work the whole thing can start to fall apart .So Ive always shot in RAW because its never certain when a fabulous opportunity might arise and having as much data as possible to work from seems a no brainer -one can go back to images that at the time may have looked rather meh and not worthy of RAW capture but years later looked at with fresh eyes and better editing software and skills may look rather good and having al that xtra data is welcome .Landcape work very often requires pushing things to the limits as youve demonstrated and even with RAW from a decent camera it takes good editing skills to keep the noise down one of the worst offenders is Dehaze used on skies as a grad filter .The other thing not mentioned is that a RAW file retains its integrity basically forever I dont even know what people do to ensure they have an indestructable original when shooting JPG ?? I never use Lightroom but possibly there all edits retain the original file as shot maybe you could comment thanks
I shoot fuji ... this means film simulations ;). So my workflow is raw + jpg. I use the jpg if I only need minor adjustments... but raw if i need to recover lots of shadow detail but 80% of the time jpg are good enough for A4 prints and of course less "heavy" on my storage space.
what format do you use then to make large prints of said images and frames? Usually after post processing you exporto to jpeg or TIFF so again its not like you just use RAW only--not sure this is capturing the full process so I agree with the other comment about fair comparisons. If you actually go through the process of taking the time to make sure you collect all the data in camera at time of exposure, a JPEG will pick up that data such as the barn/old house detail if you collect the necessary exposures at the time. I feel like you are only scratching the surface of what a JPEG and RAW can actually do. Forgot good, better, best, and retrain the mind to allow for what is absolutely possible and i'm not convinced in this video that JPEG won't capture it because you didn't shoot in jpeg and capture exposures to allow for ALL content to actually come through--when that happens, then let me know. And just so you know i'm not trolling or playing devils' advocate, i'm going out shooting this week with my A7RIV shooting both jpeg and raw with a variety of lenses.
It really depends on how much shadow you are trying to pull and how under exposed the image is. You are basically taking data and tiring to extract more data from it than it has, so there will be some side effects.
Compressed and lossy is compressed and lossy. Whether in Canberra or covered you will see the same results with this test. Neither will be able to recover 3-5 stops and there will be a slight color shift regardless.
Some cameras have a way to increase jpeg resolution with much less compression. Sony may also have that ability. I haven’t dived into the menus to see. Olympus has this and the jpegs are much more flexible in post. Nevertheless the 8bit vs 16 bit file is most of the issue. If the photographer can ensure Accurate exposure and manageable iso noise settings which varies with camera and sensor, then jpegs may indeed give them a significant workflow advantage. High speed action and sports tends to benefit the most because the shooting speed and need to output files to online services during events favors the smaller jpeg file sizes. I would say the general rule of thumb for weighing one over the other is in direct proportion to the degree of post editing anticipated. Landscapes and complex dynamic range scenes would benefit most a 16bit workflow. In the second example, the knowledge of the raw workflow informed your choices in settings. We’re I taking the photo with a camera with only 8 bit output possible, I would choose settings and brackets required for the scene at hand. I’m sure with your skill you could generate nearly identical images from either workflow. However in the final analysis, the photographer needs to consider the future value of an image and note that a few years down the road there may be software processes that will offer more editing improvements than are presently possible and in those cases. 16 bit raw will retain more information for the software than an 8 bit jpeg. If the image is valuable to the owner they may prefer to keep the 16 bit as a more future proofed format. If it is perfectly exposed and relatively pliable for any expected future needs, a jpeg may suffice as well as a raw. I prefer jpeg when I am confident in the out of camera images being adequate. I prefer raw for everything else.
Depending on the camera. The r3 i do raw only, the S3 I'll do both as sometimes some of the jpegs that come out of the camera are client ready (yes I know it's only 12mp)
I do take jpeg + raw with my IR converted A7Rii camera for one reason - I have the camera set to Black and White profile and I like to have the jpeg for reference to what I was seeing at the time I took the picture. :)
Nice breakdown of things as always Blake. I shoot RAW+JPG so I get the best of both. I don't always want or need the depth of a RAW. Sometimes, I am just doing snapshots that need a quick tweak. I think what I have learned via your channel and F.64 Elite has enabled me to confidently decide which to use when.
