Many cameras will save images as JPEG and as RAW. One way of working if you don't want to sit at your computer and process RAW files is to take a shot of whatever it is and then, on the camera, process the RAW image to get it looking the way you want but make a note of the tweaks that you make to the RAW file. Next, put those settings on your camera and then, your JPEGs will have those settings - that will, if nothing else, allow you to make a better judgement of your keeps and chuck-outs if you are in a squeeze for time. That will take you 95 per cent of the way there and often, that is good enough - remember that you still have your RAW file to mess around with for that shot that you really want to get just right. I don't know how many other cameras will let you post-process your RAW files on the camera itself but my little point and shoot does - it is a Leica D-Lux 7.
I almost always shoot raw. There are rare times when jpeg is better. Usually it involves pictures of fast motion. Most cameras have a higher frame rate and will shoot longer bursts in jpeg mode because the images are smaller. So if you want to catch the moment the soccer ball comes off the shooter's head or grazes the goalie's fingers, jpeg might be better. If you want to catch the moment when the bobcat catches the grouse one meter off the ground, jpeg can be better. Also, you can edit white balance, color balance, contrast, brightness, etc. for jpeg. Having said all of that, I agree fully with everything you say. It is easier to get great results in post with raw and I usually shoot raw.
I shoot in both formats. That's mainly because I find raw format to be a little more "grainy" relative to jpg format. Raw provides greater dynamic range but jpg provides a "cleaner" photo.
JPEG is like letting a Japanese engineer do all your settings, and RAW is to do it your way. Or, JPEG is to send the film to an one-hour-developer one the corner, who hasn't heard of tungsten light, and so on. RAW is to send your film to a professional developer or do it yourself, and you can buy and use tungsten film and lighting as you wish.
I can tell you, I had a portrait of a friend of mine. It was a keeper, but not more. It was a very two-dimensional picture. Maybe a year later, I found it again. Did some adjustments, and voila in two minutes. Then a good picture. Tweaked it for some weeks. Yes, I did it, and got a very three-dimensional picture after that, and now it's a fine-art picture in black and white, and that's because the file was in RAW format.
Even though I consider myself a 'novice' when it comes to photography, I went straight to shooting RAW the moment I came to photography. Knowing RAW files are essentially made to be pushed and pulled into whatever direction I want, from simple/subtle edits to heavy handed 'manipulation' if you will. I find processing RAW files is way easier then dealing with JPEG, which has very little wiggle room to play with in post processing without it being detrimental to the quality of the picture (artifacts, destroying detais etc.) which in turn can be a real disappointing experience with post processing (having a great idea for an edit, but the basic JPEG photo file won't allow for that idea to come to full fruition)
If i care enough about a photo to use my full frame camera over my smartphone of course I'm going to shoot raw and and make adjustments to the photo using the raw file. If I want a quick point and shoot style shot I use my phone.
Good points! I mostly shoot in both, and find myself really liking the JPEGs about 80% of the time, particularly the b&w profile on my little E-PL6. But I've sort of learned how to get proper colors out of the raw files (they look so flat and boring out of the box), so sometimes I go with that when I need to recover highlight or shadow detail, which doesn't happen very often.
Some interesting points about using RAW files -- thanks! I do edit my JPGs. My new passion is street, and JPG tells the story just fine, and edits are quick and files more compact. I have always shot with JPG. The point about RAW as original proof, is interesting, and quality wise, it may be true about the RAW images, but I am happy with JPG quality, most of the time. And it is very true, more RAW can be saved once I screw-up, but then again, you adapt, and hopefully get a sense of where and when those errors might occur, and compensate for them. Take care, Loren
When raw formats first became a “thing,“ I remember having long correspondences with another photographer friend. It was a hot topic, one that achieved
I edit many of my early photographs that aren’t too bad; in fact, a few are real “beginners luck” shots that I couldn’t re-create. Because I saved raw versions, I am able to fix exposure and white balance mistakes, correct the noise that earlier digital cameras were prone to, and even enlarge what are quite small resolution images to make reasonable prints. You can have it both ways: shoot JPEG+raw. Those raw files are your digital negatives. Enjoy the JPEGs right away, but some day you may thank yourself for having the raw versions.
YES ! Always RAW ! 😊👍 Maybe you could make a review of Free/Open Source RAW Editor Software !? Fx Capture One Express, Darktable, Lightzone, RawTherapee, digiKam...
@@cameraprepper7938 I get it. However, those kind of reviews are VERY time consuming to make properly and in the end the experience is very much a personal opinion. But, I'm going to think about it😀
Amateur here. I shoot JPG + RAW. I make minor adjustments to the JPG. If I'm not satisfied with the modified JPG, I'll edit the RAW file. Typically, I'll have an image that I really like, but there are blown highlights or lost shadow detail or other issues that I can't correct in the JPG, but can fix in the RAW file. Can't tell you how many times RAW has saved my butt.
Ah, one more thing.... When we used to use film cameras, we spent 70% of our budget to buy lenses, and 30% to our cameras.... Today, when we use digital cameras, shooting with RAW, may be with -2/3 exposure adjustment, it may be a good idea to allocate relatively good % to those software....
I recently viewed your 3 + 3 sliders raw processing video. As a result I shot raw (+ jpeg) for the first time . Using your suggested process, I ended up with some really good shots. Interestingly, they seemed to be about the same as the unaltered jpeg files.
If you shoot raw+jpeg both should look the same straight from camera. If you edit the raw and it still looks like the jpeg you obviously did something wrong. Maybe you reset the raw unintentionally?
