Curious what you shoot? What's your percentage split? raw 80 / 20 jpeg? No judgement because for some people the speed of capture and limited editing makes jpeg preferable...
In good light situations I am close to 100% jpeg (what I am using at the end), although keeping the camera in shooting both jpeg and raw as a backup.😉 I prefer using my limited time for shooting and organizing my photos compared to editing.
@@AnthonyTurnham I’m a slow photographer (hand held and tripod) with no hurray, so 100% RAW over the last 5 years or more. I enjoy the joys and failures (failures I can assure you are no joy 🤪) of Manual photography and especially post processing. Lightroom because of the catalogue and the print module. Yes Luminar Neo has introduced the start of a catalogue system but NO print module as yet. Neo I use as a plug in and find it really good especially with all the additions that have arisen.
Anthony, you are right about what you are telling us. BUT I am a photo-grapher and not a photo-editor. Usually, I prefer getting jpeg photos with minor imperfections compared to overprocessed ones. For extreme situations I agree that a good photo editor can help to save the day, though!
Yeah for sure. Funnily enough in the course I follow this lesson up with another one "why it's okay to shoot jpeg". Sounds contradictory but there's definitely a place for jpegs in some workflows.
I'm not sure if your distinction is fair, photo-grapher and not a photo-editor. What is the purpose of your photo? Is it for artistic purposes or documentary? Besides, some cameras' JPEGs, particularly when shot with a cellphone, are overly saturated and contrasty.
Hey Anthony, I snapped up your course and am looking forward to going through it. I switched to RAW many years ago, but recently have started shooting both RAW+JPEG. I find for many non-critical shots, shooting just RAW became a real drag and just slowed me down in sharing my images. I'm starting to appreciate the JPEG output from my cameras. But for "keepers" where I want to express my vision, that's where the RAW comes in.
Hello Antony. I snapped up the launch offer on the course and must say, I'm so glad I did! I'm working my way through and have already picked up a lot of useful insights. There's so much information and it's already helped me get better results with my edits. Keep up the great work!
Bought your course this week and I am glad you took the time to create it. I have been a user of Luminar for years and appreciate the subtleties of your course. Lately I have been learning to use Lightroom and see the advantages of using both programs for photo editing.
Ahhh, the subtleties! Glad you're appreciating it all. I really try to bring the why as well as the how. The "how to" on its own isn't much help in my opinion unless it's backed up with the understanding of why we're applying tools and making the editing choices we are. Thanks for getting the course I hope it continues to add value to your editing!
I found out only recently that my decision to switch to RAW about a year ago was exactly correct when I took a photo on the wrong side of the sun and had to use Neo and all my skill to bring out detail and improve the light. I ended up with a wonderful picture. Couldn't have done it with a JPEG.
There is only one incontrovertible truth: jpeg is not meant to be edited, its supposed to be the final result of an accurate picture taken with all settings correctly set directly on camera!
Yet still people insist on editing jpegs. This is just meant as a demonstration to highlight the "why" as to how raw is a better option for editing. Jpeg is also perfect as the final result of the edited photo - ie the export from the edited raw.
@AnthonyTurnham yep, I've gotten the meaning of your video, Anthony, and of course jpeg is often the better exportation format. I was just pointing out a simple and basic "rule" that is often neglected :-) cheers
I shoot in dual jpeg/raw and which one ends up getting edited depends on what I'm doing with it. Light edited (crop, signed, slight touch). Jpeg, deeper I use the raw 📷👍👌
Hello Anthony, I've been working with RAW for a while and the difference to JPG was clear to me. But I was still impressed by your comparison because I've never seen anything like it before. I also didn't know that I could copy the editing steps from one photo to another. It's just great and I'm looking forward to your course. I just have to buy it and download it. And then I can get started. Best wishes to you, Alfred.