You can download what's called a "raw codec" so you can see your raw file on your computer. It will show it as the thumbnail it should be. I just googled "ARW Raw Codec" for my Sony cameras and I found it. Use the three letter file suffix of your raw file.
I use my cell phone for casual snap shots and my camera for "photography" shots so it's always in raw. I never even think about shooting in jpg with my camera anymore.
Roger that! It has very limited purpose for me as well. this video is not designed for seasoned pro's but people who may be on the fence about RAW. I have had a few emails about it lately so this helps me show them the difference quickly when it comes to post production results.
@@f64Academy I think jpg is fine to start out on. Some people have no desire to ever edit their pictures. They want SOOC. They just don't realize that your camera edits your pictures based on the picture profile you select to use. I usually shoot standard or neutral so that what I see on the screen will be similar to what I see the raw file when I open it up in Lightroom. Sometimes I use Adobe's profile in LR and sometimes I change it to Nikon's.
I'll use my cellphone for quick shots as well but when it is something I might want to process I use my lightroom camera and get a raw file (dng) that I can then work with at a later time.
@@graham_T I have a note 9. I've been able to shoot in raw since before my galaxy s4. I have Lightroom mobile on my phone that I use if I take something nice but I mostly use my camera for that.
Raw. No question. Every time. I am a lazy pro with an H6D100c - who under/overexposes constantly - With RAW the recovery is far more capable than you would think possible. Not so with JPeg.
@@f64Academy Good stuff -also just noted 'F64' I am a big proponent of tiny apertures but also the H6 allows iso 64 - that is checked out and it never leaves!!
I don't think it would be much different. JPEG is a JPEG what you would see is maybe a color difference, but you would not be able to recover that shadow detail.
I agree, Gary. The in-camera jpeg is likely to be very different from the Ps manipulated raw file. After all, you can control the in-camera, yourself, with "picture styles" (Canon shooter, here, don't know what all those off-brands call their jpeg manipulations. Dan
@@danyeager7561 I agree to an extent with both of you. Those camera styles would control things like color, saturation, possibly some noise reduction, and sharpening. Which, in this case, don't matter much, no camera will EVER be able to recover 3-5 stops of lost light in a JPEG as we see in example #2.
@@f64Academy And I agree with THAT! Dynamic range is tough enough without throwing any away. About 50% of my photography is with infrared converted cameras, and it can be interesting to see what an IR jpeg can be manipulated to. That said, I always shoot raw/infrared; hard drive space penalty is not that high. Dan
Not necessarily... I mean there is some stuff to learn here. Many beginners don't understand why they would need to shoot Raw and this helps understand it.
Thanks for the confirmation! I'll continue shooting in RAW.
Very interesting how the jpeg artifacts acted like some kind of clarity filter on the patterned rock. Great vide, thanks for sharing!
Glad you enjoyed it! At least I have one here that gets my point ;) haha.
Thanks so much! I really never understood completely the why's of JPEG vs RAW, but your visuals and explanation are very convincing. I will continue to shoot RAW mostly when I'm shooting something which will demand some post processing. Perhaps not when I'm shooting family outings, the dog playing, or other informal kinds of shots, friends posing outside a restaurant, etc.. Thanks again.
I would always shoot in Raw, there are just some things that jpeg does that are almost unacceptable and the color is always better 😁
Excellent detailed comparison. Thanks. I do like you and shoot a jpeg plus raw for family photography. It’s nice to have pretty good images right after an event.
This caught my eye when you put it up a couple days ago and I finally got around to watching it. Thank you for this! Really good examples.
My pleasure! I thought it was interesting.
@@f64Academy it definitely was. Especially the counterintuitive first impression that the JPEG have retained more detail. Thanks again.
