Youtube, my friend, the time is serious!You may not know it, but there is a war out there.
And you're gonna have tochoose sides! In a world where photographers are everywhere.
Anyone can call himself a photographer today just with the smartphone then.
where photographers are everywhere, a battle has been raging since the dawn of time.
Let's say about 20 years actually.
Yeah, no more.
Stop interrupting me! A battle has been raging since the dawn of time.
Two large families of photo formatscompete for the throne.
Victory will determine which is the mostprofessional.
Only one can survive.
Today we answer the biggest question ever asked: should we shoot in RAW or JPEG? A little recap for the most beginneramong us; JPEG you necessarily know what it is, unless you never open that littlething called the Internet.
It is the most common digital image format used online.
The RAW, you may have heard about it: or you have seen it by reading the user's manual of your camera.
This isanother image recording format that your camera can offer you.
Maybe you'vealready tested it, to see, and then you thought: it sucks! my JPEG is allbeautiful and flashy, when there, the picture is dull and in addition, the fileis super heavy! It's poop! No, it's not poop.
Before we start the battle, Isuggest we go for walk into the matrix.
A digital image is made of pixels and apixel is simply a certain amount of information.
In computing information itis transcribed but what we'd call “bits” One bit as a binary value, it is a 1 or a0.
This one bit image contains only white pixels 1 or black pixels 0.
With twobits, you double the amount of information possible.
In addition towhite and black, they are now two intermediate values of gray.
For 3 bits, we will multiply once again by 2, which will give you 8 gradient value.
7 bits and finally, 8 bits.
We now have 256 levels of valuesthat allow us to realistically reflect our image.
But there's something missingright? To transcribe the color, it must be understood that a pixel iscomposed of three layers on which eight bits of values each will be applied.
These three layers are red, green and blue.
It is the RGB system which allowsus with three colors to recreate all the others.
A pixel is therefore actuallycomposed of 24 bits, 8 bits on the red channel, 8 on the green channel, 8 on theblue channel.
Knowing that 8 bit is therefore 256 levels, to combine all thepossible values it is necessary to multiply 256 by 256 by 256; we arrive ata total of 16 million colors.
Okay Nico, why are you talking about this?One, because it's super interesting.
Like yeah! Totally!If you want to take pictures you have to understand how an image is made.
Two, well, your JPEG image is an 8-bit coded image.
In 10 bits we are talking about 1billion color transcribe.
12 bits, 68 billion colors.
16bits, 281 billion colors! It'sthat! The photos taken by your camera are around twelve/sixteen bits ofinformation.
All these values, that's the RAW file; it's not really an image it'sthe raw data taken by the sensor.
When you record your image in JPEG, yourcamera takes all the raw information from the sensor and compresses it into a8-bit format.
As there are obviously not as many spaces, it is also applying atreatment to the image.
It will adjust the contrast of the picture, thesaturation of the colors.
it performs a first development as we did on thechemistry of the first photo films.
The processing values will depend on theimage profile you are selected in your camera.
If you record in RAW, no editingis done in any kind, it is up to you to process the image.
The visualization youhave on your computer is only an interpretation of the raw data.
Each change you make in an image editing software will reinterpret this data.
Forinformation, RAW is not really an image format, each brand has its own versionsof the RAW.
CR2 for canon, ARW for Sony NEF for Nikon, RW2 for Panasonic, DNG and many other extensions exist.
Ok, it's getting a little bit complex, butdon't worry there's plenty of videos on photo editing coming up on the channel.
Well, tell yourself one thing: the 8bits, 16 million colors, is already well beyond the number of colors that thehuman eye is able to see.
I'm not going to talk here about the differencebetween color space and color depth, but let's say that our eye is moresensitive to certain shades than others.
Working in RAW allows you to have enough data to be able to search for information where there is noinformation in JPEG.
In this example I will try to process my image to have alittle more material in the sky that is obviously burned.
If I am in JPEG, I'mextremely limited.
By editing the RAW file on the other hand.
magical isn't it?Not convinced? Okay, let's do the opposite and talk about low light, because onlyone thing is certain.
So well you'd like to bring the light back on.
Do I reallyneed to say more? With such a high level of data, no one can argue you that forimage-processing, RAW literally pulverizes the JPEG.
And yet, despite this obvious superiority, in the world, two groups of photographers compete inbloody battles to determine which of JPEG or RAW deserve to get the Throne ofthe Seven Formats.
From a qualitative point of view the superiority of the RAW is unquestionable.
So why so many photographers use JPEG? This sweet moment when you make enemies.
The argument of the pro JPEG that annoys me the most is those who will tell you that a real photographer doesn't need to have asmany possibilities to retouch his image since he knows to master his camera.
Youalways have the perfect exposure and his photo will not need anymodification when it takes it.
First of all it's not image retouching it'sdevelopment.
Okay, one we talked about it, the JPEG isalready processed; so why let your camera do what you could do more precisely byyourself? Two, no.
You can be the best photographer, all cameras are limited.
Noexposure value can go further than the dynamic range of the best camera in theworld.
In a to large difference in value in hight and low lights, it is impossible to correctly expose the entire image.
