I don't enjoy pushing sliders on a screen. So I shoot Jpeg only. It's so liberating and pure. It clears up my mind and let me focus 100% on getting the best shot in camera. Camera manufacturers spend many hours and $$$ in creating jpeg profiles and I'm sure they are better schooled in getting the settings right than I am. The fact that RAW exists does not mean one should use it. In my case, I have no need for RAW and I don't miss it.
I'm shooting RAW +JPG, but edit only JPGs! For years I was using only RAW and then develop this to my taste. Now Im shooting JPGs with flat image profiles, with lower saturation and contrast to keep most of dynamic range. I also shoot with pushed shadows a litle up. Than adding a contrast in post (Black and White points). This way is so much faster.
Hi, Matti. I shoot both JPEG and RAW: I use the C1 custom setting on my Canon 6D to shoot JPEG with the Faithful Picture Style: Sharpness +4, Contrast -2 and Colour +2. Faithful allows for a reasonable degree of post-processing, if required. It is similar to the Neutral Style, but tends to produce better SOOC results in daylight shooting than Neutral. I use this for street photography, wildlife (since the 6D is only fast enough for continuous wildlife shots in JPEG), opportunistic travel and day trip photography, and family snapshots. C2 I set to RAW, for shots which look like they are more challenging such as a large dynamic range between the whites and blacks, and for landscape photograph in general. For the 6D it makes sense to change several camera settings for RAW as opposed to JPEG shooting, so the two Custom settings are very useful. I am an amateur and, since amateur photography is supposed to be fun (!) I will sometimes switch to RAW or JPEG, just depending on whether I feel like doing post-processing or not. If I am travelling and just want to share some photos with friends on social media, then it's JPEG every time.
I am pleased you did this jpeg video, I am 75 years old and been shooting on an off since I was 15 years old, so I am used to attempting to get the best settings at whatever i am shooting. A great British fotographer, Gordon laing has published an excellent book featuring jpeg only. He reveals just what high quality images can be created, his work is stunning! At 75 I thrive at being out and about and not sitting at home in front of a computer screen having my body slowly atrophying. By the same token I do agree with all that you have said. Thanks. ...zenon . Zen . billings
You say that in shooting JPEG you have contrast, saturation and other things which you have to consider tweaking which you would not with RAW -- well, you actually do, but in post processing. So in effect you are changing where the image processing happens in your workflow. It now happens even before you take the picture for JPEG -- making it a proactive step. With RAW you do the processing after taking the picture -- when you can see the changes on the actual image -- making it a reactive step. It's a very different cognitive thought process to choose your settings *before* you take the picture, instead of processing the RAW image -- it's much more intuitive to try to think through what settings will work best before getting the shot. And of course you will get better over time as you learn better how the changes in the camera settings actually end up affecting the resulting image....
You are right, but I know what I want even if I shoot RAW. I just prefer to concentrate on the things that I have to before I take the shot and do the other things after, in post processing. Some things are very difficult to execute before, even if I knew what I want and it takes time to dial in the correct settings.
@@mattisulanto -- I shoot both on my G85. I use the Standard profile for the JPEGs. I process any RAW files that I really want to keep and "perfect" -- but for quick sharing on social media with family or emailing out to family I will use the JPEGs -- although I have found that I will do minimal tweaks -- cropping as you said, but I have found that I do tend to bump the contrast using a simple editing tool. So you made me think -- if I can make that common adjustment "in camera" -- tweak the Standard profile, then I won't have to mess with the JPEG afterwards, risking degrading the quality. So it is a *GOOD THING* that I watched your video! :-) It's always a good thing!!!! Thank you!
In the days of film, many professionals used slide film, which was the equivalent of JPGs. Nothing wrong with shooting JPGs if you get the results you want.
@@steven3557 Ansel Adams may not agree with that statement. Personally, I do very little post processing of my images. Just depends on what look you want.
