www.steeletraining.com/ - Which is better, RAW or JPEG (JPG)? Finally learn the real truth about the endless compression controversy in this Photography tutorial by Phil Steele. For more of my tutorials, visit: www.steeletraining.com/
I made the mistake of telling some of the members of my local photography club that I submitted pictures in local and online competitions that were taken in Jpeg. Then I compounded the admission by telling them that I used a Micro Four Thirds camera. Now hardley anyone will talk with me at the meetings. Now it seems like I have been ostracised in the group. I have found that photography is more about image than the image.
Its the picture that counts. At my job we have a yearly photo contest. Winners get their pics printed and hung on the wall. Ive submitted several photos. The 3 that were picked were all taken on a 10 year old 12 mp point n shoot in jpeg with very minimal editing.
There is an insufferable tech snobbiness among a certain kind of men (it seems to always be men) in photography. That was part of my reason for making this video. I know professional photographers who make their entire living from photography and who nearly always shoot JPG. One wrote to me the other day after seeing this video, "I shoot 98% JPEG, don't tell anyone." Don't let those jerks get you down. Shoot what works for you.
I made the mistake of wasting time participating in such a group a few years ago. I was under the impression it was a group of photogs who actually earned a living from photography and I wanted to learn more about the business side of things. I discovered I was doing more paid work (as side gigs at that time) than the vast majority of the members, most of whom had never sold an image, much less been paid up front to shoot an event or session.
A huge advantage to shooting RAW is copyright. If you own the RAW (customer generally doesn’t get the RAW), you have legal proof of ownership which is held up in court.
An excellent clear detailed presentation without any over excited delivery. And no unnecessary irritating music which adds nothing and makes the dialogue often difficult to hear.
Another advantage of shooting RAW is when you're shooting in light from different sources that make the white balance tricky. I shoot events where the light changes constantly.
If you're setting JPEG to shoot in B&W, in the first place, none of that matters. For dramatic B&W shots, you should be looking, first of all, for scenes in which there is bright light and long, deep shadows. Nothing is more boring than an image in which everything is bland grey tones. Shooting JPEG, set to B&W, doesn't prevent dramatic, contrasting images, and it may even help you to visualize the final image. I started in 1971, when there wasn't anything digital at all. I shot both color and B&W film for 26 years before going digital. Now, admittedly, I've shot in color for conversion and editing in B&W for years. But, when I encountered a glitch in my camera that turned out to be in RAW mode (in downloading my images, most became uneditable), I tried switching to JPEG mode and this solved the problem. Realizing that I now had the option of shooting in B&W, I decided to go that direction, rather than spend hundreds of dollars getting my camera repaired, or hundreds more for a new camera.
Zippy, I also shoot events, as in live music events and I simply must agree, Raw, is the way to go in those instances. ALL THE WAY. In the ever changing scenario where light is sporadic, unpredictable, and always changing colors, with rapid moving subjects consistently, I definitely prefer RAW over the JPEG.
This is the clearest and best expiation of RAW vs. JPEG files that I've ever seen.I now fully understand the differences and when to use each format. Thanks Phil
Excellent video. Clear, concise and sensible. I've been doing things Phil's way for years... RAW for landscapes and architectural photos, JPG for sports, family gatherings and anything else where I'm just recording events and I'm not the primary shooter, such as weddings, baptisms, etc.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Superb, Phil. Clear, concise explanation. As you say, there's often a snobbery attached to the RAW ONLY crowd. But as you point out, it's really horses for courses, formats for functions....
A true teacher does not start his video insulting other teachers; a true teacher has double-checked his facts and does not spread misinformation which is happening here.
Nice explanation and I agree on most of it. I don't know if using RAW has something to do with snobbery. In my experience it has more to do with just plain ignorence. So in that sense your video can help. What I do not understand is why when comparing these two file types (RAW versus JPEG) only compression is mentioned as the factor of importance, because it really isn't. The biggest difference between these files is the bit depth which determines how many colors can be reproduced. A JPEG is an 8 bit file, while a typical RAW file is at least 12 bit of even more. That doesn't sound like much, but the difference is huge. A 8 bit JPEG can reproduce 16,000,000 colors while a RAW file can reproduce 68,719,476,736. So in a JPEG file 68,719,476,736 minus 16,000,000 = 68.703.476.736 colors are just thrown away. This has nothing to do with compression. And it is this difference that makes it hard to recover or improve JPEG's a lot if needed. You just cannot recover something that has been thrown away. And yes, I know and agree that this difference it not always important or even visible depending on the image. So in general I agree, but people should really understand why RAW can be so important. You throw a lot of information away in JPEG that can't be recovered. May be not important when taking snapshots but even a 'family portrait' often needs post processing to get that wow-factor. RAW can make the difference then.
