RAW vs JPEG: The Real Truth

[@steeletraining]

Watch more of my free tutorials that are not on KZbin: www.steeletraining.com/

[@TommyDaSavage]

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.

[@firefeethok_tui2355]

Bc I dont know, can I ask, if you have the original jpeg, even if you modified it a little with light etc, why would that not hold up in court? Thanks in advance

[@ThaitopYT]

@@firefeethok_tui2355 I'm not a lawyer. But I think the jpg will hold up in court just fine. It just harder to proof you are the original. Unless you have a reliable and unalterable time stamp to proof that you hold the oldest copy of the photo. Aka just upload you files to the 3rd party storage like Google drive, Mirosoft Onedrive, etc before ship it to the customer.

[@TommyDaSavage]

@@firefeethok_tui2355 jpeg doesn’t prove ownership. A RAW does as a photographer does not give the RAW photos to their clients, thus making them the official copyright holder. Hope that makes sense.

[@firefeethok_tui2355]

@@TommyDaSavage well, kinda . Seems the photos are time stamped these days. And the image taken theough camera settings, auto or manual, would still be the original. I understand the raw as in like a negative of a film? At least that’s how it seems. The proof, but not quite sure…. since everything is digital, why a JPEG would not be the same different negative bc no RAW would exist, but that’s OK I’ll learn lol. I’m just now starting to learn about editing and raw. Thanks for the reply. Appreciate it.

[@TommyDaSavage]

@@firefeethok_tui2355 furthermore, you can remove all info from a JPG, but the RAW (which client wouldn’t get), will remain intact thus proving ownership.

[@williamstatt8651]

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.

[@konradkoeppe2840]

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.

[@steeletraining]

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.

[@frankstark3036]

Keep up the good fight, you’re NOT alone

[@michaelclark9762]

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.

[@linjicakonikon7666]

Serious photographers don't join clubs. Leave now!!

[@rogerholtby1828]

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.

[@r.c.griffin7520]

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

[@steeletraining]

Glad it was helpful!

[@ronjopp7169]

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.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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).

[@nixl3518]

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!

[@devrennchrisp1216]

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

[@espenm.andersen3434]

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.

[@jonathanmurphy2065]

​@@espenm.andersen3434I agree and if you print your image a further loss of colours occurs so unfortunately only you really get to see the extra colours in raw on your own monitor. Once you share it a lot of the advantages are lost.

[@johnaufiero7950]

Finally, a true teacher. Thanks, you know how to explain a difficult situation to newbies.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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.

[@zippywalker6406]

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.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"I shoot events where the light changes constantly." Same here. Night sports.

[@GaryR55]

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.

[@DottyFalbo]

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.

[@cityboy24]

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.

[@barryduff9839]

I keep it simple by using RAW+ on my cameras. When I take a picture it saves it in both RAW and JPG. That way I can chose for my needs later.

[@bhovis]

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).

[@steeletraining]

Thanks for the kind words, Bart! And thanks for buying my courses. People like you keep me inspired to do more.

[@lawrence-k7v]

Bart Hovis, could not have said it better.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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].

[@bhovis]

@@BrunoChalifour I’m not disappointed, but thanks anyway for that pointless and meaningless comment.

[@timothylatour4977]

Clear and concise. Extremely well presented with no rambling. Thanks.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@oscarrox]

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.

[@steeletraining]

Thanks for the kind words, Oscar, glad it was helpful!

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@michaelclark9762]

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.

[@jonathanmurphy2065]

I get what you're saying but isn't that basically what the camera does if you make a custom picture profile for JPGs?

[@kym-bid-bidstrup3623]

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....

[@maartenbakkenist5206]

Great tutorial ! Very informative, no frills explanation… other experts could learn a lot about communication skills by watching this video…

[@canprince]

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.

[@adlantian6334]

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.

[@user-pg5rt7ju4f]

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?

[@HannahAndLilenna]

I just learned more in the last 1hr or so watching your videos than when I took a college photography course. Thank you so much.

[@Chipop267]

This was the most specific tutorial I’ve come across between the differences. Thank you!

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@DaveMillman]

7:52 "not using the full image sensor..." I think the full image sensor is still used, but the camera then reduces the dimensions of the saved image during compression. If the full image sensor were NOT used, the captured image would be seriously cropped! Otherwise, great video with useful and clear explanations.