So what you're saying is when shooting in JPEG you had to be a photographer, but when shooting in RAW you only had to be an editor? Well I know which of the two then requires more ability, and pays more respect to the history and origins of photography.
I shot raw for 14 years and about two years ago I now shoot exclusively jpeg and I still like to do some post post processing for touching up the photo. It just made photography so much more fun.
I shoot raw only but occasionally because of limitations have to shoot jpeg. They follow exactly the same workflow as my raws. Anybody who says jpegs don't need processing is naive, there are very few pictures that cannot be improved.
I recently shot a party with jpeg by accident with my G9. I had been messing with jpeg settings for when I shoot raw + jpeg and forgot to reset to raw only. The results weren't too bad because I had alread set the shadows +2 and highlights -1 or -2. I just needed to raise the shadow and midtone brightness a bit and crop where needed. A few photos had areas that where clipped to white because I usually shoot ETTR but those photos where salvageable. It was a casual event where I wasn't paid or even expected to produce images but thankfully people liked them anyway. It was definitely a reminder to always check certain settings at the outset to make sure something didn't get changed by accident.
OK to shoot only jpec. I do that most of the time like I shoot positive film in the old days. People who shoot only RAW usually are egoistic as though they are one class above. Actually it takes more skills to shoot only jpec. Also, shooting every shot RAW will waste a lot of time doing processing. Imagine you shoot 300 -400 everyday. Sometimes, you cannot get to see the photos of those people who shoot only RAW even after one year. Then, what's the point in shooting.
I've never heard any RAW shooter saying jpeg is second class photography, but for some reason jpeg shooters seem to feel that way, because they sometimes bring it up.
Another of the great advantages of developing RAW is that it forces you to analyze and become more intimate with all aspects of the image and with the entire photographic process.
@@mattisulanto It also has its dangers for some: reducing the value of the initial frame, relativizing the adjustments for what I will fix in post-production and worst of all: the magnifying glass that can turn a photographer into a paranoid person struggling with things that nobody cares about because they will not be seen or will not be important. Sometimes the noise is as beautiful (or more) as a creamy bokhe that has a lot of cultural or marketing construct.
I read through the comments again and what's my point on RAW vs JPEG. The human eye is greatly overestimated and even JPEG contains more information than the eye can see. So that if JPEG is shot at proper exposure and doesn't have pure white or pure black areas it can be edited in sufficiently wide ranges. I periodically process JPEG files 10 years old in Lr and almost all photos I enhance to good enough or almost excellent quality. Also processing these JPEGs brought me idea that wide dynamic range is very often a distraction same as excessive fine detailing. It may be strange but humble cameras and JPEG then minimally processed produce more convincing photos than modern cameras and RAW processed in Lr.
You have a point there. However, editing RAW is the same amount of work as editing jpeg and RAW is designed for that. So, why not use it? I do agree, that over editing is a problem for many, because you can swing those sliders freely anyway you like. If you have no idea what you want, you may end up messing with the sliders and hope something good will come out.
@@mattisulanto The more info you have in the file in all aspects - resolution, detailing, dynamic range - the harder a task to make artistic photography out of it. If one takes a look at paintings like Rembrandt, David, Monet, Dahli one won't find a lot of details, abundance of colors or wide dynamic range. Because redundancy is distracting. In Art only main subject should be emphasized, second - a bit blurred, a bit desaturated, third - hazed etc. Rembrandt used shadowing - all what's less important step back into shadow. Russian painters used all the methods known up to half part of 19 century. While contemporary French painters searched for new methods unknown then and turned to photography then very imperfect to used methods from it. If a photographer have perfect modern camera and fast lenses hist task is getting more and more complex to cut off redundant stuff and simplify everything. That's why old film lenses are still popular.
Unprocessed RAW looks like jpeg, because Lightroom has camera matching picture styles. So that comparison makes no sense. The whole idea of RAW is the flexibility that you can post process it much better than jpeg, which you are supposed to get right in camera. At least I see it that way.