So I recently discovered the Copy and Paste of edits done to one image onto other images. I've been doing a lot of photo stacking of macro images and in that case, you want all the RAW files to be stacked with the same basic edits. Once you stack the files, it becomes a TIF file and you no longer have access to the AI RAW parts of the program. So I pick one of the images I'm going to stack and edit it to a point that I like using the Develop module only. Then I copy that edit and paste it onto every other version of the stack. It makes the work sooooooo much faster! Then I finish up the edit of the image (now its a TIF) and apply the rest of the non-RAW only edit tools available. Its faster and more precise.
Interesting and thought provoking Anthony, however I’d suggest that there may be a significant contribution in how your Fujifilm camera processed the underexposed JPEG in camera, because that’s a key difference between the two file format out of the camera. Your example is possibly more about how much a heavily underexposed image can be recovered using the RAW data than an argument for shunning JPEGs? I would have like to see you reset all the Neo settings before processing the JPEG and then make edits to try and get as close as possible to your RAW edit and comparing the settings required between the two versions. Alternatively, converting (exporting) the unprocessed RAW file to JPEG in Neo and then appying your thesis. I’m not disagreeing with you and I concur fully that optimum result will be achieved when starting with the RAW data compared to the, camera processed, JPEG data (except probably with images that are overexposed to the same degree as your example because we all understand that overexposed highlights are not recoverable).
Hi. Appreciate the thoughts. The image is from Nikon rather than Fuji. And the jpeg is as you mentioned saved directly from the raw photo without any edits applied so they have a visually identical starting point.
It's time to wear my "I shoot JPG" t-shirt. Hahaha undoubtedly RAW it's better. More tedious and takes more time. IMHO in my line of work if you can not produce awesome jpeg files you better do something else. Something as simple as exposure and white balance for portraits should be able to be perfectly done in camera. Still I shoot all jpeg + raw just in case 😂😂 awesome content as always♥️
Hahaha! Maaaate I thought of you when I was recording and posting this. I followed this video up in the course with a "jpeg is good" video. Explaining why it's also a good option for people who shoot like you do and want minimal time in post production. Hope you're well my friend!
I've always just shot in JPEG. Easy, less space needed and at the time, I didn't feel like it was that big of a deal, really. Then I bought my first mirrorless camera and as I had done with all my other camera bodies (Canons), I started shooting high quality JPEGs. But after watching a few videos of Anthony editing his RAW files and not being able to use all of the power of my new LN software, I thought I would give RAW files a try. Yeah, I'm now a true believer in only shooting in RAW. I won't go back to shooting JPEGs unless someone requests that and they are paying to do that. And yeah, the photo he edited was an extreme example, but we have all shot those scenes and been there to shoot in that light. So why would you make that choice knowing that the scene is going to be what it's going to be and yet you still choose to handicap yourself with an 8-bit JPEG file when you know a RAW file has so much more information in it. That's why they are bigger! Duh!!! Thanks for changing my mind on this point a while back Anthony, the results of my work have only gotten better since watching your videos! I really do appreciate these videos. I'm not sure that I can afford the course right now, but its something I would love to own down the line.
I'm looking forward to the course - but I'll wait until I'm on vacation! About RAW shooting: I've got that down on my fancy camera - but I also have a Samsung s23 (got it cheap used with a scratch!) that can shoot RAW. Any thoughts about THAT? (I'm thinking it's a totally different calculus with a smart phone!)
I'm holding the s24 ultra in my hand typing this. I rarely move it out of jpeg. The phone is for my point and shoot snaps. If I want a decent shot I still go for my 'proper' gear.
@AnthonyTurnham Okay, if it's good enough for you, I think I may just barely scrape by! I recently noticed that I COULD save RAW, and briefly considered experimenting.
I've tried to help many people to understand this but the majority tend to argue. I gave up trying to convert anyone a long time ago. I find that people are lazy and they want to either avoid processing altogether or make it one-click edits.
