Did I post-processed a RAW file or is this a camera-made JPEG? Does it matter?
There’s a debate in the photographic community that I get really tired of: RAW vs. JPEG. Most of the time, what I find is RAW shooters telling JPEG shooters that they shouldn’t shoot JPEGs for one reason or another. Usually there’s name-calling or a put-down thrown in or a condescending tone. Sometimes it’s the other way around, although I find that to be much more rare. Here’s my opinion: find what works best for you and your photography, and do that.
I wasn’t intending to write this post today, but over the last few days I’ve seen a number of articles and videos that tell me why RAW is really remarkable and JPEGs are just junk. Some make a reasonable argument, while others are absolutely ridiculous. Earlier today I watched a video that falls into the latter category, and that’s why I’m writing this.
Here’s the deal: it wasn’t very long ago that camera makers across all brands did a poor job at in-camera JPEGs. Some were better than others, but by-and-large none of them were great. RAW made sense, since you were going to be editing your pictures. But over the last decade every camera brand has improved their camera’s JPEGs, and some, like Fujifilm, have really made massive strides in this department. Today’s camera-made JPEGs are nothing like they were 10 years ago. Fujifilm’s JPEGs can look like post-processed RAW images, or even film-like. If you plan to edit your pictures, RAW is your best bet. If you don’t want to edit your pictures (or only lightly edit), you can achieve some great looks right out of camera. Neither option is the “right” or “wrong” way, just different means to an end, which is a finished photograph that you’re happy with.
Shoot RAW if that’s what you want to do. Shoot JPEG if that’s what you want to do. One method is not inherently better than the other. One way might be right for you, but wrong for another. You might find that you use both, just depending on the situation. While I almost always shoot JPEG, I do also still shoot RAW sometimes (it’s helpful for developing JPEG recipes). I used to shoot RAW exclusively once upon a time, but I don’t anymore.
RAW vs. JPEG is a tired debate. You don’t need to justify with strangers why you choose one over the other. I don’t want to hear why I’m “wrong” for shooting JPEGs. Don’t try to convince me that RAW is better. I won’t try to convince you to abandon RAW and shoot JPEG only. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, and there is a time and place for both. I would encourage you, if you are unsure whether to shoot RAW or JPEG, to try both for a time, and see which you prefer. There isn’t one right path. The debate needs to end—find what works best for you and your photography, and do that!
Funny. The topic keeps coming up for me today!
Well, I hope that I added something positive to the topic, and not negative.
With the easiness of shooting hundreds or thousands of photographs having raw is just quite expensive in time. Less expensive is to choose a brand with colors one find nicer. In my case Fujifilm and Canon. But well, it is not a needed debate today but some people need to debate when there is spare time : )
That’s true. Some people debate simply to debate. Thanks for the input!
Yes, the JPEGs are so standard that very few people need other formats. With Fujifilm cameras the JPEGs are of very high quality. It comes to the decision whether You like the look You can get straight out of Your camera or You want different look that RAW processing offers. In my case for some uses the SOOC image is the best option (people photograps taken with ProNeg High film simulation) but I mostly want to play with the photos later in Capture One (as that happens to be part of my hobby) so I almost always shoot RAW. I have also found that color photography with SOOC files work me better than B&W, I just prefer my own made B&W looks over the looks I can get SOOC.
Definitely, if you want a look you can’t get out of camera, RAW is likely the best option for you. Or if you simply enjoy RAW editing. There are a number of reasons why one might use RAW.
I shoot in both RAW & JPEG and uses FUJIFILM XRaw for edit. I use Capture One for cropping, and keystone corrections if necessary.
X RAW Studio is an interesting addition to this discussion because it’s kind of both worlds at once.
I just use both (jpg fine + RAW)
Then I have all options. End of discussion. Period
Both formats have advantages both disadvantages.
For professional printing matters JPGs are not acceptable (at least in my fields)
On my D850 I shoot only raw and the grading happens in Capture One
There are pros who shoot JPEG and pros who use RAW, kind of depends on the field and personal preferences. As you said, there are advantages and disadvantages to both, and shooting RAW+JPEG allows you to take advantage of each’s strengths. It’s a solid strategy.
Agree 100%. Just shoot RAW + JPEG. If the jpeg is good then job done, else fiddle with the raw.
Totally agree with you Ritchie. This must end but i fear it never will haha
When i am impressed by a beautiful image, i don’t go questioning if it’s a raw file or not… I’d say – you’ve captured an amazing moment or fantastic light. Because it’s a great picture and i wouldn’t change my mind if you tell ke that it’s actually a Jpeg…
Exactly! Nobody cares how an image was captured when viewing it, they only care what the picture speaks to them, how it moves them.
I think RAW is so favourably looked upon because it gives the feeling that you’re shooting “professionally”. A lot of photographers are proud of how much time they spend editing on raw files; common points of contention are over the flexibility of a sensor’s raws, whether lenses are sharp across the frame over every aperture etc. It strikes me that so many of these photographers and reviewers actually have lacklustre, uninspired images.
