Quick and Easy Poses for any Couple During a Photoshoot

By: Jackie Lamas  

Engagement sessions can feel intimidating and you might feel like your poses or photos are starting to look all the same. Or perhaps you’re having trouble getting a start at sessions? If that is the case, these poses will help you at your next engagement session and they work for all couples!

The following poses work for all couples. Give them a try and add variety to your photo session.

T-Bone Pose

This pose works for any couple as it is in the shape of a “T.”  Place one person (the taller person) 45-degrees from the camera. Then place the other person’s shoulder into the armpit area of the taller person.

From here, the couple can hold hands, snuggle into the pose, look at each other, and even hug. Also, you can have the taller person, or the person standing at 45-degrees, kiss the person who is leaning into them on the forehead or cheek.

See the shape of the “T” as the woman leans into the man’s chest in this photo and they snuggle close.

You can use this same pose with a little distance between the two and have them hold hands. Doing the pose this way can make it feel more powerful and strong.

Standing with arms interlocked

Start by having both people stand facing the camera. Ask one person to wrap their arms around the other person’s with the hands around the tricep/bicep area. Once they are in that pose, you can have the person who is wrapped around also lean their head on the shoulder.

Here you can add variety by getting up close and photographing the rings. Have the leaning person look down at their hands and get detail photos of their face. Alternatively, get one from farther back and have the couple look at each other in this pose.

This particular pose also works if you photograph the couple from behind and ask them to touch noses, foreheads, or to kiss lightly.

One person in front and one person behind

This pose can offer many different photos since you can photograph it from different angles. Have one person standing slightly in front but off to the side of the other person.

Here they can stand holding hands, or you can even have one person facing backward and angled so that their back is to the camera but facing the other person. From here, you can ask them to look at each other. Have one person look at the camera, or have them get closer little by little while you capture their reactions.

Have them face the camera and ask them to walk a bit with one person trailing behind. Do this a couple of times with them looking down, looking at each other, laughing or talking, or strolling. All of which will bring about authentic expressions while you’re photographing the pose.

Sitting down

Sitting down is another great pose for any couple. It can offer lots of different variations all within the same spot. You get different photos and won’t have to move your couple very much.

A combination pose sitting down using the t-bone set up along with the arm wrapped around and 

the head leaning on the shoulder.

This pose works best if you have a staircase, ledge, or stool of some kind to offer different height options. However, don’t worry, it also works if they sit on a curb or the grass.
The key here is to have the couple sit comfortably as if they were sitting on their own during a date. From there, you can make adjustments to hand positions and where they are facing.
Have the couple sit next to each other at an angle. Or have one person leaning into the other in a sitting t-bone shape. You can even have one person sitting and the other standing.

Photograph them in this position from behind, side, and front. This will give you a lot of variety within the same pose. Have them snuggle, hold hands, caress or fix each other’s hair, kiss, close their eyes and go forehead to forehead, or touch noses. All of these are great variations of the same sitting down pose.
Using different focal lengths and apertures will give you a lot of different types of photos of the same moment.

Natural posing

When in doubt, natural posing may just be the best pose for all couples. It can be extremely useful at times during the session when it can seem like the poses are getting stale or repetitive.

Natural posing is when you ask the couple to simply walk and enjoy the moment, or just sit and tell each other something they love about one another. You can also tell them to enjoy their surroundings or that you’ll be photographing them hanging out together as if you weren’t there.
This can bring about a lot of natural expressions, gestures, and relaxed poses from the couple that is much more authentic than any other pose you can put them in.

Usually, this works if you give them something to do like enjoying the moment or walking and exploring the location where they are. You can also tell them that you’re getting the settings right and just catch them being natural and relaxed.
This type of posing is really helpful at the beginning of sessions since most couples are nervous about having their photos taken. Getting them to relax while not having the pressure of looking at the camera or knowing how to pose can help them look natural.

Also, use this when you feel like your poses are getting repetitive, or you feel like you’re out of ideas. Natural posing can also lead to natural cuddles that you can ask your couples to repeat and hold so that you can get the shot.
Natural posing can break up the session and make it more fun, especially if you’re at a location like a coffee shop, carnival, or doing an activity with the couple.

Using poses that work for all couples can a great solid foundation when you’re getting started in couple shoots.

Also, these poses work for all couples and therefore, can be helpful when you have run out of ideas or need something new to use at your next couples shoot.
Which pose will you try at your next couples session?

