I use raw or craw for birds and challenging conditions. Almost exclusively shoot jpg when I have good control of lighting such as family pictures. I also find that canon Jpegs render skin tones much better that lightroom.....and DPP is a pain to use for RAW conversion.
Hi - that is a Great Egret, not a Snowy Egret. I hope you are enjoying your R5 as much as I enjoy mine. I always shoot raw and never use jpegs. I don’t even save them. I do use craw, though. Good luck.
Thank you for your comment. I misspoke. It's a Great Egret! The R5 is a great camera for sure. How are you processing the raw images? DPP is extremely slow and I don't think my lightroom classic desktop version supports R5 raw yet.
@@carminered3229 I have the creative could so my Lightroom supports the Raws from the R5. Also, before that I used the Adobe dng converter, so I was able to use that until Adobe added support to LR and Photoshop. You can find that converter on Adobe’s website. It is confusing about adobe’s different versions, so much so that I cannot keep track anymore.
No, no it's not. Genuinely, return your camera if you think JPEG is comparable to RAW. I say that with the upmost respect, you spent too much on a camera you're not using properly.
I respect your comments, but to each his own. I am not a professional photographer and i am not going to spend time and space processing a ton of raw images esp of friends and family. You do realize that most sports photographers shoot jpegs that appear in professional magazines? If a photo is properly exposed, the jpeg is as good as raw, especially jpegs that come out of canon cameras are better than a jpeg converted from raw using lightroom IMHO. Please tell me how a raw image is superior to a jpeg image when it is exposed properly? The only time I use raw is when photographing wild life where you cant always control the exposure. I have not really found a difference otherwise even when pixel peeping.
@@carminered3229 If you genuinely think that JPEG is as good as RAW, you need to spend more time doing photography, using a better lens and taking better pictures, either that or your monitor sucks and you can't see the details. JPEG on the R5 is compressed to an 8mb file with significantly lower DR, quality, and literally everything.
@@frostybe3r Dear friend, I agree with you jpeg is compressed, but the human eye and 99% of display devices cannot tell the difference. Besides giving you personal satisfaction that you have captured all the dynamic range and details possible when 99% of people/ devices cant tell them apart is not worth the time or energy in my opinion. I do have L lenses and high end monitors and have been photographing for years as a hobby, started out with raw and now mainly shoot jpegs unless its wildlife. I am not saying you or others should not shoot raw. For MY needs jpegs suffice most of the time. So will it for a lot of people unless they are making money off photography. Also shooring raw will not compensate for sloppy photography techniques thinking you can correct everything in post.
0:00 Intro
0:03 BIF settings
1:45 Shooting birds
4:00 JPEG vs RAW
11:24 CRAW vs RAW
12:22 Conclusion
Raw is not compressed and used for easy editing. Why shoot jpeg?
I use raw or craw for birds and challenging conditions. Almost exclusively shoot jpg when I have good control of lighting such as family pictures. I also find that canon Jpegs render skin tones much better that lightroom.....and DPP is a pain to use for RAW conversion.
3:20 I like this one, because it is graceful, I would just remove that bright bokeh blob from the background.
Thank you so much. Good suggestion!
Hi - that is a Great Egret, not a Snowy Egret. I hope you are enjoying your R5 as much as I enjoy mine. I always shoot raw and never use jpegs. I don’t even save them. I do use craw, though. Good luck.
Thank you for your comment. I misspoke. It's a Great Egret! The R5 is a great camera for sure. How are you processing the raw images? DPP is extremely slow and I don't think my lightroom classic desktop version supports R5 raw yet.
@@carminered3229 I have the creative could so my Lightroom supports the Raws from the R5. Also, before that I used the Adobe dng converter, so I was able to use that until Adobe added support to LR and Photoshop. You can find that converter on Adobe’s website. It is confusing about adobe’s different versions, so much so that I cannot keep track anymore.
@@RogerZoul Thank you very much! I'll try it out.
Great info ! How large is a typical jpeg image from the R5 ??
I just checked a series of 100 pictures I took. They range from 7 to 22 MB depending on the amount of info on it.
@@carminered3229 thank you!!!
Lovely video bro..!! Keep it up.. Subscribed your channel..!! All the best.👍
Thank you very much!
No, no it's not.
Genuinely, return your camera if you think JPEG is comparable to RAW. I say that with the upmost respect, you spent too much on a camera you're not using properly.
I respect your comments, but to each his own. I am not a professional photographer and i am not going to spend time and space processing a ton of raw images esp of friends and family. You do realize that most sports photographers shoot jpegs that appear in professional magazines? If a photo is properly exposed, the jpeg is as good as raw, especially jpegs that come out of canon cameras are better than a jpeg converted from raw using lightroom IMHO. Please tell me how a raw image is superior to a jpeg image when it is exposed properly? The only time I use raw is when photographing wild life where you cant always control the exposure. I have not really found a difference otherwise even when pixel peeping.
@@carminered3229 JPEG is never as good as raw.
@@carminered3229 If you genuinely think that JPEG is as good as RAW, you need to spend more time doing photography, using a better lens and taking better pictures, either that or your monitor sucks and you can't see the details.
JPEG on the R5 is compressed to an 8mb file with significantly lower DR, quality, and literally everything.
@@frostybe3r Dear friend, I agree with you jpeg is compressed, but the human eye and 99% of display devices cannot tell the difference. Besides giving you personal satisfaction that you have captured all the dynamic range and details possible when 99% of people/ devices cant tell them apart is not worth the time or energy in my opinion. I do have L lenses and high end monitors and have been photographing for years as a hobby, started out with raw and now mainly shoot jpegs unless its wildlife. I am not saying you or others should not shoot raw. For MY needs jpegs suffice most of the time. So will it for a lot of people unless they are making money off photography. Also shooring raw will not compensate for sloppy photography techniques thinking you can correct everything in post.
@@carminered3229 I think you should return your R5.