I think photographers who don’t have a good understanding of the artistic aspects of photography will try to distinguish themselves with the technical aspects, which are unambiguous and easier to learn. Not to say that editing and gear are unimportant in an image, it’s just so much less interesting seeing the pedantic and needless debating over it on the internet.
I have noticed that, within the photographic community, those who speak the most and loudest about gear specs often capture rather mediocre pictures. I don’t really have much room here to judge, but it’s obvious to even casual observers.
I definitely see people, and I have been guilty of this myself, speaking proudly of the hours spent editing (or, in the case of JPEG shooters, the hours not spent editing). Either way, that pride perpetuates this argument, at least a little. I think it’s better to be helpful than prideful, and these debates are more about pride than helpfulness.
Time and quantity, and because I’m not professional.
But many have reported that some of fuji’s in camera processing or simulations are preferred to a software version. Particularly film simulations.
I’d have less control shooting film so I don’t mind, it’s like I’ve been given a film-like experience but shoot so much more and get a lot more usable images. I sometimes have Raw as hard drive filler, sometimes for a ‘project’ then find it frankly easier to start with jpeg.
I can’t get my head around my x-e1 RAW converter though, as there is no preview, so adjustments are less controlled than setting it pre-jpeg, but that would be useful. Other than setting to a stock ‘recipe’, but doing shadow/highlight and colour correction.
I also find that shooting JPEGs is a film-like experience. Not exactly, obviously. RAW can be a film-like experience, too, with the digital “darkroom”, but for me, the hours spent in a darkroom is not missed. The small of the chemicals, yes. The time, no.
Ritchie, my opinion is that shooting in JPG can be compared with shooting film. You do not have so much chances for post-processing. JPG shooting requires more preparation and detailed knowledge of camera settings for getting result to your taste. I think, that you with your Recipes are of big help to the community following you. The problem I have now is that I like more Recipes and do not know which one to use in what situation or condition:-))) In this case I am still shooting RAW +JPG, to have possibility to jump between them in Fuji X-RAW studio. For now, we will see later.
I agree that shooting JPEG recipes can be a film-like experience. I hope to create more articles to help people understand when might be a good situation to choose one recipe over the others.
Hi Ritchie, I agree with you 100%. I believe there are advantages to shooting RAW files at times. I was a Nikon shooter since 1982 and was familiar with how my cameras rendered colors, highlights and shadows and I could most always get the picture I wanted shooting JPEGs, but on occasion I would shoot JPEG+RAW. The last Nikon I owned, a D7200 I always shot JPEGS and could do some light edits to get the outcome I was looking for.
Having said all that, now that I switched to Fuji, I do shoot RAW+JPEG, just because I am not as familiar with the camera because it is new to me. One of the reasons I switched to Fuji, are the SOOC JPEG’s it produces. As of today, I have not used any of the RAW files because the JPEG’s have been so good. In the end we shoot RAW to get the final result the Fuji JPEG’s already give us.
In all honesty at this point in my life, I don’t want to spend too much time editing, I got my fill in the darkroom and in the early days of digital and Photoshop. There is just something to be said with shooting and getting the results you want right out of the camera. It is a silly debate, and I think as you said, it is really becoming a moot point.
Thank you for the input! I appreciate your perspective. I think Fujifilm JPEGs are great, and that’s my preference, but I certainly understand when it’s not someone else’s. Even in my process, there’s a time and place for RAW. Just do what works for you, and the rest is, as you said, a moot point.
I completely agree with this article, and up until relatively recently I was one of those RAW crusaders. My first real digital photography masterclass was 12 years ago. I remember how the jpg’s looked like total junk, the settings would have to be changed for just about every picture if you wanted good results… So I totally dismissed in camera conversion until it could convince me otherwise. Fast forward to about 2 years ago and I was giving my own masterclass and a guy had an xt2 with him. The SOOC results were much more convincing and interesting than they were all those years ago!
I’ve recently pulled the trigger on my own xt4 and while I’m still trying to nail my settings for most situations, I shoot both. Half the time I’m happy with the SOOC, the other half I have to mess with the raw. I’m finding myself rethinking my style since I got the XT4 to avoid raw processing as much as I can.
Thank you! I appreciate this comment! I’ve done so much RAW editing over the years. When I discovered, oh, about three and a half years ago, that Fujifilm’s JPEGs were actually really good, it changed my approach. Not editing has saved me so much time while simultaneously making me more productive, it’s been truly amazing. A game-changer for me, for sure.
I have Fujifilm’s X-Raw software and Capture One 20 for RAW files. Got Capture One 20 when it was on sale for a fantastic price with a $25 gift card too.
I just bought my Fujifilm X-T4 a couple of weeks ago, so I’m learning how to use the camera right now. I’m shooting RAW + Fine JPG. I want to shoot with both just in case I ever want to change something with the RAW file and output a new JPG file.