Share this article.

How to Take Better Wildlife Photos: Be a Naturalist First

By: David Shaw

I love birds. In fact, I’ve dedicated much of my adult life to the study of birds. In college, I spent days exploring the beaches, forests, and wetlands surrounding southern Puget Sound, strictly in the interest of finding and watching birds. Birds lured me north to current home in Alaska, when I took a job banding songbirds in Denali National Park. My interest in migrant birds carried me into graduate school where I spent several years studying the spring migration in the Sierra de Los Tuxtlas of eastern Mexico. After grad school, I took a job as a Research Biologist here in Fairbanks, where I looked into all kinds of questions about breeding and migrating birds around the state.
Now, though I no longer work as a full-time research biologist (writing, photography, and guiding now rule my life), my passion for feathered creatures is no less strong.

I give you these biographical tidbits, because I want you to understand something about me: I care about, and understand birds. Knowledge and passion are the two most important tools I know of for better wildlife photography.
Ask someone what a wildlife photographer needs and the first thing you are likely to hear is a big lens. That helps, make no doubt, but it’s hardly the most important. No, the most important thing is an understanding of the critters you want to photograph. It doesn’t matter if your lens is as long as your leg, if you can’t find the animal you’re after.

An example: During my years as a Research Biologist, I spent several seasons studying an imperiled species of songbird that breeds in the wetlands of the Boreal Forest, the Rusty Blackbird. This species has been declining in abundance across its range for the past 50 to 100 years, and no one really knows why. In the winter, they are easier to find, when they mix with flocks of other blackbirds in the south-central United States, or forage in small groups in the wetlands of the southern Mississippi basin.

See What You Could Make As A Medical Billing Specialist

By Yahoo Search

Research about Medical Billing and Coding on Yahoo Search

See More

In summer, however, when the males are attired in their crisp, shiny, black plumage, they are very difficult to find. Rusty Blackbirds nest in some pretty unpleasant places: thick, mosquito-infested swamps in the northern forest of Alaska, Canada, and the northeastern states.

Having studied them for years, I had a distinct advantage when I set out to photograph this species. I knew where to find them, right down to a specific pair of birds, and I knew where to position myself for the best chance of getting foraging birds to appear within the range of my camera.

Thanks to that personal knowledge, I got some great photos of both males and females in breeding plumage, and the rarity of these images has made them some of my most published wildlife photos.
Though it helps, you don’t need the extensive personal knowledge that I was lucky to have of Rusty Blackbirds. You do, however, need a basic understanding of your quarry.

Some things to consider:

Seasonality

Many species migrate, or are difficult (or easy) to find during certain times of year. Birds are an obvious example. If you want to photograph congregations of migrating Sandhill Cranes and waterfowl, then you need to know when the birds are going to be present. A hint: It isn’t during the summer.

A flock of Sandhill Cranes during migration. You only get a few weeks each years to catch big 

flocks of this species, so you need to be ready.

Seasonality isn’t limited to birds, many mammal species may only be available during a narrow time window. The Brooks River in Katmai National Park, Alaska is a famous spot to photograph bears. Though bruins are present in the area just about anytime from May to early October, if you want to photograph them catching salmon at the falls, you are likely to be disappointed if you schedule your trip in any month but July.

Red Salmon, which run up the Brooks River and leap the falls, are most abundant in July. If you don’t catch the run, you won’t see the bears trying to catch them like this.

See More

During the salmon run, the bears get close together, and juveniles like these are forced to bicker for 

a good fishing spot.

Range and habitat

Some species have a continent-wide distribution, others may be extremely limited. Almost all wildlife has preferred habitat that will dictate where, within their larger range, they are likely to be found. The range of Pronghorn includes the better part of the American west, but their habitat, intact grass and sagebrush prairie, is much less abundant. Pronghorn habitat also changes with the season, so you can see how range, habitat, and seasonality, all interact to guide you to the best place at the best time.

A Pronghorn in southern Wyoming, first light.

Behavior

You may have particular behavior that you’d like to observe or photograph. Many bird species look their best, and are most active during the breeding season, but for some species, that season can be very, very short. Where I live in the interior of Alaska, the courtship period is extremely short, lasting only a few days to a couple of weeks depending on the species. Birds like the Horned Grebe are commonly found on small boreal forest ponds near my home, but they are most easily photographed during a couple of weeks in late May, when the males are setting up territories.

