IS RAW BETTER? You may be surprised!

Want to take amazing wildlife photos? Check out my new course with 20 modules and over 5 hours of content, no fluff!
journalofwildlifephotography....
Join me in Botswana in 2024!
www.simondentremont.com/botsw...
My name is Simon d'Entremont and I'm a professional wildlife and nature photographer from Eastern Canada. In this video, we put our RAW files against JPEGs to see who wins. We also throw Compressed RAW into the fray to see what happens.
I use Topaz Labs software for noise reduction, sharpening and upscaling:
topazlabs.com/ref/1943/
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/3UQeROc
Canon R6 body amzn.to/3RpYqVX
Canon R5 battery grip amzn.to/3dUrHKF
Canon 100-400 EF II amzn.to/3UQi4gJ
Canon 17-40 L lens amzn.to/3y71MGt
Canon RF 16mm f2.8 amzn.to/3EmPNJ1
FLM Tripod (CP 34 L4 II) and Levelling Head (HB 75) www.flmcanada.com?aff=sdentrem
Sigma Art 50mm f1.4 lens amzn.to/3fkRjAC
Sigma Art 20mm f1.4 lens amzn.to/3CjKto2
Rokinon 135mm f2 lens amzn.to/3SoB3x3
Sirui x-k40 ball head amzn.to/3E7Z5sc
Sirui lightweight Traveler 7C tripod with head amzn.to/3dS9Bca
Manfrotto Video Head amzn.to/3RlZie5
Wimberley Gimbal Head amzn.to/3flhya8
Jackery portable 240 lithium-ion battery amzn.to/3rCzX5r
ProGrade Gold 128 GB CF Express amzn.to/3fyx1nh
ProGrade Cobalt 325 GB CF Express amzn.to/3y3Ywf1
ProGrade Gold 256 GB SD amzn.to/3y0Xssg
Zoom H1n field recorder amzn.to/3Sozob9
Comica shotgun mic amzn.to/3REWN73
Rode Videomic NTG shotgun mic amzn.to/3BRlcQK
Rode Wireless GO II mic set amzn.to/3BUfIoh
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/3C0fagy
DJI Mavic Air 2S drone (flymore combo) amzn.to/3M9TuDL
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/3URprEz
Blackrapid retro-classic shoulder strap amzn.to/3y0wUHt
FjallRaven trekking pants amzn.to/3y77DeV
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/3BZ7w69
Synology NAS storage amzn.to/3BXfcWF
16 TB hard drives for NAS amzn.to/3LTdrOW
Follow me on:
Facebook / sdentrem
Instagram / simon.dentremont
VERO vero.co/simondentremont
Website www.simondentremont.com/

[@simon_dentremont]

Do you shoot RAW or JPEG? I’d love to know, and why!

[@izzed3500]

Yes. I shoot RAW on card 1 and JPEG on card 2. I adjust my settings to get the colors and white balance I want in camera to speed up my workflow. However, I still retain the RAW files if I need them for a particular shot. I have regretted NOT having them in the past. Also, this naturally creates a backup in case one card bites the dust.

[@MakeItTakeItOutdoors]

Raw only. After throwing so many Fujichrome slides away in the editing process decades ago, I wish I realized how powerful RAW and good editing is.

[@maddog1046]

I shoot in both. My editing skills are very limited and sometimes the camera's JPEG file comes out better than I can edit the raw file. My genre is underwater photography. RAW is a "MUST" when taking underwater photos as it is almost impossible to get the white balance right underwater! Another great video!!! Thank you very much for all you do on KZbin!!!

[@PhilIpp88]

RAW because it is future proof. Who knows how long we will use JPEG as a file format to compress photos. It is clearly outdated.

[@washingtonradio]

Both, I have the raw files for fast sharing but will edit the raw files later.

[@portblock]

I use to shoot RAW exclusively, and realized I was spending the time to try to make it a decent image by color processing it in light room. A lot of the time, the jpg looked better. Then I would move the image into photoshop to do the actual retouching for the client. What I noticed is, my workflow was exhaustive and only boosted my ego not my paycheck. Then one day, I was the head photographer for Los Angeles Fashion Week (not bragging, explaining) and one of the guys on the riser near me was shooting straight to jpg and was getting paid. I asked why, he said the jpg is good enough and better than what his clients (designers, magazines) were expecting. - Right then I realized, I am doing far more work than is needed. --- few weeks after I practiced more on shooting straight to jpg, was fine, and moving into client work, no complaints. So Today, I just do this: * High end commercial work: I shoot RAW medium format in my studio * Simple commercial work: JPG * Model digitials, agency headshots, jpg * Events: JPG What I learned, anyone can tell my why they are superior, why my workflow is no good, but at the end of the day, I shoot for luxury brands, NBC television, and runway and have no complaints from clients and repeat work.

[@simon_dentremont]

Cool! Thanks for sharing!

[@Daedalus33]

If it’s good enough for you good enough for me, sounds like spending the hours editing is better saved on touchups or other parts of the process

[@LegendEater]

cool for sharing your experience and do you agree with the point that raw allow more quality and mastering in your work ?

[@portblock]

​@@LegendEater I wish I could give a simple answer, but its more involved. for short, yes I think it can, but I don't think it always does. I believe its several parts, I leave the color science up to the people who make the camera to convert that raw data to jpg - granted, lightroom, capture one, have good profiles as well. maybe easiest if I give 2 examples where I think it helps, and one were I think it doesn't matter: #1: A straight to jpg on the beach with ocean in the back, there is going to be huge difference from light to dark, and the jpg will not express what the eye sees no matter what. - In this case a raw file can bring down the highlights, raise the shadows and you can get very close to what the eye sees. #2: when I shoot a commercial bathing suit campaign on the beach with an 8x10 screen behind model, an 8x8 scrim above, front fill flash. Then the jpg will be nearly if not exactly what I envisioned for the shot. I would also dare to say this shot would be better than the raw shot in #1 Now I am not saying raw is not good, I am not saying jpg is better than raw, what I am saying is: * Raw is a superior data carrier (like a negative vs print) * Raw can be better than jpg when things are not right * Raw is converted to jpg (most of the time) anyways so a jpg from camera can be deliverable * Camera JPG can provided extremely good end results when shot well. I look at it like this, I shoot with 20year old lenses, 99% of my students have brand new $3,000 - $5,000 lenses, waaay sharper than mine, but once you resize or retouch an image, kiss all that bleeding edge sharpness and lens IQ away. When I deliver a 50/100mp medium format jpg image to a client, they don't pixel peep, when its printed there is no pixel peeping. All in all, raw, latest and greatest is far superior, but far greater than most needs. I say most, not all, when I shoot a campaign its usually raw. sorry for long reply, I know it may sound contradictive, but each has its place, raw is better than jpg, but raw makes me no more money than shooting runway straight to jpg only, shooting raw only makes my workflow longer and more complicated, has zero financial benefit.