Different strokes for different folks. Yeah when it comes to my phone (which shoots raw) I become one of the lazy people. I shoot pretty much entirely in jpeg because I never intend to edit these shots - they're my quick snaps. Quick to take, quick to share. :) So I understand that jpeg is a good option for people who don't intend to edit their photos. BUT if they do want the option of editing in post they need to heed your advice :)
I have a video on that, and it really doesn't matter as about the only substitution is right click vs option click. The program behaves near identically between the two operating systems. I use Windows but honestly it's not relavent.
I've been trying to understand where camera profiles come into play in the editing process. I take a RAW file and apply a camera profile to it (Rich Tone Portrait)... Have I not effectively just added a "preset" to the RAW file? So do I THEN pile on a Luminar portrait preset from one of the many collections available? Or is it too late to apply the vendor preset at that point? If the camera profile already made changes, won't the vendor preset be out of whack?
Profiles are a pretty deep topic all on their own, but in a nutshell it's necessary to have a profile because it tells the software how it should be interpreting the information from the sensor. The reason jpegs don't have that option is because the profile has already been applied by the camera at the time the photo was taken and converted to a jpeg. So a profile and a preset are different things altogether. But the issue is that a preset overides all other settings so if you have a profile applied to your photo and then put on a preset that uses a different profile, the profile will be changed to that of the preset. A way around this would be to tweak the preset to include your preferred profile and then resave it and delete the original preset.
Hi Anthony. Thanks for this video. JPEGs are stuck with 8-bit colour, so in extreme situations (such as your edited photo), banding and the like will occur not to mention losing information in the shadows and highlights, as you've clearly demonstrated. The same thing happens in Photoshop. Anyway, I watched this video to find out more about Neo. I've been using Lightroom/Photoshop for close to a decade now and I'm tired of the forever changing User Agreements with Adobe products (including allowing them to train their AI with all users' photos) not to mention the price increases. So my question: Is Neo a suitable replacement for the LR/PS combo? I'm more of an advanced user.
I have always shot in jpeg and raw. I almost always edit in jpg unless it is a major edit. My editor transforms the jpg into a file the edits better than old previous jpg editors. Though it cannot add new colors to the palette, I am not using it to change colors, just basic crop, contrast, sharpening/noise reduction. If I am doing more than that or changing colors. I will be using the raw file. As you probably know, if you are doing major edits with raw making layers, unless in photoshop you make the edit non self destructive (which is not by default). Even in Luminar, if you make an edit the ability to go back to raw is no longer available. You have to use the reset option to go back to develop to develop in raw. Any other edits are no longer using the raw file. This is not true in On1. The effects are done in raw and are non destructive, those filters are making instructional edits and there is no need to do a reset like Luminar to use develop. There are some restrictions when you make layers On1.
Your video is a bit misleading in that you messed up the original jpeg file with the raw edits, then tried to make further adjustments using the messed up jpeg file. This video would have been far more effective if you had made all the edits to the original jpeg file that were possible and compared that to what is possible with a raw file. I must say the jpegs look pretty good when properly exposed as atested to by all the pro sports photos generated each and every week that use jpeg files for immediate publication.
Yeah agreed, jpegs taken well are good to go 💪 quality file type for a final output whether that's a finished edit or a perfectly exposed, great exposure, satisfactory white balanced photo straight from camera. I don't have a beef with jpeg. I'm merely showing that for optimum editing flexibility it's not the file format to go for.
I still get people using jpeg and wondering why they can't push their edits as far without the file falling apart. So it's great that you've seen this info before but for some people it's new and thought it was worth helping those people out.
I agree that people should be using a raw image if they have it. But, your methodology for demonstrating it here in this video is horribly flawed. You edited a raw file, which is data stored a particular way, then you applied those edits to a jpeg, which is data stored a completely different way. Thats not how data works. Thats not how software works. Then you continued to try and fix the jpeg with the data manipulation from the raw file still applied. That just compounds the problem. Yes it is true that raw files give you much more flexibility. But, the two file types require their own adjustments. As great as the software we have is, it is still manipulating 1s and 0s on the data structure it is working with. It does not process your intent when you move between the two file types. Maybe one day down the road it will. But for now people are just going to see the video and say how great their adjustments are with their jpegs and how much space they are saving and go on to the next video. They will never get your point even though it is perfectly valid. Methodology in comparative analysis is always important.