Literally the same here and, I must say Blake, I've understood the major differences between JPG vs RAW for many years. However, like you, I haven't shot in JPG (with some exceptions like mobile handsets) in many years. It's nice to know that the tech is still relevant, if even moreso now thanks to advances in camera tech. Thanks for all your hard work and dedication!
@@jackspw Thanks, Paul! It was fun to take a look at something different for a change ;)
Of course I shoot RAW. Loved the way you demonstrated its advantages (if not superiority!)
Agreed! My pleasure!
I have shot RAW from day 1, and now 16 years later, my RAW files from a Canon 1DsMKII shine in Lightroom/PS with 4x the quality that I originally saw. It is amazing!
That's awesome!
Bracketing the exposures for a landscape would probably help you maintain details if shooting jpeg. But I agree the Raw provides far more data in file with file sizes 3 or 4 times larger than jpeg, (depending on your jpeg setting), not to mention reclaiming highlights if overexposed a bit, and extending dynamic range from highlights to shadow.
Awesome debunk Blake as usual.
Glad you joined the 42mpx Sony sensor users. Let's w8 to see what A7R5 sensor will put on the table... Yummy 😅
Nice landscape shot barn + storm 😎
Thanks ;) I just joined the 50mpx Sony Sensor users. The a1 is a dream come true!
Yes, Jpeg has 8 bits of dynamic range (at best) so the building in the dark on the lightning shot will be very pixelated when brightened so much, so here, the Raw file is clearly a better option. But on the Mt Rushmore photo, the artifacts in the jpeg and the sharpening are controlled by the level of compression (quality) and sharpening options. What did you use for these when you created your jpegs?
I use only jpegs for PS since my CS6 does not support my camera, when I do the higher dynamic range shots, I use burst-bracketing and HDR, or I use Affinity Photo which does support my camera Raw files. Thanks for this informative video.
It was ACR I covered to Jpeg high quality with 10-12 as the setting for quality. So pretty high quality actually.
Another thing to consider is that your are applying more contrast with the highlight, shadow, etc.. ACR settings, the camera bodies do not do that, so try another process. Open the raw file in PS, convert to 16 bit, save it as a tiff file with no adjustments. Now use the same ACR settings on that tiff file and compare that to the raw file in PS. Then save the file in PS as a jpeg, and compare the jpeg. It could be that the artifacts you're seeing have mostly to do with the fact that a jpeg captures only the highest 8 bits of image data, whereas the raw file captures more, perhaps 14 bits, depending on the camera. Anyway, for sure you can always show that a raw file will look better than a jpeg if you use heavy adjusts, for example, sky banding at sunset.
I just did a similar test to what you showed for a blue sky using ACR to make a jpeg from a raw file. But I used a Canon 1dsmk2 body (8k$ in 2005), and I found similar results to you, but more pronounced. One thing I found was that even at the highest quality option for creating jpeg (max, 10-12), the resulting ACR jpeg was slightly noisier than the jpeg version made by the camera. However, the camera has noise reduction settings for creating the jpeg, so there are multiple variables here, but sensors are certainly better today.
Personally I am shooting both. Storage space is not an issue nowadays and having the JPG is convenient; saves me going through the export process when I want to view those pictures on a TV or another device without RAW support.
Great point!
Could you tell me if the yellow circle around the photoshop tools you were using is a photoshop or system function. Also how do you create it, your only the second person I have seen do this and it really makes following a tutorial much easier. Thank you Bob
I use a software for recording my screen called Camtasia. In post production of the video I can add cursor highlights and animations. I don't actually see that circle.
