FROKNOWSPHOTO WILL BE ANGRY WITH ME! I SHOOT JPEG FOR A DAY! Digital image format SHOOTOUT!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ม.ค. 2024
- Head to squarespace.com/simon to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code SIMON
Sign up for my email list and get a free e-book on How to Shoot Backlit.
www.simondentremont.com/freeb...
Want to take amazing wildlife photos? Check out my new course with 20 modules and over 5 hours of content, no fluff!
journalofwildlifephotography....
My name is Simon d'Entremont and I'm a professional wildlife and nature photographer from Eastern Canada. This video will show you how to choose the best digital image format for you, even JPEG!
I use Topaz Labs software for noise reduction, sharpening and upscaling:
topazlabs.com/ref/1943/Simon/...
Music in intro: "Nicer", by Houses on the Hill. Find that, and other sound effects at Epidemic Sounds
share.epidemicsound.com/0fbndn
My equipment:
Canon R5 body amzn.to/3S5jtBf
Canon R6 body amzn.to/3ZYu6HC
Canon R8 body amzn.to/3M0Xoj7
Canon R5 battery grip amzn.to/3PVg8Sy
Canon RF 600mm f4 amzn.to/494Zd8S
Canon 100-400 EF II amzn.to/3FhWrPP
Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 amzn.to/45zDP8F
Canon 17-40 L lens amzn.to/3y71MGt
Canon RF 16mm f2.8 amzn.to/3M3i0HI
FLM Tripod (CP 34 L4 II) and Levelling Head (HB 75) www.flmcanada.com?aff=sdentrem
Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 lens amzn.to/3FjGkkW
Sigma Art 20mm f1.4 lens amzn.to/3Fhj7zD
Rokinon 135mm f2 lens amzn.to/3QfqIFi
Sirui x-k40 ball head amzn.to/3rRzIHf
Sirui lightweight Traveler 7C tripod with head amzn.to/3M0XDe1
Manfrotto Video Head amzn.to/3tpUzBO
Wimberley Gimbal Head amzn.to/3rSijhC
Hollyland Mars M1 field monitor amzn.to/3rQCRaa
Jackery portable 240 lithium-ion battery amzn.to/3QgBmvg
ProGrade Gold 128 GB CF Express amzn.to/46wv40g
ProGrade Cobalt 325 GB CF Express amzn.to/3RSUtNo
ProGrade Gold 256 GB SD amzn.to/48R3CMq
Zoom H1n field recorder amzn.to/3tAoJCE
Comica shotgun mic amzn.to/3REWN73
Rode Videomic NTG shotgun mic amzn.to/3tCeAW8
Rode Wireless GO II mic set amzn.to/45vsIxw
Lenscoat neoprene camera bags amzn.to/3SNiqmz
Lencoat rain cover for 500mm F4 amzn.to/3SGtyl2
Falconeyes F7 LCD panel amzn.to/3y75z6F
Lowepro 450 AW large backpack amzn.to/3xZOHyL
Lowepro Flipside 300 small backpack amzn.to/3SOTWt7
Mindshift 36L (closest available) backpack amzn.to/3ZXIiAH
GuraGear 30L bag for 600mm f4, use Code Simon for 10@% off
guragear.com/?ref=fKL1R1coS7su99
DJI Mavic Air 2S drone (flymore combo) amzn.to/3M3ijSS
B&W circular polarizer, 77mm amzn.to/3SKc6Mx
B&W 2 stop ND Filter amzn.to/3URyIN6
B&W 6 stop ND filter amzn.to/3y6gs8G
B&W 10 stop ND filter amzn.to/3fwRIjs
Nikon Monarch 5 8x42 binoculars amzn.to/3rXt2qX
Blackrapid retro-classic shoulder strap amzn.to/3y0wUHt
FjallRaven trekking pants amzn.to/3rSisSc
Heat 3 gloves (shell only) www.theheatcompany.com/en-us/...
Heat Company Merino Wool liners www.theheatcompany.com/en-us/...
HP Omen 17.3" performance laptop amzn.to/3S1vd7O
Synology NAS storage amzn.to/3RVfFSX
16 TB hard drives for NAS amzn.to/3S03Hrk
Follow me on:
Facebook / sdentrem
Instagram / simon.dentremont
Website www.simondentremont.com/
What format do you shoot and why? I’d love to know!
On my Fuji I shoot JPG probably 80-90% of the time. On my old Sony, RAW was required because their color science was poor (at least 10 years ago)
I only bother with RAW when the lighting is absurdly bad and I *know* I’ll have to go back and correct white balance/recover highlights/shadows. Low light shooting tends to come to mind. As does any astroscape.
People don’t realize it, but JPEGs have enough malleability assuming you nailed the exposure the first time.
I always shoot in RAW > because I'm not "good enough" to shoot in JPG :) lol Also, I almost always shoot quite a bit under exposed, like 1 full stop, to prevent any blowouts, or hot spots, then I need to pull them back up quite a bit in PP. Shooting in RAW allows me to do this as much as I need to.
