It’s the equivalent of a presidential Twitter feud, but for the photography world. Everyone’s favorite Anderson Cooper lookalike Tony Northrup released a video on November 4 about the benefits and downsides to shooting raw files versus JPG files, and in this video dispensed some advice on when to shoot raw files and when to shoot JPG files (and when to shoot both). Naturally, this elicited a strong response from everyone’s favorite (only?) Fro, Jared Polin of “Fro Knows Photo” fame, who is known for his shirts indicating to the world that he does indeed shoot raw. All the time.
Northrup fired back, talking a little bit about the behind-the-scenes between him and Polin leading up to Fro’s fiery response. He also took on each of Polin’s points. Let’s take a look at what some of those are:
Speed and Buffering
Polin makes the argument that you should always shoot raw files because most cameras will get 20 raw files or more to a burst anyway; a point which Northrup demonstrates using a Canon Rebel that can’t muster more than six shots to a burst. Polin’s point just isn’t true with most popular consumer cameras. It sounds like a case of someone shooting a D5 all day and forgetting how the rest of us live.
Northrup and Polin also disagree on what to do when shooting raw plus JPG. Northrup suggesting one format to each card, and Polin suggesting both to both cards, a recipe for long write times and slower overall performance, for sure. I understand the point of having all formats on all cards for backup purposes, but when shooting weddings or sports, I do one format for each card, Northrup-style. That way I have a way to send off files to couples or editors quickly (the card with the JPG files on them) and files with more information to edit and create a more polished gallery later with (the raw files). As Northrup mentions, importing raw plus JPG files takes a long time, and so when my editors need my files yesterday, working from the JPG files means a faster edit across the board.
Storage Space
Northrup talks about how $100 for storage is a lot to swallow for people on fixed budgets, and this is a point where no one wins here. At the end of the day, finances are a personal situation, and so while Polin’s right about storage being cheap, cheap is relative.
There is a key point in Northrup’s video though that the cheapskates among us should heed: there is no free lunch, and storing photos in free services such as Google Photos is only asking for trouble when those companies start charging for services they roped you into for free.
Important Photos
Aside from sports and weddings, where I’m shooting raw plus JPG, I’m shooting raw files all the time. There’s one quote from Polin that sums up my argument for always shooting raw files, no matter what: “If you’re shooting unimportant images, then why shoot them at all?”
What’s your strategy for shooting? Are you a Northrup or a Polin? A raw or JPG shooter? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
There is a time and place for both in my work. Tony has found both useful in his. Gordon Laing has published "In Camera" a collection of excellent out of camera jpgs. So Tony and Gordon shoot both jpg and raw, have impressive portfolios, published books and are well-educated, articulate gentlemen. It seems wise to pay attention to photographers whose work you have seen and respect. I have no interest in the tiresome, juvenile, attention and click seeking antics of the Ken and Jared.
Working on Capture One (not with, on), I understand the differences... So I shoot RAW, even when I'm spraying and praying.
My biggest problems with both videos is the subjective views being presented as objective fact. There are good reasons to shoot jpeg, RAW, RAW+jpeg and I don't feel either of the two photographers did a good job presenting those reasons. I just shared the videos with my friend whose getting into photography and she's even more confused than before.
Instead of focusing on making hit piece videos, the photographing community would be better served with simpler, clearer tutorials i.e. 'why you should shoot jpeg' rather than 'why so and so is wrong'
And let's not forget, it's the image that counts not the recording format. I don't think I've looked at a photo and thought, "Wow, what a jpeg!". If a photographer, beginner or experienced can produce great images from jpegs, so be it.
I shoot RAW only.
I do not side with Jared, neither with Tony, there are a gazillion of variables that might push someone towards the one or the other, or both, different times different types depending on the situation and circumstances.
Photographic-wise I side more with Tony because he has a much better work ( in terms of portfolio ) compared to Jared, however neither of the two can "strike" me with their photos.
Actually, no internet persona is even remotely close to the skills and photography work of even newcomers to the photographic world, think Ryan Dyar, Ted Gore, Daniel Laan, Daniel Kordan, Sean Archer, etc.
Wait a minute you left me out and I've been around a while www.karltaylorportfolio.com :)
Sorry haven't seen your name or your videos until now ( actually, I just looked at your portfolio website ).