[@steeletraining]

Hi Dave, that's a good point. I've always heard it described as "using the central part of the sensor", but you're right that that would be cropping the image. On a mirrorless with EVF that would not be a big problem (because you'd see the true field of view), but on a DSLR with an optical viewfinder you would not capture the full field of view that you see. So I think you're right. Which means the camera is doing a resampling operation, which is an inherently destructive downsampling right out of the gate. Another good reason not to use smaller sizes if you're trying to create "art" rather than simply documenting events.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

@@steeletraining There are cameras that will use the center of the sensor, but those are usually ones that are using "digital zoom." As in using a smaller portion of the sensor and interpolating to the previous image dimensions. It's one of the first settings that I always made sure to disable on cameras that offer it. You can do the same thing on the computer at home and use more powerful algorithms to get a better result. Or just stick with a smaller image. If it was just using the central part of the sensor, then it wouldn't be just a different dimension on the image, it would be a completely different image as you'd be cropping substantially to make it happen.

[@manfredmueller6530]

Agreed because if only part of the sensor were used, you would be seeing exactly the same impact as you would when shooting with a crop frame sensor (APS-C or mFT rather than FF). The image would seem to be taken with a longer focal length based on the crop factor. The camera uses the whole sensor and recalculates the data to give the smaller image dimensions.

[@billthomas7644]

With dedicated monchrome astro cameras it is referred to as binning. 2 x 2, 4 x 4 etc, meaning that the adjacent n x n pixels are averaged into a single pixel. The image field of view stays the same but the resolution is lower. I guess the colour cameras do something similar but have to account for the bayer filter.

[@rlgenge]

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.

[@steeletraining]

Glad it was helpful!

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@JahicanzMusic]

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.

[@ralphernesti268]

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.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@CLIFFLIX]

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.

[@yeanisch]

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.

[@CLIFFLIX]

@@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.

[@parijatpallav]

Best explained video on this topic 👏🏻👏🏻🙏🏻👌🏻

[@hbtwov8227]

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.

[@steeletraining]

Thanks for the kind words!

[@RafaRadwan]

Just want to appreciate that you share some of your content for free here on KZbin. I would definitely recommend you to my friends. Keep up the good work!

[@gregm6894]

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.

[@steeletraining]

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!

[@set3777]

@@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).

[@BrunoChalifour]

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.

[@gregm6894]

@@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.

[@BrunoChalifour]

@@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.

[@danny-rl3kd]

Another excellent straightforward inside tutorial by Phil, great job again

[@LeandroSilva08]

This is one the most unbiased video I've seen on the subject. Really good info, especially for ppl starting on photography or casual shooters. Cheers

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@LeandroSilva08]

​@@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!

[@BrunoChalifour]

@@LeandroSilva08 Thanks. Cheers to you too.

[@user-pg5rt7ju4f]

@@BrunoChalifour Where can we find your video on THE topic ?

[@BrunoChalifour]

@@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.

[@robertbohnaker9898]

Very interesting. I understand this much . Makes me know that lossless compressed option is very useful. Thanks.

[@skakdosmer]

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.

[@gyalbobhutia2825]

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.

[@robertvarner9519]

Excellent explanation.

[@AmazingPhilippines1]

I appreciate this discussion. I have thousands of raw files I haven't had time to post-process, so more large jpg in the future.

[@tonygarrett7214]

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.

[@steeletraining]

Awesome, thank you!

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@ruchirsajwan]

Your videos always amaze me. Thanks!

[@ele4853]

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!

[@BrunoChalifour]

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.

[@johnadams4571]

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.

[@odysseusreturns9133]

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.

[@stevieelder2422]

Great video. Very clear and precise instruction. As a beginner photographer this is just what i need. Thank you Phil.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@Emerald_City_]

