RAW VS JPEG The Ultimate Decision | Just Imagine You're Baking A CAKE

RAW VS JPEG | Just Imagine You're Baking A CAKE

The example I use in this video is baking a cake. If you burn the cake you can never go back to the RAW ingredients. Just like if you botch a JPEG you can't go back to the RAW data to start over, get it?

Please help us continue to make FREE content by purchasing one or all of the FroKnowsPhoto Educational guides. To check out previews of each guide click here.

The Gear I use the most

Follow me on

[froknowsphoto]

Who likes CAKE, if so what kind of cake?

[Photomeike]

If you shoot Fuji and like the Fuji (film simulation) colors and know how to get it right in camera. Then its almost better to shoot JPEG on Fuji. Fuji's JPEGS files are beautiful.

[robertsteich]

Another benefit of RAW is if you accidentally setup your camera to shoot black&white, or some other style. You’ll view the pictures on the camera as b&w. But when uploaded to your computer, everything is there in color.

[PaulMcElligott]

Wow, 5 whole minutes on RAW vs JPEG and not one mention of Ken Rockwell. Jared must be mellowing with age.

[RealHankShill]

Something I hear a lot when this topic comes up, is people that say they want the preset that the camera makes (FUJI SHOOTERS I AM TALKING TO YOU). They say why not take advantage of those awesome presets and shoot jpeg?

To that I say, there is an underknown trick in LR. Apply a camera preset to the image. Its the same thing your camera is doing, but gives you even more control. You can leave it as the camera would process it, or have more options if you need them.

You can even apply those camera presets to the files upon import to LR.

There is really no reason to shoot jpeg unless you have to (because the client demands it like some photojournalists have to), or because the apocalypse has happened and you an never buy a new hard drive for more storage. If that is the case I applaud your attempt to preserve and document the events of the end times.

[WhiteThunderBBQ]

I tried shooting raw on my phone once.... terrible raw files

[shadyninja]

I knew nothing about raw till I started watching Jared Polin and his illustratings have helped me alot over six years now.

[WhittyPics]

I shoot RAW too. JPG is a lossy file and every time you hit SAVE it re-compresses the file and you lose a little bit every time. I have some jpgs I shot when I first started with digital that I wish I had the RAW files. I can't go back and apply some of the things I learned recently.

[jangarcia]

This also depends on the jpeg quality of your camera and your shooting style. I shoot jpeg+raw on my olympus and rarely use the raws. Only if I want to do major dramatic changes.

[skesinis]

Hi Jared, I agree with your points especially about shooting RAW+JPEG and I wanted to add one more. Although shooting RAW+JPEG is a trade off on the camera’s buffer, (on my Canon 80D I can shoot either 26 RAW or 21 RAW+JPEG before it starts slowing down) the camera is far more faster than any computer in creating JPEGs from the RAW files, since it has special hardware for it and it does so in real time. So if you have your exposure right and you’re happy with the result, you can use/share the JPEG straight off the camera. If your settings were only slightly off you can still edit the JPEG or the RAW (obviously with the RAW you’ll get better results in any case) and finally, if either your settings were off, or if the contrast was too high for the JPEG to handle and you end up with blown up highlights and too dark shadows, then the RAW is the only way to save what can be saved... Also if you want to edit the photo in order to print it large, editing the RAW will always give you a better result.

[jc]

I would have appreciated for you to put up some examples of what you are talking about? Such as: compare file size of raw v. jpeg, compare editing of a raw v. jpeg. Is raw really the way to go if you are only going to post to social or use a digital picture frame?

[iSkyhigh]

I'd love to see a video on Fractal Image Compression. I used it years ago. Is it up to the task of archiving raw files into a much smaller size. Is it even worth it in this time of cheap memory? The other thing it was great for was resizing images much larger without losing quality using the fractal image compression format. Do you know much about it?

[nerwin]

I know a lot will leave comments saying they are so amazing at getting the exposure dead nuts perfect in camera therefore they don't need to shoot in raw. I don't care how good you are, everyone makes exposure mistakes, even Ansel Adams did. Just because a lot of us shoot raw, doesn't mean we always get the exposure wrong but we like to have full control over the image when we post process them. In my honest opinion, when you take a photo it's not finished until you process the image with your own unique editing style which makes your photos yours. I find it quite relaxing tweaking every aspect, every color of the image. It's like being in the dark room again.

[Skyfox]

A good way to describe it is with old school terms to compare it with. Raw is like the photo negative you get after developing, and jpeg is like the print you get from the 1-hour photo place, or alternatively, like a Polaroid. If the processing and print from the negative doesn't turn out right, you can have it redone to look good. Plus, you can have any number of prints made any time in the future with the same quality. If all you have is the print/Polaroid, there's damn little you can do to make it look better if it didn't turn out right, and any future copies have to be made from scans of the print and will look even worse (not a factor with jpeg files, but throwing that out there anyway).

[DavidParker]

Jared that is a great way to describe RAW vs. JPEG. You are correct once I got shooting in RAW it's so hard to shoot in JPEG>

I'm working on getting out of that P setting and go to full M next.

Yes I truly enjoy your DVD Video Guide it was very informative and entertaining. Thank you

[MichaelMickle]

I can attest to being able to go back and edit. My dad took some RAWs from 2007, they have finally been edited and are hanging on the wall

[MrNYCman]

I often shoot Raw, but when I want to upload a wildlife zoo album to Facebook, the Raw files are too big, so I upload them in JPEG. Would it make sense to turn the contrast down to avoid shadows? And I'm thinking of setting sharpness to +1 and saturation to +1. Debating between vivid and standard. Just bought a Sony RX10 IV and I'm looking forward to breaking it in tomorrow at the zoo as opposed to my A7R ll because the RX10 lV has a 24-600mm lens, f-stop 2.4-4.0 and really good auto focus and fast frame rates.

[keithspillett]

Fruit cake like Christmas Cake! I always shoot Raw, but have a function button on my Olympus set up to add a large fine jpeg at the press of a single button, should I decide I need to.

[Sinnr]

Shooting JPG only is like recording a master track in mp3

[Inkwellish]

One thing that irks me about this argument; RAW isn’t just a way to cover your ass if you shoot something wrong. I shoot tons of high contrast situation. I dial in what I believe the correct exposure should be, which for the scenes I am capturing is generally, highlights clipped no more than 2/3 of a stop and no clipped shadows. The highlight clipping preview is just computed from the embedded jpg preview image, so even that +2/3 can be pulled back and the shadows can be pushed up. Basically this is just a long way of saying that RAW files have higher dynamic range but it never seems to get brought up when the whole jpg v RAW argument pops up. My point is, even if the exposure is “correct” jpg still doesn’t cut it in my opinion.