Nice work buddy, there are plenty of awesome shots in there, I like ;)
Great shipwreck B&W and milkyway shots in your collection too.
Cheers bro :-)
I'd personally shoot RAW in every scenario, simply for my own workflow I don't see any disadvantage of RAW outweighing the benefits of increased dynamic range. Saying that one of the my all time favourite photographers shoots only in jpg and his work is leaps and bounds ahead of most photographers I've seen (including the two involved in this debate). Ultimately it comes down to whatever works best for your own workflow. Raw works for me, but if jpg's are a good fit for somebody else's workflow then they're not wrong in doing so.
"When I teach begginees to shoot sports I suggest they try one frame at a time and not motor drive at all. I want people to start to anticipate the peak action and capture it without relying on spraying and praying."
This.
I'm a street shooter, and have taken to portraits recently. I've also become the "team photographer" for my son's youth football team, using nothing more than a 70-300 lens. I used to burst the shots, then realized I didn't want to cull through 600 pictures when I got home. As mentioned, I learned to anticipate the moment/shot. Now, I go home with a relatively more manageable 300 pics. I try to take the film approach to think before you shoot... even though, yes, 300 images is a ton to go through.
But... RAW is where it's at. For the life of me, I could never shoot JPEG again. It's a sin, in my mind. You're potentially limiting an opportunity to really fine-tune an image. Why let the technical aspect hinder the final product?
im with theFro i also shoot RAW and proudly ware my froknowsfoto t-shirts when i do so
I'm with Northrup purely because that "FroOOoOoONoooOoOs PhotoOooOoos" tag line does my nut in.
Gosh! What did I miss here during my sweet 10 hours sleep. Why is Jared screaming? And going mad at Tony. Because he was not invited to prestigious Sony event or did he fall in love with Chelsea or something?
:)
I see and understand all points Tony making in his video. He has decent reasons. But why all this anger from Jared? His t-shirts are already screaming out loud with the size and selections of fonts and colors. No need to criticize people publicly about what they do.
T&C Northrup are great at what they do. Their podcasts, reviews and books are very successful. I wonder if that’s the problem here.
Somebody, (who cares) chill the fro.
Hmmm. Reasoned, contextualized, and well-supported discussion or sanctimony and sniveling? Tough decision.
[JK: Polin ftw]
If processing raw files takes too long in Lightroom, switch to Capture One Pro. Its fast and creates a better looking file right out of the box.
A moot debate imo, shoot whatever you want, who cares ? :-)
Now for Jared Polin, i might not agree with everything he says, but I admire the work he puts out and the way he does it.
Both are looking for clicks, but to me the difference is that at least Fro was a photographer before becoming a YouTuber and Tony is just a guy who found a business opportunity in Youtube. I don't take any of the channels to serious since the main scope is to increase viewers to gain more $$$
Jared Polin is a pretty alright dewd. He's a dude I'd high five. He can be a bit over the top at times I guess, but that's his brand. He means well and truly seems to want to educate his viewers on photography. We shouldn't compare photographic industry social media personalities. It just creates division. Northrup is good and so is Polin. If you don't like Polin go watch Northrup. If you don't like Northrup go watch Polin. If you don't like either well I guess surf youtube until you find someone you do like. I don't think you should waste your time talking about your subjective view of two photographic educators. Go learn and shoot instead of complaining.
For the record I think Jared and Tony are both pretty nice folks, from the short time I got to speak with each of them when I was working for Canon in the industry, and both make some good points in each of these videos.
thanks
I'll shoot RAW+JPG... but I will say that the reasons for doing so came from a few different factors. When I first started doing concert photography I was shooting on a Rebel T3i. And given that a lot of venues around Austin aren't that great about lighting I pretty much had to shoot RAW to get anything usable. The smaller buffer size on the T3i gave me an idea of how many shots I could fire before I hit the buffer limit and therefore adjusted how I shot. Also with shooting performers over time I started to figure out fairly fast within a set just how active performers would be on stage and that helped me shoot accordingly in line with tech limit at the time.
Now that I've moved to the Fuji X-T2 (and higher speed cards) I get more leeway in what I can do. A lot of the time I don't tend to hit my buffer limit so I can do both with no issue. But being able to do that came with experience in anticipating how to shoot. As an aside one nice thing about having the JPGs at the same time is that it allows me to bounce a particularly cool shot to places like Instagram via my phone while I'm there.