Hi, Dr. Real Phil, another competent tutorial! Just a few minor observations to add: - The storage space has got so affordable lately, the argument of preserving space makes practically no sense any more. The speed either way. The cameras of the last 5-7 years are so fast in recording on the SD that it doesn't matter any more. Contrary to that, in my humble opinion (and experience), the time you need for developing the raws is by far the biggest practical disadvantage of raw (lossless) format. - People less informed about the process could think (based on your words), that the camera takes jpeg _or_ raw format. I'm sure you know that any camera always takes the raw and than processes it further. One further processed form is a raw file ready to be exported from the camera, the other is compressed jpeg ready for the same purpose. But it never actually takes a jpeg file, a jpeg file is a result of processing within the camera using the software algorithm provided by the camera makers. I know you know this, just add this for people who like to read :) - I always shoot raw+jpeg. You never know! That given, one somewhat strange occurrence (but perhaps logical) are the jpegs I sometimes get which are better than anything I can obtain from the raw version. In lets say about 2-5% of cases I get a jpeg I can never even come close to by developing the raw. Or, more aspects come better out that the ones that don't. Example: I get better colors from the raw file, but less dynamic range and sharpness than from the jpeg. That is one more reason for me to always go shoot both formats simultaneously. Also, I am sure the outcome of this dilemma much depends on the camera brand and model. I often curse Panasonic for having to struggle with their jpeg colors. While Olympus produces not really natural jpeg colors, but more balanced and "artistic"; as a whole it works better for the sensitive eye. Some brands as Fuji used to be famous for their jpeg "color science". Canon was known, just as Olympus, to have beautiful colors but not really natural. Nikon is recently trying to win the both worlds. A channel that constantly puts this to test, both with the cameras and with the lenses, is the _Camera Conspiracies_. Under the surface of comedy, which breaks the boring mindset of most of us viewers and reviewers, there is a lot of sophisticated discernment that Kasey has to offer. - Why are you advertising Apple? I think you are such a high quality instructor that you don't need those. OK, I use their products too, but wouldn't put their logo next to my face.

[@albertocarlos355]

Excellent video, most of the time I usually shoot in JPEG, congratulations on the content.

[@zenonbillings9008]

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

[@brianmcgrevey9832]

My thoughts too Zenon.

[@diegocerezom]

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

[@davids8151]

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.

[@charlescraft7169]

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.

[@zenonbillings9008]

if you get it right in the camera you won't to do anything !

[@saebuilders2024]

What a great video you did an outstanding job❤ I am not a photographer I was interested in learning everything I could about photo files and SEO so I can build my Business website I watch a lot of KZbin videos your format and information was incredible very clear and concise not sure if you have but would love to see a video about editing for the web as I have a feeling you know more than most

[@georgee3401]

Excellent video! The best discussion I’ve seen comparing the JPEG and RAW formats. From a new subscriber. Many thanks!

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@ikirizki9185]

I prefer shoot in RAW because it's simply easier for editing(with more option). Anyway good video, thanks for sharing!

[@stanleyhache6407]

Thank you very much for this very valuable information... it cleared up any and all of the confusion that I had previously.

[@cooloox]

Excellent video giving clear descriptions of what JPEG and raw files are and their uses. Just one small correction: When you choose Med sized JPEG, it does not just use a smaller area of the sensor. That would result in a crop factor, which does not happen. It uses the full frame and then down-samples the image to smaller dimensions while saving to a JPEG. Once again, great video for those who were unaware of the differences between and best uses for raw and JPEG files.

[@steeletraining]

Hi Cooloox, I agree. Another commenter (Dave Millman) pointed out the crop issue, and I agreed there that it must be a down-sample instead, which is a compromise right out of the gate. Another reason not to shoot smaller sizes unless you need to, or the photos are just snapshots where quality is not really important.

[@cooloox]

@@steeletraining I'd never seen your videos before and now I've watched a couple more and they're excellent. Keep up the great work. 🙂

[@steeletraining]

@@cooloox Thank you!

[@thomasmaughan4798]

@@steeletraining "Size" is ambiguous; it might be file size or image pixels. I can shoot full size (pixels) in three different compressions. All are still the same number of pixels, but considerably different file size depending on the compression ratio. But I can also choose smaller pixels and it does that by re-sampling in the camera. For night sports, a 50 percent reduction in pixels nearly eliminates noise so I shoot at ISO 2000 to 3200 with very little noise because the resampling integrates the noise. It does that even for RAW and also speeds up storage.

[@BrunoChalifour]

Yes, quite an obvious issue here. The shooting a black rectangle (black area around the moon) is also a weird if not flawed argument.Besides shooting in RAW format has nothing to do with "arrogance" just quality versus speed. No need to insult anyone (who is absent) here.