Resources

Thanks to the internet, most of the information you need to explore your target species is available right at your finger tips. In fact, they are so numerous, that there isn’t nearly enough space here to list them all, but I do want to make not of a few of my favorites:

• eBird:  This site, run by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology is a citizen science site where you can document your sightings of birds. While great for birders, it is also a useful tool for photographers. You can explore data here submitted by birders from across the country and world. The mapping function allows you to look, in very close detail, about where different species are found during the year.
• iNaturalist:  Though put together in a similar way to eBird, iNaturalist is not limited to birds. Here you can find sighting and identification information on plants, mammals, insects, birds and just about everything else.
• Field Guides:  Classic paper, or digital field guides are still one of the best sources of information on distribution and behavior of wildlife. I’ve got dozens in my collection, and I use them all.
• Experts:  You can outsource your research by hiring an expert guide to get you where you need to go. If you want to photograph bears or caribou in Alaska, or the wildebeest migration in Africa, there are people who can help you decide on the best time to do it, get you where you need to go, and even point your camera in the right direction for you. Local expertise is very valuable, and though it saves time, it costs money, and may not be as rewarding as learning about, then finding and photographing your target species on your own.

Ethics

Though a discussion of ethics in wildlife photography warrants a post of its own, I want to emphasize the importance of being respectful of the animals you are trying to photograph and the people with whom you share the view. Don’t disturb the animal, if it moves away, bolts, or flushes, you have gotten too close. Such impacts, when they occur again and again, can cause stress, low reproductive success, nest abandonment, or any number of other problems for wildlife. The animal’s welfare matters more than your image, so please, please, please be careful and respectful.

I take great pleasure in being a naturalist. I’d say I’m a naturalist first and foremost, and a photographer second. That might sound strange, but for me, the two go hand in hand. I find a greater understanding of the creatures I photograph leads to better images, and just as importantly a much more rewarding experience. To be a better wildlife photographer, put down the camera, and pick up a book.

Share this article.

11 Tips for Photographing Bears in Alaska

By: André Costantini 

Alaska is the only state in the country that’s home to three types of bears: the polar bear, the black bear, and the brown bear. It’s why photographers converge annually on the Last Frontier, hoping to document ursine activity in the bears’ natural habitats, in such locations as the Anan Wildlife Observatory, Katmai National Park, and Admiralty Island, home to one of the world’s highest density of brown bears. Read on for tips on photographing bears in Alaska while these magnificent creatures eat, play, and interact.

1. Pack light

To gain entry into sections of certain viewing areas that offer access to bear viewing, you’ll often have to take a seaplane. That means there may be weight restrictions, so limit your gear to one or two DSLRs or Mirrorless bodies with a couple of compact lenses. Add extra batteries, memory cards, any filters you like to use, and rain covers in case of inclement weather.

2. Make sure at least one of those lenses is a versatile zoom

You obviously want to stay a safe distance from the animals you’re photographing. The Tamron SP 150-600mm VC G2 lens is one such lens that offers such flexibility, with an extra-long reach. If you use that lens on a crop sensor camera, you’ll achieve even more effective magnification. Bird photographers often use a similar combination for that very reason.

3. Plan your trip for optimal bear-watching opportunities

The best times of the year for bear watching in Alaska are June through September. If you want the chance to photograph them catching salmon in the rivers, July and August are your best bets. That’s the peak of the salmon runs (when the salmon is sparse, bears will eat things like clams and grass instead).

4. Head out early, stay out a little later

Although you’ll likely be able to spot bears at any time of day, they tend to be out foraging for food early in the day and later in the evening. Those times of day also happen to coincide with the best natural lighting.
That said, Alaska, during the summer months, enjoys nearly 24-hour daylight. Between May and July, for example, some areas never get completely dark, even between sunset and sunrise. So, don’t expect traditional lighting conditions.

5. Respect the venue’s safety rules

Every park or preserve that features bears has basic guidelines to protect both the bears and the visitors. You’ll likely be required to stay a certain number of feet away from the bears. This means if the bears approach you and block your path, you’ll be subject to what’s known as a “bear jam.” You’ll effectively be stuck there until the bears decide to move. That’s okay – that gives you plenty of time to take more pictures.