Andthe real photographer will answer you that real photography is about capturingthe moment and reality as it is, no need to fix an overexposed sky or a shadowtoo dark, because that's how it was when you took the picture.
your eyes saw it correctly, the sky and you see in the shadows.
The human eye as a dynamic range much larger than the cameras, so if you reallywant what you see at the moment, don't take pictures, just walk around with youreyes.
What irritates me about this argument, is that the “real photographer”does not process, even in a minimal way, the photos he takes.
On the one handbecause he is so good that is setting are sufficient for perfect exposure, butabove all because it does not alter what it takes.
The real photograph will be an exact transcription of reality.
The real colors, the real situation.
Aaah, the myth of photo retouching is evil, that it did not existin the perfect world before the birth of digital photography.
Only the real onesknow.
1861 of Abraham Lincoln's most famous photo.
Except that, in fact, the originalphoto is a portrait of John Calhoun, who died 10 years earlier.
They just switchtheir heads 130 years before the birth of Photoshop and the democratization ofdigital images.
And this is one example out of millions, image editing, processingand retouching have existed since the invention of photography.
Well that couldbe a great video actually, the image retouching through history beforePhotoshop.
Tell me if you interesting in the comment section.
Okay listen to menow, whether you are pro or not.
Photography is not a transcription ofreality, it's always an interpretation of reality.
Behind each photograph there isan artistic intention.
Artistic in the broadest sense, the search for aesthetic.
Well I'm not saying that we are looking for beauty, but aesthetics; there is anintention behind every picture taken.
Yeah always, even photojournalism is an interpretation of event as close aspossible to reality, but not the reality itself.
The simple fact of framing animage is already telling something and thereforeputting an intention behind it.
Even you when you take picture of grandma onyour little cousin's birthday, you want the picture to be pretty, sharp, wellexposed, and avoid that kind of faces.
Yet, they had that face for a second, thatwas the reality.
To the extent that a photo is an interpretation of the persontaking it, all alterations are valid.
Questionable, right, of course, but valid.
Trying to get as close as possible to the reality of the moment is an artisticapproach, and it is as legitimate as modifying colors by saturating them ormodifying color balance to have something warmer, because that is thefeeling you are looking to express.
and it's funny because every time I talk toa real photographer who only uses JPEG you realize that in fact it doesn'treally know the advantages of RAW and that it's often a lack of knowledge inediting that has guided these choices and made in choose the simplicity ofJPEG.
Okay okay okay okay, you're gonna give me out full of counter-example, you're a real photographer and you know Lightroom from A to Z.
all right, okay, I take it back.
Why I started this all philosophicaldebate.
Yeah because there's nothing that bother me more than the arguments thatwe wouldn't need all this information for retouching and that a goodphotographer can perfectly have good photos with the JPEG.
Yeah, of coursethat's totally not the point.
But having a palette at hand that allows you to gomuch further, to express yourself much more and not using it but it's like ifyou have to choose between using all the content of a dictionary or limitingyourself to a single vocabulary world because someone has parasited your brain in the past.
Oh no not that scene again I'm gonna cry.
I think my demonstration convinced you.
There is only one family to follow andthat is the RAW family.
Listen to me, you, behind the camera.
Especially you, who's starting photography.
A real photographer shoots in RAW, period.
No no no, I'm not asking you, you're shooting in RAW now.
Let the JPEG enjoy its fame, of the most used format on the web.
It makes it happy.
It think it is safe.
but when it will not expect, celebrating it's apparent hegemony, we the RAW Team, will be there.
The RAW Team send their regards.
Convinced? Ok come on, let's beserious.
RAW is not a religion.
JPEG is not areligion.
There are only tools.
The RAW will require a lot of learning whenyou are a beginner, to know how to process it.
It will also require a lot of editingtime, it is much heavier than a JPEG so you will need more space on your harddrive or on your memory cards.
That's why a lot of professional photographerschoose to shoot in JPEG, and they're right.
They need to transfer, process imagesquickly or otherwise.
It corresponds to their practice of photography.
Am I partof the RAW team? Yeahn oh yes yes yes yes.
I like to work on my images, for me thepractice of photography is only 50% at the shooting.
Once again my advice will always be the same: test by yourself.
Yes you're gonnahave to learn image editing.
Yes it's long but I will do a lot of tutorial onthis channel and I promise to make it fun.
The only truth is there: how to choose ifyou need to shoot in RAW or JPEG? Experience.
Try, test, test, test, Have fun.
If you decide that using JPEG brings you more advantage, then do it! Shoot inthe format you want.
Just do it for the right reasons.
Please don't become this moron for whom the “real photographer” does this or that; without any nuance.
Shoot in RAW or JPEG; in film or digital; edit your images or not.
That's not thereal photographer, the real photographer is the one who takes his camera, goesout and takes pictures.
The real photographer whatever you level, is you.
Time to say goodbye, I suggest you to share this video with allthe “real photographers” you know.
Tell me in the comment section if you are one ofthe Starks or Lannisters.
I mean RAW or JPEG.
And don't forget, the realphotographer is the one who subscribes to this channel, and explode that likebutton.
See you mate, KEEP ON CREATING! Oh, and don't forget to ring thebell!.