RAW vs JPEG: The Real Truth

For more of my tutorials, visit:

[steeletraining]

Watch more of my free tutorials that are not on YouTube:

[williamstatt]

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.

[rogerholtby]

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.

[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.

[r.c.griffin]

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

[johnaufiero]

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

[barryduff]

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.

[cityboy]

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.

[ele]

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!

[ronjopp]

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.

[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.

[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.

[zippywalker]

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.

[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).

[kym-bid-bidstrup]

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....

[hbtwov]

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.

[Chipop]

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

[timothylatour]

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

[michaelclark]

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.

[gregm]

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.