Using RAW has to do with long term efficiency and quality. Some like fast processed food others are fine with a nice slice of bread baked with care and a glass of water. Some think short term, others long term (and health ;o).
I would bet that human eyes cannot tell the difference between color 10,000,000 and color 10,000,001, in a jpeg file, let alone the difference between one color and the next one in a 16 billion colored raw file, no matter what the bit depth is and that’s assuming a file contains ALL the colors one would never be able to discern. We live in a 3-D world, so adding a few more would change nothing for us, since we cannot perceive them…if they exist!
Ok good I’m not tripping , wa staking photos of my son boxing in Jpeg and raw and was like “wtf” after adding contrast and changing the skin tones the raw just look so much better and wowish That’s why I came to this video just now 😂 I was using the add Clarity option in light room, the jpeg didn’t look awful but the raw just utilized it so much smoother and just better
Even if you shoot RAW, after post production you have to store the processed image in a file format other than RAW. Most likely that image format will be JPG. At that point, all the extra color information will be lost in the new image. That new image may contain nuances of colors that would be hard to get if you just processed a JPG image in post production. Hence the definition of "art" in the video, you have greater control of the quality of the FINAL JPG. BUT: using a file format that allows this extra control does not mean that you are creating art. RAW will not enable you to make art from a bad photo, and truly great photos can be taken without using RAW.
A clear and concise introduction to RAW and JPEG, for me as a beginner, just what I needed. I've seen a number of steeltraining videos, they have all been very good.
Then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Insightful as usual. I'm not a pro, photography is just a past time for me. I mostly shoot in RAW and if I need the JPG quickly I use the import feature via the Canon Camera Connect app to my phone.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Very informative and understandable. Jpg is a technique evolved from numeric data storage from mainframe days when storage was very expensive and recurring data was compressed by adding repeat numerical values.
Finally someone I can understand and very well. You are great at getting what you are saying through to thick heads like me. I have found someone who doesn't bullshit their way through a long and boring presentation, which this wasn't by the way. I have found this to be the best help and is what I have been thinking for a very long time as I am a Jpeg shooter. And knowing what you have said just makes what I do all the more sensible as I am not trying to sell images I do it for me as I am a bird photographer who just likes to share. Thank you mate.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Just want to appreciate that you share some of your content for free here on RU-vid. I would definitely recommend you to my friends. Keep up the good work!
This is the best and most thorough explanation of this subject I’ve seen. You have a gift for explaining things in a way that makes them very understandable, Phil (I also have your Lightroom and Photoshop courses).
Sorry to disappoint you but definitely not thorough and quite a few ridiculous errors in fact. {and I am not even mentioning starting one's argument by insulting others that think differently which may prove how insecure one is].
Thanks, it was an eye opener and compelled me to look at my working style. I used to shoot only JPG before and then RAW but now I am very clear when to use RAW vs JPEG.
I have learned more in a 10 minute video than in the last 10 years of owning a DSLR. Your content is rich and presentation skills are outstanding and am grateful I came across your channel. Thank you and look forward to exploring your other videos.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Excellent in every respect. You possess remarkable teaching skills. I’ve learned more from this video and you sir, than I have struggling on my own in the past. Now where’s my camera! Many thanks.
Technique maybe but some very wrong facts. If you think this video is that good, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Thanks a million ! Best photographic info in a very long time. I can only shoot in JPEG, camera cannot shoot RAW - always thought my images are 'lacking' somewhere. Great stuff !
Thank you for bringing real photography knowledge to youtube. So many youtube tutorials are people with little real world experience who style themselves experts by repeating unexamined cliches they don't fully understand.
There are so many "experts" these days who address people "beginners". Never saw such phenomenon when I was growing up shooting Agfachrome 50 as a beginner over 5 decades ago. Chromes were more affordable than negatives and provided a more vigorous training than anything else. Shot Kodachromes w/o a meter in most situations & could print C41 by hand , JPEG is good enough for me. Just shoot, no time for raw! Wrote a few programs after seeing some dumb advert. photos. Time (whatever amount left) will be spent on learning & re-learning more beautiful stuff in theoretical physics & higher math where u don't see any numbers. Young Mr. Silva from STEM will someday feel the same?
Then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision.
