Choosing between raw and JPEG when shooting directly affects how much freedom you’ll have later when editing. Understanding this choice helps ensure you capture images that match your vision and reduces potential frustration during post-processing.
Coming to you from Aaron Nace with Phlearn, this practical video compares raw and JPEG editing in Lightroom Classic, highlighting key advantages of shooting raw. Nace emphasizes how easily you can correct exposure and adjust white balance in raw, allowing significant corrections without loss in quality. For instance, changing the color temperature is smooth and natural in raw files because the camera hasn’t compressed or permanently altered color data. He demonstrates this vividly, adjusting the warmth of a raw file effortlessly, compared to a JPEG, which produces unnatural tones when manipulated too far. Additionally, raw images preserve more details in shadows and highlights, essential for scenes with high contrast, like landscapes or bright skies.
Nace also explains the fundamental differences in how raw and JPEG files handle image data. A raw file is essentially untouched digital information directly from your camera’s sensor. This untouched state lets you fully control processing steps later, enabling precise adjustments. Conversely, JPEG images compress data immediately, embedding choices like exposure and white balance into the file permanently. While some adjustments remain possible with JPEG, these edits function more like adding filters rather than genuinely altering image attributes. Nace showcases this clearly when he tries restoring detail in a JPEG’s shadow areas—detail quickly becomes muddy or pixelated compared to the smooth, realistic results from a raw file.
Another crucial point Nace covers is masking and selective adjustments. Even though both raw and JPEG allow masking in Lightroom, raw images enable adjustments to be pushed much further without quality degradation. He uses an example of brightening a subject with masks; the raw image remains natural and detailed, while the JPEG quickly shows visible artifacts and deterioration in quality. If you’re planning detailed edits, especially in portraiture or complex compositions, raw clearly provides superior flexibility.
File size differences between the two formats are substantial, with raw files being significantly larger—often over 20 times bigger than their JPEG counterparts. But Nace argues this shouldn’t discourage you; instead, see it as evidence of how much additional data and editing latitude you’re gaining. If you’ve ever struggled with images that appeared perfect in-camera but disappointing once edited, opting for raw could reduce this frustration dramatically.
Nace does point out that JPEGs aren’t useless—quick, minor edits still yield decent results. But for serious, detailed adjustments that bring out your creative intent, raw files unquestionably perform better. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Nace.