Hi Bryan, I'm not sure why you think the method for comparing them is flawed? The two files are visually identical at the start. My desire to boost the shadows and retain details in the highlights is there regardless of the file I'm working on. The raw photo is able to handle that recovery whereas the jpeg can't. It just doesn't have the information there to recover and that was the point of the demonstration. If you apply the jpeg with it's own "special adjustments" you still can't create the look I was after. Those shadows just ain't comin back. Curious how you would have approached the processing of the jpeg file that would have brought this information back?
@@AnthonyTurnham - I can help you out with that. "The two files are visually identical at the start." - but the two files are not the same in regards to the data they contain. This is how you already know you cannot recover it. The jpeg is a compressed version of the data so the manipulations on the data must be treated that way. When you manipulate the raw file you get a result. Those same manipulations cannot be copied and applied to a jpeg file and expect to get the same result. "If you apply the jpeg with it's own "special adjustments" you still can't create the look I was after. Those shadows just ain't comin back." - This is the gold. This is exactly the point you want to make (and you are 100% correct) so show it. Take the two visually identical images and process them individually to the best of your ability. Don't just do it with a bad image. Do it with several different ones. That is what will drive the point home. This video shows people that they can't copy changes made to a raw file over to a jpeg and expect to get good results. If they are not using raw files to begin with, they won't care because they never try to do it in the first place. You have to go to where they are. They are using jpegs and editing them. Show them how they could do better. You have to take the unlearned person from where they are to where you know they could be. The last statement "Curious how you would have approached the processing of the jpeg file that would have brought this information back?" -- That was not part of my original comment. As I stated, the two files contain different data. The jpeg data is only a very small subset of the raw data. When the jpeg is created, the algorithm used attempts to create the image as close to the original file as it can and discards all the rest of the data that it does not need. That is why at the beginning they look alike. All the data that is removed and discarded when creating the jpeg is still present in the raw file which is what allows you to make the changes you want the viewers to understand.
Turnham bases his "ugly truth" as he puts it himself, on an extreme example photo: significantly under-exposed. OK, in that case the comparison speaks for itself, showing this edited raw significantly better than the edited jpeg. In my experience however, in non-extreme cases his assertion that raw is better than jpeg does not hold up. In tha past I occasionally shot in JPEG + RAW. Of course out of the camera both looked different. I was able to easily edit both, using their own settings, producing most satisfactory results, each one looking exactly like the other. The difference is that the edited raw file sizes were a whole order of magnitude bigger than the edited jpeg files. There was NO value added provided by the raw version, only a disadvantage: bigger file sizes. The jpegs met all my needs in terms of look and feel after editing.
Great info. Yes jpeg is a great option for some people's workflow and Neo handles them very well. I actually follow this video up in the course with a mitigating "but working with Jpeg is okay". Because for sure, jpeghas it's place for a reason. Btw I like how you referred to me by my Surname. Made me feel like I was the subject of a thesis 😁
Curious what you shoot? What's your percentage split? raw 80 / 20 jpeg? No judgement because for some people the speed of capture and limited editing makes jpeg preferable...
personally I'm probably close to 100% raw on my main cameras, but close to 100% jpeg on my phone...
In good light situations I am close to 100% jpeg (what I am using at the end), although keeping the camera in shooting both jpeg and raw as a backup.😉 I prefer using my limited time for shooting and organizing my photos compared to editing.
@@AnthonyTurnham I’m a slow photographer (hand held and tripod) with no hurray, so 100% RAW over the last 5 years or more. I enjoy the joys and failures (failures I can assure you are no joy 🤪) of Manual photography and especially post processing. Lightroom because of the catalogue and the print module. Yes Luminar Neo has introduced the start of a catalogue system but NO print module as yet. Neo I use as a plug in and find it really good especially with all the additions that have arisen.