6. Don’t feel you have to shoot in silence

In fact, the opposite is the case. While you don’t want to make super-loud noises that startle the bears, you do want to make enough of it, so the bears know you’re there at all times. It can be more alarming for the bears if you’re trying to be stealthy and then suddenly emerge. Some people will wear a bell attached to their knapsack, or just talk very loudly.

7. Get on the bears’ eye level

There’s something more intimate about a portrait in which you feel like you’re looking eye-to-eye with your subject. Crouch or kneel on the ground or viewing platform to get as close to that angle of view as you can.
If you’re out in a small boat, you’re practically at water level already, so if bears are frolicking nearby, you’re set.

8. Get a handle on your focusing

If the bears are on the move, shoot in AI Servo mode or AF-F (Nikon), Continuous Focus (Canon), Continuous AF (Sony), so that your focus continually adjusts as you’re tracking moving subjects.

9. Capture the bears interacting with each other

Part of what you want to accomplish when photographing wildlife is to tell their story. Highlighting a sow cuddling with her cubs or siblings tussling in the grass is a way to showcase their relationships and create emotive photos.

10. Be patient

Wildlife is unpredictable, and there’s no real way to tell when a real money shot, like a bear catching a salmon in the river, will emerge. But when bears are engaged in an activity, they’ll actually stay in the same place for a significant amount of time.
So, if you stick around, hunker down, and just keep taking pictures. You’ll be more likely to produce a bunch of keepers.

11. Prepare for the unexpected

Even if you time your visit for when the bears are expected to be active and the salmon flowing, it’s Mother Nature – things don’t always work out as planned.
The activity level is somewhat consistent, but it does vary from year to year. If you get there and the bears are a bust, it’s disappointing, but go to Plan B.
Photograph the amazing Alaska Peninsula landscapes, or keep an eye out for the region’s diverse bird population. Look to the dozens of other mammals in the area, including red foxes, porcupines, beavers, and otters instead.

I hope you find these 11 tips for photographing bears in Alaska tips helpful. If you have any other tips or bear photos you’d like to share, please do so in the comments section!

Share this article.

RAW Versus JPEG – Which one is right for you and why?

By: Simon Ringsmuth

Most cameras today can shoot pictures in one of two main formats: RAW versus JPEG. The debate about which format to use is as old as digital photography itself and the internet is rife with articles, blogs, videos, and seminars illustrating the differences between the formats as well as opinions regarding which one to use.
Ultimately the question of which is the correct choice becomes steeped in subjectivity. There is no single objective correct answer, which is a lesson I learned over the course of many years. Instead of asking which option is right, the real question should be which option is right for you.

Straight-out-of-camera JPEG file.

Differentiating between the formats

Understanding the difference between RAW and JPEG file formats is a bit tricky since both appear somewhat similar at first glance. Afterall, when you load either file type into Lightroom or another photo editor you see pretty much the same thing.
However, when you take a picture in RAW you are saving as much data as your camera sensor can possibly collect. Whereas a JPEG file discards some of the data in favor of creating an image that takes up less space on your memory card and is easy to share. With RAW files you gain a huge amount of flexibility in terms of editing the file, and a lot of photographers prefer this as a way to get the most out of their images.
RAW is somewhat comparable to analog film in that RAW files can be manipulated, massaged, and modified to bring to life details from dark areas, recover crystal-clear clouds from what you thought was an overexposed skyline, and improve images dramatically in almost every way.
JPEG files don’t offer nearly as much flexibility, but they do have some significant advantages in their own right. The most notable of which is a much smaller file size and ease of sharing, since JPEG files don’t need to be converted in a program like Lightroom, Photoshop, Luminar, etc.

It wasn’t RAW or JEPG that helped me get this photo. It was an understanding, developed from years 

of practice, of how light, aperture, focal length, and other parameters can be manipulated to create a 

compelling image.

The important thing to note is that neither format is inherently better than the other and each has its uses. To illustrate what I mean I’m going to share a bit from my own experience.

Starting from scratch

My own journey through the RAW versus JPEG continuum started shortly after I got serious about digital photography many years ago, in a manner not dissimilar from many photographers. When I got my first DSLR I didn’t know anything about RAW and instead fiddled with different JPEG settings in order to find a balance of quality and quantity.
I eventually settled on the Medium size and Medium compression so as to make sure I could take well over 4000 images before running out of space on my memory card. I had heard about the RAW setting but ignored it since it would only let me fit a couple hundred shots on my memory card which seemed silly compared to several thousand.