I use compressed raw. I can't tell the difference on my camera with uncompressed and I get faster buffer clearing.
Raw
I shoot RAW w Nikon and Olympus, JPG with Fuji. Fuji X-T20 handles highlights in JPG amazingly well. In test shots, I've gotten better highlight detail with Fuji JPG than Nikon D850 raw.
I would love a video on astrophotography!
He already has one
Check out nightscape images. You're in for a treat!
Same!
I do for milky way, but I’ll make one for deep sky.
@@simon_dentremont can you also do one for the eclipse in april?
thank you
Simon - You are an excellent photographer, but you are an even better communicator/teacher. I get burnt out pretty fast by most of these “experts.” Not so with you. You get right to the point, there is no superfluous information and you cover a huge amount of information in a reasonable time. Keep up the good work. Thanks.
I'm from Guatemala, my native language is Spanish, so is very cool for me to hear english speakers with good rhythm and clear pronunciation, but also with excellent transmission of the main idea! Simon is too good at each one. Thanks for everything Simon!
Could not agree more. In the world of online photography tutorials and tips Simon is an absolute stand-out.
Unpopular take: I’ve never seen a Jared photo that I thought was anything special. However, Simon just drops these amazing photos so casually 😂
Agreed.
Totally agreed.❤
Simon is the definition of a great teacher. You're a master.
Yep!! I shoot Jpeg too. I buy a camera to shoot scenes and other subjects, NOT to sit in front of a PC endlessly worrying about what FroPack LightRoom enhancement I should use on each and every shot. Cheers
If you take the time to learn basic processing, you can edit a whole folder very quickly. Just recover highlights and shadows and make any necessary correction to overall exposure. That's often all that's needed. Plus, edit one image, apply to many. JPEGs often result in images lacking saturation and contrast, especially if you use a flat picture style to minimise loss of highlights and shadows.
😂
I shoot Raw because I want the photos I take the take the time to go and shoot are the best possible image the camera can capture.
I don't sit in front of the computer when I could be out taking photos.
Even most Jpegs need the odd tweak amd this point you may as well just edit the raw file.
You shouldn’t really have to worry about which preset to use as you should have your own style, which makes it much easier to sync every edit quickly or tweak every file quickly
@@froknowsphotoabsolutely!
As an amateur, I make mistakes. RAW can and has saved my butt plenty of times.
I like to shoot RAW+JPEG so I have the RAW for editing and a JPEG to see what the camera cooked and a fast method of sharing before looking at the RAWs.
I'd use CRAW if I could, the file size is huge but the flexibility of RAW makes it worth it.
You can for sure just shoot jpeg, but you'll need to get better at photoshop. I'm not an expert even after majoring in graphic design, however PixImperfect is, and I've learned a ton. The key ones are WB JPEG, JPEG in 32-bit, and the enlargements. Those cover your wb, color, and resolution.
Even blown out jpeg files can be brought back via stacking.
Like he said, just underexpose slightly and you're good. Also never be too ashamed of just flipping your camera to P (program mode). These cameras have some tricks to make you much faster than shooting manual.
Did you watch the video? Craw is close enough to being the same as a raw file (in terms of flexibility in editing) but only half the file size.
@@cooloox I did and I made mention in my other comment.
C. Raw is great but it's only about 2mb smaller than Lossless Comp. HE or Heif are also good options but a Jpeg will still give you significantly smaller file sizes (3x smaller).
Most ppl don't know to edit in 32-bit then convert back to 8-bit after editing. Using the eye dropper is more precise for WB than the slider's for both raw and jpeg. To me there's no longer a reason to shoot RAW.
I'm back to my old D200 for the CCD look and I'll go down to 5.5mp. 99.9% of the shots are going on the Internet, and most sites stop at 2mp. Uploading to stock sites I'd use RAW and max resolution, but most times I use Ai to make enlargements, b/c regardless of how I shoot, I'm not saving large jpegs, and I'm for sure not saving raw files anymore. I think saving raw files is a waste of space.
@dct124 if you are editing images then trying to mess around with Jpegs is absolutely pointless. You may as well just edit the raw file and have zero change of the image being degraded as a result of editing.
@@Johnny641 LR fixed the degradation problem when it was first released years ago by using a virtual file for edits.
I also already said, Raw is for heavy editing.
Those that need it, are niche shooters that require heavy cropping or the half stop of highlight recovery it has over jpeg. You're not doing photo manipulation (graphic design) in RAW, you're doing it in TIFF or JPEG and the vast majority of graphic artists use jpeg.
The only benefit to raw is recovering maybe a 1/3 to 1/2 stop of overexposure in comparison to jpeg. That shouldn't even occur if you're shooting -1 or -2.
The whole WB argument is a myth imo, b/c PS killed that argument nearly 20yrs ago. The eye dropper method in my experience is way more accurate than using the RGB sliders raw provided if I need WB correction. If you want to avoid degradation in PS, you edit in 32-bit, or TIFF.