I shoot RAW + JPG, but mostly use the jpgs. I haven't found THAT great raw editor yet, most of them are just slow, clunky and unintuitive. Maybe my older computer is the bottleneck, maybe not. Also, many of the Raw editors give odd colors, where as jpg files come right most of the times. And with somewhat older m4/3 bodies, there's not much extra the raw can offer, atleast when it comes to dynamic range. Maybe better sharpness and detail, but that's not so important to me. Also, nowadays i rather spend the lesser time in front of "smart" devices, and rather more on the real world. Depends on the needs of course, but editing raws is really at the bottom of my list when it comes to that. If i do anything with the jpg files, i mostly just crop a little, maybe add a little contract if needed (or just boost the brightness a bit), maybe little sharpness. That's about it. Maybe with a more powerful pc, and once i find that great raw editor that really brings something new to the table (+fast and intuitive), then sure. Why not?
I suppose you are speaking for yourself. There are so many different photographic scenarios, both recreational and commercial, that we can't tell others what file format they need or want.
Hi Matti, love your vlogs. I shoot jpeg, mainly sport shots, canoe sport. I use a G9, & move the shots via the Panasonic App into my Samsung s8 phone. Then I do a simple edit of each one in the phone photo gallery - crop, brightness, exposure. If happy, I then share them via Facebook with the race participants. What are your views? Also is it true that every time you edit a jpeg photo the image quality suffers on the edited image version? Thanks.
My point in shooting RAW, if I intend to edit later, is that RAW is made for that. Editing RAW is the same amount of work as editing jpeg, so I think RAW makes sense. Of course, if you make some minor editing, jpeg is probably fine too and makes sense, if you have to deliver or share the photos quickly.
What's crucial for me in post processing regardless format of master file - JPEG or RAW. 1) Frame inclination to the left or to the right. 2) Highlights and shadows cannot be properly justified in camera to be fine as an image is displayed on computer display or on paper print and 3) Noise reduction in camera is far behind computer-aided provided now by tools like Topaz. In general, mirrorless cameras with face detection work fine in portrait shooting as the exposure and white balance are precisely calculated by modern cameras. The other area is architecture and interior photography where the main subject takes most part of the picture and WB, Highlights/Shadows can be easily adjusted in the camera. It almost never works in nature and city landscapes, street photography, sport, animal photography. And in general photography with deliberately difficult light conditions and large dynamic range. That's why in the past there were the methods like high tone (key) and low tone - because of inability achieve middle ground the picture is artificially moved to one of the side.
I use JPEG some times when it gives me access to more of my camera post-processing options. (Timelapse, etc.) This saves me a lot of post-processing time!
I’m a cheerful amateur documenting my boring life in an unusual location and I have no plans to print. However I combine Snapseed with JPG to produce pictures acceptable to me. RAW files are enormous and cumbersome and were I to be paid to make pictures they would be required. But I have a wife, a dog, a job, friends and a desire for photographic solitude. All of which adds up to the ease of use requirement and hopes for fame and glory through amateur perfection go out the window! PS I got the LX100 you recommended and it is a tricky little bastard and great fun to learn properly.
I post process jpegs and they come out excellent as long as you have exposed correctly and dialled in a somewhat flat image. Tweaking up to 1 stop is no problem and if I want to make it more contrasty in post processing theres virtually no limit. It saves me time and space and no one notices. If you need say 3 stops of adjustment because of a high contrast situation then raw is the only option.
Very interesting observations. Would agree practically with all points, especially #4 ;) Post processing of RAW files reminds me of all time which are spent in real darkroom, printing, toning my B&W photos. I would add just pow cents. One is against shooting jpegs - sometimes events , interesting events, moments are happening so quickly, especially in street photography, where you just do not have time to analyze and project your vision onto camera settings. On other side, especially for commercial photographers working on specific locations more or less controlled environment, shooting raw+jpeg gives ability to deliver an initial “preview” to client right away. Which may be a huge plus.
