RAW vs JPEG: The Real Truth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 бер 2022
- www.steeletraining.com/ - Which is better, RAW or JPEG (JPG)? Finally learn the real truth about the endless compression controversy in this Photography tutorial by Phil Steele.
For more of my tutorials, visit:
www.steeletraining.com/
Watch more of my free tutorials that are not on UA-cam:
www.steeletraining.com/
I made the mistake of telling some of the members of my local photography club that I submitted pictures in local and online competitions that were taken in Jpeg. Then I compounded the admission by telling them that I used a Micro Four Thirds camera. Now hardley anyone will talk with me at the meetings. Now it seems like I have been ostracised in the group. I have found that photography is more about image than the image.
Its the picture that counts. At my job we have a yearly photo contest. Winners get their pics printed and hung on the wall. Ive submitted several photos. The 3 that were picked were all taken on a 10 year old 12 mp point n shoot in jpeg with very minimal editing.
There is an insufferable tech snobbiness among a certain kind of men (it seems to always be men) in photography. That was part of my reason for making this video. I know professional photographers who make their entire living from photography and who nearly always shoot JPG. One wrote to me the other day after seeing this video, "I shoot 98% JPEG, don't tell anyone." Don't let those jerks get you down. Shoot what works for you.
Keep up the good fight, you’re NOT alone
I made the mistake of wasting time participating in such a group a few years ago. I was under the impression it was a group of photogs who actually earned a living from photography and I wanted to learn more about the business side of things. I discovered I was doing more paid work (as side gigs at that time) than the vast majority of the members, most of whom had never sold an image, much less been paid up front to shoot an event or session.
Serious photographers don't join clubs. Leave now!!
A huge advantage to shooting RAW is copyright. If you own the RAW (customer generally doesn’t get the RAW), you have legal proof of ownership which is held up in court.
An excellent clear detailed presentation without any over excited delivery. And no unnecessary irritating music which adds nothing and makes the dialogue often difficult to hear.
Another advantage of shooting RAW is when you're shooting in light from different sources that make the white balance tricky. I shoot events where the light changes constantly.
"I shoot events where the light changes constantly."
Same here. Night sports.
If you're setting JPEG to shoot in B&W, in the first place, none of that matters. For dramatic B&W shots, you should be looking, first of all, for scenes in which there is bright light and long, deep shadows. Nothing is more boring than an image in which everything is bland grey tones. Shooting JPEG, set to B&W, doesn't prevent dramatic, contrasting images, and it may even help you to visualize the final image. I started in 1971, when there wasn't anything digital at all. I shot both color and B&W film for 26 years before going digital. Now, admittedly, I've shot in color for conversion and editing in B&W for years. But, when I encountered a glitch in my camera that turned out to be in RAW mode (in downloading my images, most became uneditable), I tried switching to JPEG mode and this solved the problem. Realizing that I now had the option of shooting in B&W, I decided to go that direction, rather than spend hundreds of dollars getting my camera repaired, or hundreds more for a new camera.
Zippy, I also shoot events, as in live music events and I simply must agree, Raw, is the way to go in those instances. ALL THE WAY. In the ever changing scenario where light is sporadic, unpredictable, and always changing colors, with rapid moving subjects consistently, I definitely prefer RAW over the JPEG.
This is the clearest and best expiation of RAW vs. JPEG files that I've ever seen.I now fully understand the differences and when to use each format. Thanks Phil
Glad it was helpful!
I keep it simple by using RAW+ on my cameras. When I take a picture it saves it in both RAW and JPG. That way I can chose for my needs later.
Nice explanation and I agree on most of it. I don't know if using RAW has something to do with snobbery. In my experience it has more to do with just plain ignorence. So in that sense your video can help. What I do not understand is why when comparing these two file types (RAW versus JPEG) only compression is mentioned as the factor of importance, because it really isn't. The biggest difference between these files is the bit depth which determines how many colors can be reproduced. A JPEG is an 8 bit file, while a typical RAW file is at least 12 bit of even more. That doesn't sound like much, but the difference is huge. A 8 bit JPEG can reproduce 16,000,000 colors while a RAW file can reproduce 68,719,476,736. So in a JPEG file 68,719,476,736 minus 16,000,000 = 68.703.476.736 colors are just thrown away. This has nothing to do with compression. And it is this difference that makes it hard to recover or improve JPEG's a lot if needed. You just cannot recover something that has been thrown away. And yes, I know and agree that this difference it not always important or even visible depending on the image. So in general I agree, but people should really understand why RAW can be so important. You throw a lot of information away in JPEG that can't be recovered. May be not important when taking snapshots but even a 'family portrait' often needs post processing to get that wow-factor. RAW can make the difference then.