As months went by, I became intrigued with the flexibility offered by the RAW format despite the larger size of each image file. I learned to edit my pictures in Lightroom by changing White Balance, boosting the shadows, editing color filters in the black and white mode, and even applying Radial and Gradient filters.
I soon realized that the trade-off in file size was worth it because I could do so much more with my images in post-production. “Who wouldn’t want to shoot in RAW?” I asked myself. I also often engaged other aspiring photographers in the discussion of shooting RAW versus JPEG while believing that RAW was clearly the superior format.

Original picture, shot in RAW format.

Finished version after some editing in Lightroom. If the original was shot in JPG I never would have 

been able to get a final result like this.

It didn’t take much longer until I was shooting everything in RAW. My kids eating breakfast, my family vacations, formal portrait sessions, random nature shots of animals and leaves…you name it, I shot it in RAW. Shooting in JPEG, I told myself, was for suckers who didn’t know any better!
Each time I loaded yet another round of my RAW files into Lightroom (while getting something to drink and finding a place to put my feet up while the initial previews loaded) I knew that no matter what the pictures looked like I had the absolute best photo quality money could buy.
I was enamored with the RAW workflow and editing flexibility. Shadows too dark? No problem, just lighten them with a few sliders. White Balance a little off? Sky looking a bit too gray? Spots from dust on the lens? Too much noise from shooting at ISO 12,800? All these worries could be erased with a few clicks and sliders, and my images would be
instantlyslowly transformed from adequate to awesome.

Cracks in the facade

As the years went on I found myself learning, growing, and changing as a photographer, but ironically enjoying the editing process less and less. I recall the distinct and overwhelming feeling of photographic oppression settling in as I returned home from family trips only to load my RAW files into Lightroom and be faced with hundreds of minor edits to make on each one before I was satisfied with the results.
To combat this I made a develop custom preset that contained basic adjustments such as highlight/shadows, sharpening, and clarity and applied that to every single one of my pictures upon import.
Weeks would often go by before I would be ready to share my pictures because I was stuck in the rut of meticulous editing. Even a simple birthday party for my son’s friend turned into a month-long wait because I didn’t want to share any pictures unless they were adjusted to perfection. With a family and a full-time job, the act of tweaking my images became more of a burden than an enjoyment.

I did not like the idea of tweaking hundreds of RAW files just to enjoy pictures of my family.

What I came to realize after years of doing this was that I simply wasn’t interested in reaping the benefits of shooting RAW for my own personal photography. For client work, I continued to shoot RAW in order to make sure the end results were as good as they could possibly be.
But for nearly all of my own personal pictures, I got to a mental state where I simply didn’t care about editing each and every single picture. Occasionally I would make some cropping adjustments, but I realized I was pretty happy with the results I was getting straight out of my camera.
I didn’t dare shoot in JPEG though because Real Photographers Shoot RAW…or so I thought. I didn’t want to admit that RAW wasn’t really doing much for me, and I thought shooting JPEG was tantamount to admitting I didn’t know what I was doing. That I couldn’t handle the ropes of what it meant to be a true photographer, a true artist.

A revelation occurs

This state of confusion and self-doubt continued until late 2017 when I came across this video from Tony Northup. (Please scroll down to the bottom of this article.)

Watching that was somewhat of a revelation and helped me realize that I wasn’t any less of a photographer if I shot in anything but the RAW format. While there’s certainly something to be said for capturing images in the highest possible quality, there is also something to be said for speed and convenience – both areas in which JPEG excels.
What I have realized as I looked back over my images from the past several years is that I’ve gotten significantly better at the aspects of photography that shooting in RAW can’t fix at all. I’ve learned about composition, lighting, capturing emotions, when to shoot, how to ask for permission from strangers, and even how to share images online in a more effective manner.
I have learned to put my camera down and enjoy the moment, and I’ve learned that not everything in life needs to be photographed ad infinitum. RAW can’t help if my kids are out of focus or if my angles are bad, and I’ve learned to pay better attention to my light meter and exposure settings so I don’t need to recover highlights and shadows in post-production like I did when I started out.

Straight-out-of-camera JPEG.

