So happy I found this video! Was trying to understand and finally found the answer to my question. Thank you!!

Very informative, David! Thank you very much for a clear explanation!

A great explanation! Thank you, David.

Negative/print analogy for RAW/JPG is very good!

Excellent explanation. I like your straightforward approach to these typically complex issues. Besides, you look just like my neighbor.

@DavidBergmanPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

Bill Wendry Hi neighbor! 😜

@billwendry

4 жыл бұрын

✋🏻

Very helpful, thank you!

Thank you so much for answering my question. I always shoot RAW, and process in LR. Now being more clear on the application of those profiles does help. Thanks again!

@DavidBergmanPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

Richard Bone Thanks for sending it in!

Don’t forget that the picture style does affect the histogram so if you’re trying to get an accurate histogram when shooting for exposure to the right it may make a difference.

@DavidBergmanPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

That is true, but I don't think it makes a large enough movement in the histogram that it would mess anyone up.

David, I'm going to ask a question here even though I'm very late to this discussion. When I heard the question asked, I really thought the person asking it had a different reason (but who knows) for asking it. So I'll rephrase it just in case: I'm a relatively new photographer, so help me understand this. Even if I shoot RAW, there may be another reason for choosing a picture profile. Given digital cameras can not reproduce the Dynamic Range we see in the real world, we have two choices as I see it. The first is to choose a picture profile that best represents what we (as humans) are seeing displayed in front of us on the histogram and EVF/Rear Screen. Option two is to choose to see what the camera sees (i.e. choose a flat profile?). Some might argue to choose a picture profile that leaves the basic image the most untouched and prevents you from accidently clipping the highlights or loosing detail in the shadows. Do you shoot your events with the most neutral picture profile? and is there any justification for what I outlined? Just curious. Please help my understanding here.

Hi David I don't think you are actually answering the viewers question as he has asked it. You seem to be concentrating more on the advantages of RAW and what it is, as opposed to showing what the profiles are and how they can help us in shooting an image.

@DavidBergmanPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

He asked specifically how it effects the raw files. And my point is that, well, it doesn't. :)

Some raw converters use baked in jpeg in raw to make a first guess how to develop this specific raw file (what curves to apply). I know RawTherapee does that. In that case it is true that profile does not matter - you have not lost any information. But in the same time you changed the look of the raw file when it is open the first time. So I would set the profile to look I like and don't worry about it.

Thank you .

My two cents,raw is definitely the was to go however when I'm in a controlled environment (studio) and I have TIME raw plus jeg, and jeg is usually fine, in a run and gun scenario(Wedding), raw only. For me TIME has always been a determining factor.

@DavidBergmanPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

Gregory Sargeant, I honestly haven’t found that raw files take any longer to deal with than JPEGs because i still want to do some basic toning to my images before delivery. Even for deadline news and sports shooters who are delivering files from the camera or without any toning, I’d still want the raw files for my archive.

I hope you can answer this. When I load my pictures it was CR2 which gave me information on how I short the picture as far as iso F stop shutter and lens. Now it’s only saving as CR3 file which won’t give me that information. Is there a way to switch that back to 2 I don’t remember changing anything besides I used a Canon M50 vs I use to use a Canon M100

damn i had no idea.

Hi David, thanks for your inputs, however, I felt that the title of this video is a little misleading.

Hello David please advise are these various Picture Styles just replicating old film stocks. Fuji to Kodak.

For vacation pictures I am planning on shooting RAW (NEF-Nikon D500) in flat profile to primary card and then shooting JPG to the secondary card. I have been led to believe that a flat profile with RAW is the best way of retaining as much info as possible. My question can I use a different profile for the JPG files. The reason for this is on vacation I may shoot 400- 800 pictures, and I do not want to edit that many, only edit the RAW images of the pictures that may be real keepers. But, also want to JPG to look as good as possible without much editing.

@ottienabors7275

4 жыл бұрын

FYI; I shoot with the Nikon D500 for travel and wildlife. My experience is that the "custom picture" settings (and absolute exposure value) in the camera will always transfer to the jpg and the raw data is always flat, except if you use the Nikon software Capture-NDx or View-NDi to view the photo later. When the file is opened in the Nikon software it will look like the jpg because the Nikon software will apply the custom picture settings used when the photo was taken. When you open the raw file in third-party software the initial photo is "flat" and requires adjustment.

@DavidBergmanPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

Chuck Devlin As I explain in the video, it doesn’t matter what profile you use for the raw file. All the data is saved. So use whatever profile you want that looks best for the jpegs and you’ll still have the ability to make the raw look however you want in post.

@chuckdevlin6143

4 жыл бұрын

@@DavidBergmanPhoto thank you for the reply. I did notice your statement about RAW profile it doesn't matter, your reply confirmed and reinforced, thus I will go with this. Now to test and see what works for me. Again, I appreciate the time for your reply. Another day, another learning experience.

So my t6i has a 'neutral' picture style where sharpness is dialed down all the way and everything else centered and even says its the most flat look for post editing in the profile's description. What would the point of shooting under that profile be if raw files aren't affected by adjustments? It almost sounds like the camera is giving you an option to shoot a jpeg image to give it a 'raw' look but at jpeg compression? Who really wants to post edit a jpeg under that profile if shooting raw will give a better range anyway?

@z4ng3tsu1ch1g0

2 жыл бұрын

The purpose of shooting flat jpegs in camera is because ur histogram reflects the jpeg image, not raw. The closer ur jpeg image looks to the raw the more accurate ur camera's histogram will be

Is it possible to be happy with your RAW file or do you always apply some sort of preset no matter how minimal, (such as “Adobe standard” let’s say if you’re using Lightroom). Recently did an event shoot and had several dozens of photos to edit, and no way I wanted to spend a whole lot of time on each one.

@DavidBergmanPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

Flary Fox Of course it’s possible to have it look just how you want when you first open the file. That’s really the goal, right? I have import presets with some basic settings that I apply to every image. On a set of consistent images (like meet and greet photos with the artist I tour with), I can import and export without ever touching the files.

@dragonfist25

4 жыл бұрын

Flary Fox Just copy and paste the edits you made to the next image and make micro adjustments from there.

David, what is your opinion regarding the conversion of proprietary raw files to DNG in Lightroom? Is the quality and latitude for editing pretty much the same? Thank you!pretty

@DavidBergmanPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

I only use DNG if I have a file that can't be opened (yet) but a particular program. When a new camera comes out, it takes a while for third party manufacturers to support the new format, but Adobe is traditionally one of the first to get their DNG convertor working. So I'll convert and then can open the file in Capture One (or Aperture, previously). Other than that scenario, I personally don't see the need/advantage to converting the image to DNG when I can just use the original RAW file. Some people think that it's better for long-term archiving because it's open source, and I suppose there is some truth to that. But I don't think the extra step is necessary, and I can still open my first digital raw files from the 1990's.

@photonsonpixels

4 жыл бұрын

David Bergman Thanks! 😊

thanks i just downloaded the canon software lol

why don't you do it an a raw file in photoshop rather than doing it on jpeg file.. and also why use levels and use brightness on the other.. apples vs bananas

@DavidBergmanPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

Fener Bahce Of course you can process the raw file in photoshop. But my point was having more information in the raw vs jpeg. And yes, levels and brightness are different but you still have way more information to work with in the raw file.

Good information but unfortunately you really didn't answer the question.

you came to the answer at 7th min.. ??

@DavidBergmanPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

Fener Bahce Wanted to explain how raw files worked and tried to give more information than just what was asked.

These informations for me Million Dolar wourth, Thank a lot

David you put this across totally wrong there is no way you can compare the two different programs to edit the file. How can you say that using the adobe program is not as good as the proprietary Canon program , when you processing a" jpg" file in adobe and then processed a RAW CR2 file in Canon's proprietary program. that is a very poor way to explain the difference between jpg and RAW. It would have been a better explanation if you had just said that a jpg file disregards 50% of the file information that is available compared to the 100% RAW format. As the way that you have explained this scenario it makes out that Adobe Photoshop is in no way as good or up to the standard of Canon software.

@DavidBergmanPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

wellwhatthen10101 I was not comparing the program’s abilities to edit raw files - just comparing a raw vs a jpeg, which is what the video was about. As I said, the camera manufacturer’s software is always going to give you an accurate raw conversion because it’s made by the same company that makes the image files. However, I also said the third party companies do an very good job reverse engineering the files (and frankly, make better user interfaces).

@ZappaZappaDooo

4 жыл бұрын

David Bergman Unfortunately your message didn’t come across that way. If you wanted to illustrate post processing raw vs jpg files, using the same software might make this point clearer.

@kevrosas1

Жыл бұрын

David made his point just fine. Great video.