Using RAW has to do with long term efficiency and quality. Some like fast processed food others are fine with a nice slice of bread baked with care and a glass of water. Some think short term, others long term (and health ;o).
I would bet that human eyes cannot tell the difference between color 10,000,000 and color 10,000,001, in a jpeg file, let alone the difference between one color and the next one in a 16 billion colored raw file, no matter what the bit depth is and that’s assuming a file contains ALL the colors one would never be able to discern. We live in a 3-D world, so adding a few more would change nothing for us, since we cannot perceive them…if they exist!
Ok good I’m not tripping , wa staking photos of my son boxing in Jpeg and raw and was like “wtf” after adding contrast and changing the skin tones the raw just look so much better and wowish
That’s why I came to this video just now 😂
I was using the add Clarity option in light room, the jpeg didn’t look awful but the raw just utilized it so much smoother and just better
Even if you shoot RAW, after post production you have to store the processed image in a file format other than RAW. Most likely that image format will be JPG. At that point, all the extra color information will be lost in the new image. That new image may contain nuances of colors that would be hard to get if you just processed a JPG image in post production. Hence the definition of "art" in the video, you have greater control of the quality of the FINAL JPG.
BUT: using a file format that allows this extra control does not mean that you are creating art. RAW will not enable you to make art from a bad photo, and truly great photos can be taken without using RAW.
Excellent video. Clear, concise and sensible. I've been doing things Phil's way for years... RAW for landscapes and architectural photos, JPG for sports, family gatherings and anything else where I'm just recording events and I'm not the primary shooter, such as weddings, baptisms, etc.
Finally, a true teacher. Thanks, you know how to explain a difficult situation to newbies.
A true teacher does not start his video insulting other teachers; a true teacher has double-checked his facts and does not spread misinformation which is happening here.
A clear and concise introduction to RAW and JPEG, for me as a beginner, just what I needed. I've seen a number of steeltraining videos, they have all been very good.
Thanks for the kind words, Oscar, glad it was helpful!
Then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Superb, Phil. Clear, concise explanation.
As you say, there's often a snobbery attached to the RAW ONLY crowd. But as you point out, it's really horses for courses, formats for functions....
I really appreciate objective photography videos such as this one. The average photographer has been brainwashed to believe that Jpegs are only used by rank amateurs. I have been photographing professionally for over 30 years and about 20 years of that career has involved digital capture. I have almost never shot Raw in place of Jpeg, and have never had a negative comment from a client -- that includes weddings, portraits, real estate, and corporate events. I can say with complete assurance that my corporate work required shooting Jpegs due to fast turn around times for prints, and on-site daily uploads during conference events. I currently have prints hanging in two different exhibits that have received excellent reviews, and no one can tell whether I shot Raw or Jpeg.
In addition, I currently shoot Olympus cameras and my current camera has a number of useful and amazing features, such as in-camera focus stacking, live composite, and in-camera keystone compensation, and others features that produce Jpeg files that are simply stunning.
Your explanation is objective, professional, and right on the money -- thank you.
Greg, thanks for sharing your experience. It really helps when pros like you weigh in to balance the RAW-only snobbery that seems to dominate among the online "experts," many of whom have far less real-world experience than you do. Thank you!
@@steeletraining @Greg M
JPEG stands for Joint Photographic EXPERTS Group
So, those who shoot RAW are not "experts" then.
You have to be an expert to get great photos in JPEG ie. able to DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME in the camera.
I consider those who must shoot in RAW as people who bought an automatic Bread/Cake maker and only use it to "kneed the dough". Then they need to buy another oven and hire a (software) baker etc to finally get their bread or cake.