There are some points that I think both Tony and Jared should have called out in their videos that would have helped (though it may render the whole argument moot): know your gear, pay attention to your shooting situation, and have a good understanding of what your editing end goal is. If you're just starting out then the first two are most important. Understanding the third point will come with experience.
+1 Polin
I'm a professional, in that I take photographs for my main job, full-time, and also my own business on the side.
Sometimes I shoot JPG, sometimes my workflow is RAW and 16-bit TIFFs. Is there room in this "debate" for the fact that you can do both where applicable? This absolutist fanboyism of it must be one way or the other is just absurd. I'm on raw maybe 90% of the time, but JPG has it's place.
What's bizarre is that so many people arguing "Oh real photographers only ever shoot in RAW" undoubtedly sit in front of LR/C1/etc (that don't understand the Adobe/etc profile is different to your camera's profile) for hours on end to achieve the same look the camera profile would have achieved in a JPG to begin with. Or worse, they get overly heavy with the clarity slider and call it "art".
RAW for me. Each year my post processing improves, each year software improves. I often revisit my old RAWs to see to see if I left color, shadow or highlight unrevealed. Once in awhile I'll come across a misplaced JPG in my lightroom filmstrip and not expecting a JPG I wonder why the adjustment sliders of notheing, the n I look to see if it is a damn JPG. Once per year I do an 18 hour PR shoot that requires hundreds of gigs of memory. One year I decided to shoot JPG to save time, both in post processing and download time. Afterward I decided that although quicker, it wasn't nearly as good. I again shoot the event in RAW. More work but better results; hence, my article - Post Processing Hell ~ http://daryl-hunter.net/post-processing-hell
I’m set in my ways and my mind can’t be changed by either. I was never satisfied with my point and shoot cameras even with their “fine jpeg” setting. RAW is why I got into DSLR photography and that opened me up to so much more. I’m stuck on RAW shooting.
I am with the Fro, RAW always
no one method is universally correct, they both are appropriate in there own way.
jpeg or raw? or does it matter?
I much prefer 500px, there is no debate over raw vs jpeg, simply admiring each other's work. instead of spending so much time arguing, go out and create your art your own way, and who cares how.
I like both of them and have learned a lot from them along with Joe Edelman. When I first saw Tony's post, I disagreed with the premise . Jared's response summed up my feelings exactly.
thanks. And then the attacks started.
Polin all day long. Ever since i started photography ten years back ive gone raw. I can not relate to any of Tonys points, for me there is never a good reason for jpg.
Hate to take sides, but I'm with Polin. Always RAW. Even so called "unimportant" shots can turn out to be important, and RAW is just so much more obedient to edits. And with Lightroom, you can export your RAWs to JPG in seconds anyway. I just acquired a DSLR with WiFi, so I'll be adding in a small JPG along side the RAW for instant preview on my laptop, and I'll be writing both to both cards. I've never had a card fail, but that doesn't mean today is not the day.
Generating traffic huh? Good article, keep up posting great content.
I shoot raw as it allows me to to set sharpening at maximum to view the image on the lcd without baking in that sharpening in the raw file. I also set the camera to Adobe RPG to maximize the histogram as at present there isn't a raw histogram available.
I have total confidence in the fro. I really feel that this is going to be a personal choice thing. How it fits into YOUR workflow. Personally, I don't see an issue with fro telling people to shoot in RAW because if they shoot in JPG now, this is a change that gives them more flexibility later. Telling someone who shoots in RAW to start shooting in JPG, instead of showing them how to maximize the potential of the RAW files is just silly IMO.
I say shoot how you want. Educate yourself on the pros/cons of each and make your own choice. If it doesn't work for you, then change it.
I’d love to shoot just jpg but I’m just not good enough to nail my settings in camera. I also have time and no pressure being an amateur so raw for me. I ran a conference though the other day and the photographer shot brilliant jpgs all day long. A VIP wanted a picture of himself on stage for social media right away and the photographer was happy to oblige. She also provided a running montage for the closing keynote with very little effort. Harder to do with raw files. Social media and camera phones have set a new expectation for the delivery time of images for the client so jpg has a place too.