[@Lackmind]

​@@portblockthank you for sharing your experience

[@garyross3453]

Perhaps another way of looking at it, is a baked cake (jpeg) vs. a cake recipe (RAW). Add too much sugar (balance) to the baked cake it's a struggle to make it taste good, but if the recipe has the wrong amount of sugar simply change the recipe and bake again. With RAW you can keep tweaking the recipe till it's as good as in can be. On the other hand, it's nicer to be given a cake and simply eat it :-)

[@thelogicalkrampus462]

Wonderfully put. Thank you!!!!

[@trevorclausen6945]

Same thing, but I went with steak, raw is right off the cow, jpeg is an already cooked steak being served to you, it looks good, but did you cook it and season it to your liking?

[@halilsmail512]

Ill save this for later :D good

[@kencroft7933]

On the other hand, if you have baked a cake to a recipe and it doesn't taste good, do you know have to alter the recipe to make the next cake taste good? This is my problem, no matter how much I fiddle with raw files, probably 50% of the time the jpg is better than the result I can make from the raw. So bearing in mind that I do not print and my photos are viewed either on un-calibrated computer monitors or on phones, I just stick to the ease of a jpg and keep raws for the odd time that an image has gone seriously wrong.

[@asbjrnhagennielsen6560]

Nice metafor. But remember the 'cake' (jpg) was backed by the recipe made by finest cooks in the world. Think you can do better? 🙂

[@vanshikabhatnagar3739]

i left film school a year ago and i swear its videos like yours here on youtube that make me realise everything i need to know is here. thanks again, simon.

[@jonfreeman9682]

You said it. There is nothing to learn in school anymore. I realized the same thing. Colossal waste of time and money to learn absolutely nothing as in nada.

[@orvvro]

2:41 Sony's 'Picture Profile' is for video mostly, where you can set the gamma and color-space. Sony calls what you're referring to 'Creattive Look'

[@stefanschug5490]

I have shot RAW for years and have worked for over 20 years with Photoshop. There is so much more flexibility regarding adjustments like luminosity masking, frequency separation and many other improvements when you have the RAW file. Nowadays, if you work with 32 bit image versions, there is not even a comparison to what you can bring out in an image and if you use plug-ins like the Nik collection, the limitations of the JPEG files become very obvious. In my opinion JPEGs are wonderful shortcuts for snapshots right out of the camera or to bring the edited end product into the media. Great video as always!

[@ppBizU]

Hello Simon, I really admire quality of the content and correctness. As a programmer, that knows implementation details of JPEG/PNG - I wouldn't explain it better than you in more affordable language. You're doing a great job!

[@simon_dentremont]

Cool, thanks!

[@PaulMansfield]

Yes, I thought that was excellent, it didn't dumb it down like some and so avoided being misleading.

[@Chloroform90]

You are my favorite photography youtuber. Thank you for this info.

[@Spillerrec]

A technical nitpick: JPEG does not use psychovisual models, it is a simple static (depending on compression level) fourier based algorithm. Newer image and video formats do take human perception into account, but JPEG is over 30 years old and thus quite simple. But that is probably a good thing if you want to edit the images, as it will mess with any psychovisual assumptions. Something to keep in mind is if you archive your images, the RAWs will get better in the future, while JPEGs will be stuck in the past. New stuff like AI denoising, super resolution, HDR gradation, etc. will make old RAWs shine. I processed some old RAW files from a Canon DSLR from 2006 for displaying on HDR monitors and they looked stunning compared to the JPEGs. Technology will continue to move forward and having the unprocessed data will allow you to take advantage of newer and better image processing in the future.

[@ondrejrypacek7949]

It is much more complicated. Bit rate is not the only difference between jpeg and raw. It is not just a downsampled raw.

[@gregsullivan7408]

Completely false, and our host got it 100% right. Please refer to the Wikipedia page on "JPEG", in particular, the JPEG Compression section.

[@thewoodys_surf_instrumental]

You have a gentle common sense way of sharing and shedding new light on things we probably already knew, but your way of explaining things is refreshing with no filler. Also, your wildlife photos capture animals personality like no other. If only the animals could see the way you captured their beauty in your wonderful calendar :)

[@simon_dentremont]

Too kind! Thanks very much!

[@ardnfast]

Well put 👏👏👏

[@NebulaChavez]

I always shoot in JPEG and I also learned that I make sure my lighting and color are balanced at the source (my camera) . Thank you for making this great video

[@laurazundel5214]

Thank you! As a newbie to photography you make it easy to understand. Love your work.

[@simon_dentremont]

Happy to help!

[@JikoMuskato]

Personally I shoot both JPG and RAW. JPG for quick access to the pictures and RAW for when I have time to get the best quality out of certain pictures. And after this video I just switched my camera to compressed RAW. Thanks!

[@user-hg8tt5lt5i]

Thank you, Simon for being not just a great photographer but also a great teacher. Your videos really changing my thoughts about many things in photography.

[@simon_dentremont]

Great to hear!

[@qtrfoil]

Hard agree, it's wonderful to get the word from a world-class photographer. An awful lot of what I run into on KZbin (and blogs) is people who are good on camera. When they show their images, though, I'm thinking "No. Noooo. Why would I listen to you?" For Simon's videos I enjoy the stills even more than the video!

[@HenryBLeeNYC]

Agreed! I've been a professional photographer for 40 years, and have already learned a lot from the 2 videos I've watched so far.

[@jonfreeman9682]

I've only watched 2 videos one on how much MP you need in a camera and this Raw vs JPG and have learned more than thousands of dollars of photography school.

[@jamesbell8730]

I vote for RAW and JPEG, I review my JPEG for the best, picking the keepers then I save only the RAW keepers for additional processing. Works to speed up my workflow, remember take lots of photos and delete most.

[@paultheriault9932]

You make some very well informed and compelling content. Honest and straight forward. The many compliments already made are well deserved. Enjoyable content, keep up the good work.

[@joshmobijohn]

Simon you’ve quickly become one of my favorite photography channels on KZbin! I almost always shoot both but 99% of the time the end images I’m editing are the JPEG files. It’s very rare that I end up editing the RAW image. For me it’s only there as a safety net.