Thank you so much for your informative video as usual. Although I 100% agree with all of what you have said in the video, allow me to mention that there is one reason, eh, albeit that one reason is limited when you have Lumix G5 and/or G6.... That is when you have Lumix G5 and/or G6, you may want to choose to set your format to JPEG S (Small). Then assign the function lever to the Zoom. While you turn on the EX Telecon feature of the camera. In this setting, you can zoom up to 2X. Yes, the resolutions becomes very small. But this feature comes in handy. As far as what you want is to put your photo on SNS or something, this expands your capability.... Yes, the image quality suffers. But once again, as far as what you want to do is to put your photo onto SNS, etc. That's okay.
@@mattisulanto Thank you so much for your response. Of course, if you can imagine what your photo may look like in your mind as you shoot, then, .... you can crop the center of your photo to 1/4 of the original size in the post production process, after you spend some time, the outcome should theoretically be more or less same. Not the depth of field nor bokeh though. But with the EX telecon, as you look in the finder and compose.... you know the outcome. Your exposure adjustments should be more accurate. Your LEICA DG NOCTICRON 42.5mm / F1.2 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. becomes 170mm F1.2 equivalent. That's nice.... The amount of bokeh may be similar to that of F2.4, but still you can use lower ISO or higher shutter speed. You know the compact package with nice image stabilization.... Yeah, you cannot use this feature unless you have Lumix G5 and/or G6, but those cameras are sold in used market at reasonable prices.
OK Matti, I am gonna do it! Will take the Canon RP out today and shoot in RAW + JPG Monochrome to see what happens. Might be great in that I can see in an instant how color looks compared to B&W.
@@mattisulanto It did work out pretty good. Canon renders colors well right from the camera in JPG, of course -- one of the best in doing such, but I did like the results of working with the RAW files, and now have them should I need to rework them some day. A little bit more to save space wise, but the PhotoScape X editor works well with Canon for RAW, so editing was swift. So I may keep the Canon RP set to RAW, and JPG in B&W, or maybe just RAW. RAW to B&W looks good. The preview in B&W JPG has some value, but I do so much more color -- I'll think it over. -loren
Some people are not computer savvy, or maybe don't even own one. If one is only going to spend a few moments making a few global adjustments, or hitting the Auto button, then in my humble opinion those photographers may as well shoot in jpeg. Why worry in the first place? Millions of photos are taken by millions of people who most likely have never heard of Lightroom, or similar. Gordon Laing, he knows about Lightroom, of course, and he's written a book - In Camera: How to Get Perfect Pictures Straight Out of the Camera - so he's not worrying about jpeg or RAW, and why should he? If shooting in jpeg works for some, that's great. Let them get on with it, that's what I say.
What happens if they get a computer later, or become more computer and image editing savvy? It could be really nice to have those old raw files to go back to and improve their old photos. Sometimes technology can drastically improve and allow raw files to look far better than they ever did before, and than in-camera JPGs ever will: DeepPrime noise reduction from DxO is a perfect example.
@@hilarylee5332 it is entirely possible to become a better photographer and use the proper names for things at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.
Hi Matti, good video... But... For real Fuji shooters, the Fuji JPEGs most times are good enough... Hahahaha just kidding... I believe ultimatly it depends only on your shooting style and personal taste. I won't argue physics, RAW files have more leverage and information, but with RAW files you always have to post-process them. Some people like me, for instance, only go for RAW (altough I always shoot RAW+JPEG, I keep and never share my RAW files of course), if the scene, condicions, theme or genre begs use of the RAW files. And also there is nothing wrong shooting a digital camera almost like a film camera, but that only is valid for Fuji shooters hahaha. Long live the Fujifilm Film Sims and recipes. All the best my friend!! PS - the last photo gig I did (you know which one...) I shoot and processed all in RAW.
@@mattisulanto yes indeed... I truly enjoy my Fuji JPEGs, the processing units in Fuji cameras allow a huge flexibility and the options to render beautiful images straight from camera, well for my personal taste, of course. Altough I think anyone who has a Fuji mirrorless knows the in camera raw developer, it allows a lot for an in camera editing software. Nevertheless, I like Photography in all and particularly I enjoy good photos, artistically or technically speaking. A good photo doesn't matter if it was taken on a Fuji, Leica, Sony or smartphone for that matter, if it rings with you its a good photo. All the best to you and your family my friend! Have a great weekend!!
Raw is not an acronym. It's not a singular file type. It's an adjective to describe the type of image data in a variety of proprietary file types. It's "raw", despite the intenet's obsession with hitting the shift key needlessly.
It seems JPG, TIFF, RAW was easier for people than JPG, TIFF, raw. In a similar vein, people keep saying "I.S.O." as if ISO was an acronym: "eye-ess-oh." But it's a word, derived from the Greek "isos" meaning "equal" and should be pronounced "eye-so." I think the fact that ASA and DIN being acronyms lead people to believe that the standard that replaced them must also be.
@@StephenStrangways But what is the correct pronounciation for words like that? Should it be pronounced according to your native language or the native language of the word?
@@mattisulanto ISO is an international organization that specifically chose that name so it would be the same in any language, rather than using an acronym that would be different depending on the language, such as I.O.S. in English and O.I.N. in French.
@@StephenStrangways I know what it is. The name is of course the same everywhere, but the pronunciation, however, is not the same in every country. In my country, for example, it’s not pronounced ”eye-so”. That’s the English pronunciation. We pronounce it more like "eso". So, I was contemplating what would be the correct pronunciation for a word that is not native to your language. Should it be pronounced like it was a native to your language or should it be pronounced like it is pronounced in its native language. Nothing very important really😀
For myself it's only RAW, nothing else. I need the flexibility that RAW offers for post processing. I am mainly a black and white shooter but of course I always have the RAW file containing all the color information and therefore the possibility for fine adjustments of color tones even when intending only B&W. And if I suddenly change my mind I still could use the color version as an alternative final product.