My issue with JPEGs is that the camera doesn't recognize high contrast daylight scenes in order to reduce the contrast automatically. There's HDR of course but not in (semi-)manual modes. Fast documentary shooting in forests during full sunlight is beyond possible. It's hard to post process such scenes too but it can be done.
I shoot JPEG since I switched to digital in 2007. Started trying digital with Lumix LS3. Now my favorite is the Lumix TZ58. Both cameras only JPEG. I like compact cameras and the challange making pictures with. I also have a Nikon D3000. Maybe I try RAW this year when I have shooting with one of my hobby models. So long and have a nice day :-).
I can't remember the last time I shot jpeg, it would have been one of my earliest digital cameras. All my cameras are dual card bodies, I shoot RAW only and the 2nd card is a duplicate back up so I always have two copies of the RAW file. I've never understood why people put a jpeg backup to the second card, makes no sense to me 😋
Thanks for your insights, Matti :). I personally shoot JPEGs as I don't like raws produced by my GX9. Nonetheless, I do post process JPEGs in Fotor and I'm pretty satisfied with the results + I'm always able to quickly transfer photos to my mobile and put them on Facebook or to the cloud. I know it's possible to use JPEG + raw option but it'd made ma change memory cards too often :). Regards, Łukasz
I shoot jpeg because I am the opposite, I don't like spending time in front of the computer :-) I want to improve my photography and jpeg forces me to do that, I enjoy it. If I were a pro then I would always shoot raw because the safety net is important. I am taking photos for myself, jpeg makes more sense. Having said that, I will try to switch to raw the next time I am in difficult lighting situations because I think the safety net is worth it there. Thank you for stating that jpeg shooting is not such a terrible thing. Some RU-vidrs are passionately against jpeg to the point that they say or imply jpegs make me less of a photographer. I find that baffling. ...and thanks for the video. Maybe a G100 review coming soon? ;-)
Excellent explanation, Matti. JPEG for regular snapshots works fine for me, but my greatest pleasure I find in post processing these days, so RAW is my go to format.
My computer broke down few days before my S1 has been delivered to me. So for the first week i shoot jpeg only. Definitely the Panasonic jpegs have very nice color, contrast and details. I used the standard picture style, with noise reduction to -5, idynamic range on "auto" to take care of high contrast scenes, and quick menu ready to adjust the saturation level. Thanks to the evf i get consistent exposure, white balance, contrast and colors right out of the camera. Second card slot is used for raw copy, but i use them only to recovery some exposure or awb errors, or for few particular pictures which i want to optimize for publishing or printing. For other 95% of normal pictures, jpeg does a great job for me.
JPEG is a bit like shooting on reversal stock from film days, whereas RAW is like shooting negatives. A lot of my 45 year career as a pro involved shooting transparencies for multimillion presentations, so we made the best of what we had. Now I tend to shoot both, using the JPEG files for browsing before making final edits to my chosen RAW files 🙂
Hey Matti, at the moment I shoot jpeg on my Oly om5 mk111. because Apple haven t got their thumbs from up their backsides and allowed their products accept RAW files from this particular camera...what’s taking so long?...God only knows!...interesting post..thank you..📸👍🇬🇧😎
Thanks for sharing. So you are using Apple Photos? Sometimes it takes a while to get RAW support. Adobe is reasonably fast these days, but in the past they were also very slow with some cameras.
For the First time Not agree with you 😱 i often Post process my .jpg & it works fine. Usually my pictures out of OLYMPUS (..) are Not That far away from reality 🤭😉.
I've only recently come across your channel but I am enjoying the content very much. My experience in shooting jpeg is that I have to trust the camera's metering. I normally shoot RAW in aperture priority with a -2/3 exposure compensation (and sometimes in manual but I also underexpose). But when it comes to jpeg I find the image becomes quite unpleasing to my eyes if I don't let the camera choose the exposure. I'm looking forward to more content. Thanks!