The biggest RAW file advantage is the bit depth. A 12-14 bit color depth is exponentially more colors than 8 bit JPEG. If you are bending and stretching your colors in post, JPEG will fall apart very fast. Raw's bit depth and light compression is vastly superior. But, yes,...you kinda really need both raw and jpg file copies. Jpeg's will give you a great observation file when working in the field for judging if a photo is good or not.
So what I'm hearing is that, for street photography for example, using Jpeg is the superior format, but if you're going for more controlled pictures with more complicated colors, shooting RAW is the 'better' one? Better is between brackets because it comes down to what you want to do with the picture, of course.
@@yeanisch Jpeg is not superior in any way...except in small file size. With cards being so cheap and 4 TB storage drives being about 65 dollars? I think its just best to shoot raw and jpg together. If you capture a really good moment, i promise you,...you'll wish you had the master raw file for it.
I loved your presentation style on this subject the most! Reminded me of the type of teachers I grew up with📚 thanks for such an informative video, not adding music, & being selfless with your knowledge about the craft📸
I wish it was that simple. What I find in practice is that my JPEGs mostly do require a bit of post work, especially in raising shadows and correcting exposure. Which by the way I find that my JPEGs are very well suited for. The only thing I find does not work well with high quality JPEGs, is fixing white balance. I find that if I forgot to set a custom WB, my JPEGs are all just about throwaways. In fact I find it quite amazing how little Photoshop can do about it.
Excellent tutorial, I sat with my camera, for the first time making sense of the combination/relationship between aspect ratio, picture size, pixels numbers, compression, number of photo's available and picture quality. You have a new subscriber. Thank you.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Great Video! There's many factors that go into shooting RAW or JPEG as you discussed. One of the Best explanations of the many different scenarios I've seen.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
even though I studied photography for 4 years, I far prefer listening to these videos about this. Phil, please don’t stop making videos. Even though this was 5 years after some of your own videos, you must be presenting these in RAW, because the quality has not degraded a bit since those days. I have linked your website to any upcoming photoheads in my circle and I hope you continue with these excellent tutorials. Thank you for all your efforts, thank you for the wisdom. Your videos really have made an impact.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
I really appreciate objective photography videos such as this one. The average photographer has been brainwashed to believe that Jpegs are only used by rank amateurs. I have been photographing professionally for over 30 years and about 20 years of that career has involved digital capture. I have almost never shot Raw in place of Jpeg, and have never had a negative comment from a client -- that includes weddings, portraits, real estate, and corporate events. I can say with complete assurance that my corporate work required shooting Jpegs due to fast turn around times for prints, and on-site daily uploads during conference events. I currently have prints hanging in two different exhibits that have received excellent reviews, and no one can tell whether I shot Raw or Jpeg. In addition, I currently shoot Olympus cameras and my current camera has a number of useful and amazing features, such as in-camera focus stacking, live composite, and in-camera keystone compensation, and others features that produce Jpeg files that are simply stunning. Your explanation is objective, professional, and right on the money -- thank you.
Greg, thanks for sharing your experience. It really helps when pros like you weigh in to balance the RAW-only snobbery that seems to dominate among the online "experts," many of whom have far less real-world experience than you do. Thank you!
@@steeletraining @Greg M JPEG stands for Joint Photographic EXPERTS Group So, those who shoot RAW are not "experts" then. You have to be an expert to get great photos in JPEG ie. able to DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME in the camera. I consider those who must shoot in RAW as people who bought an automatic Bread/Cake maker and only use it to "kneed the dough". Then they need to buy another oven and hire a (software) baker etc to finally get their bread or cake. My Canon cameras can take 4 shots and merge them in-camera for HDR picture. It can also merge 4 shots for low light noise reductions. There is also "highlight tone priority" that can be turned on. There is also editable/custom Picture style settings which I put to good use when using a film error vintage lens with different coatings. (I am a son of a photographer and had worked in dad's studio and darkrooms and help sell cameras and photographic equipment and supplies in his shop my young days).
This is definitely not objective. It presents facts, some of which are totally erroneous but serve the subjective approach of the speaker, in a biased way.
@@BrunoChalifour It would be very helpful if you would specifically point out the 'totally erroneous' facts. As it stands right now your comment is just an opinion with no support.