My Canon cameras can take 4 shots and merge them in-camera for HDR picture. It can also merge 4 shots for low light noise reductions. There is also "highlight tone priority" that can be turned on. There is also editable/custom Picture style settings which I put to good use when using a film error vintage lens with different coatings.
(I am a son of a photographer and had worked in dad's studio and darkrooms and help sell cameras and photographic equipment and supplies in his shop my young days).
This is definitely not objective. It presents facts, some of which are totally erroneous but serve the subjective approach of the speaker, in a biased way.
@@BrunoChalifour It would be very helpful if you would specifically point out the 'totally erroneous' facts. As it stands right now your comment is just an opinion with no support.
@@gregm6894 Fair comment. My first hint is if I asked you whether the author shoots JPG or RAW, I think you could easily answer. That should cover the lack of objectivity. Second calling those who do not think the way you do (and who cannot defend themselves) arrogant shows a lack of serious argument, or a serious problem of insecurity. Saying that by shooting JPG in Medium compression one uses the central part of the sensor is totally erroneous, so ridiculous that I could not believe my ears, I had to listen to it twice. Saying that you can reduce the dimension of pixels is as erroneous and ridiculous [all pixels/photosites have a set dimension on any sensor. You cannot modify the actual size of each pixel on your camera. It is defined by the manufacturer and cannot be changed. It is such a ridiculous assertion that I was totally flabbergasted hearing it. If other teacher are knowledgeable and "arrogant" I know one who is pretty ignorant and pretends to teach others, quite problematic, don't you think? The example of the black sky in the moon picture is pathetically flawed (yes if you photograph a black rectangle or do not remove the cap from your lens the information conveyed by the pixels is "black" just a bunch of "0s" which means all the information whether in a JPG file or a RAW file will be "0s"-what is not mentioned is that once you stop photographing pure black rectangles (or purse white ones), and you need more accurate and detailed information a RAW file will give you 16 772 shade of any color, JPG only 256 (that crucial piece of information is not even mentioned). Explain to me what is the point of photographing a black rectangle, and is any who does that, how many among the viewers of this video ;o)? And there are more... if some day you get a serious video on the subject you will realise that.
This is the best and most thorough explanation of this subject I’ve seen. You have a gift for explaining things in a way that makes them very understandable, Phil (I also have your Lightroom and Photoshop courses).
Thanks for the kind words, Bart! And thanks for buying my courses. People like you keep me inspired to do more.
Bart Hovis, could not have said it better.
Sorry to disappoint you but definitely not thorough and quite a few ridiculous errors in fact. {and I am not even mentioning starting one's argument by insulting others that think differently which may prove how insecure one is].
@@BrunoChalifour I’m not disappointed, but thanks anyway for that pointless and meaningless comment.
I have learned more in a 10 minute video than in the last 10 years of owning a DSLR. Your content is rich and presentation skills are outstanding and am grateful I came across your channel. Thank you and look forward to exploring your other videos.
Another excellent straightforward inside tutorial by Phil, great job again
This was the most specific tutorial I’ve come across between the differences. Thank you!
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Clear and concise. Extremely well presented with no rambling. Thanks.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Raw files do not have to need extensive post production. If you use the default profile of your raw conversion application they probably will. But you don't HAVE to use default profiles. You can create/use a punchier profile that is automatically applied when you import the image files.
Keep in mind that what you see on your screen is NOT "THE raw file", it is only one possible interpretation of the monochromatic luminance values contained in the raw data. How that looks depends on the conversion profile used to create a JPG-like conversion of the raw data that is shown on your screen when you open a raw file. That's why opening the same raw file looks different when you open it with different raw conversion applications.
With Canon you can go even further. If you open a .cr2 or .cr3 file using Canon's DPP software the default conversion is to use the in- camera settings active at the time the photo was taken. So opening a raw Canon file in DPP will look almost exactly the same as an in- camera JPG by default.
Fantastic video. Your way of teaching matches perfect to my way of learning. Subbed and binge watching the rest of your vids.
excellent ! I only shoot jpegs at the fine settings and do only minimal post processing. I am very happy not to be sitting for hours at my computer.....instead I'm out and about shooting! thanks for the very thorough explanations. zen billings in canada
My thoughts too Zenon.