hi Interesting its a bit like the debate one can have about say phone images v a decent camera with a larger sensor -when conditions are optimal things can work well with a phone or a cheap point n shoot camera however as soon as the going gets tough as it often does say with landcape work the whole thing can start to fall apart .So Ive always shot in RAW because its never certain when a fabulous opportunity might arise and having as much data as possible to work from seems a no brainer -one can go back to images that at the time may have looked rather meh and not worthy of RAW capture but years later looked at with fresh eyes and better editing software and skills may look rather good and having al that xtra data is welcome .Landcape work very often requires pushing things to the limits as youve demonstrated and even with RAW from a decent camera it takes good editing skills to keep the noise down one of the worst offenders is Dehaze used on skies as a grad filter .The other thing not mentioned is that a RAW file retains its integrity basically forever I dont even know what people do to ensure they have an indestructable original when shooting JPG ?? I never use Lightroom but possibly there all edits retain the original file as shot maybe you could comment thanks
I shoot fuji ... this means film simulations ;). So my workflow is raw + jpg. I use the jpg if I only need minor adjustments... but raw if i need to recover lots of shadow detail but 80% of the time jpg are good enough for A4 prints and of course less "heavy" on my storage space.
what format do you use then to make large prints of said images and frames? Usually after post processing you exporto to jpeg or TIFF so again its not like you just use RAW only--not sure this is capturing the full process so I agree with the other comment about fair comparisons. If you actually go through the process of taking the time to make sure you collect all the data in camera at time of exposure, a JPEG will pick up that data such as the barn/old house detail if you collect the necessary exposures at the time. I feel like you are only scratching the surface of what a JPEG and RAW can actually do. Forgot good, better, best, and retrain the mind to allow for what is absolutely possible and i'm not convinced in this video that JPEG won't capture it because you didn't shoot in jpeg and capture exposures to allow for ALL content to actually come through--when that happens, then let me know. And just so you know i'm not trolling or playing devils' advocate, i'm going out shooting this week with my A7RIV shooting both jpeg and raw with a variety of lenses.
I did mention that with proper settings in camera one could use jpeg. I think you may be reading too far into this.
Why is it that when I try to recover shadows from a raw file it turns the area green?
It really depends on how much shadow you are trying to pull and how under exposed the image is. You are basically taking data and tiring to extract more data from it than it has, so there will be some side effects.
Why aren’t you comparing RAW with JPEG out of camera. Doesn’t make sense to convert the RAW to JPEG
Compressed and lossy is compressed and lossy. Whether in Canberra or covered you will see the same results with this test. Neither will be able to recover 3-5 stops and there will be a slight color shift regardless.
I just ran a test on an in camera jpeg and the results were much worse. I may do a follow up on this. In camera jpeg is not ideal.
Some cameras have a way to increase jpeg resolution with much less compression. Sony may also have that ability. I haven’t dived into the menus to see. Olympus has this and the jpegs are much more flexible in post. Nevertheless the 8bit vs 16 bit file is most of the issue. If the photographer can ensure Accurate exposure and manageable iso noise settings which varies with camera and sensor, then jpegs may indeed give them a significant workflow advantage. High speed action and sports tends to benefit the most because the shooting speed and need to output files to online services during events favors the smaller jpeg file sizes. I would say the general rule of thumb for weighing one over the other is in direct proportion to the degree of post editing anticipated. Landscapes and complex dynamic range scenes would benefit most a 16bit workflow. In the second example, the knowledge of the raw workflow informed your choices in settings. We’re I taking the photo with a camera with only 8 bit output possible, I would choose settings and brackets required for the scene at hand. I’m sure with your skill you could generate nearly identical images from either workflow.
However in the final analysis, the photographer needs to consider the future value of an image and note that a few years down the road there may be software processes that will offer more editing improvements than are presently possible and in those cases. 16 bit raw will retain more information for the software than an 8 bit jpeg. If the image is valuable to the owner they may prefer to keep the 16 bit as a more future proofed format. If it is perfectly exposed and relatively pliable for any expected future needs, a jpeg may suffice as well as a raw. I prefer jpeg when I am confident in the out of camera images being adequate. I prefer raw for everything else.