To each his own. I've been shooting jpeg a very long time and probably only needed raw 0.5% of my photography career. Shooters I used to know shot jpeg for weddings, and sports. They shot on the Nikon D3, D3s, D4, D600, D750, and D800 that I can recall. Honestly I can't say it's the same experience across brands, but Nikon handles files way better than other brands. I think everyone has caught up at this point. Fuji was always good.
Still to this day the Olympics are shot in and edited in JPEG. All those big ads since they switched to digital come from jpegs not raw.
Lastly, technology has advanced so if I absolutely need raw and didn't shoot raw+jpeg, I can put it in Topaz Raw. When it comes to ai, there's a high end photographer who did an experiment comparing Ai to his Hasselblad and I'm telling you, you don't need Raw.
If you get the chance to search PixImperfect insane jpeg overexposure recovery video from some years ago, he went beyond even what raw files can do on a jpeg. Jpegs have a lot of data, it's just how you get access to it.
Don't ask if we want astrophotography video. WE WANT all the videos possible from you ! You really help my photography (wildlife mostly). I don't think there is better photography source on youtube than your channel. Thanks a lot, keep up the video !!!! (Désolé pour mon anglais car je suis du Québec 🙂)
Noted, et merci!
I'm a newbie in photography and I shoot RAW because I can fix my exposure mistakes. Professionals who make little to no mistakes can enjoy JPEG workflow for speed and convenience ofc. Lossless compressed 14-bit RAW is a nice option my Nikon DSLR provides; I am not losing quality at all but the files are 40-50% smaller. Also my camera has decent dynamic range (actually among the best at 14.8 stops) so shooting RAW makes sense for shadows recovery
I conducted my own RAW-cRAW-jpg tests a few years ago when Canon introduced cRAW. There is no discernible difference 99.9% of the time. But, even though storage is cheap, the big advantage to cRAW is faster camera and computer processing. The camera works better (faster) with cRAW files and download/processing times are cut in half. Smart move going to cRAW-I’ve been preaching it to my fellow photographers for years.
Same!
RAW + JPG always. This way I'm always covered for all situations and I don't need to waste a moment thinking about it. RAW for greater range / color / quality. JPG goes to secondary card for backup, and shoot & share days (family outings to quickly post, etc.). You never know when a portfolio image or wall-hanger will happen, definitely want a RAW "negative" for them. But also overall, my RAW files just look and edit so much nicer.
In my Nikon Z bodies they offer a newer RAW format called "High Efficiency * ", I (and others) have yet to see ANY difference vs uncompressed, like you mention. This is a perfect setting for me, as the files are only about 1/3 larger than its highest-quality JPG version.
Both / all formats have their use case for sure 👍🏻
That may on the newer Z bodies or perhaps full-frame bodies only. I have the Z fc and, unless I missed it, it doesn’t appear to have a compressed RAW format.
shooting a jpg makes no sense, you can always generate them in lightroom with your settings. i generate smaller jpgs for the model and i also keep them, but i always look at the raws.
This is what I do too! I wrote a simple program to resize the jpgs and video clips for easy sharing viewing. I pick out my favorites and if I think any could use more of an edit, I grab the corresponding raw file and use that for editing.
Indeed! The only way to go
Astrophotography with telescope: YES YES YES!!!! I need this video!!!
Currently shoot RAW for post processing. Why buy a really nice camera that captures all that data and then throw most of it away...so JPEG was never an option for me, but I will now consider Compressed RAW. I'm not as much worried about file size as I am with the camera's data processing speed so CRAW may be the way to go. If I want a quick snap for myself or social media, I use my phone. Thanks for another great video Simon!
Another great video, thank you so much. I've always shot JPEG and nothing else, ever since getting my first digital camera in 2004. It seems crazy to judge people for not shooting RAW, as a few TH-camrs out there do. Surely it's the pictures that matter. I'm happy with mine and love the idea of letting the camera do the work for me, subject to some input from me (R8, Z50).
You said "Andromeda Galaxy" and I was expecting a speck of some kind. The image that popped up was spectacular!!! Blew my mind!!
If you think normal photography is expensive, Astro photography is on a whole different level.
JPEG In over 500 projects only once needed more image size. That was a video of horses running in a darkened arena illuminated by the "Christmas lights" mounted on the riders and horses. This was also a project where a more modern cinema camera, with cinema lenses stole the show C100 MkII blew my 5D Mk III away.
I think JPG is closer to the experience of the average photographer when only film existed. Less creative control-no darkroom skills. RAW and photoshop (after it became affordable) came along and opened a broader world of creative control to weekend shooters. Shooting JPG for a while might help to hone some forgotten skills that lead to better in-camera results.
I shoot only RAW, but I might give compressed RAW a try. Color temperature is my bigger concern, more than exposure and I 'd rather tackle it in Lightroom rather in camera.
I started doing color separations using analog methods at National Geographic in the mid 1970s and managed the transition to digital for color separation starting in the 1980s with Hell Scanners and transparencies and in the early 1990s with first digital cameras and versions of Photoshop which didn’t have any color management until around version three.