You don't need to spend hours, I pretty much treat raw as jpeg and do quick edits, and when I need the information is there, also you don't really need tons of time to edit raws beyond what you could do to a jpeg, unless you do photoshop then that could easily be 1 hour per image (also depending on what you do). But I also think that if you like jpeg and are satisfied with your work that is awesome, ppl need to understand that a good technically achieved jpeg can have all the info you might need
You can post process raw files automatically even better than a JPEG can, if you want. Learn to use your program, save time and all your photo data. The only reason to not shoot raw is because you don’t have enough data storage.
If you get it right in camera, a RAW will take 10 minutes to edit. Not hours. Its rather mind blowing to see just how different your photo changes with how you edit the raw as well, and just how much you can change. I shoot both, since most of the time jpeg works for me, but the occasional raw has been really nice to have.
if you get it right in the camera you won't to do anything !
Insightful as usual.
I'm not a pro, photography is just a past time for me.
I mostly shoot in RAW and if I need the JPG quickly I use the import feature via the Canon Camera Connect app to my phone.
I prefer shoot in RAW because it's simply easier for editing(with more option). Anyway good video, thanks for sharing!
Thanks, Phil! I knew most of the bits and pieces, but this put it all together into a solid strategy. Thanks again!
I wish it was that simple.
What I find in practice is that my JPEGs mostly do require a bit of post work, especially in raising shadows and correcting exposure. Which by the way I find that my JPEGs are very well suited for.
The only thing I find does not work well with high quality JPEGs, is fixing white balance. I find that if I forgot to set a custom WB, my JPEGs are all just about throwaways. In fact I find it quite amazing how little Photoshop can do about it.
I am glad I finally found a pro photographer talking about this. I've done pro photography since film era and now digital. I never found advantage to shoot in RAW. I always shoot JPEG. My friends and majority of photographer I know are always saying "oh no" you have to shoot RAW. JPEG is not professional. Then I listen to what they argue. It's all about "enhancing" the image using software when not "recuperating" a photo when not well exposed in first place. My photos come out of my digital cameras not needing any adjustment of exposures. I do it correctly right when I am shooting. My goal with photography is to be out there shooting and not seat down on a computer for hours and be twinkling my photos with software A, software B, C, D etc... I come from a generation that photography is the moment of capture and nothing else. Great video! I could write a book about this! LOL would rather be out there shooting! Have a good one!
JPG or RAW has nothing to do with being professional or not. It has to do with how fast and little control you want to have over your production. Speed in many areas, including photography, has little to do with best quality. It is true here too.
Very informative and understandable. Jpg is a technique evolved from numeric data storage from mainframe days when storage was very expensive and recurring data was compressed by adding repeat numerical values.
Finally someone I can understand and very well. You are great at getting what you are saying through to thick heads like me. I have found someone who doesn't bullshit their way through a long and boring presentation, which this wasn't by the way. I have found this to be the best help and is what I have been thinking for a very long time as I am a Jpeg shooter. And knowing what you have said just makes what I do all the more sensible as I am not trying to sell images I do it for me as I am a bird photographer who just likes to share. Thank you mate.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Thank you for bringing real photography knowledge to youtube. So many youtube tutorials are people with little real world experience who style themselves experts by repeating unexamined cliches they don't fully understand.
There are so many "experts" these days who address people "beginners".
Never saw such phenomenon when I was growing up shooting Agfachrome 50
as a beginner over 5 decades ago. Chromes were more affordable than negatives
and provided a more vigorous training than anything else. Shot Kodachromes w/o a meter in most situations & could print C41 by hand , JPEG is good enough for me. Just shoot, no time for raw! Wrote a few programs after seeing some
dumb advert. photos. Time (whatever amount left) will be spent on learning
& re-learning more beautiful stuff in theoretical physics & higher math where u don't see any numbers. Young Mr. Silva from STEM will someday feel the same?
Your videos always amaze me. Thanks!
Just want to appreciate that you share some of your content for free here on UA-cam. I would definitely recommend you to my friends. Keep up the good work!