[@photomaker4502]

I do mostly landscape photography. People are astonished that I choose to shoot in JPEG. I do it mainly to challenge myself. I kind of pretend I'm shooting film. I use grad filters, polarizers, the whole thing. I get some really interesting results. I find shooting in JPEG (similarly shooting with film) has taught me to slow down, focus on my surroundings, looking for eye catching compositions, and of course light. Thank you Simon for bringing very interesting topics to your channel!

[@simon_dentremont]

If you can get the jpeg right, RAW should be easy! Nice!

[@frankfurter7260]

Why don’t you shoot blindfolded. To further challenge yourself. I find it challenging enough to try to shoot an interesting photo that I or anyone else would want to look at for more than a nanosecond.

[@mwwhited]

Because some of us enjoy time behind the camera more than time screwing around on the computer. Just like when doing film I could push/pull stops and nudge/burn negatives but I’d rather just get my shot in camera. There are also things you can do in camera that are not the same as in post such as shooting color filters. Getting the balance right though the lens will always be better than trying to fake it later in photoshop.

[@thegreatsiberianitch]

​@@frankfurter7260?

[@aretwodeetoo1181]

Your analogy is bad. If you had shot film you would know that you have an incredible amount of agency in the development and printing processes. Then your analogy would become that raw to image file conversion is the modern equivalent of that agency. You thinking that process is like shooting film tells me unambiguously that you never shot, developed and printed film...

[@Michael-fw5ef]

Simon, you are the greatest photography youtuber I have come across: 1) Your pictures are amazing - they match Mark Smith's level of talent 2) You teach me more info across 4 or 5 videos than I have learned in 6 years of trying to learn on my own 3) Your explanations are SO EASY to understand Finding you on KZbin a month ago has already made my pictures 3 times as good as they were before I discovered your channel Do you know how good you are? I hope so.

[@simon_dentremont]

Too kind!

[@regentgray762]

@@simon_dentremontnot too kind, too accurate!!

[@jarekluberek8123]

Have to agree. Pictures are stunning. I was a photography enthusiast in my youth but I clearly didn't have that kind of talent.

[@crweewrc1388]

You are the kind of creators on KZbin that I love. Spreading useful information which can also help us in our lives and are really helpful. Thank you so much! ❤

[@simon_dentremont]

You are so welcome!

[@nebula_M42]

I had like a thousand question on this matter and you left me with a million answers. You are fantastic, thank you so much!

[@Gullie1987]

Its extraordinary how well you explain everything in your videos, so everyone can understand it, even someone who is just a beginner and still doesn't know much about photography and all the terms used.

[@smokeymc22]

I used to shoot in raw because that is what I was told photographers should shoot in. Now I set my camera to shoot in both raw (card 1) and jpeg (card 2). I am a hobbyist that shoots mainly wildlife and when I get back from an outing, I load the jpegs on the computer first and take a look at my days' work. If I am happy with them, I won't bother spending the time converting the raw files. I used to spend hours processing raw files but for wildlife jpegs seem to work fine for me. If I think I can improve a photo using the raw file I try using Photo Shop but seldom can I make it better.

[@piotrlisowski2012]

If jpg looks better then you are doing something wrong/not enough in post production

[@athmaid]

@@piotrlisowski2012 or the camera is doing something right. The algorithms have become really good

[@piotrlisowski2012]

@@athmaid yes but camera can't do dodge and burn , can't recover details in too dark shadows or bright highlights can't do advanced colour correction etc. It's essential to eventually learn to use those advantages It really feels like buying a sports car only to drive it 50km/h in crowded city

[@alwilliams5177]

In the film days, what we do in post processing was handled by the photo lab tech. If you brought in a neg for custom enlargement, the lab tech would control color, burning and dodging, etc.. Do you want the best image regardless of time and size? RAW or RAW+. If you are looking for "good enough" as quickly as you can get it with minimum resources, JPEG. Just remember, you can make as many jpeg's as you want from raw but once you throw away that raw info, you can't get it right. If you want maximum quality and control, join those of us shooting film in our 4x5 view cameras. I only make 3 or 4 images per week, but having already made thousands of images, that's fine with me. 100MP scans rock.

[@noahhoffman4475]

i love how you find examples to keep the video interesting and relatable. keep up the great content

[@nigelcoomber4441]

I recently retired as a pro wedding photographer and always shot in RAW, often working in low light conditions I too always wanted to ensure access to as much image data as possible during processing.

[@brucegraner5901]

I worked as a newspaper photographer for over 40 years and we always shot JPEGs when we went to digital about 1999. We did have a photographer on our staff who shot RAW but most of us on the staff felt out JPEGs looked better at the speeds we were having to work, sometimes two or three packages a day with one or two videos. Great video.

[@SwissNetHawk]

So you went digital for speed and flexibility, then JPEG IS the best tool for your needs. And your images were printed in newspapers and not blown out to large prints. Another good reason to settle with JPEG. However, today's cameras can shoot RAW and JPEG at the same time. Why not use this mode to get the best of both worlds? Meaning: if you ever shoot a very special and rare event, you can lightroom the hell out of your RAW, while still being able to deliver a JPEG instantly. Just a thought...

[@whatmeworry2006]

I too am a working press photographer and have never shot raw. Deadline is an understatement!

[@lucuslopez6866]

​@@SwissNetHawk When your competing with other news outlet/photographers to get the story out faster, you don't have the luxury of spending a hour editing photos. A lot of their photos go online now and not in print.

[@jonfreeman9682]

Totally agree. JPG all the way even though a lot of pros look down on it the reality is visually you can't tell the difference. That being said there are use cases for Raw as well.

[@CampersInternational]

Thanks Simon, I can totally relate to this video. I used to shoot weddings with Fuji and used JPEG+RAW. But in 98% I only used the JPEGs. RAW was only required, if I had to do a major edit - which was less than 2% of the images taken.

[@Oseiwe]

This is my position too. RAW is a needless waste of time that somehow is tied to people's egos. It should be like a spare tyre -- in case you need it. Most people in my world don't even know how to use a camera, yet they're all shooting RAW and what they produce from it is always a joke --- people looking like plastic dolls. They do this in a studio by the way, where everything is supposed to be controlled

[@itonuoro3813]

Years ago I have given up to shoot RAW and shoot all photos in JPG since. The reason is simple: The film simulations in my Fuji are so good, that shooting RAW is a waste of time. You need to develop the RAW photos, but why should I do that? The film simulations normally gives me better results than I can achieve by tweaking the sliders of my RAW-Converter. To my opinion the key is to adjust the frame, exposure and the white balance perfect in the process of taking the photo, like you do it when shooting with film. Then you get a JPG out of the camera, that you can directly use without a lot of post processing.

