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.

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.

Keep up the good fight, you’re NOT alone

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Glad it was helpful!

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.

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).

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!

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

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.

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

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

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!

@@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).

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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

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

Bart Hovis, could not have said it better.

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].

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

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

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

Glad it was helpful!

Glad it was helpful!

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

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

Thanks for the kind words!

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?

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

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

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

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

Excellent explanation.

Awesome, thank you!

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

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

​@@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!

@@LeandroSilva08 Thanks. Cheers to you too.

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

@@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.

Thank you!

Glad it was helpful!

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

Great to hear! Thanks!

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

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

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

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).).

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

​​@@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

@@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.

My thoughts too Zenon.

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

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.

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.

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

Glad it was helpful!

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

Glad it was helpful!

Por favor no escucha este video!

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.

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

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.

@@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. 🙂

@@cooloox Thank you!

@@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.

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.

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

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

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

Sorry to burst your bubble but some of the things that are asserted in this video are incorrect, and the whole thing is far from being excellent when it is biased. I suspect you have no problem telling me whether the author shoots RAW or JPG, which should answer any question you may have about the objectivity of the video.