Great video. Very clear and precise instruction. As a beginner photographer this is just what i need. Thank you Phil.
Then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Great tutorial ! Very informative, no frills explanation… other experts could learn a lot about communication skills by watching this video…
Thank you very much for this very valuable information... it cleared up any and all of the confusion that I had previously.
Thanks, it was an eye opener and compelled me to look at my working style. I used to shoot only JPG before and then RAW but now I am very clear when to use RAW vs JPEG.
Excellent explanation.
I'm new to photography and this great video helped me alot! Thank you so much!
This has been the best explaindd video that I've seen on this subject, you answered a lot of questions I had in in 20 minutes. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
OK, this is the best explanation I have seen so far regarding the merits and disadvantages of both Raw and JPEG. I found out the hard way, about the drop in frame rate in burst mode using RAW in a 10 year old bridge camera.
Very simple, yet very knowledgeable explanation. Thank you.
Excellent video! The best discussion I’ve seen comparing the JPEG and RAW formats. From a new subscriber. Many thanks!
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Thank you for the very good walk through. I usually shoot both JPEG and RAW on my Canon, but now I have a better idea when I should just shoot JPEF. THANKS!
Thanks a lot, Phil. This is the best explanation about Raw and Jpeg format. Now I have full clarity about the issue. Thank you very much! 👍😊
Extremely helpful for a digital newby with years of film experience and a fresh Nikon D800…excellent presentation too 👍🏽
Very interesting. I understand this much . Makes me know that lossless compressed option is very useful. Thanks.
Two thumbs up. Simple and very explanatory.
Thank you so much, you made me finally understanding the difference and to improve my work quality specially the Art 🖼️ work
even though I studied photography for 4 years, I far prefer listening to these videos about this. Phil, please don’t stop making videos. Even though this was 5 years after some of your own videos, you must be presenting these in RAW, because the quality has not degraded a bit since those days. I have linked your website to any upcoming photoheads in my circle and I hope you continue with these excellent tutorials. Thank you for all your efforts, thank you for the wisdom. Your videos really have made an impact.
Thanks for the kind words!
Wow! Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. You have answered all my questions regarding jpeg vs raw!
I am new to digital photography. I found this very helpful. Thanks man.
Thank you so much, this was really enlightening. I appreciate 🙏🏾
Thanks a million ! Best photographic info in a very long time. I can only shoot in JPEG, camera cannot shoot RAW - always thought my images are 'lacking' somewhere. Great stuff !
if you don't want to do post production on your images better shooting in Jpeg👍
Great Video! There's many factors that go into shooting RAW or JPEG as you discussed. One of the Best explanations of the many different scenarios I've seen.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Excellent video, most of the time I usually shoot in JPEG, congratulations on the content.
Outstanding video! You are a true Pedagog Artist of Photography! Many thanks, and be well
That was extremely helpful for this newbie with an older t6i my first DSLR. 😊
Wonderful presentation. Thanks!! And, you’re a super-good teacher. You have me very tempted to learn more from you.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Excellent video. As a beginner photographer, this both reinforced what I already believed about the two modes while expanding on my current knowledge even further. Glad I subscribed during a previous video.
This is not about beliefs but facts, check the facts here and you'll soon see that some are totally erroneous.
The biggest RAW file advantage is the bit depth. A 12-14 bit color depth is exponentially more colors than 8 bit JPEG. If you are bending and stretching your colors in post, JPEG will fall apart very fast. Raw's bit depth and light compression is vastly superior. But, yes,...you kinda really need both raw and jpg file copies. Jpeg's will give you a great observation file when working in the field for judging if a photo is good or not.
So what I'm hearing is that, for street photography for example, using Jpeg is the superior format, but if you're going for more controlled pictures with more complicated colors, shooting RAW is the 'better' one? Better is between brackets because it comes down to what you want to do with the picture, of course.
@@yeanisch Jpeg is not superior in any way...except in small file size. With cards being so cheap and 4 TB storage drives being about 65 dollars? I think its just best to shoot raw and jpg together. If you capture a really good moment, i promise you,...you'll wish you had the master raw file for it.