I used the Panasonic fz20 (no raw) for almost 10 years. I bracketed the exposure 2/3 stop. I found that it gave me almost always a shot that didn't need post-processing. In that time I found that the direction of the sunlight did change the behaviour of the exposure, so the bracketing was necessary. Now I shot only RAW and I carefully process the chosen images (5 - 10% of the shoot). But even then, most post-processing remains light.
Monty, I watched your video twice. When you shot JPEG I am assuming you did not use JPEG + Raw. Also, it sounded to me like you did pre-shoot settings vs post processing. Am I thinking the correct way?
I shoot mostly RAW, but there is a simplicity to jpg that is almost like shooting film. The color profile and contrast are "baked in" so that once you learn a film (camera profile), you know exactly what results you'll get. I enjoyed your black and white camera profile from some time ago, and I would be interested in the color profiles you used in this experiment.
I don't process my images straight away so I shoot both RAW and JPEG together. I set the aspect ratio I want and/or set to monochrome if that's what I plan shooting in that day so that the images coming out of the camera are as close to what I want to achieve as I can get at the time. This only effects the JPEGS but gives me an idea of what I had in mind when I shot the image. Having the RAW file too allows me to totally change my mind and process it in a different way if I want to. The best of both worlds.
I shoot raw+jpeg. It gives me something to upload to instagram when I don’t take an image I think is worth processing and posting to flickr. I’m finding that I love the SOOC look of the L Monochrome D profile with the contrast at +3, though. Basically, I just like the options. I’m big on control, so my primary capture format is panasonic raw, but I shoot jpeg because it gives me something to post when I’m out and about, and I am finding more and more that if I get a good picture in jpeg, I don’t have to edit the raw as much anyways.
First I shot jpeg only, then I shot raw only, then jpeg only again and now I shoot both together. Cannot make my mind. To tell you the truth I’m no wizard when it comes to editing photo’s.
Cool video. Actually I find myself not being a full JPG nor RAW shooter. What I do is, shoot RAW, and then use the in camera editing for colors/lighting etc and then export in camera to JPG for social media. I find that the GX85 does pretty ok for that use for myself!
since I use the new cameras which allow to take jpg and raw at the same time I see no reason why I need to decide for one when taking the picture. I always have jpg and raw, if jpg is fine I have nothing to do later, if not I work with the raw - so easy
I find on older Lumix cameras (G85 & GX85 and prior) shooting jpegs is pointless because I can’t get the looks I want in camera. That’s OK because shooting RAW simplifies things (no jpeg settings to worry about) and I can get great results with a quick profile applied shortly after Lightroom import. But with your results it seems that the newer Lumix cameras are capable of great jpegs with a bit of careful planning.
In a g85 you can select: - a photo style (5 in color and 2 in B&W) - contrast / saturation / sharpness / noise reduction from -5 to +5 (11 steps) - a color filter in B&W (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green) - an hilight/shadow combination through a curve-like control - and overall you can trick with the White Balance using the Temperature/Tint color axis with every WB type , Kelvin too These and other controls (like iDynamic) offer a very big number of possible "looks": but the problem is that every look, SOOC or from Lightroom, is nothing without adequate content.
@@danf.5744 I’m aware of the jpeg variations the G85 can produce internally, but for me it’s just easier to shoot only RAW and get the results I’m looking for in Lightroom after the fact.
@@mattisulanto I use natural and vivid to but sometime I choose the profile camera on post-production with lightrom then I shoot in standard for choise after.
@@mattisulanto Yes, and natural is the preferred for facial color / tone. Vivid can be exciting and jazz-up the photo, but then again in post processing you can also kick things up a notch or two. At least in Olympus it is natural which is used a lot, I just realized I am using Standard on my Lumix camera. Now I am not sure if I should change that for street photography?????