Permission to be imperfect

More importantly, I have come to a place as a photographer where I don’t need each and every one of my pictures to be perfect. When I look through photo albums from when I was a kid almost none of the images are ideal. Many are a little under or over-exposed, the framing isn’t always right, and there’s plenty of red-eye issues that could use fixing thanks to my dad’s copious use of his external flash. But it’s the emotions, the feelings, the memories, and the people in those images that really matter the most to me.
When I scroll through images from 15 years ago when all my wife and I had was a cheesy little pocket camera, I don’t care that most of them are low-res JPEG files. It’s what’s in the pictures that matter, and nowadays I’d rather spend my time capturing good photos than editing my RAW files.

A photo of my friends and I on a high school trip to Disney World in 1997. It may not be perfect but 

I don’t need it to be. It’s the people and the memories I care about, not whether it was shot in RAW 

or JPEG. (Spoiler: it was shot on film!)

Enabling the JPEG option on my camera has felt like a breath of fresh air, and I’m back to enjoying photography in a way I haven’t done in years. I’m experimenting with my Fuji camera’s built-in ACROS and Classic Chrome film simulations, and I’ve even created what basically amounts to a Lightroom preset in my camera by adding some highlight/shadow/sharpening adjustments using the various menu options. It’s great fun, requires no extra Lightroom editing, and I’m back to enjoying photography the way I used to so many years ago.

Choose both

Above all else, it’s important to understand that shooting in RAW versus JPEG does not have to be a strict dichotomy. It’s taken many years, but I now feel comfortable knowing when to use RAW, when to use JPEG, and understanding the benefits and drawbacks of each. Even though I mostly shoot JPEG for casual snapshots I’ll occasionally switch over to RAW if I think the situation demands it.

I chose to use RAW instead of JPEG for this snapshot because I knew I would have to deal with some 

bright highlights and dark shadows, and I’d be able to finesse the image in Lightroom to get it how I 

wanted if I shot RAW.

Finding a solution that works for you

The reason there is no answer to the question of whether to use RAW or JPEG is that every photographer must figure out his or her own approach. For me, shooting JPG is just fine in most situations. One could argue that I’m not getting as much out of my images as I could be, and perhaps that is indeed true.
But if using RAW causes me to dread the process of editing and abate my photography altogether then I would say shooting RAW actually results in me getting less out of my photos than I could be if I were using JPEG.

When doing formal sessions for clients I always use RAW even if I think I might not need it. It’s a 

safety net that has come in handy far too often.

I should also note that many cameras can offer the best of both worlds by letting you shoot in RAW+JPEG mode. If you like the JPEG file, great! And if not, you have the RAW file which you can edit to your heart’s content. If you’re on the fence this might be an option to consider, but beware that it will fill up your memory cards much faster than you might realize.
As I close I want to offer one final piece of advice, or rather, reiterate a point I hinted at earlier. Don’t let anyone tell you that your method, approach or viewpoint is not valid. If you like RAW, great! Go ahead and use it. If you prefer JPEG, you are no less of a photographer than someone who swears by RAW.
I would recommend learning as much as you can and experimenting with available options so you can make an informed decision. But at the end of the day, if you like the results you’re getting from your approach then, by all means, go ahead and do it. Now stop reading, get off the internet, pick up your camera, and go out to take some photos!

Share this article.

Raw vs JPG: Image Quality vs Speed, when to use each

Is Shooting RAW+JPEG the Best of Both Worlds?

By: Jim Hamel  

For a long time in photography, there has been somewhat of a debate between shooting in RAW versus JPEG. Well, maybe debate is the wrong word. Usually, it is a matter of experienced photographers encouraging beginners to start shooting in RAW and stop shooting JPEG. There isn’t much question that RAW files are superior. Those who don’t edit their files probably don’t really see the point of RAW files though. Therefore, there are plenty of people who shoot both RAW+JPEG

Usually, this question gets presented as an either/or proposition. In other words, you have to make a decision, looking at the pros and cons of shooting RAW files and JPEGs. But if you could have the advantages of both, however, wouldn’t that be the way to go? You can, actually!
Take a look at your camera’s Quality or Image Quality setting in the menu. Most cameras will allow you to set you to put that setting on both RAW and JPEG. By doing so, aren’t you getting the best of both worlds?
Let’s take a look. But first, let’s review the advantages of RAW files versus JPEGs.

RAW+JPEG settings on Canon system.