100% RAW files 😊
Anthony, you are right about what you are telling us. BUT I am a photo-grapher and not a photo-editor. Usually, I prefer getting jpeg photos with minor imperfections compared to overprocessed ones. For extreme situations I agree that a good photo editor can help to save the day, though!
Yeah for sure. Funnily enough in the course I follow this lesson up with another one "why it's okay to shoot jpeg". Sounds contradictory but there's definitely a place for jpegs in some workflows.
I'm not sure if your distinction is fair, photo-grapher and not a photo-editor. What is the purpose of your photo? Is it for artistic purposes or documentary? Besides, some cameras' JPEGs, particularly when shot with a cellphone, are overly saturated and contrasty.
@@iandavis1355 That's a fair comment but I was talking about Fuji Film Simulation.
So you let the camera do all the editing. Logic is not your forte, is it?
@@caskraker Why insult?
Hey Anthony, I snapped up your course and am looking forward to going through it. I switched to RAW many years ago, but recently have started shooting both RAW+JPEG. I find for many non-critical shots, shooting just RAW became a real drag and just slowed me down in sharing my images. I'm starting to appreciate the JPEG output from my cameras. But for "keepers" where I want to express my vision, that's where the RAW comes in.
Great thoughts and I love the use of your jpeg raw combo 👌 great for speeding up the shareability.
Hello Antony. I snapped up the launch offer on the course and must say, I'm so glad I did! I'm working my way through and have already picked up a lot of useful insights. There's so much information and it's already helped me get better results with my edits. Keep up the great work!
Thanks! Glad you're enjoying it.
Nice job Anthony!
Thanks!
Bought your course this week and I am glad you took the time to create it. I have been a user of Luminar for years and appreciate the subtleties of your course. Lately I have been learning to use Lightroom and see the advantages of using both programs for photo editing.
Ahhh, the subtleties! Glad you're appreciating it all. I really try to bring the why as well as the how. The "how to" on its own isn't much help in my opinion unless it's backed up with the understanding of why we're applying tools and making the editing choices we are. Thanks for getting the course I hope it continues to add value to your editing!
Keep this up Anthony. You are mentioned in quite a few other TH-camrs . You are the main Luminar Neo go to. Thank you
Thanks James 🙂
I found out only recently that my decision to switch to RAW about a year ago was exactly correct when I took a photo on the wrong side of the sun and had to use Neo and all my skill to bring out detail and improve the light. I ended up with a wonderful picture. Couldn't have done it with a JPEG.
There is only one incontrovertible truth: jpeg is not meant to be edited, its supposed to be the final result of an accurate picture taken with all settings correctly set directly on camera!
Yet still people insist on editing jpegs. This is just meant as a demonstration to highlight the "why" as to how raw is a better option for editing.
Jpeg is also perfect as the final result of the edited photo - ie the export from the edited raw.
@AnthonyTurnham yep, I've gotten the meaning of your video, Anthony, and of course jpeg is often the better exportation format. I was just pointing out a simple and basic "rule" that is often neglected :-) cheers
I shoot in dual jpeg/raw and which one ends up getting edited depends on what I'm doing with it. Light edited (crop, signed, slight touch). Jpeg, deeper I use the raw 📷👍👌
Hello Anthony,
I've been working with RAW for a while and the difference to JPG was clear to me. But I was still impressed by your comparison because I've never seen anything like it before. I also didn't know that I could copy the editing steps from one photo to another. It's just great and I'm looking forward to your course. I just have to buy it and download it. And then I can get started.
Best wishes to you, Alfred.
So I recently discovered the Copy and Paste of edits done to one image onto other images. I've been doing a lot of photo stacking of macro images and in that case, you want all the RAW files to be stacked with the same basic edits. Once you stack the files, it becomes a TIF file and you no longer have access to the AI RAW parts of the program. So I pick one of the images I'm going to stack and edit it to a point that I like using the Develop module only. Then I copy that edit and paste it onto every other version of the stack. It makes the work sooooooo much faster!