JPEG encoding actually takes the RGB pixel data and converts it to Lab color coordinates before compressing it. The reduction in file sizes comes from averaging blocks of pixels and from the fact that in Lab format the yellow-blue and magenta-green channels are very flat so you can average very large blocks of them with relatively less loss of image fidelity vs. trying to average blocks of RGB data.
In the early days of digital bit depth of files was a big issue because of banding which would occur in subtle gradations of tone such as skies. The more bit depth at capture and pixel density per square inch increased the less and less those things became a factor.
Another huge difference with the current generation of mirrorless sensors camera is that exposure control at capture is much better meaning few times extreme measures are needed to optimize exposure when editing.
So yes, with today’s cameras one can do as well as raw by shooting JPEG. But at the same time the processors are so fast and CF Cards so fast and high capacity and low cost per MB compared to ten or twenty years ago there isn’t any real burden shooting RAW unless trying to maximize frame per second when shooting.
The differences time-wise editing RAW vs JPEG isn’t that significant especially if the user is not aware of how to do things like blending channels to pull out detail in RAW files in Lab format that can’t be done in RGB format. Read books by Dan Margulis and try some of the techniques he teaches as I did and you’ll better appreciate the nuances of shooting and editing in RAW and what happens differently “under the hood” in the editing software with the different file types.
I agree.
My low-range D3500 really benefits from shooting jpeg on bursts, since it can spit 20 to 30 images in a tow, but it will overflow its buffer after 5 RAWs.
In practical terms, that is the only moment where choosing one or the other format really changes the capabilities of my camera.
The other deciding factor is if I fancy editing the photos or not.
Current editing software can't recreate discarded information, but it still allows a lot of editing flexibility even on jpegs.
It doesn't matter what you like to shoot with as long as it works for you. Modern cameras has the best of both worlds, you can shoot jpg + raw
I shoot 99% en RAW, because I like to take my time to get the most of the details. JPEG is doable with some limitations but most photojournalists use it specially in sports or impromptu events that have urgency to be delivered.
I did this exact same independent study on my own after upgrading from the Sony A6500 to the Sony A7IV. After a few weeks I switched completely over to Sony's Compressed RAW format as well. Just like you said 99% of the quality with half the file size.
I love shooting raw ! Editing is just that much better
Sports photographer here, and with 1,000+ frames per game, I've always shot exclusively CRAW. The difference is in quality negligible at best, and I've never had any issues in terms of editing flexibility.
Thanks for throwing some respect on CRAW's name~
I shoot in both formats. Because if the frame needs significant correction, the jpeg will not cope.
I have been shooting CRAW since I had the setting available. I have never seen an issue. I use this on my R5 and R7.
A friend of mine was complaining about all the time it was taking him to process his images from his son's sporting events. He was shooting RAW. I asked why. He said because he saw online he needed to. I suggested he shot in JPEG for a while to see what he thought. He realized that for his expectations and needs that JPEG worked great. It saved him a ton of time that could be better spent doing other things, like playing with his son.
When i come across a similar situation i say this: when you take a photo the image is actually raw, but instead of you doing the work to get it to look good, the camera can do it for you and save you time
Another home run. You’ve become the Barry Bonds of photography videos on TH-cam!
I 99.9% shoot in jpeg. I am capturing memories with my wife and family. We travel 6 months a year taking pictures and sharing them on Facebook. I prefer taking pictures on my Sony A74 with 28-200 f2.8 lens as I able to get shoots much easier than with a cell phone.
As a Fuji guy I almost forgot people think RAW images are what make you a "professional" lol. I have piles of dialed in recipes for all sorts of looks, no need to waste time sitting editing (mostly!).
I always shoot dual JPEG/RAW but at this point the JPEG often looks better than the mood Im trying to match in the RAW anyways. Same for video.
I shoot RAW and JPEG. For the most part, I am very happy with the JPEGs that my Nikon Z8 and D810 produce. The reason why I shoot both is two fold:
1. I drop the RAW files in the CF card and the JPEGs to the SD card as they are smaller.
2. RAW files are handy when you need to adjust the image settings prior to cropping.
Gosh I’m glad this guy exists. I’m learning so much with every video. I can’t wait to try this experiment out. I’ve got so many raws stashed away that I never touch but was too afraid not to have.
Good luck!
I shoot RAW but I will give compressed RAW a try now. Thanks Simon, excellent video as always!
I shot in JPG for years and years, but I recently switched to RAW. I always post-process, and I have several programs that read the format. If I had the choice of compressed RAW, I'd probably switch to that. Until I can afford to upgrade my camera, RAW it is.
The internet is full of advice; so as to not miss out here's mine: shoot whatever works for you and have fun doing it!
I shoot RAW + JPEG because storage is dirt cheap and it's nice having the option to either instantly share the image or process it with more latitude.