Depending on the camera. The r3 i do raw only, the S3 I'll do both as sometimes some of the jpegs that come out of the camera are client ready (yes I know it's only 12mp)
I do take jpeg + raw with my IR converted A7Rii camera for one reason - I have the camera set to Black and White profile and I like to have the jpeg for reference to what I was seeing at the time I took the picture. :)
That's actually a good reason for IR 😁
Nice breakdown of things as always Blake. I shoot RAW+JPG so I get the best of both. I don't always want or need the depth of a RAW. Sometimes, I am just doing snapshots that need a quick tweak. I think what I have learned via your channel and F.64 Elite has enabled me to confidently decide which to use when.
I've been shooting in jpeg and raw and using the jpeg as a thumbnail for the raw on my hard drive.
You can download what's called a "raw codec" so you can see your raw file on your computer. It will show it as the thumbnail it should be. I just googled "ARW Raw Codec" for my Sony cameras and I found it. Use the three letter file suffix of your raw file.
@@f64Academy I'm going to have to look into. It would sure be nice to have that extra little space.
I use my cell phone for casual snap shots and my camera for "photography" shots so it's always in raw. I never even think about shooting in jpg with my camera anymore.
Roger that! It has very limited purpose for me as well. this video is not designed for seasoned pro's but people who may be on the fence about RAW. I have had a few emails about it lately so this helps me show them the difference quickly when it comes to post production results.
@@f64Academy I think jpg is fine to start out on. Some people have no desire to ever edit their pictures. They want SOOC. They just don't realize that your camera edits your pictures based on the picture profile you select to use. I usually shoot standard or neutral so that what I see on the screen will be similar to what I see the raw file when I open it up in Lightroom. Sometimes I use Adobe's profile in LR and sometimes I change it to Nikon's.
I'll use my cellphone for quick shots as well but when it is something I might want to process I use my lightroom camera and get a raw file (dng) that I can then work with at a later time.
@@graham_T I have a note 9. I've been able to shoot in raw since before my galaxy s4. I have Lightroom mobile on my phone that I use if I take something nice but I mostly use my camera for that.
@@graham_T same here but when I go out with my camera it's in raw 99% of the time whereas my phone is almost always in jpg.
Landscape - RAW, Portrait - JPEG .
With my Nikon d7500 I shoot Raw+jpeg basic
I shoot in both. Just in case
Raw. No question. Every time. I am a lazy pro with an H6D100c - who under/overexposes constantly - With RAW the recovery is far more capable than you would think possible. Not so with JPeg.
Oh I know! Preaching to the choir here :) I tend to be much like you in my Raw approach.
@@f64Academy Good stuff -also just noted 'F64' I am a big proponent of tiny apertures but also the H6 allows iso 64 - that is checked out and it never leaves!!
Shoot Jpeg in camera then do a comparison otherwise I don't feel it's a fair comparison.
I don't think it would be much different. JPEG is a JPEG what you would see is maybe a color difference, but you would not be able to recover that shadow detail.
Whats the point? The Camera JPG is just a different rendering of the same limited format. You are missing the whole point of the video. Rewatch
I agree, Gary. The in-camera jpeg is likely to be very different from the Ps manipulated raw file. After all, you can control the in-camera, yourself, with "picture styles" (Canon shooter, here, don't know what all those off-brands call their jpeg manipulations. Dan
@@danyeager7561 I agree to an extent with both of you. Those camera styles would control things like color, saturation, possibly some noise reduction, and sharpening. Which, in this case, don't matter much, no camera will EVER be able to recover 3-5 stops of lost light in a JPEG as we see in example #2.
@@f64Academy And I agree with THAT! Dynamic range is tough enough without throwing any away. About 50% of my photography is with infrared converted cameras, and it can be interesting to see what an IR jpeg can be manipulated to. That said, I always shoot raw/infrared; hard drive space penalty is not that high.
Dan
This was an April Fools joke......right?(tic)
Not necessarily... I mean there is some stuff to learn here. Many beginners don't understand why they would need to shoot Raw and this helps understand it.
@@f64Academy (tic) = tongue in cheek....;)
@@Photosbytw Ah! I get it now ;) I'm kinda slow, haha