[@StephenEhrlichPhotos]

You failed to mention that JPG is only 8 bits. RAW is usually 12 or 14 bits, a significant increase in color depth. Thus when post processing you have more color depth to use when enhancing the images. Your points about shooting sports and high speed burst were spot on accurate.

[@michaelclark9762]

Raw is also only a single brightness value per photosite/pixel well/sensel. Not all bits contain the same types of information. "8-bit" JPGs have three 8-bit values per pixel, one each for the red, green, and blue color channels. So 8-bit JPGs are actually 24-bit color files whereas raw files are 14-bit monochrome luminance values. The advantage of raw is that the color channel multipliers used to display the demosaiced monochromatic luminance values in the raw data on your screen in color are not yet "baked in" the way they are with JPGs

[@dennirussel]

@@michaelclark9762JPGs are made from in camera RAWs. The camera captures everything in RAW, but when shooting in JPG mode the camera makes a JPG copy and doesn't keep the RAW data.

[@michaelclark9762]

@@dennirussel JPEGs have eight bits per color channel. 8 bits for the Red Channel, 8 bits for the Green channel, and 8 bits for the Blue channel. That's a total of 24 bits per pixel. Raw files in most current ILCs have 14 bit monochromatic values. That doesn't mean a raw file contains less information than a JPEG, it just means it stores the information in a different way. The color information in a JPEG is interpolated from the monochromatic raw values taking into account the properties of the Bayer mask (or other CFA in the case of cameras like Fuji's Trans-X series) in front of the sensor's photosites. It is then compressed by grouping pixels with the same RGB values together and listing which pixel locations have which common RGB values. With more aggressive compression, very similar RGB values are grouped together and will have the same value when decompressed for display.

[@BrunoChalifour]

@@michaelclark9762 Yes but it is 14 bits per channel ;o0 and in any case, the JPG derives from the RAW and cannot get information that does not exist in the RAW file.

[@BrunoChalifour]

@@dennirussel The camera / program in the camera does what you tell it to do. If you tell it not to keep the RAW file it produces, it won't if you choose to keep it it will. In the same way if you do not tell the camera to save the JPG file (but only the RAW one) it won't.

[@avs4365]

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.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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).).

[@avs4365]

@@BrunoChalifour Yes totally agree, which is what I do - so much easier to predict with mirrorless these days - am enjoying Fuji Weekly too. Cheers.

[@liv0003]

​​@@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

[@avs4365]

@@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.

[@bipsmedia7519]

Excellent teaching skill. Explained the concept very well. Thank you.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@allenfutrelle9090]

Thank you so much. I photograph wildlife and birds in flight and always use JPG

[@tsdelaney]

Thanks, Phil! I knew most of the bits and pieces, but this put it all together into a solid strategy. Thanks again!

[@rikkibalnegg1]

Thank you Sir....for your explanation......now I understand the Raw and JPEG different....thank you again God Bless you

[@danielthomas7747]

I have been shooting JPEG for years. People around me said « what beautiful pictures you take ». Then I said to myself, if I need to progress I need to use raw: what is the result of this? - My MacBook Pro has difficulties to handle such heavy files. I takes sooo long to process the pictures. - I needed to buy DXO RAW to convert the CR3 file back not DNG! - Processing the DNG file on light room It has for result huge time to work on my pictures… for a difference that I feel relatively minor. I use the EOSR6 and I project to move on the R5 that will increase my problem. Thank you for your fantastic review 🎉

[@henrygreen19]

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 !

[@liv0003]

if you don't want to do post production on your images better shooting in Jpeg👍

[@sunnyday9159]

This is the best video on the subject of JPEG vs Raw, very good illustrations and examples of compression of images. thank you,

[@steeletraining]

Glad it was helpful!

[@nelsono4315]

I do mostly music photography so therefore I shoot RAW to have as much leeway in post as possible. If I was shooting portraits under studio strobes I could get away with hi-res jpegs. Both formats have their place

[@Beautybyjorge]

What an absolutely invaluable video. Thank you so much for the explanation. I look forward to taking much more JPEGs then before.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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.

[@paulschmolke188]

Extremely helpful for a digital newby with years of film experience and a fresh Nikon D800…excellent presentation too 👍🏽

[@magnusatheos7301]

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.

[@BrunoChalifour]

This is not about beliefs but facts, check the facts here and you'll soon see that some are totally erroneous.

[@JoseLopez-vx7hw]

Very simple, yet very knowledgeable explanation. Thank you.