Try shooting video and saying that 😅
@@coin777 I do shoot video, actually I'm a video first photographer. I'll repeat: I shoot in the maximum bitrate my camera allows because storage is DIRT CHEAP and there's no use in reducing the quality of your files.
@@definingslawek4731 Raw files can fill up a memory card fast and CF express cards are super expensive. Besides that most cameras shoot a higher fps with compressed raw. Mine is 50% faster.
@@definingslawek4731 I mean if you have the money. For me 10gb per minute of footage is quite a lot. I need hundreds of TB of storage for that. That's thousands of dollars for hard drives. End even more if I make a backup. And multiply it by 3 if you want ssd
You must be living on another planet, storage is not cheap, you also need backups, so double that. then is the wasted time with double the file sizes
Great video, & simplified explanations of the various modes. I'm a senior, hobby photographer that shoots primarily in JPEG & I try very hard to get it right in the camera. Post usually requires a minor tweak in exposure & I'm happy with that . I will try compressed though, but I'm not one to spend a lot of time tweaking my photos. Fujis tend to underexpose so that's easy to compensate for when composing the shot.
I shoot both at the same time. Yes usually under good light conditions the JPG is fine on its own.
But I had situations where I had to pull up shadows, or fix white balance issues and then you are really happy that you have RAW files.
I started shooting jpeg. When I understood more, I switched camera systems and went full raw. I overwhelmed my computer at that point! I understood a little more and moved to CRAW and upgraded the computer, and bought portable hard drives! The files sizes are much more manageable. For me, it’s the best of all worlds. Photo IQ, speed of frames per second, and computer/hard drive space. We don’t talk about it much, but there is a cost side to upgrading your tech when you get into the higher amateur gear! Don’t bargain shop the computer hardware side, it will only make you miserable in the long run. Once you get it set up,it should serve you for many years to come!
As far as file size, website, sharing images, etc., I shoot RAW, then export most images as sRGB JPEG, and get to where you are, but I retain the file depth that works well in my post processing workflow for my landscape, and nightscape photography. For everyday shots, JPEG is undoubtedly a faster workflow.
I shoot jpg for work because we don't get to edit before the images are prepared for print sales. This means we need to get everything right in camera. The files from my R6 ii or 1DX ii look amazing. For personal work I shoot RAW.
Shooting jpeg in S (small) format is useful if you need to shoot and upload as fast as humanly possible in tricky/slow connection environments. I.e. photojournalism. If you have time to download into a computer and can afford the one minute for the software to auto-process then please stick to raw as it can save you when you need to tweak those highlights or change the white balance. I don't worry about image size for storage: Hard disk drives are nowhere as pricy as they used to be and I don't shoot a thousand frames every day.
I am the hardcore RAW file enjoyer because I end up spending lots of time in Lightroom and photoshop and then convert everything to pngs later. Plus since I don’t have to worry about file size due to using high storage cards its an easy choice 😁
Great video!!!
Really informative! Recently I've been shooting JPEG for events to simplify my workflow for fast-paced work, but I think I may give cRAW a try for an event I'm working this weekend and see how it turns out. I always saw cRAW as a bit of a pointless halfway house, but your video clearly shows that it isn't.
Hi Simon. To appreciate HEIF you need that your hardware and software support it. It is not only about having10-bit vs the 8-bit of JPEG. It is also that the HEIF (HDR) pictures use a much wider dynamic range that JPEG (SDR). That is where the hardware comes in. A standard display, as they exist since the '90s, have about 500-600 nits of luminosity. The whole digital imagery pipeline was built around that and that is what JPEG is designed for. So the image is stored in a way that assumes an SDR display. On the other hand, as Canon save the HEIF images in a .HIF file, the dynamic range is extended to support a display with 1600nits of luminosity, the PQ standard, that is much much brighter. That is the HDR standard, or HDR PQ for Canon. (do not confuse the classic meaning of HDR in photography i.e bracketing shots to work around the limited dynamic range of the sensor or rather bring it within SDR, this has NOTHING to do with the HDR display technology and is targeting old tech SDR displays). So if your display is a true HDR display (the 12.9in iPad Pro only, some high end iPhone Pro, some XDR MacBook Pro, etc), then if the software supports HDR then you will see the picture in true HDR. If your display and software is not true HDR some conversion happen in the background to show the picture in SDR and this is usually poorly done. But with true HDR hardware it is quite amazing looking a picture of a sunrise, sunset, a city scape at night with lights, etc. The bright object are shining like in real life. Final note, if you capture a HIF picture and want to look at it on a SDR display, you need to first properly convert it to SDR. The tone curves must be mapped intelligently or else poor images quality results.
All in all, SDR display technology is so old and we are so used to it, it is hard to move to HDR. The movie industry is moving quickly. The photo industry, which is so conservative, goes much slower. But it will get there. The one piece that cannot move to HDR is printing, which by nature is a very low dynamic range medium. It produces no luminosity at all being passive. Our brain guess what is bright. Print will never be able to show HDR images. That is certainly something holding back photography and cinematography is not bothered with that, obviously.