@@gregm6894 Fair comment. My first hint is if I asked you whether the author shoots JPG or RAW, I think you could easily answer. That should cover the lack of objectivity. Second calling those who do not think the way you do (and who cannot defend themselves) arrogant shows a lack of serious argument, or a serious problem of insecurity. Saying that by shooting JPG in Medium compression one uses the central part of the sensor is totally erroneous, so ridiculous that I could not believe my ears, I had to listen to it twice. Saying that you can reduce the dimension of pixels is as erroneous and ridiculous [all pixels/photosites have a set dimension on any sensor. You cannot modify the actual size of each pixel on your camera. It is defined by the manufacturer and cannot be changed. It is such a ridiculous assertion that I was totally flabbergasted hearing it. If other teacher are knowledgeable and "arrogant" I know one who is pretty ignorant and pretends to teach others, quite problematic, don't you think? The example of the black sky in the moon picture is pathetically flawed (yes if you photograph a black rectangle or do not remove the cap from your lens the information conveyed by the pixels is "black" just a bunch of "0s" which means all the information whether in a JPG file or a RAW file will be "0s"-what is not mentioned is that once you stop photographing pure black rectangles (or purse white ones), and you need more accurate and detailed information a RAW file will give you 16 772 shade of any color, JPG only 256 (that crucial piece of information is not even mentioned). Explain to me what is the point of photographing a black rectangle, and is any who does that, how many among the viewers of this video ;o)? And there are more... if some day you get a serious video on the subject you will realise that.
Excellent video. As a beginner photographer, this both reinforced what I already believed about the two modes while expanding on my current knowledge even further. Glad I subscribed during a previous video.
Great content! Came here looking for the differences and you could not have been anymore concise. I enjoy your teaching and will likely check out more of your stuff. Keep up the great work!
excellent ! I only shoot jpegs at the fine settings and do only minimal post processing. I am very happy not to be sitting for hours at my computer.....instead I'm out and about shooting! thanks for the very thorough explanations. zen billings in canada
You don't need to spend hours, I pretty much treat raw as jpeg and do quick edits, and when I need the information is there, also you don't really need tons of time to edit raws beyond what you could do to a jpeg, unless you do photoshop then that could easily be 1 hour per image (also depending on what you do). But I also think that if you like jpeg and are satisfied with your work that is awesome, ppl need to understand that a good technically achieved jpeg can have all the info you might need
You can post process raw files automatically even better than a JPEG can, if you want. Learn to use your program, save time and all your photo data. The only reason to not shoot raw is because you don’t have enough data storage.
If you get it right in camera, a RAW will take 10 minutes to edit. Not hours. Its rather mind blowing to see just how different your photo changes with how you edit the raw as well, and just how much you can change. I shoot both, since most of the time jpeg works for me, but the occasional raw has been really nice to have.
OK, this is the best explanation I have seen so far regarding the merits and disadvantages of both Raw and JPEG. I found out the hard way, about the drop in frame rate in burst mode using RAW in a 10 year old bridge camera.
Very informative, thank you. I'm a Fuji user and love the styles you can preset in camera prior to shooting, so am using jpeg more than previously. As you rightly point out, with two card capability life has certainly become easier since the old film days.
It does not prevent you from using RAW and JPG (RAW for the future and JPG for the present [you may regret some of the choices you made yesterday once your taste has evolved. What is possible with RAW is not with JPG).).
@@avs4365but if you shoot simultaneously in both formats from the camera's evf/ screen you can only see/predict the result that come out of the jpeg format
@@liv0003 Thanks - that is how I've always done digital even in the Canon days when I first switched to digital. Now, using the Fuji Weekly system I find RAW mostly unnecessary unless shooting in extreme lighting conditions without a flash. With the improvements made in the adjustability of Jpg the parameters allow all I need with choosing the style I'm recreating, meaning less time on the computer.
Raw files do not have to need extensive post production. If you use the default profile of your raw conversion application they probably will. But you don't HAVE to use default profiles. You can create/use a punchier profile that is automatically applied when you import the image files. Keep in mind that what you see on your screen is NOT "THE raw file", it is only one possible interpretation of the monochromatic luminance values contained in the raw data. How that looks depends on the conversion profile used to create a JPG-like conversion of the raw data that is shown on your screen when you open a raw file. That's why opening the same raw file looks different when you open it with different raw conversion applications. With Canon you can go even further. If you open a .cr2 or .cr3 file using Canon's DPP software the default conversion is to use the in- camera settings active at the time the photo was taken. So opening a raw Canon file in DPP will look almost exactly the same as an in- camera JPG by default.
Thank you for the very good walk through. I usually shoot both JPEG and RAW on my Canon, but now I have a better idea when I should just shoot JPEF. THANKS!