I loved your presentation style on this subject the most! Reminded me of the type of teachers I grew up with📚 thanks for such an informative video, not adding music, & being selfless with your knowledge about the craft📸
Thanks for the kind words! That kind of comment keeps me inspired to do more.
This was really helpful. After 50 of doing photography im still learning a lot about digital. Most of my years was film. No problem. Since 08 I've been in the digital world which is great but a new learning curve when it comes to using rge technology. I'm having a great time .
Welcome back !!!!!!
Love your vids and explanation !!!
Thank you!
I enjoy your instructional vdeos. Very informative.
Excellent tutorial, I sat with my camera, for the first time making sense of the combination/relationship between aspect ratio, picture size, pixels numbers, compression, number of photo's available and picture quality. You have a new subscriber. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Thank God I found your video. You just got yourself a new subscriber. Great info
Thanks for the excellent information. Never used RAW but now I'm going to give it a go.
Thank you so much. I photograph wildlife and birds in flight and always use JPG
Thanks, man!
Very clear, concise & lucid.
Excellent stuff.
Glad it was helpful!
There's a lot of fancy UA-camrs out there in the photography space but few come close to the simple, logical explanations that Phil gives.
Then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Great content! Came here looking for the differences and you could not have been anymore concise. I enjoy your teaching and will likely check out more of your stuff. Keep up the great work!
That was brilliant and so easy to understand- thanks for uploading
The best explanation of this topic I've ever seen. Very helpful. Thanks.
Great to hear! Thanks!
Great explanation, best video I've seen on this subject. Thank you
thank you this was very helpful since im a new at all this and this was very clearly explained.
Best break down I've ever seen! Great video
This is the best video yet on the 2 formats!
Excellent in every respect. You possess remarkable teaching skills. I’ve learned more from this video and you sir, than I have struggling on my own in the past. Now where’s my camera! Many thanks.
Awesome, thank you!
Technique maybe but some very wrong facts. If you think this video is that good, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Clear, terrace comparison. Thanks!
Thank you Sir....for your explanation......now I understand the Raw and JPEG different....thank you again God Bless you
Thanks for the informative vid. I was always averse to using jpeg format but I will certainly give it a shot.
Thank for the clarity - very well presented. I just upgraded to a Coolpix950 which has a Raw option. I backpack / travel with a focus on wildlife but have no commercial focus on my photos other than my personal feel good wow factor - so for day to day travel stuff i will look at high level jpeg as my standard and if entering a national park etc for something specific i will see if i have a RAW/JPEG joint setting just in case i get that super awesome encounter/shot. although this may slow the image capture down a bit so will trial it out first before i go searching for Tigers. this was very helpful. thanks
I do mostly music photography so therefore I shoot RAW to have as much leeway in post as possible. If I was shooting portraits under studio strobes I could get away with hi-res jpegs.
Both formats have their place
Excellent presentation and explanation on the JPG and raw file extensions.
I appreciate this discussion. I have thousands of raw files I haven't had time to post-process, so more large jpg in the future.
Very informative, thank you. I'm a Fuji user and love the styles you can preset in camera prior to shooting, so am using jpeg more than previously. As you rightly point out, with two card capability life has certainly become easier since the old film days.
It does not prevent you from using RAW and JPG (RAW for the future and JPG for the present [you may regret some of the choices you made yesterday once your taste has evolved. What is possible with RAW is not with JPG).).
@@BrunoChalifour Yes totally agree, which is what I do - so much easier to predict with mirrorless these days - am enjoying Fuji Weekly too. Cheers.
@@avs4365but if you shoot simultaneously in both formats from the camera's evf/ screen you can only see/predict the result that come out of the jpeg format
@@liv0003 Thanks - that is how I've always done digital even in the Canon days when I first switched to digital. Now, using the Fuji Weekly system I find RAW mostly unnecessary unless shooting in extreme lighting conditions without a flash. With the improvements made in the adjustability of Jpg the parameters allow all I need with choosing the style I'm recreating, meaning less time on the computer.
7:52 "not using the full image sensor..." I think the full image sensor is still used, but the camera then reduces the dimensions of the saved image during compression. If the full image sensor were NOT used, the captured image would be seriously cropped! Otherwise, great video with useful and clear explanations.