JPEGs

When you take a picture, your camera is actually taking the data that it receives from the image sensor and creating a file. In the early days of digital, a group of experts got together and agreed on a file format everyone could use. It is called JPEG and stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group. The idea is that everyone would use the same format and thus it would be easily shareable. And you know what? That has worked out pretty well. JPEGs are more or less ubiquitous. If you just pick up your camera and start shooting, you are creating JPEGs. It is the default of virtually every camera. It is also the format of virtually every picture you see online.
But when your camera creates a JPEG, a few things happen. The first is that the camera compresses the picture data so that the file size is smaller. A JPEG will only use about a quarter of the data that your camera captures. That means that a large chunk of data is actually discarded. Some of that is color data, which is done by reducing the number of available colors (there are still a lot of colors available in JPEGs though). Where you’ll see the biggest impact is in the highlights and shadows, where some detail may be lost.
In addition, the camera will add some processing to the picture. The camera manufacturers know that you want your pictures coming out of the camera looking sharp and colorful. Therefore, they will add some effects, like sharpness, contrast, and saturation to them at the same time that the JPEG file is being created. That is nice in that the pictures generally do look at little better, but the downside is that you aren’t in control of the process.
And that brings us to RAW files.

The RAW advantage

In most cameras, you can go into the menu and change the file format to something called RAW. No, there isn’t really some sort of universal file format called RAW. Rather, each camera has its own way of bundling the data that it receives from the image sensor when you take the picture and creating its own proprietary file (NEF for Nikon, CRW or CR2 for Canon, RAF for Fuji, etc.), which is called a RAW file. Right away, you can see an issue with this, in that these files are not easily shareable. In addition, these files are huge, typically 3-4 times the size of JPEGs.
So why does nearly everyone recommend shooting RAW then? Because they are simply superior files. Whereas JPEGs discard data in order to create a smaller file size, RAW files preserve all of that data. That means you keep all the color data, and you preserve everything you can in the way of highlight and shadow detail.
In addition, whereas the camera adds processing when it creates JPEGs, that doesn’t happen when you create RAW files. That means you are in control of the process. You can add whatever level of sharpness, contrast, and saturation (and other controls) you want. The camera isn’t making those decisions for you.
Sure, these files are bigger, but they are way better. Further, you can always create a JPEG from your RAW file later, which you can use to share online while still preserving all the underlying data of the RAW file.

RAW+JPEG in the Sony system.

Shooting both RAW files and JPEGs

So RAW files are the way to go, right? I mean, you are preserving all that color data and highlight and shadow detail. And you are in full control of the processing of your picture. But what about if you are not going to process your photos at all? Wouldn’t it make sense to then shoot JPEG since it is the file that looks best coming out of the camera? Or what if you need to send the photo from your camera right away?
Why not take both? Your camera will likely have a setting allowing you to do both so that every time you take a picture the camera is creating a RAW file and a JPEG. That would allow you to have all the advantages of both file types. How might that benefit you? Here are a few ways I see:

• You can use a JPEG immediately: First of all, you can use JPEGs immediately.  Let’s say you have Wifi in your camera or want to otherwise share the photo immediately. JPEGs make sense for this. RAW files don’t. They aren’t easily shareable and they don’t look the best coming out of the camera anyway.
• Future-proofs the photo: What if you are creating RAW files with your Canon camera and in 10 years Canon goes out of business? Will your RAW files lose support over time? This seems unlikely, but it is enough of an issue that Adobe has been pushing its own cross-platform solution called DNG (digital negative). However, if you have a JPEG, this will never be an issue. Everyone is shooting JPEGs and they aren’t going anywhere.
• You can see how the camera processes: If you have a JPEG sitting next to your RAW file on your computer, you can see how your camera decided to process your photo. In other words, you can see how much sharpening, contrast, and saturation was added and, if you like it, mimic that effect when you do your own processing. This can be helpful when you are just starting out and trying to decide how much processing to add to your photos.
• LCD preview: When you look at a photo on your LCD, you are seeing the JPEG version of your photo. You can add different processing via the Pictures Styles. That includes things like Black and White. So if you want to see effects while maintaining the integrity of the RAW file, then taking both can be beneficial.

Why not shoot only RAW?