This was really helpful. After 50 of doing photography im still learning a lot about digital. Most of my years was film. No problem. Since 08 I've been in the digital world which is great but a new learning curve when it comes to using rge technology. I'm having a great time .
Great video and extremely informative! I always shoot RAW + JPEG when shooting stills. File size is no longer such a big consideration anymore, since large-size, fast media is more ubiquitous and less expensive than before. Too many times I have stumbled across a fabulous scene, only to have that terrible banding or inability to tweak the contrast, saturation, etc.
I am glad I finally found a pro photographer talking about this. I've done pro photography since film era and now digital. I never found advantage to shoot in RAW. I always shoot JPEG. My friends and majority of photographer I know are always saying "oh no" you have to shoot RAW. JPEG is not professional. Then I listen to what they argue. It's all about "enhancing" the image using software when not "recuperating" a photo when not well exposed in first place. My photos come out of my digital cameras not needing any adjustment of exposures. I do it correctly right when I am shooting. My goal with photography is to be out there shooting and not seat down on a computer for hours and be twinkling my photos with software A, software B, C, D etc... I come from a generation that photography is the moment of capture and nothing else. Great video! I could write a book about this! LOL would rather be out there shooting! Have a good one!
JPG or RAW has nothing to do with being professional or not. It has to do with how fast and little control you want to have over your production. Speed in many areas, including photography, has little to do with best quality. It is true here too.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
@@BrunoChalifour "before making a final decision". There's no need to make a decision in my case because I won't change the way I shoot based on this video. What I said is that the video is unbiased, which it is true. I bet you've seen videos telling you what to do, rather then providing information... I also said the video is good for ppl starting on photography. I did not say I was starting in photography. Photography is only a hobby for me, but I do know the technical differences as I am on STEM. But thanks a lot for the heads up. Always appreciate the sharing of info! Cheers!
@@user-pg5rt7ju4f Funny... what about yours ? Do I have to commit a crime to be authorised (by you?) to comment on another crime? This sound quite ludicrous, doesn't it? Now going back to the video: once passed the gratuitous accusations (based on what?) about "arrogant teachers" that would teach their students wrong (no need for that in this video unless one is insecure enough to assert himself at the expense of some alleged bad guys), the explanation of JPG compression is clear and the conclusion somewhat fair with still a small bias (guess which one?). No mention, except for those who can read through the lines, of the differences in dynamic range between RAW and JPG, no mention that JPG records information in 8 bits (256 values for each hue) instead of 14 bits (2 at the power of 14 = more than 16,000 values ) for RAW. Opening a RAW file in any image-processing software means it can be automatically processed with the latest software, not the one in the camera and this includes future software way past when the camera manufacturer has stopped upgrading its firmware. Now size in terms of card and storage (hard-drive) is getting cheaper and cheaper and faster and faster so it is less and less an issue (one of the reasons all camera manufacturers have given up on CF card the the author still uses). My only issue is listening to "jpg compression is not harmful to the quality of the image" (and demonstrating that it is). By definition a jpg will never match a RAW intern of the quality of the interpreted once-for-ever information it records, RAW file captures more and better information and will always benefit from the latest software development.... which a jpg will never achieve. And by the way, no mention either of the fact that when one opens a jpg image and then saves it, they compress it more, and more every time they perform this operation, tossing more and more information every time. So, no JPG is not the panacea that is being presented here.
If you think so, obviously by lack of information which is understandable, then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Thank for the clarity - very well presented. I just upgraded to a Coolpix950 which has a Raw option. I backpack / travel with a focus on wildlife but have no commercial focus on my photos other than my personal feel good wow factor - so for day to day travel stuff i will look at high level jpeg as my standard and if entering a national park etc for something specific i will see if i have a RAW/JPEG joint setting just in case i get that super awesome encounter/shot. although this may slow the image capture down a bit so will trial it out first before i go searching for Tigers. this was very helpful. thanks
Thanks, that was great video. All of these things are familiar to almost every photography aficionado, but it is not that obvious in real fast-action life. Best regards Zoltan
Then, a piece of advice, watch another video on the topic, one that might be more objective and might contain fewer errors before making a final decision
Excellent explanation of the pros and cons of raw vs jpeg. Your training has helped me understand my camera and now I’m understanding post-processing set-ups. Thanks so much!
Sorry to burst your bubble but some of the things that are asserted in this video are incorrect, and the whole thing is far from being excellent when it is biased. I suspect you have no problem telling me whether the author shoots RAW or JPG, which should answer any question you may have about the objectivity of the video.