[@Borzoi86]

Best fifteen minutes of effective digital photo training I've ever seen. Thank you! -- This also confirms my desire to stay in JPEGland simply because I'd rather be shooting and not endlessly bit-twiddling in front of a computer monitor.

[@banginghats2]

I've been shooting RAW almost exclusively for nearly twenty years and never regretted the change. Better colours, better shadow and highlight detail, and being able to salvage exposure errors or very contrasty light conditions are the reasons why. The few times I've used JPG, I always regretted it. This happened a few times around 2004 to 2007 when CF cards were much smaller and more expensive per MB and I was running out of space, so switched to JPG to get more shots.

[@USGrant21st]

The only time I was shooting jpeg was when LR had a really ugly Adobe profile for Canon RP and nothing else was available. Other than that I can't think of ever wanting to limit myself by JPEG.

[@banginghats2]

@@USGrant21st Like I said, there were times I was forced to use jpg because I was running out of space. It's an awful choice, but slightly better than not getting any more shots at all.

[@DarrellThompson47]

When I started shooting digital, for the first few months I shot only JPEG and now I regret that. I would love to re-edit some of those shots using the modern software we have now. I see no reason to even shoot Raw + JPEG as if I want straight JPEG's that can easily be done on my PC by batch converting using settings in Photolab that give a better image than straight from my camera.

[@banginghats2]

@@DarrellThompson47 I think the only case for JPGs now is news and sports photographers who have to send live pix back the their agencies or clients and a few seconds here or there could make all the difference, especially if they were up against other photographers and there were bandwidth constraints.

[@JustDisc]

I’d never waste my life constantly retouching photos. The photo market is over saturated with photos anyways, and someone is always going to be doing a better job than you. Video is where it’s at these days and they pay a lot more 👍

[@danielschmaderer]

With my Fuji camera, I usually shoot RAW + JPEG in case I capture an image that I absolutely love and want to take time editing. Rather than that, I usually don’t mind the JPEGs that come out.

[@pollaraproductions3688]

Thanks! Your videos are excellent. Clearly explain everything thoroughly without getting bogged down in techno speak. So many KZbin videos gloss over details, steps or go way too fast.

[@jefffitlow9587]

Great stuff. Really like how you simplify and do not waste time. Good work.

[@bencushwa8902]

A lot of my work is done in situations with wildly fluctuating lighting conditions. Shooting RAW gives me much more dynamic range to work with, and gives me a bit more wiggle room in case I end up with a slightly blown exposure. I toggled between RAW for those conditions and JPEG for "easier" conditions for a while, but then I settled on just shooting RAW all of the time because only having a single workflow was more of a benefit to me than the smaller file size and universality of JPEG.

[@kasykaczanowski2205]

Another top notch, no fluff, extremely well done lesson in photography by Simon! 😅

[@kerc]

This is one of the best technical photography channels out there, period.

[@stephen6815970]

Included in the RAW file is a JPG version. Easy to extract. Best to shoot RAW as you have more options and more control. If you need JPG, one card is RAW and second card is JPG, or shoot and save as raw + JPG so you have both right away. Lightroom is not the only game in town. Lots of other, cheaper, and just as good and very powerful software packages out there. Even free or included software with the computer usually allows extracting and reading the JPG from a RAW file.

[@photographer1mike]

HI everyone. I have been doing photography for 55 years self taught, meaning i did i my shoots with film and hand developing and printing. A lot of what i do has a fast turn around time. From crime photography to news style to action events with years of fun trial and error and always learning. I only shoot JPG and most the time shoot manual mode. My current camera is a Nikon Z5 with a Nikon short zoom 28-75 and a Tamron long zoom 70-300. I don't sell prints, offer time and digital images so JPG are easier for all my clients to see and use. I learned by doing and if i have to spend time in the darkroom i was missing other opportunities to shoot other events. Meaning my life's work is getting the shot right the first time and moving on. If i had to do all kinds of editing that just tells me i was not doing my job and using my camera properly.. Just sharing my opinion, as an artist. I also teach but I tell all my students its up to you and what you do.. thank you

[@philcadorette1383]

As an hobbyist photographer I have settled on shooting in raw/jpeg for each photo. Many times I shoot in difficult light conditions and simply don't have the time to make the changes. This set up gets the best of both worlds for me. While traveling I can connect my camera to a monitor or tv and share with everyone around and back home I can post process the raw images that will be printed. I use Darktable for raw processing and Gimp for jpeg processing. They both work great ! Thanks for the great video !

[@russellbaston974]

I shoot Raw+jpeg as well and depending on the job I alter the size of the jpeg, small jpeg's allow going through the images/files very quickly for choosing the best, then process the Raw. In a studio situation where colour temoerature and lighting ratio can be controlled to a high degree one can just use the jpeg, majority straight out of camera.

[@annekedebruyn7797]

Same! RAW to one card, jpeg to the second one.

[@ardie3523]

Great explanation as always, Simon! Quick note for those watching with Sony cameras, "Picture Profile" is for video recording, while "Creative Style" is for stills and includes the adjustability for JPGs like contrast, saturation, sharpness, plus more if on the latest generation.

[@simon_dentremont]

Thanks for the info!

[@robertlawrence7958]

You are an excellent tutor Simon. Everything is explained thoroughly but simply.

[@jasonericksen4545]

This information is outstanding. Easy to digest by people new to the world of photography. Thank you so much.

[@TimFurman123]

As a hobbyist who has started to turn some very basic knowledge into wedding photography extra cash, I can tell you that I'm glad to be shooting in cRAW +Jpeg on my Canon R6 because I can almost always rescue the cRAW file from my own mistakes while shooting under pressure. If I've taken a lousy shot of a great scene in some dark corner of a wedding hall, I can absolutely work magic on that photo in post if I'm using the cRAW. Although for 90% of the shots, the JPEG is just fine. Between this video and your histogram video, I feel like I've figured out half of what my camera is trying to tell me.

[@patrickmckeag3215]

Another great video. Thanks. I'm just a hobbyist photographer and I tried shooting RAW but gave up on it because I ended up with the same or worse results than the JPEG version of the image. When you shoot RAW you are in effect saying "I can do a better job processing this image than my camera can." That may be true for some people, and of course, you can do so Simon, and many other pro photographers as well, but I couldn't see the point in messing with RAW for the type of photos I take.