[@ThrottleJunkie31415]

This is the clearest explanation ever on this subject. Thank you, thank you, thank you,!

[@CommodusSPQR]

A very interesting video! I work for a large school photography business here in the UK, and we shoot to JPEG, although I sometimes wish we'd shoot RAW because often what happens is there'll be a lighting failure causing half the pupils face to be in deep shadow, and as we have up to about 20 photographers shooting at various locations at a time, they soon mount up for us editors to fix! Anyway, I enjoyed your video and will subscribe so I can look out for more from you in the future...

[@michaelclark9762]

Bulk shooting under (hopefully) identical lighting is one of the best scenarios to use JPGs if the lighting is from good, full spectrum sources that do not require much, if any, color correction. Set the camera to match the lighting in terms of color and exposure and you're good to go.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@thehuntergt]

Fantastic video. Your way of teaching matches perfect to my way of learning. Subbed and binge watching the rest of your vids.

[@petersterling5334]

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.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@ecrozz463]

I enjoy your instructional vdeos. Very informative.

[@sandraekhoff8937]

This video clarified ALL the confusion that I had about this topic. Just got canon r50, no experience AT ALL shotting anything

[@picturesfromhinterland]

Thanks a lot, Phil. This is the best explanation about Raw and Jpeg format. Now I have full clarity about the issue. Thank you very much! 👍😊

[@harrybaird7311]

Two thumbs up. Simple and very explanatory.

[@GaryPiazza]

RAW for landscape, night, and real estate. JPF for many portrait and wedding shoots. Works great for me. I think Gary Fong shoots weddings in JPG as well, if I'm not mistaken. You can set your shooting profiles up so that little to no editing is needed for portraits. You're outputting to JPG anyway in many cases.

[@steeletraining]

Thanks Gary, I know a lot of pros who follow the same rules you're suggesting here.

[@GaryPiazza]

@@steeletraining Thank you for putting out some exceptionally great content! Love it!

[@timothybarham6374]

This has been the best explaindd video that I've seen on this subject, you answered a lot of questions I had in in 20 minutes. Thank you.

[@steeletraining]

Glad it was helpful!

[@FloydVDocDeVore]

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!

[@percanta1]

Hola, muchas gracias por compartir tu conocimiento. Soy una fotógrafa de la vieja escuela, antes de la era digital. Cuando comencé a usar una cámara digital no sabía qué formato era más conveniente y me recomendaron el RAW porque es como un negativo, que conserva toda la información de la foto y te facilita una mejor edición (post production). Recién ahora, después de ver tu video, comprendo la conveniencia del uso de cada formato según la ocasión, me has aclarado mucho. Tu explicación es muy clara (a pesar del idioma) y agradezco muchísimo tu gentileza. (Trataré de traducir esto al inglés, sorry if my writing is not correct). Hi, Thankyou very much for sharing your knowledge. I'm an old school photographer, before digital era, When I started to use a digital camera I didn`t know which format was better to work with. Someone recommended RAW cause it's like an old negative, keeps all the data and helps to make a better edition (post production). It's just now, after watching your video that I understand when to use RAW or JPEG. You`ve been very clear and useful. Thank you very much.

[@BrunoChalifour]

Por favor no escucha este video!

[@jamesmcclain2125]

Great Video !

[@Latino93Heat]

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📸

[@steeletraining]

Thanks for the kind words! That kind of comment keeps me inspired to do more.

[@pdz_productions]

Best break down I've ever seen! Great video

[@AlexTheLi0n]

This sir was a master class on RAW vs JPEG. I learned a ton 😊

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@edc5338]

This is the best video yet on the 2 formats!

[@johnehogan]

Excellent presentation and explanation on the JPG and raw file extensions.

[@MurrayVader-xp8iv]

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 .

[@taca1d95]

very easy to understand by the way you explain. Thank you

[@Quark.Lepton]

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.

[@BrunoChalifour]

Soooo... you noticed that the video was advocating for shooting JPGs, not RAW ;o)

[@flexnsa]

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!

[@sierragold]

The differences in editing in 8-bit vs. RAW's 16-bit are huge. Exponentially huge....

[@bcd689]

That was brilliant and so easy to understand- thanks for uploading

[@gluteusmaximus7608]

Awesome video! You just saved me from a lot of trouble doing bird photography in RAW.