Im with Polin,,,RAW is preferred and sometines RAW+JPG, but always RAW
I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THIS SUBJECT IS EVEN BEING DISCUSSED.
I'm with Polin.
SOOC hasn't existed since Polaroid. Everything else is processed in someway. I know there are those that think they have total control by choosing a few setting from a menu, but the truth is every manufacturer adds or subtracts data as the file is written to the card.
Those who think it takes too long to process raw files....DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE THEIR SOFTWARE.
Tony Northrup usually is well-balanced and very thoughtful in his opinions while Jarid Polin usually takes the short cut.
Jarid has probably not used a low-end camera in the recent past.
Hmmm, Canon M5 Real World Review, Canon 80D Real World Review, Nikon D5500 Real World Review, Nikon D1X from 15 years ago shooting RAW getting awesome photos with it. Nikon D3000, Nikon D70. Yup, plenty of Real World Reviews on my channel with cameras that are basic beginner cameras. Still shooting RAW no matter what.
Jared does use low end cameras regularly for review purposes, so that would be a misconception on your part. Now as for whether he uses them for his personal work, I have no idea.
As for Jared taking short-cuts, yes, he does do so at times, but nobody can be expected to sit there explaining everything to absolutely everyone's satisfaction. You either get him or you don't—different strokes for different folks—but I've found that he seems to be a pretty straightforward and genuine personality, which is fairly rare in this age where everyone is so concerned about maintaining their artificially constructed social image. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that there's more than a bit of performance involved, but if he makes a click-bait headline for something, he's the type to just straight up tell you that it's a click-bait title and he'll explain why he chose it (often in a joking manner). I do think with some audiences, his approach works against him as they have a set view of what an educator or authority figure should look like (Tony pretty much fits the bill here) and they can't really take Jared seriously, but I also think it's a mistake to dismiss him because of the approach that he chooses to take because he does actually know what he's talking about most of the time and when he has an opinion about something, I find that he usually has pretty good reasons for them even if I might disagree with him at times.
Be it Tony or Jared, I respect both of them for putting their faces and personalities out there, though. Try as hard as we might, nobody is perfect, so putting your name, face, and opinion out there on the internet while positioning yourself as an educator takes a level of guts that I imagine most of us wouldn't have.
I know. I am subscribed to his channel. I like his videos but I also know that Tony Northrup always makes really balanced and well thought through videos.
In this discussion I think Tony is right and Jared is wrong. I own a Sony 6300 which wasn't the cheapest consumer camera. I rarely shoot sports or action but the few times I do, the small buffer was the reason I switched to jpeg which I normally never use. I shoot raw most of the times.
But the small buffer in lots of consumer cameras is frustratingly small and so switching to jpeg can be a necessity.
I am with Jared; any magazine from the small guys to BBC Wildlife want the RAW format
I shoot RAW. I prefer to have maximum available image information from the beginning. What comes later is another matter.
yes, there are all those negative sides to shooting RAW: larger file sizes, slower to shoot, longer to process etc, but if we're after image *quality* then RAW is the only answer now! (and believe it or not, even RAW is not exactly 'it' yet, simply because RAW's a compressed format just as well! read below for more please if still interested...)
want even better quality - as well as much larger file sizes, too? then either shoot directly in TIFF if your camera does that, or convert your RAW files into TIFF, which is the much higher quality format! (TIFF is the superior format for scanning negatives and slides as well as artworks too btw ...)
hint 1: even with JPG or any other smaller size formats, you still have to spend some time in post to get a 'perfect' image quality out of your shots, don't you? then why not spend the same amount of time on RAW (or TIFF) files and get even better quality when the job calls for it?
hint 2, for those who still think RAW is useless or anything: if you're one of those photogs still using a laptop with its mediocre quality screen (or even a desktop with a 2K monitor at its best) for editing your shots, then even JPG files are probably too much for you!
why? glad you asked: get yourself a little more educated on how resolution, pixel pitch, color depth, and related topics work in digital photography because if i were to explain it to you here, it'd take ten more comments to just scratch the surface! in fact, if you're not already aware of such 'basic info' in the industry, i wonder how you'd call yourself a *professional* or even advanced amateur digital photographer in the first place!?
in the end though, if you have clients who are happy with your results, in JPG or whatever, and if you're making good money, then don't even bother at all and just keep up doing the good job the successful way you've been doing so far! ;-)