[@colintraveller]

What do you capture ??

[@patrickmckeag3215]

@@colintraveller Portrait shots at family gatherings, landscape shots of my neighbourhood when I'm out walking. I live in a semi-rural setting.

[@USGrant21st]

Even default preset I have in Lightroom on import always gives better results than OOC JPEG. Everybody should shoot raw (except those who were confused in buying a camera instead of shooting with their phones), pictures need to be edited anyway to just do the basics, you need to crop, you need to straighten the horizon, you need to lift up shadows, you need to reduce the highlights to save the blue skies, etc. etc. Anybody shooting JPEG don't care about the quality of their images and wasted money on camera they don't need.

[@kreutzere]

It happened the same to me. Few months ago I switched to JPG exclusive. I compared my post processed picture with my jpg and while some features were better overall my final result is not better (definitely in noise reduction). Also you need to invest more time to process your photos I don't want to do anymore. And many many other reasons people should consider shooting in JPG.

[@liv0003]

​​@@kreutzeremaybe shooting Raw+jpeg is the right solution . You can always delete some of your raw pictures if you think that they aren't special/good enough to be edited in post production or if you think the Jpeg version is good enough in some cases. But about the one that you really really like having the ability to have the RAW version saved is a good thing because you can always edit the picture after with Lightroom or other programs and you will have a higher quality image for your chosen "special pictures ".

[@ghw7192]

Once upon a time, I shot a lot of RAW, but when I sold my studio and retired, I stopped doing that. I now shoot JPEG exclusively, resulting in me having two very large, very fast computers with lots of storage and loaded with photo editing software that are sitting idle. Excellent video.

[@WildestPotato]

Sort of related, one thing I hear people telling beginners that shoot RAW is "turn off chromatic aberration and lens distortion". On Canon, leaving them on does not change the RAW data, it just embeds metadata that can be used in post to remove artefacts based on the data the camera embedded. Essentially that information removes metadata that could otherwise actually be helpful. *cough* Jared Polin *cough*

[@xeroforhire]

I really appreciate how you bring a positive perspective to these topics. I too was led to believe that Rob was the only option, but as an event, you make a very compelling case for jpeg

[@IndigoEyePhotography]

[1] It's also worth noting that the histogram is typically based on the JPEG processing too. That means that, even if you're shooting in RAW, you might want to switch to a flatter profile with reduced contrast to give yourself a better idea of the range of details being captured in the RAW file. [2] Canon has an application called Picture Style Editor which allows users to create custom Picture Styles. The options in the program are far more advanced than the simple sliders available on the camera itself (ex. curves, selective adjustment for specific colors such as skin tones, etc.), and you can even download or share Picture Styles with other people online. A lot of photographers obsess over post-processing techniques and tools for converting RAW files into JPEG output, but there's hardly any content or guides out there that showcase the potential of pre-processing.

[@tonygibbons5]

Jonathan, where do we find this picture style editor other than in the camera?

[@tonygibbons5]

@@IndigoEyePhotography thank you 🙌 I have Eos Utility but had no idea about this!

[@fincrattanaka4633]

When the writing speed of the camera and memory card is greater than 800 target per second. The JPG option does not exist, and you can shoot RAW continuously at a rate of ten frames per second. In fact, memory cards with writing speeds of 1600MB/S also exist. 20-second RAW burst shooting is also possible, it just depends on how much money is invested.

[@tonimena1121]

Man I'm always blown away by the incredible quality of these videos

[@arasul]

The information in this video brought in tremendous value for a casual photographer like me who has a DSLR. Very informative. Loads of information. Simon, you explain very well. Thank you very much indeed.

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad it was helpful!

[@robertspence5071]

You have a very engaging teaching style. I am a newbie, just having acquired a Canon R10, and I've watched a number of R10 tutorials, focusing on settings a beginner should use. Some say JPEG only and others say RAW only, but none of the videos I've watched explain it as helpfully as you have in this video. Thank you!

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad to help!

[@MGVMG]

Loved your presentation. Great give and take, good cuts- and excellent points and presentation styles. Thanks!

[@antoniolewisthomas2505]

Thanks for your help

[@anthonyleatherwood]

Hey Simon! I shoot raw, because it allows me flexibility in post processing/editing! Often times we photographers have strange lighting conditions, and sometimes want to take a photo regardless of the lighting situation. But IF you shoot RAW, there's no loss of information, thus, we can move the highlights and shadows around, or bring up/down the exposure, because all of that data was all retained in the raw file. And raw allows us to saturate colors and really stretch the image to it's full potential or to our liking, and all without strange artifacts that would be visible if you were shooting jpeg!

[@Mr_Beagle]

That’s exactly what Simon says in the video… 🤔 Both formats are tools - just gotta pick the right one for the job in hand 👍

[@lassewirzenius9119]

Hello Simon! You are absolutely the best teatcher here in KZbin! I love your videos. You also speak so clearly that it is so easy to understand for poeple who are not english speaking.

[@simon_dentremont]

You're very welcome!

[@GaveMeGrace1]

Thank you.

[@djmusic130fdy]

I shoot almost exclusively uncompressed Nikon RAW, basically for the same reasons you note. There are slight difference in compressed RAW, and I mentally know they are there. That said, I doubt most people could tell. Always appreciate your professionalism and balanced approach to photography. Thanks for the videos, and keep up the GREAT work!

[@AmieKane]

You are such a great teacher! Thank you for what you do.

[@JAMESDOWDELL-dv9se]

My perspective on shooting in JPEG is that it is ultimately the same as shooting with a reversal film stock. Those films created slides of a positive image that also offered no further creative control. But by shooting in JPEG, you get to appreciate the best possible file compression capabilities of this format, very important when considering efficient distribution, .

[@LifeofCharlie19]

It's great to discover an excellent new channel for the first time as I did this channel a couple of days ago. I used to do jpeg only but now do RAW +jpeg quite often, then using some in camera processing to make different jpegs from the RAW file. I ought to try some computer image processing but have to get a new computer first and I'm not a big fan of computers!

[@simon_dentremont]

Welcome aboard!

[@wchinner]

I have read a few online articles on this subject and still not fully understand. You have explained this subject simple all in less than 15min. Thank you Simon.