Then I finish up the edit of the image (now its a TIF) and apply the rest of the non-RAW only edit tools available. Its faster and more precise.
Interesting and thought provoking Anthony, however I’d suggest that there may be a significant contribution in how your Fujifilm camera processed the underexposed JPEG in camera, because that’s a key difference between the two file format out of the camera.
Your example is possibly more about how much a heavily underexposed image can be recovered using the RAW data than an argument for shunning JPEGs?
I would have like to see you reset all the Neo settings before processing the JPEG and then make edits to try and get as close as possible to your RAW edit and comparing the settings required between the two versions.
Alternatively, converting (exporting) the unprocessed RAW file to JPEG in Neo and then appying your thesis. I’m not disagreeing with you and I concur fully that optimum result will be achieved when starting with the RAW data compared to the, camera processed, JPEG data (except probably with images that are overexposed to the same degree as your example because we all understand that overexposed highlights are not recoverable).
Hi. Appreciate the thoughts. The image is from Nikon rather than Fuji. And the jpeg is as you mentioned saved directly from the raw photo without any edits applied so they have a visually identical starting point.
It's time to wear my "I shoot JPG" t-shirt. Hahaha undoubtedly RAW it's better. More tedious and takes more time. IMHO in my line of work if you can not produce awesome jpeg files you better do something else. Something as simple as exposure and white balance for portraits should be able to be perfectly done in camera. Still I shoot all jpeg + raw just in case 😂😂 awesome content as always♥️
Hahaha! Maaaate I thought of you when I was recording and posting this.
I followed this video up in the course with a "jpeg is good" video. Explaining why it's also a good option for people who shoot like you do and want minimal time in post production.
Hope you're well my friend!
@@AnthonyTurnham hahahah love you!! looking forward for the next adventure!
I've always just shot in JPEG. Easy, less space needed and at the time, I didn't feel like it was that big of a deal, really. Then I bought my first mirrorless camera and as I had done with all my other camera bodies (Canons), I started shooting high quality JPEGs. But after watching a few videos of Anthony editing his RAW files and not being able to use all of the power of my new LN software, I thought I would give RAW files a try.
Yeah, I'm now a true believer in only shooting in RAW. I won't go back to shooting JPEGs unless someone requests that and they are paying to do that. And yeah, the photo he edited was an extreme example, but we have all shot those scenes and been there to shoot in that light. So why would you make that choice knowing that the scene is going to be what it's going to be and yet you still choose to handicap yourself with an 8-bit JPEG file when you know a RAW file has so much more information in it. That's why they are bigger! Duh!!!
Thanks for changing my mind on this point a while back Anthony, the results of my work have only gotten better since watching your videos! I really do appreciate these videos. I'm not sure that I can afford the course right now, but its something I would love to own down the line.
Hi Anthony, great course! 😻 BTW, I'm up to creating pre-sets! Felix the Cat. 😺
Great to hear! Wow - you're flying through it!
I'm looking forward to the course - but I'll wait until I'm on vacation!
About RAW shooting: I've got that down on my fancy camera - but I also have a Samsung s23 (got it cheap used with a scratch!) that can shoot RAW. Any thoughts about THAT? (I'm thinking it's a totally different calculus with a smart phone!)
I'm holding the s24 ultra in my hand typing this. I rarely move it out of jpeg. The phone is for my point and shoot snaps. If I want a decent shot I still go for my 'proper' gear.
@AnthonyTurnham Okay, if it's good enough for you, I think I may just barely scrape by! I recently noticed that I COULD save RAW, and briefly considered experimenting.
That was an interesting video. I missed the offer. I meant to buy it but I got distracted. 😒
Oh no! Yeah, it was just a limited time thing. For what it's worth you're not the only one who missed out.
I've tried to help many people to understand this but the majority tend to argue. I gave up trying to convert anyone a long time ago. I find that people are lazy and they want to either avoid processing altogether or make it one-click edits.