As you can guess I have tested HEIF and I love it for pictures with a bright lights part of the image (sun, stars, artificial lights, etc). It creates images that JPEG cannot show and never will. A final note it is easy to created a HIEF image from a RAW file, the RAW already contain all the required information, The software essentially render to an HDR tone curve instead of the SDR tone curve. Latest versions of photo editing softwares can do that. I use Photomator, but Lightroom and others can do it as well. So from RAW you can produce HIF or JPEG images. From HIF you can also produce a JPEG. You cannot however produce a HIF from a JPEG, the information required is simply not there. Cheers.
HEIF/HEIC will be a thing when all screens we use work on 4k with HDR.
Until then, it will remain a format very few people will even be able to benefit from.
Just like how laserdisks were awesome, but never took off because too few people bought into the hardware needed to enjoy its quality.
@@lesath7883 I agree. But movie watching is already driving the deployment of HDR displays and photography will then benefit from it. HDR screen are no more expensive, I bought a 28in 4K HDR Samsung display for CAD$300. As people replace their existing screens it will happen I think but that takes years obviously.
Is this why i suddenly see overly bright photos on my new iphone? That's annoying and i wish i can turn it off. I was also watching some vloggers on my computer and were uploading this kind of videos and were always breaking my eyes, the whole screen was turning dark outside the video. I stopped watching them.
Great information. The Ipad pro display is insane (in a very good way). Thanks
@@cristibaluta It is just that you are used to see bright spots as dull white. In real life there are object that project lights, not simply being passive white. When those are in your shots HEIF/HDR really shine. But if your shot only include indirect lighting then HEIF add little. Night time photos, sunrise or sunset, really pop when using the much expanded dynamic range of HEIC/HIF/HDR.
My favourite genre s landscapes and I find shooting raw files suits me as I am very parsimonious about how many images I end up keeping so I don't spend that much time editing. However, I am slowly getting better with bird photography and might find JPEG preferable. In any case, I shoot raw+JPEG just for an in-camera quick check.
Great comparison and it shows that it's important to keep abreast of technical developments and not to stick religiously to older methods of photography. Thank you Simon.
In Canon you can set the photography engine not to miss the brightest areas - perfect for Jpegs!
I started shooting in 1970 and made 1000’s of slides. To me JPEG’s are rather like shooting slides back in the day. I pretty much under exposed most of my images by ⅓ to ⅔ under. Hotspots or pure white areas were way worse than dark shadow areas. I’m going to try out compressed RAW on my Canon EOS R and Nikon Z7 and maybe even my GFX 50SII. I’m for sure going to shoot JPEG the next time I’m at the hydroplane races. My last boat race I took 4000+ images in 2 days. That was way too much processing. Thanks for the great comparison and all the useful info
But you know you have an Auto mode in Lightroom and most other image processing software? This does something similar than what your camera does when processing a JPEG, but with the difference, you still have the possibility to get more out of specific images. Yes, you will need more storage space, but storage is getting cheaper by the minute.
RAW is cumbersome and if you're not a Professional photographer, it's 10X more cumbersome...I used to shoot RAW years back, but as jPegs have evolved overtime, I'm fine with the cons of jpeg vs the hassle of RAW
No it's not.
Raw is not cumbersome, and I’m not a professional.
Great video, great info and great pictures. The algorithm you described for jpeg compression is actually what is usually used for lossless raw. Jpeg uses a very complex mathematical decomposition based on FFT. What I didn't know is that jpeg tends to discard information on the bright and dark edges! Which makes sense, as humans we're not good at telling the difference in those regions.. Great stuff, many thanks!
I'm a Fuji user, professional wedding photographer. JPGs are totally fine!! I often just edit the JPGs a little bit and hand over.
Your view makes a lot of sense, and I don't think that Froknow would be angry. Basically, everyone shoots RAW and almost everyone publishes their final images in JPEG. Something somewhere performs the conversion, in the process throwing away a lot of the initial data. You can have your camera's computer chip do the whole conversion or run the raw image through a processor like Lightroom. Lightroom gives you a lot more control and gives you more time to make artistic decisions. You can cut the time down by using presets, either yours or someone else's. Your choice. The problems crop up when you try to modify a JPEG, since you've then thrown away almost all of the data that would have helped you make the modification.
No, not everyone shoots RAW. Best way is to shoot RAW + JPeg
@@georgedavall9449 , sorry if I was unclear. Basically every digital camera shoots raw images. JPEG is a highly compressed form that must be calculated by a computer somewhere. Even if you shoot JPEG only, you are using the computer that's in your camera. Many desktop photo editing programs accept RAW or JPEG as input. Giving such a program the RAW image means that many adjustments can be made before the RAW to JPEG step. This final step throws away a lot of data that is "no longer needed". So, do you want the computer chip in your camera to make all those decisions or do you want a crack at changing colors, how you do noise reduction and sharpening, and how you want to allocate the detail in the final image to highlights, midrange values, and shadows?
I certainly think that for many people JPEG+RAW is a good option.