[@simval84]

There is another time when shooting jpeg might be preferable, when you WANT the unpredictability and surprise of taking photos as part of the process of photography. Certainly it's not for the professional photographer, but as an hobbyist, sometimes it's enjoyable. That's why I sometimes buy disposable film cameras even today, there is something exhilarating about taking a photo without over-processing it, it's, ironically, more raw, more natural, less controlled, more spontaneous. That's why after spending time with mirrorless cameras, I opted to buy an old secondhand Canon DSLR, so I could shoot using the optical viewfinder and not see the result of the photo as I'm composing the shot. Not only that but I bought custom picture styles replicating the colors of film stock (Superia and Gold notably) and I have gone out shooting photos with these picture styles and white balance set at roughly 5600k no matter the actual light, to produce JPEGs that actually look like film photos and are taken like film photos were, with optical viewfinders. The Japanese have a word for this: wabi-sabi, the esthetic quality of what is impermanent and imperfect.

[@juanitakelly3082]

Thanks for making me feel better about shooting in JPEG. I do it for all the reasons you mentioned and now I know why!

[@training7574]

Thanks a lot! As an amateur shooting mainly for friends and family, I got overwhelmed by the work process involved in converting Canons CR2 before I can treat them in Lightroom. I also discovered that HDR photos in JPEG generally look better than what I can make the camera plus post processing accomplish. I think I may have been seduced by the elitism and snobbishness of some photo experts on KZbin. This video gave me lots of reasons to reconsider aims and means of my photo hobby.

[@shanobuo]

Good information! Thanks. Couple minor points added: 1) if you shoot using RAW+JPEG, it will be much slower as the camera will have to process the images into JPED and stores TWO files. Thus it will take longer and occupy more storage space. 2) Each camera might use different built-in JPEG conversion software. Thus the generated quality will differ. 3) You can use some compression software (such as 7z) to compress your RAW files when you store the images on your NAS or cloud storage. It's lossless. So you can save some space without sacrificing the image quality.

[@kevinbalmer427]

I, like many of my fellow photo group, shoot both RAW and JPEG. When it's time to process I use the JPEG's... there are occasions where I just can't get what I want from the JPEG and its then, and only then, that I import the RAW file. It's pretty rare that I actually need the RAW file.

[@simon_dentremont]

Smart strategy Kevin.

[@travelrideandfly8355]

doesn't this slow down your camera for hi speed bursts ?

[@kevinbalmer427]

@@travelrideandfly8355 It would UNLESS you buy a camera with a huge buffer! For example, I shoot the Sony A1 so I have never able to hit a buffer slow down even and 30fps when I shoot huge bursts.

[@travelrideandfly8355]

@@kevinbalmer427 thanks. I shoot (as hobbyist) a6600. Doesn’t have the same performance, but still pretty good. But never tried raw in burst mode, because of this reason. I will test it just for experience.

[@iandisney4872]

I do the same. I set the Fuji simulation to the one I want and ensure the histogram is as far over to the right as possible. I then save all the jpegs to Google Photos and maybe do some processing if required. If I can't bring the dark tones up sufficiently then and only then I send a copy across to Lightroom from the raw file, manipulate then save that image as a jpeg to Google and delete the original. It's taken me a little while to work this out but this is the best work flow for me.

[@jonfairriephotography3799]

I recently shot my first football match (Arbroath FC vs Morton) and found that shooting RAW was backing up my buffer too much, switched to JPEG for the second half and it really helped out, so lesson learned!

[@pgy8863]

Simon - Hello from a fellow Blue Noser! As many have said you speak so very clearly. Your last comment is the best - only getting out and shooting will improve your craft. Here is another plus for JPEG's - they can automagically include lens corrections like those for vignetting and maybe more importantly geometric corrections, CA, etc. Often, you need to apply these yourself with RAW. Now, here's one big RAW gripe: Why are RAW files different and proprietary from one manufacturer to another? How does this help photographers? Really, there is no need for this - they aren't that different than a TIFF file. Having proprietary formats makes it a requirement to need specialized, often expensive and complex software to "develop" their images. Personally I shoot JPEG and skip the whole LR and competitor thing. I use excellent free software by the name of GIMP to tweak JPEGs. Yes I give up a little dynamic range which is unfortunate, but it seems that recent sensors and JPEG processing is so good, I miss very little. For my photography with modern gear, it's pretty easy to get the exposure within an F-stop of spot-on. Thanks for the video.

[@simon_dentremont]

Thanks neighbor! It would be nice if there was a standard RAW arrangement…but different manufacturers have different technologies and bayer matrixes that decode differently. FYI, Lightroom does apply lens corrections to RAW automaticallyif checked.

[@MileyonDisney]

I shoot both, but I love [minimal] post-processing with RAW, so I mostly work with those images. I've watched a few of your videos, now, and I'm impressed with your photography and your photographic knowledge. I've been shooting since 1978, when I got my first 35mm camera - a Kodak Retina Reflex III. Then, I moved to Canon, and have been shooting with them since, except for the wonderful Panasonic Lumix camera I won on KZbin. I would really like to switch to Sony, although Canon and Nikon have come a long way with mirrorless in the past few years.

[@VincentTamer]

You are an excellent teacher, thanks for sharing your techniques with us!

[@simon_dentremont]

You're very welcome!

[@20111111jorg]

Wonderful summary! The best I've ever seen from one video. I always shoot JPEG. Not only for all the reasons you mentioned, but since photos are art and not science, perfection is not required. Most of my audience are non photographers and will not notice the small imperfections associated with JPEG compression, plus they won't be looking at them with a large detailed screen like I do. When I shoot, I usually underexpose to watch highlights as the darks are more forgiving. And when I edit, I make sure to do it all in one setting and never re-open and re-edit.

[@jGNFX]

"Photography is a science, and we use it to make art "

[@kirklins8411]

Fuji user, I shoot both jpg+raw, 99% of the time I only edit jpg because the colors are always better than I can get from the raw and I don't have to change much as I spend more time to get it right in camera. I always look at histagram and/or have highlight flashing warning when shooting. I have contemplated just turning off raw but it has saved me the odd time where I want a different fuji simulation. With Fujifilm X Raw Studio you can send the raw file back to the camera and have the camera reprocess the jpg using different camera settings for shadows, sharpening, simulation etc. Once I didn't realize I was on Vivid and the saturation was just to much in the jpgs so I sent all my raws back to the camera and processed them as Standard simulation. I could do it in capture one itself but I feel the camera does a better job. (Hobby wildlife/landscape)

[@jamesmcgall8234]

Getting our first pro-grade camera and your videos are the most digestable and informative pieces as we begin experimenting with lenses, settings and taking lots of photos. Thank you so much 👍

[@simon_dentremont]

Awesome, thank you!