Different strokes for different folks. Yeah when it comes to my phone (which shoots raw) I become one of the lazy people. I shoot pretty much entirely in jpeg because I never intend to edit these shots - they're my quick snaps. Quick to take, quick to share. :) So I understand that jpeg is a good option for people who don't intend to edit their photos. BUT if they do want the option of editing in post they need to heed your advice :)
Is it Windows or MacOS that is used as the operating system for teaching in this course?
I have a video on that, and it really doesn't matter as about the only substitution is right click vs option click. The program behaves near identically between the two operating systems. I use Windows but honestly it's not relavent.
I've been trying to understand where camera profiles come into play in the editing process. I take a RAW file and apply a camera profile to it (Rich Tone Portrait)... Have I not effectively just added a "preset" to the RAW file? So do I THEN pile on a Luminar portrait preset from one of the many collections available? Or is it too late to apply the vendor preset at that point? If the camera profile already made changes, won't the vendor preset be out of whack?
Profiles are a pretty deep topic all on their own, but in a nutshell it's necessary to have a profile because it tells the software how it should be interpreting the information from the sensor. The reason jpegs don't have that option is because the profile has already been applied by the camera at the time the photo was taken and converted to a jpeg.
So a profile and a preset are different things altogether. But the issue is that a preset overides all other settings so if you have a profile applied to your photo and then put on a preset that uses a different profile, the profile will be changed to that of the preset.
A way around this would be to tweak the preset to include your preferred profile and then resave it and delete the original preset.
@AnthonyTurnham Woah. I was not aware that presets overrode profiles. That makes me feel better about how and which to use. Thank you!
Hi Anthony. Thanks for this video. JPEGs are stuck with 8-bit colour, so in extreme situations (such as your edited photo), banding and the like will occur not to mention losing information in the shadows and highlights, as you've clearly demonstrated. The same thing happens in Photoshop. Anyway, I watched this video to find out more about Neo. I've been using Lightroom/Photoshop for close to a decade now and I'm tired of the forever changing User Agreements with Adobe products (including allowing them to train their AI with all users' photos) not to mention the price increases. So my question: Is Neo a suitable replacement for the LR/PS combo? I'm more of an advanced user.
I have always shot in jpeg and raw. I almost always edit in jpg unless it is a major edit. My editor transforms the jpg into a file the edits better than old previous jpg editors. Though it cannot add new colors to the palette, I am not using it to change colors, just basic crop, contrast, sharpening/noise reduction. If I am doing more than that or changing colors. I will be using the raw file. As you probably know, if you are doing major edits with raw making layers, unless in photoshop you make the edit non self destructive (which is not by default). Even in Luminar, if you make an edit the ability to go back to raw is no longer available. You have to use the reset option to go back to develop to develop in raw. Any other edits are no longer using the raw file. This is not true in On1. The effects are done in raw and are non destructive, those filters are making instructional edits and there is no need to do a reset like Luminar to use develop. There are some restrictions when you make layers On1.
Interesting points about how different editing programs handle non-destructive edits!
Your video is a bit misleading in that you messed up the original jpeg file with the raw edits, then tried to make further adjustments using the messed up jpeg file. This video would have been far more effective if you had made all the edits to the original jpeg file that were possible and compared that to what is possible with a raw file. I must say the jpegs look pretty good when properly exposed as atested to by all the pro sports photos generated each and every week that use jpeg files for immediate publication.
Yeah agreed, jpegs taken well are good to go 💪 quality file type for a final output whether that's a finished edit or a perfectly exposed, great exposure, satisfactory white balanced photo straight from camera. I don't have a beef with jpeg. I'm merely showing that for optimum editing flexibility it's not the file format to go for.
Another JPG vs RAW video? There must be hundreds of them on TH-cam.
I still get people using jpeg and wondering why they can't push their edits as far without the file falling apart. So it's great that you've seen this info before but for some people it's new and thought it was worth helping those people out.