But wait a second, you might think. Surely these are really minor advantages. Why bother with all that? Why not just use the RAW file?
Yes, these are really minor advantages, but at the same time, what is the cost? Virtually nothing. Over time, data has gotten cheaper and cheaper. Adding a JPEG costs virtually nothing. Memory cards these days hold hundreds or even thousands of pictures, and they are now pretty cheap. You can now get a 64GB card for about $35. You can get hard drives that store terabytes of data for under $100. These prices continue to come down as well. Compared to the RAW files you are shooting, the JPEG just takes up a tiny bit of data. So while I agree that adding the JPEG doesn’t add a lot, it also doesn’t cost a lot.
There is one other aspect I haven’t mentioned though and that is speed. Remember that your camera has to write all this data to your card. If you are just taking a few pictures at a time (or one at a time), this will not be a factor. But if you are someone shooting sports or wildlife with a serious need for the maximum frames per second, then there will be an additional cost. The time to write the additional file will slow you down a little bit. In that context, I could definitely see foregoing the extra file. But for most of us, this won’t apply.

Why not shoot just JPEG?

At the same time, there are some photographers who will think to themselves, “Well, I don’t process my pictures, so I might as well just shoot JPEGs to get the best looking file I can straight out of the camera.” To those that don’t process their pictures, I would first say, “You should be.” You don’t need to make dramatic changes or make them look surreal, but you can do wonders with some tweaks.
In any case, just because you don’t do any processing of your pictures now doesn’t mean you won’t ever process your pictures. In a year or two, you might change your mind. When that happens, you don’t want to be kicking yourself for not having obtained the best files possible.

Best of both worlds

I have been shooting RAW+JPEG for several years now. Do I actually use the JPEGs? Admittedly, almost never. I always edit the RAW files and usually don’t touch the JPEGs. As mentioned, however, the JPEGs don’t cost me anything so I am sticking with this setting. In addition, there were few times when I was on the road and wanted to send photos straight from my camera so having the JPEG turned out to be useful.
So that’s how it works for me. But ultimately the decision on what type of files you want to create is up to you. What do you think? Is shooting RAW+JPEG the best of both worlds of a waste of space?

Share this article.

HEIF Files: Do They Mean the End of the JPEG Format?

By: Jaymes Dempsey

During a recent meeting about the recently announced Canon 1D X Mark III with Digital Camera World, Canon product intelligence specialist David Parry dropped a bombshell:
“We’ve moved on to HEIF files,” Parry said.
While Canon later walked back the statement, claiming that they “have no plans to abandon JPEGs,” but instead wish to “give users a new image option” in the Canon 1D X Mark III, the comment got plenty of people talking. And the reason is clear: If Canon is adopting HEIF files alongside its JPEGs, might we soon see the company scrap JPEGs entirely? And what about Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, and Olympus?
In other words, does Canon’s move to HEIF files signal the end of JPEGs?
For photographers who have been using JPEGs for decades, this might come as a shock. While HEIF files have been in the media for the past couple of years, ever since Apple added them to their iOS devices and Macs, no major camera manufacturer has adopted HEIF files – until now.
And while some users may dismiss HEIF files as another overhyped “JPEG killer” which will disappear in a few years, there is reason to believe that HEIF files are here to stay.
To understand why, let’s take a closer look at HEIF files and what they offer over JPEGs.

HEIF files vs JPEGs

The biggest difference between HEIF files and JPEGs is their respective file sizes:
JPEGs are small, but HEIF files are tiny.
In fact, HEIF files are often billed as half the size of JPEGs, but with the same (or better) quality. This means that you can store far more HEIF files on a device than you can JPEGs, without a loss in quality.
How is this possible?
Simply put, compression has improved. JPEG files debuted way back in the 1990s, whereas HEIF is a relatively new image file format. So when it comes to compression, what a JPEG can do, a HEIF file can do better.
And this results in smaller files with limited quality loss.
Compression isn’t the only area where HEIF files shine. HEIF files can also store more color information than JPEGs, which means that your HEIF photos will look better, and can avoid the unpleasant color-banding effects that sometimes come with JPEGs.
And what about compatibility? Surely JPEGs are far more established than HEIF files, given their universal popularity?
Back in 2017, when Apple adopted HEIF files, this was a real discussion. Some applications couldn’t deal with HEIF files, and that was a problem.
But now, two years later…
HEIF files can be used by pretty much any program you’d need. The compatibility issues are gone, and we’re left with a file format that just seems all-around superior to JPEGs.
So while JPEGs are the file format of the present and the past, HEIF files are likely the format of the future.
Now I’d like to know your thoughts:
Do you think HEIF files will replace JPEGs? And how do you feel about this change? Share your thoughts in the comments below! And respond to our poll regarding whether you’re happy about the shift to HEIF files: 

Do you think HEIF files will replace JPEG files?

 

Share this article.