[@thepirateshoots]

I shoot jpg (M size) + RAW. When I am not satisfied with my jpg, or I want big pics for a photo book, I convert from RAW, where I can easily adjust White Balance, color or exposure. For simple contrast adjustment however, I use the histogram tool in Canon DPP, where I can adjust jpg files by simply drawing an s-curve.

[@nancyross2897]

Once again, thank you so much Simon. I shoot in RAW 100% of time, sometimes I do not favour the saturation of the jpeg . With certain images I love a more muted and soft image which I find RAW will allow. I shoot with an R6 and I did not know that the picture style setting is for jpeg, good to know. Take care 😊

[@oliverphotography1]

Thanks for your in-depth analysis of this topic and leaving out the fluff!

[@gregsullivan7408]

What an exceptional speaker and presenter.

[@theupcman]

As a hobbyist, I have always wondered what the big fuss was about shooting RAW. I found your explanation of RAW vs. Jpeg very clear and concise. You have just gained a new subscriber. Keep up the good work!!

[@simon_dentremont]

Welcome aboard!

[@Bike_Lion]

@Oldman666 - Try actually *reading* the full comment before replying to it. If you had, you'd know that he *did* watch the video.

[@ZumJane42]

I'm a wildlife photographer but not professional. I work a 40 hour a week job so time is not something I have a lot of. Shooting in JPEG gives me more flexibility especially with the camera not getting bogged down. I do like the idea of compressed RAW and will check into that! Thanks so much for all your super informative videos.

[@Bike_Lion]

Shooting both jpeg and raw (or compressed raw) might be a good option for you.... You could then delete most of your raw files (to reduce storage demand), but if you happen to get one really great shot, or a unique shot that *would be* great, if it weren't for balance and such being off, then you'd have the option of messing around with it in post production. I do agree though that for folks with more limited time/energy, jpeg is often the best option, as it's simply ready to go, directly off the card, leaving you more time for actual shooting and going to/from your shoots 🙂

[@Mike-vd2qt]

Sitting at a desk, and figuring out software explains why many young people are trying film today. Shoot photo, drop at lab, paste good photo in book, recycle the rest. I'm 70 and becoming an atavist. Just wishing I had kept my M-3.

[@barrymayes6712]

Your tutorials are game-changing. Thank you. Ever since I switched from Nikon to Fuji 10 years ago I’ve always used JPEGs. Many photographers laughed at me. I would shoot weddings in JPEG and photographers would laugh at me. I’ve even shot a wedding on my iPhone. I think your advice about algorithms, scene-recognition and psychology of colours sums it up nicely. Those factors explains why I cannot be bothered editing RAW when I know and understand how my FUJI jpegs can handle a scene. Now of course it’s all about HEIF files. I’ve been shooting HEIF on iPhone for several years. Fuji’s top-end cameras now offer HEIF. Also…. Fuji RAW files do not hold detail in highlight areas (unlike Nikon NEF). So Fuji RAW files need to be slightly u see-exposed. That’s no good if if I shoot with Fuji and have RAW in one SD card and JPEG on a second card. So just shoot JPEG and I have learned how to expose properly for a FUJI JPEG; I reduce the highlight setting by a third of a stop in the Q menu. In mega contrast situations I also let the camera increase the dynamic range to ensure I have all tonality in my Fuji JPEGs. Of course! I’m f I increase dynamic range I have to increase my ISO. which brings me neatly back to your excellent advice about using higher ISO. Bravo! Fujifilm JPEGs Forever!!

[@dougsaroma]

Great explanation! No problem with people shooting RAW, but I never do. I shoot sports and wildlife, and often thousands of exposures per outing, sometimes with multiple cameras. I don't need the massive file sizes in camera, or in my storage drives, as well as the extra time spent editing, as well as needing different advanced software options to process RAW files. Also chews up more battery, which is crucial when shooting tons of exposures, and in some cases may slow down performance. In some cases RAW may be the way to go. But with today's technology a JPG can be edited and corrected and pushed great deal more than just a few years ago, and in most cases a good JPG file has similar potential for editing. I might take a shot at RAW sometime when copying my old slides with a lens adapter. It would probably be great for that, and some other things.. But I think way too many people who aren't pro photographers shoot RAW because they think they will lose quality with the end product shooting JPG, which is rarely true.

[@wayneholmes637]

In my case it is true. The Canon jpegs are no match for even a quick and dirty edit in Capture One. The difference is huge.

[@blisteringbooks2428]

Simon, well covered, as a pro I have been shooting raw since I went digital, partially because of speed of processing. When I am out doing wildlife I often shoot craw and jpg [Canon R5], but rarely even look at the craw, the camera is so good at preparing jpgs, and software so efficient I don't see the need. No doubt it helps having shot on film for 25 years, fully understanding exposure.

[@edgorochowski9709]

As a wedding photographer I shoot both Jpg and Raw. I often have to shoot quickly in an environment that conditions and subject matter can change in an instant. The majority of finished post processed images come straight from jpgs, only if I have to recover highlights or dark areas do I call up a raw image to process. Its bad enough spending days post processing wedding jpg images which which have already been partly 'improved ' in camera than being forced to start from scratch every time by using raw images.

[@zakariachami4723]

No one in youtube can deliver these detailed information like you, thank you very much

[@simon_dentremont]

So nice of you

[@kerc]

Yep, Professor d'Entremont! :)

[@mohankrishnankutty1898]

Nice explanation. Thanks

[@buffalonickels657]

Great video, thanks! One of my favorite expressions is “there is no substitute for practice” and you’re pretty much saying the same thing at the end. Let’s get after it. We’re burning daylight!

[@thesrabbit]

I shoot raw because I suck and always make some stupid mistake. Lightroom saves me. I’m a hobbyist though. No deadlines, no money. Just me and long hours at the desk later. Lightroom’s new AI noise reduction saved a bunch of shots from an indoor event for me. Didn’t have the right lens for the job as I underestimated how bright the lighting would be. So lots of noise in many shots. So if I had done jpg I probably would have had very few usable photos. I’m basically using raw as a crutch. The other side of it though is that I don’t mind spending time in post as I find that part of the process pretty interesting. So much to learn, but I enjoy it. I’m a tech head though, and completely understand why many people would not want to spend hours doing that.

[@abrahamtomahawk]

I've always shot in RAW because of the flexibility it gives you. But if you're pushed for time, getting them sorted and changed into JPEGs for easy printing, posting etc can be a bit of a pain. I've got loads of photos just sitting on my laptop because I've not had the time to go through them all. Thanks for the videos from the Highlands of Scotland.

