Raw vs Jpeg: Why Switch?

[@petejansen8098]

You have convinced this newbie to shoot in RAW and process. Love it Love that you showed lost images the most would throw away.

[@tv510]

Yes Peter! You will be happy in the long run!

[@HungerJohn]

I used Z9 + 14-24mm, 100-400mm, 24-70mm to take some photos in the last month, and the technology has improved. Fortunately, I met many good teachers to teach me a lot of knowledge and skills. You are one of the most important teachers. I also realized the charm of post-processing photos. Thank you for your course!

[@tv510]

You are welcome. Thanks for watching.

[@fenraven]

I shot in JPG for years. I got really good at making those photos look exceptional, for the most part. Lost highlights were an issue at times, but I was comfortable with the format. I finally bought a Sony mirrorless camera and slowly acquired new lenses. I was still shooting in JPG, because I didn't know what to do with RAW. After a while, I forced myself to switch, facilitated by the recent graphic programs that give a lot of easy help in processing. I'll never go back to JPG. RAW is definitely the way to take photographs.

[@tv510]

Total agree!

[@hurleygreen927]

Appreciate the video! I'm a Nikon JPEG kind of guy, but I can see the advantages of RAW files, if the space usage and slow downloading doesn't bother you: I have used RAW for portrait work, but I still also shoot JPEGS for outside work . Again, thanks for this!

[@tv510]

Yeah, the only reasons I see for shooting JPEG is speed. Sometimes a client needs images right away for social media, so in those cases I shoot RAW and JPEG at the same time.

[@MrM3hm3t]

I already knew this but I watched anyway, great explanation.

[@tv510]

Thank you I appreciate that.

[@GouravRoshan]

awesome info

[@tv510]

Thanks Gourav, for watching!

[@TheMisterNomad]

Preaching to the choir 😁 But now I have a video to send to friends that say "It's too much trouble, I'll just stick with JPG". Thanks for doing these.

[@tv510]

Indeed....It worth the extra trouble. And thanks for sharing the video.

[@EJej-z5g]

Personally, I strongly advise against shooting RAW. It can be a significant drain on time and mental energy, often leading to unnecessary editing obsession and potential mental health concerns. Professionalism in photography is about both approach and results. It's about harnessing light effectively, not just relying on megapixels or formats. Making mistakes with the intent to fix them later is not professional. Most of the edits you do with RAW can be set up in-camera. Create various profiles, adjust settings like saturation, contrast, sharpness, and warmth to get consistent results you want straight from the camera and avoid losing time later. Overexposed skies and completely failed white balance are your mistakes, not a reason to shoot in RAW. Get your exposure right, use exposure compensation if needed, and take advantage of built-in modes like ADL on Nikon (the "High" setting squeezes at least one more stop of highlights into the JPEG). On older cameras, decrease the contrast setting to store more highlights in challenging conditions, since contrast in camera is applied using RAW data before storing as JPEG. Not to mention multi-shot HDR modes. It's also good to use real gradient lens filters to balance exposure naturally and avoid relying too heavily on editing skies. It's not always important to preserve every single highlight in your images. Sometimes, a few blown highlights can add a natural, artistic touch to a photograph, conveying a sense of brightness and contrast that enhances the overall composition. Over-focusing on retaining every highlight can lead to flat, unnatural images that lack the dynamic range and emotional impact viewers appreciate. Instead, prioritize capturing the essence and mood of the scene. As a creator, you have the power to redefine what is considered a mistake versus your own creativity and unique perspective. Important: you have LCD previews and histograms, you have metering data, you have clipping indicators, so why make mistakes? It's not a film anymore! And cameras are not that bad at metering nowadays. For small unavoidable mistakes JPEGs allow for moderate edits like shadow lifting and color correction. While severe editing rarely works well regardless of the format. Save time by refining your photography skills and spending more time shooting, not editing. While RAW files store more information, the need for significant adjustments indicates poor shooting and poor knowledge of your camera's abilities. Ignoring exposure or white balance setting with the thought "I'm shooting RAW, I don't care" isn't professional at all! Focus on getting the shot right in-camera. Consistent, well-exposed images with minimal need for post-processing show true professionalism. Save your precious time by honing your skills and capturing great photos from the start. Save RAW for the pixel-peepers. Pixel-peeping is a largely meaningless activity since almost no one can tell the difference between RAW and JPEG in a downscaled or printed image. Yes, RAW captures more detail, but you can control such aspects directly in-camera. Think in reverse: if you're photographing a subject with fine, low-contrast texture with intent to do cropping and emphasize that fine texture later, increase the sharpness in-camera before shooting. The JPEG will then store more details than usually. Still choosing a different lens or adjusting your distance to the subject and adjusting lighting of the subject might yield a better image, emphasizing real photography workflow over excessive reliance on editing and RAW data preservation. (I mean, if you don't know how to use light to enhance fine textures and your only solution is to rely on "texture", "clarity", or "sharpness" sliders, you're not doing a professional job. Simply switching the file format to 'RAW' doesn't make you a pro or improve image quality, even if you spend ten hours editing that image.) Ultimately, viewers value composition, lighting, and the overall impact of an image, not the format or how much highlight or fine sharpness you've preserved.

[@tv510]

Good points, though I started out shooting slide film (Kodachrome 64) so you had very little latitude with your exposures. I liked the look and didn't mind that I had to be right on my exposure. ISO 64 also would seldom allow for super fast shutter speeds so you had to wait for the decisive moment. I also spent quite a few years shooting 4 x 5 film. So a travel event might include me capturing only 10 shots for the week! However, whenever I can get more, I'll take it. RAW gives you more than jpeg ever will and it will also help someone who hasn't yet learned to get the exposure right.

[@maxheadroom7687]

So essentially now there is less skill involved in getting it right in camera as we used to have to do with slide film. Anyone can spray and pray and just “fix in lightroom”😢 Makes for sloppy, false renditions of the original. I get that when we went to film we could dodge and burn etc which was manipulating the final image, and I also get that creativity is enhanced by all the controls we have now, but just because we can, should we. I’m an old dinosaur that loved slide film. If most “photographers” today had to shoot it and get it right in camera I think there would be a lot less of them. 😊Loved your video though and subscribed to learn more about Lightroom😂😂

[@tv510]

Thanks "Max". I was just telling a friend of mine the other day that I still haven't wrapped my head around taking multiple shots. I came from shooting large format cameras where you had one or two chances to get it right. Composition, Color and exposure, had to be right. I am still pretty methodical with subjects that I can take my time with. But I love the new advances on noise and focusing, so it's all worth it.