@@stuartschaffner9744 Hi Stuart and thanks for the reply and clarification. There are a few cameras that do NOT have RAW capability. But I do agree with You, and I might add, that some advocate to shoot only in RAW, as some cameras like Nikon, have a small ‘Jpeg’ buried in the RAW file. So they argue there is no need to shoot RAW and JPeg. Obviously shooting in RAW is the best option if One desires the ultimate in editing and processing of images. Thanks for reply.
I like shooting both raw and jpg on separate sd cards. Its faster for me to review the jpegs cause they load faster . Sometimes i use the jpeg as is tbh
Great video Simon… Thanks for doing our homework lol.. l’ve always shot JPEG whenever I’m shooting for Facebook! On top of everything else Facebook’s compression will destroy your hi res photos anyway, unless you process them for Facebook yourself!
Simon is a great photographer. Far better than me. Shoot RAW. Always.
Thanks, but it’s not a competition! Just shoot!
What a contrast from the so called Pros! I love it. Thanks Simon!
Bo
I shoot raw + jpeg but I make too many mistakes and have been surprised by even some of my worst shots, I’ve been able to edit and salvage them
YESS i love taking my RAW file and using every one of those MBs lol! Zooming in 10 times and dragging every slider from left to right, feels like you have more control
I shoot in dual Raw plus Jpeg. Raw still give more editing options and the recent addition of AI to Lightroom to reduce noise is very useful. I shoot in low light and the noise reduction is great (like inside a church where I cannot use a flash.
Raw enables you to put your own style on your images. JPEG ok for snapshots
I always shoot compressed RAW because I do want to always process my images, especially with evening street photography to get a more filmic look. And the file size is so much more easier on my storage.
I only use JPEG for that moment I need to share the photos directly without the ability to process at all. Which was twice now.
Please more of these kinds of videos. We don't seem to have as many of these, or at least not as apparent as they need to fight 'how to make your images sharper' videos.
This one as well as the image profile/picture style video were just amazing and eye opening.
I used to shoot both, but stopped using raw when it was eating up too much storage space and find my JPEGs are just as good for what I do.
I've never shot RAW, and do find the JPEGs adequate, so I appreciated your comment and experience.
Nobody uses RAW files on their websites. The HTML Img tag just won't show RAW files so you would need to convert to JPG/PNG/... no matter what. In those days of cheap and ample storage I don't see storing RAW in card or hard drives as being an issue.It's down to personal preference when it comes to file type for storage and I agree with you it really does not matter which type you use (in normal exposure) unless one pixel peeps on large images and then one really needs to get a life 😄. Your explanation however, are super clear and always welcome. Au top le Simon comme d'habitude :)
Yes would love to see one on astrophotography it's my second favorite afterbirding
New thumbnails please😬
I shoot lossless compressed with my Nikons. From an engineering perspective, always capture the best data you can as you loose fidelity when using image processing algorithms. Also remember that even better monitors are 10 bit AdobeRGB. The monitor itself reduces the image data, but some printers, like my Canon pro 1000 may actually print better than you can see on a monitor.
I always shoot RAW but after watching this video will give CRAW a try. Thanks for another informative video.
hahaha hilarious topic title,...i rarely shoot raw
i would love to see a video where you actually go out into the field and take photos, it would be a good break from your recent, unoriginal video styles.
His channel is very informative. But since you left that comment I’ll add this, how about you start your own channel about photography and post videos so we can see your original and very educational videos.
I discuss that in my end-of year video. they do 1/10th as well as educational, and twice as long to make.
The solution: shoot in RAW & JPEG. 1 click, 2 formats. When doing events or quick jobs, you send JPEGs, with or without minimum adjustments, to your client and for photography that requires post production you can go wild with RAW in Lightroom or/and Photoshop. This discussion is not about which format is best, but about what works best given the circumstances.
Astsophotography? Heck ya bring it. That would be fantastic!
Thank you Simon. Your are a huge help to all photographers of all levels. You make people think! I will spend more thought on my cropping.
People buy photographs because they love the subject, the story, the message and how it makes them feel. As a photographer that is what I work to capture. I am far more concerned about the impact of my photography on the person viewing the final image than I am about any criticism from a pixel perfectionist.
Often, many subjects, scenes and lighting will work out great using JPG. If you need to produce many images where JPG will deliver a satisfactory image then absolutely use JPG. I shoot birds, other wildlife and nature scenes where there is not usually a chance to get a second shot of an event. I take thousands of photos and delete 95+% of them because either they are not very special or they are not the best shot out of a group or a burst. I need every opportunity to get the best possible finished photo from the image file. That is why I shoot only in Raw.
If my camera offered cRAW I would use it as there is no visible difference. If I were shooting under controlled conditions I would be shooting JPG.
My main genre of photography is astrophotography, so I'd love a few videos on it!