[@simon_dentremont]

Welcome!

[@kerc]

I only recently started shooting in RAW with my Sony A100, and the amount of fine tuning and processing that's available on Affinity Photo is mind-blowing. Ended up with much more natural looking photos!

[@wayneholmes637]

I find Affinity not to be very user friendly, these days I only use it if Intend to do something with the rest of the Affinity suite. Otherwise for quick and simple landscapes I use Luminar 4. For everything else I find that Capture one is both easier to use and gives far better results.

[@xodius80]

Hi Simon, I habe been doing this for event work, just working with jpegs, but i have done a lot of raw to lightroom testing, Lightroom in particular does Honor the colors you tweak on camera, so the raw files, lets say, you on canon tweak the WB Shift to B2 M2, in light room, it does retain the color swift you do even if you change on LR the color rendition from CAMERA SETTINGS or use the ADOBE COLOR profile you choose. So in other words the RAW does change its parameters if you tweak the picture profile settings. For me this is great you can alter it, because my copy of the Tamron 24-70g2 HAS a yellow tint that drove me crazy. so to compensate (even on jpegs) i use the B2 M2 to get rid of the native yellow tint of my lens.

[@jimpack9622]

It’s better in every way. It gives you the latitude to fix mistakes or increase your dynamic range. With sword so cheap and this age there is zero reasons to shoot JPEG unless you have to immediately send the files out without editing.

[@user-fp5mc9wb6v]

A lot of people are commenting on RAW being an only viable option when it comes to post. I would really like for some of you to try using JPEGs for post too. JPEGs are not at all uneditable. I haven't shot RAW in god knows how long and to be honest, I don't miss it at all. Belive me that JPEGs can be post-produced too, the only time I can see difference is when moving sliders to more 90 (ex. Shadows +90, Highlights -90,...) but I tend to focus on getting my exposure right so I dont have to do that ever, and it's been serving me great.

[@raphaelschmidt7033]

Unbelievable Simon Another Video with knowledge, full of needful information! I'm right at the beginning of, let's say, starting to take pictures. All, and I mean really all Videos from you are full of necessary content. And as I mentioned at a different video : for me, as a German and not native speaker, yours are much better explained, than those in German. Congratulations and go ahead! Even if I started with taking pictures now, I have some little experience, making videos for friends with small content. So I know, how much work it is, to deliver such videos in this quality. 🤯 Greatings from good old Germany By the way. I'm shooting in raw and jpeg. Jpegs for the fast effort and raws, when I retire and have more time for this day filling hobby. 🙋🏼‍♂️Raphael

[@simon_dentremont]

Danke! I need to use English, cause meine Deutche ist nicht sehr gut!

[@ondrejrypacek7949]

Nice. Let me just clarify the compression question. As a computer scientist I find it very confused. There are two kinds of compression: lossless and lossy. The first one still makes the files smaller, but improves the efficiency of encoding the same information. So instad saying 255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255 in 8 bytes, I can say 255, 8 times, in 2 bytes. The same information stored more efficiently. Jpeg is different, however. It approximates to achieve even greater compression. JPEG is not smaller just because its bitdepth is smaller, but because the information is approximated, ie thrown away. So instead of saying 255,254,255,254,255,254,255,254 as (255,254), 4 times, losslessly, and use 3 bytes instead of 8 bytes RAW, I will approximate to 255 , 8 times, in 2 bytes, and hope no one notices the difference.

[@fritz9880]

Thank you for making this video. The work that you put into it is appreciated. Like many others who commented, I found that there wasn't enough of a difference to justify using raw photos.

[@hywel3143]

Thanks of your balanced appraisal of RAW vs JPEG. Your summary is a refreshing and well-informed change from the combative and less well informed stance taken by some... I shoot fine quality JPEG on my Canon 6D. My JPEGs are loaded into Apple Photos (Ventura OS). I have a DXO Optics Pro plug-in, which corrects for lens distortion and a couple of other things. I only use Canon lenses, so the lens profile corrects the JPEG for peripheral illumination and chromatic aberration in camera. As you advise, I use the histogram on luminance setting, so that I only ever need to make minor brightness adjustments within Apple Photos. Since I lack full range colour vision (along with around 1 in 12 males!), I am much happier to trust the in-camera JPEG processing with appropriate Picture Style settings than to launch into colour editing a RAW file. Friends who do have full range colour vision have checked that the my colour saturation setting looks natural...

[@simon_dentremont]

Wow interesting points on vision!

[@hywel3143]

@@simon_dentremont Thanks Simon. I do appreciate the benefits of the better flexibility of RAW, for those who wish to post-process with the greatest freedom. However, I am confused as to how viewers of the image can see the greater range of colours offered by RAW, since I thought they are nearly always viewing the image as a high quality JPEG via digital media, at which point the image would revert to the 16 million colour gradations that you mention. I thought the only way to view the benefits of the greater RAW colour gradation would be by viewing a fine quality print which originated as a RAW file using Adobe RGB colour space as opposed to the sRGB which is designed for digital media viewing? Maybe this could be a topic for one of your excellent videos, dealing with the subject of colour in RAW vs JPEG and Adobe RGB vs sRGB? Congrats on the 150K subs by the way, richly deserved!

[@theronwolf3296]

I primarily shoot jpeg, partly because I want to spend my time actually shooting, not behind the computer. Modern jpeg engines have gotten pretty doggone good these days. Over the years I've developed a sense of 'helping' the jpeg engine with judicious over/under exposing, careful selection of my exposure target etc. Even after I started working in raw, I often wound up using the original jpeg. Most of my photos are straight out of the camera. (55 years ago when I was a teenager who had to buy film/processing from my allowance, I shot mostly transparencies. You had to get it right, there was no 'post processing' for them.) I have however a second profile on the camera set up for jpeg + raw. I switch to this when I see some potential issues with the lighting, or when the subject color/contrast might be really critical.

[@simon_dentremont]

All wise choices!

[@mm277hb]

i love this. as a combat sports photographer, jpeg has been a lifesaver. not only the need for speed, but also because the final editing is (should be) minimal. i have no time to convert/edit hundreds of pictures for one event. also, when i shoot raw, the minute i open on lightroom, the images turn into this grainy mess. i never figured out why that happens.

[@youssefhamidi8152]

Such a fantastic video and the best Ive seen on this subject. Clear, concise and precise as well as easy to understand.

[@simon_dentremont]

Glad it was helpful!