[@androidplus.1]

Keep making these ♥

[@angelllacuna8889]

when you make changes to a picture shot in JPEG and then save the image in the computer, is there any degradation in image quality each time that you repeat this process to the same photo ? (modify picture and save to hard disk)

[@RickBeligni]

Very informative. I love your presentation.

[@jboutame9113]

Wonderful presentation. Thanks!! And, you’re a super-good teacher. You have me very tempted to learn more from you.

[@BrunoChalifour]

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

[@Nosaj250678]

Welcome back !!!!!! Love your vids and explanation !!!

[@steeletraining]

Thank you!

[@manoftheserengeti3052]

This is excellent and the best video on the subject! I’m a fan!

[@steeletraining]

Glad it was helpful!

[@grampasmurf6982]

My camera shoots in both RAW and JPG simultaneously. Yes, I get two pictures for every one I shoot, but then I get to choose which one looks better after the shoot. :)

[@66jbg]

I am new to digital photography. I found this very helpful. Thanks man.

[@gregs4163]

Another difference that should be pointed out is a JPEG is only 8 bit color. This has a larger effect on color banding than compression does. Other than that great explanation.

[@jboutame9113]

Yes. I wonder if we will get a 10-bit jpeg someday.

[@UnconventionalReasoning]

@@jboutame9113 HEIF seems to have a 10-bit option.

[@jboutame9113]

@@UnconventionalReasoning thanks. I found more info here: www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/raster/heic-file.html

[@michaelclark9762]

JPGs are 24-bit color, 8-bits per channel. Raw is 12-bit or 14-bit monochrome. Contrary to all of the cute RGB drawings of Bayer masks on the internet, the three colors used in actual Bayer masks are NOT the same three primary colors emitted by our RGB screens. The "blue" filter is usually about halfway between blue and violet. The "green" filter is a little yellower than pure green. And don't even begin to call the third filter "red". It varies the most from one manufacturer to another, but is usually somewhere between an orange-tinted yellow and a yellow-tinted orange color that is most transmissive at around 590 nm, which is closer to 545 nm "green" than 640 nm "red" emitted by our display screens.

[@UnconventionalReasoning]

@@michaelclark9762 which has no effect on the reality that jpgs toss out a significant portion of the sensor data.

[@maxheadrom3088]

The first compression method is called is used on GIF, BMP and several other lossless compression algorithms for images. These formats are extremely efficient for graphics or images that have a large areas with the same color (comic books, for instance). JPEG, on the other hand, because it does those groupings (and some other tricks) creates artifacts like banding but also make the sharp transitions - the border of the moon from the first shot, for instance - jagged and noisy. The first time I got a JPEG file it was impressive - sheer magic. A slightly lossy compression reduced the image's file size hugely. The artifacts it creates when photographing wildlife - particularly foliage - tend to go unnoticed. I really find it strange that photography teachers request students to shoot on RAW since that makes the gear more expensive. I must confess I always shoot in RAW+JPEG but I'm a lame photographer and most of my photos were taken with a Lumix LX7 that's not the highest resolution around and can't do quick bursts. I believe as the student progresses, RAW becomes mandatory. The camera I started to use, Lumix G95 has a very nice feature: 2 SD card slots that allow for RAW to go into one and JPG into the other so I don't waste the fast SD card to store JPEGs. Nice video, sir! JPEG is like the MP3 and MP4 formats - it uses what a mathematical transformation from the "value space" into the "frequency space". There's a theorem called "Fourier's Theorem" that proves any function (imagine a sound on an oscilloscope) can be expressed by an infinite sum (a sum with infinite terms) or sine or cosine functions. When you do that to the step function (f(x)=0 for x smaller than or equal zero and f(x)=1 for x greater than zero) that sum will have high values for the high frequency terms. Since there are no SD cards large enough to save infinite terms, this series must stop at some point and that's what causes the jagged edges and the banding. Grouping similar pixels is exactly what a DSP does to cut higher frequencies. JPEG also uses psychovisual models to decide what it can cut from the image based on how the human sight works.

[@momoanddudu]

Excellent video. One minor comment - some cameras have two memory slots, and allow shooting raw images to one card, and jpeg to the other, allowing one to both shoot raw and share images on the spot.

[@jtnovaten]

Wow! Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. You have answered all my questions regarding jpeg vs raw!