Hi Dave, that's a good point. I've always heard it described as "using the central part of the sensor", but you're right that that would be cropping the image. On a mirrorless with EVF that would not be a big problem (because you'd see the true field of view), but on a DSLR with an optical viewfinder you would not capture the full field of view that you see. So I think you're right. Which means the camera is doing a resampling operation, which is an inherently destructive downsampling right out of the gate. Another good reason not to use smaller sizes if you're trying to create "art" rather than simply documenting events.
@@steeletraining There are cameras that will use the center of the sensor, but those are usually ones that are using "digital zoom." As in using a smaller portion of the sensor and interpolating to the previous image dimensions. It's one of the first settings that I always made sure to disable on cameras that offer it. You can do the same thing on the computer at home and use more powerful algorithms to get a better result. Or just stick with a smaller image.
If it was just using the central part of the sensor, then it wouldn't be just a different dimension on the image, it would be a completely different image as you'd be cropping substantially to make it happen.
Agreed because if only part of the sensor were used, you would be seeing exactly the same impact as you would when shooting with a crop frame sensor (APS-C or mFT rather than FF). The image would seem to be taken with a longer focal length based on the crop factor. The camera uses the whole sensor and recalculates the data to give the smaller image dimensions.
With dedicated monchrome astro cameras it is referred to as binning. 2 x 2, 4 x 4 etc, meaning that the adjacent n x n pixels are averaged into a single pixel. The image field of view stays the same but the resolution is lower. I guess the colour cameras do something similar but have to account for the bayer filter.
The differences in editing in 8-bit vs. RAW's 16-bit are huge. Exponentially huge....
Started to like this man! Very detailed explanation 😃
This sir was a master class on RAW vs JPEG. I learned a ton 😊
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
very easy to understand by the way you explain. Thank you
Great video and extremely informative! I always shoot RAW + JPEG when shooting stills. File size is no longer such a big consideration anymore, since large-size, fast media is more ubiquitous and less expensive than before. Too many times I have stumbled across a fabulous scene, only to have that terrible banding or inability to tweak the contrast, saturation, etc.
Soooo... you noticed that the video was advocating for shooting JPGs, not RAW ;o)
This is excellent and the best video on the subject! I’m a fan!
Glad it was helpful!
As always, very helpful! Thanks!
Excellent video giving clear descriptions of what JPEG and raw files are and their uses.
Just one small correction: When you choose Med sized JPEG, it does not just use a smaller area of the sensor. That would result in a crop factor, which does not happen. It uses the full frame and then down-samples the image to smaller dimensions while saving to a JPEG.
Once again, great video for those who were unaware of the differences between and best uses for raw and JPEG files.
Hi Cooloox, I agree. Another commenter (Dave Millman) pointed out the crop issue, and I agreed there that it must be a down-sample instead, which is a compromise right out of the gate. Another reason not to shoot smaller sizes unless you need to, or the photos are just snapshots where quality is not really important.
@@steeletraining I'd never seen your videos before and now I've watched a couple more and they're excellent. Keep up the great work. 🙂
@@cooloox Thank you!
@@steeletraining "Size" is ambiguous; it might be file size or image pixels. I can shoot full size (pixels) in three different compressions. All are still the same number of pixels, but considerably different file size depending on the compression ratio. But I can also choose smaller pixels and it does that by re-sampling in the camera. For night sports, a 50 percent reduction in pixels nearly eliminates noise so I shoot at ISO 2000 to 3200 with very little noise because the resampling integrates the noise. It does that even for RAW and also speeds up storage.
Yes, quite an obvious issue here. The shooting a black rectangle (black area around the moon) is also a weird if not flawed argument.Besides shooting in RAW format has nothing to do with "arrogance" just quality versus speed. No need to insult anyone (who is absent) here.
Thank you for this video, extremely helpful.
Very helpful thank you very much for posting.
Very well explained, thank you!
Very well explained. massive thanks!
Amazing presentation! Finally put the issue to rest. Thank you.
Wow i got all my questions answered thanks Phil
My camera shoots in both RAW and JPG simultaneously. Yes, I get two pictures for every one I shoot, but then I get to choose which one looks better after the shoot. :)