Great presentation and I agree with you 100% My cameras don't have compressed RAW so I soot RAW+JPEG. About half of my photos are for family and friends of them at some event in which case JPEG is fine. For my artsy stuff I prefer RAW. I just don't bother switching the camera back and forth. For the family and friends photos it is easy enough to delete the RAW at post processing.
Very interesting the compressed RAW
Just imagine how horrible it would feel to go through a photo shoot and only find jpegs on the memory card rather than the typical 14 bit raw files. While jpeg can be useful in some cases, the furthest someone should really go is Raw+ JPEG, though ideally, raw only should be fine especially since the camera's picture profile can be applied in post anyway, and raw files are still quite small, and with modern photo editors, especially the GPU acceleration in photoshop and ACR, makes working with raw files work just as quickly as working with jpegs.
Nothing will ever beat RAW. When you are a professional photographer, you should always think before you press the shutter button. Every picture, whatever format, will need to be looked at and time is money... In terms of post processing, RAW will always be more interesting.
I use lossless compressed RAW on Fuji and just do batch import into LR where I can apply Fuji color processing e.g. to Astia or Pro Neg Hi very easily. Can’t do that with JPEG. It’s simple. Storage is cheap. LR processing enables batch handlingof denoise and setting white and black points with incredible ability to bring out shadow details. RAW for me.
Watching your videos has made me want to return to photography. Thank you so much.
I shoot raw+jpeg on my camera and on my phone. Most of my photos are for sharing thus jpeg and those that I print the raw image works the best. Using Darktable & Gimp for photo editing. Thanks for another great video !
I've read a lot of online battles where people argue between different formats. Even though most of the time it doesn't matter people still stick with their ideas. I agree with you that it is the extremes of the range where there is some advantage to RAW. Also if the exposure of the original photo is off, or especially the white balance, you can recover better with the RAW file. I shoot raw + jpg and almost always use the jpg but if I need to for the reasons listed above I can always use the RAW file. I could benefit from a compressed raw but I don't think my cameras offer it. I have cameras from different eras so I need to go back and check the manuals.
As long as one makes an reasonable decision for oneself it doesn't matter what format you use. But one should know what the technical differences and issues are with each.
Agree!
I shoot CRAW + JPG on my R6... pretty much unlimited buffer when shooting 12 fps in mech shutter. JPG for easy sharing. CRAW for anything I want to process further - to run through DXO PureRaw for example.
What a lesson. What a great concept. Oh my head. 😂 In all seriousness I have shot raw since I bought my first dslr in 2004. But that was a whole nuther world. In my world, I do not delete files. Any files. But, like you sId, raw files, especially from my Nikon D850, can be a but big. When you begin to consider how many files you save over a period of a few years, and how much space you consume, it's easy to see how perhaps looking at compressed raw could be an option. Just one problem. Now I need to look into how to make that change. Awesome video!!
100% RAW (as I do a lot of processing).....my 5D and 7D do not have these new formats.....perhaps my next camera will have that option.....thanks for the information... 🙂
I am glad Simon spilling the beans. Jpeg photography has its place. For Raw I use compressed Raw of course as with my amount of photos taken, storage is an issue. Every now and then I go Jpeg-only which overall improves my photography as it is more fun to get things right in the photo than trying to save something in post.
Always RAW! Only time I don't shoot raw is for phone shots, and sometimes I shoot RAW there too.
Did Fro get upset with your previous title, i think i remember seeing his name mentioned???? hahaha I bet you're making Ken Rockwell happy.
Best video on topic
Man - you are asking rhetorical questions like "Would you like to see how I do...?" - OF COURSE! Your experience is priceless! (And thanks for that!)
I can answer that question without having seen the video: absolutely yes.
I actually like both Raw and JPEG for all of my photos, I like to have the choice:-) Thanks for really good and interresting videos Simon🙂
Well done comparisson!
Why are we worried about file size in an era that storage drives are dirt cheap?
If I know if a shot can be important, and time isn't a factor, I shoot in-camera HDR that saves an additional under/over exposed raw file along with an "HDR" Jpeg file. The Jpeg is only used for sorting files and the final image is sourced from the Camera Raw files in exposure blending if needed.
Storage and fast computers are a good investment to future proof your possibilities.
I have been doing photography for over 50 years and we have never had it so good.
I have 17 TB…
I'm an astrophotographer, and I'd lover to see a video or two from you on the subject.
Astrophotography information video would be epic as you explain things excellently.
That was the best segue I have ever seen. To the point where I sighed in amazement, thinking you were gonna suggest using raw for the best quality and to show the photos at their best. Well done.
Very helpful, Simon!
Excellent video, as usual
Salute from a poor photo enthusiast from India
Been shooting CRaw ever since I got my R7. Amazing image format considering it's near identical to RAW for half the file size: 15MB for a 32.5MP shot!
another great video Simon
Thanks 👍
I shoot RAW and JPEG, keep the better of the two and delete the other one. Most of the t8me, a JPEG is perfectly fine for me, but under tricky lighting conditions, RAW is the way to go.
Eye opening! What would Fro say??? And I’d love to see you do an Astro photography video! Thanks!