I agree that people should be using a raw image if they have it. But, your methodology for demonstrating it here in this video is horribly flawed. You edited a raw file, which is data stored a particular way, then you applied those edits to a jpeg, which is data stored a completely different way. Thats not how data works. Thats not how software works. Then you continued to try and fix the jpeg with the data manipulation from the raw file still applied. That just compounds the problem. Yes it is true that raw files give you much more flexibility. But, the two file types require their own adjustments. As great as the software we have is, it is still manipulating 1s and 0s on the data structure it is working with. It does not process your intent when you move between the two file types. Maybe one day down the road it will. But for now people are just going to see the video and say how great their adjustments are with their jpegs and how much space they are saving and go on to the next video. They will never get your point even though it is perfectly valid. Methodology in comparative analysis is always important.
Hi Bryan, I'm not sure why you think the method for comparing them is flawed? The two files are visually identical at the start. My desire to boost the shadows and retain details in the highlights is there regardless of the file I'm working on. The raw photo is able to handle that recovery whereas the jpeg can't. It just doesn't have the information there to recover and that was the point of the demonstration.
If you apply the jpeg with it's own "special adjustments" you still can't create the look I was after. Those shadows just ain't comin back.
Curious how you would have approached the processing of the jpeg file that would have brought this information back?
@@AnthonyTurnham - I can help you out with that.
"The two files are visually identical at the start." - but the two files are not the same in regards to the data they contain. This is how you already know you cannot recover it. The jpeg is a compressed version of the data so the manipulations on the data must be treated that way. When you manipulate the raw file you get a result. Those same manipulations cannot be copied and applied to a jpeg file and expect to get the same result.
"If you apply the jpeg with it's own "special adjustments" you still can't create the look I was after. Those shadows just ain't comin back." - This is the gold. This is exactly the point you want to make (and you are 100% correct) so show it. Take the two visually identical images and process them individually to the best of your ability. Don't just do it with a bad image. Do it with several different ones. That is what will drive the point home.
This video shows people that they can't copy changes made to a raw file over to a jpeg and expect to get good results. If they are not using raw files to begin with, they won't care because they never try to do it in the first place. You have to go to where they are. They are using jpegs and editing them. Show them how they could do better. You have to take the unlearned person from where they are to where you know they could be.
The last statement "Curious how you would have approached the processing of the jpeg file that would have brought this information back?" -- That was not part of my original comment. As I stated, the two files contain different data. The jpeg data is only a very small subset of the raw data. When the jpeg is created, the algorithm used attempts to create the image as close to the original file as it can and discards all the rest of the data that it does not need. That is why at the beginning they look alike. All the data that is removed and discarded when creating the jpeg is still present in the raw file which is what allows you to make the changes you want the viewers to understand.
So right , always shoot RAW. Good comparison. Have your course, just need the time :-))
Turnham bases his "ugly truth" as he puts it himself, on an extreme example photo: significantly under-exposed. OK, in that case the comparison speaks for itself, showing this edited raw significantly better than the edited jpeg.
In my experience however, in non-extreme cases his assertion that raw is better than jpeg does not hold up.
In tha past I occasionally shot in JPEG + RAW. Of course out of the camera both looked different.
I was able to easily edit both, using their own settings, producing most satisfactory results, each one looking exactly like the other. The difference is that the edited raw file sizes were a whole order of magnitude bigger than the edited jpeg files.
There was NO value added provided by the raw version, only a disadvantage: bigger file sizes. The jpegs met all my needs in terms of look and feel after editing.
Great info. Yes jpeg is a great option for some people's workflow and Neo handles them very well. I actually follow this video up in the course with a mitigating "but working with Jpeg is okay". Because for sure, jpeghas it's place for a reason.
Btw I like how you referred to me by my Surname. Made me feel like I was the subject of a thesis 😁
Amazing that this trivial subject still isn’t common knowledge. RAW is always better, always.
Also amazing what a spicy topic it turns out to be. I didn't expect to get so much push back from the jpeg enthusiasts!