As for me, I don’t get the RAW vs. JPG hate. :-/
Using both is a very sensible approach. You can use whichever one makes the most sense at that moment. X RAW Studio is kind of in-between shooting RAW and JPEG, which is interesting. Whatever works for you, that’s what you should do. I appreciate the input!
Hello Ritchie, it is always enriching and tremendously inspiring to read your posts (so much so that I am a brand new owner of an X100V!). Regarding this issue, I would like to know in what image size you capture your jpeg, I was thinking of going down from 26 to 13mp but I do not know to what extent this will affect the image quality. Having owned the original X100, its venerable 12mp was never a problem for me. Always attentive to your advice. Big hug!
I always shoot Large, but if you aren’t going to make a big print, it’s really overkill. Medium or even Small will be sufficient for most pictures. Large only matters if you plan on printing larger than 16” x 24”. I think Medium would be fine for 16” x 24” but that’s probably pushing it for Small. I hope this helps !
Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I think I’ll keep shooting in L considering future prints and because with the 128gb card that I bought for the camera I don’t think I’m going to have any storage problems 🙂
Best regards!
Hey.
Been there. Goin back and forth, and in between (RAW + JPEG). Now, I only shoot RAW. For one simple reason: because, even if the JPEGs are very good indeed, I don’t want to bother switching from one simulation to another. And I’ve realized that I prefered keeping my JPEGs as neutral as possible so that I could get the best out of them in post-process. Last but not least, what I can achieve with a RAW far surpasses what I can pull with a JPEG, not even mentioning the fact that I can endless different results from a RAW file. Now, it’s true that sometimes the SOOC JPEG is so good that it’s difficult to match it from a RAW. Using VSCO in LR makes a difference of course, as there are many options. Too many in fact. It’s all very personal of course. And in the end, what matters is to be happy with your photos. I wente from being a Canon RAW shooter to a Fuji RAW shooter. In the end I’m a RAW shooter. 🙂
P.
Definitely use what works for you!
For me, I get a picture that I like sooc that requires no editing. It’s finished the moment it’s written to the card. Saves me so much time and makes me much more productive.
That’s what works for me, but each person is different. It’s more important to do whatever it is that works for you.
I am rather late to add my thoughts to this discussion but currently I seem to have a lot of surplus time— and the topic is one on which I have pondered for a long time. To be taken somewhat seriously with my opinion I think I should mention my qualifications— because when I read opinion articles I am often unsure as to specifics of other writers professional backgrounds.
Initially my professional career started when I was offered a staff photographer position for an international sports magazine. This I followed up later with a university professorship, where for 30 years I taught photography in a university school of fine art.
University career advancement almost universally requires evidence of recognized professional activity in one’s area of specialization— and my present resume entries include reference to 219 national and international museum acquisitions of 1,450+ of my photographs for their permanent collections in 45 states, Washington, DC, Australia, Canada, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Switzerland. Many of these institutional collection inclusions occurred during my tenure in the classroom. Examples of my work, both solo and in group shows, have also be exhibited in approximately 305 regional, national, and international institutional and private art gallery venues.
After decades of film processing I also joined the digital parade in 2004, and initially I shot RAW exclusively. When I tried RAW + jpeg, perhaps 15 or more years ago, I realized that I could readily open jpegs in Adobe Photoshops raw processing space and therein easily make color temperature adjustments, when I deemed it necessary. After that discovery I completely abandoned RAW capture for jpegs— and considering the relative ease with which I can generate “museum quality” prints I personally see no reason whatsoever to rely on RAW processing to generate images that museum curators might consider to be labeled “museum quality”.
Additionally, all of my digital photographs that have been magazine reproduced have been generated from original jpgs, or from jpegs which have been converted to tiff format.
I have always been tempted by new photographic tools and have all too frequently replaced perfectly functional equipment for tupdated technology, and this gear acquisition syndrome for me carries over to the notion that certain processing technologies are superior to others. In the not too distant past I added Fuji to my Sony A7RIII and subscribed to a raw and jpeg processor outside of the PS I am so familiar with. I did like the Fuji jpegs but was not totally convinced that the raw files were somehow better. Long story shortened— I traded the Fuji for a Sony A7III as my backup device, and continue to shoot jpegs that I adjust in Photoshop.
The RAW vs jpeg issue seems to me to be a personal choice much like the different flavors of automobiles in my neighbors garages— they all get us to our desired destination. Oddly, none of my friends that derive their income from photography have ever looked at my prints and asked whether they were shot as jpegs or with a raw setting.
What matters is if it works for you and your photography. That’s what’s important. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
This is a wonderful comment. I too aim at printing museum or gallery quality images, and I am worried about whether or not the fujifilm jpegs can be printed to that standard. I can print a museum quality image with a jpeg file, but it begins its life as a raw file tweaked in LR and PS. Can the fujifilm jpegs from x-raw studio with tweaks in LR hold up to the museum quality standard? I’m asking!
I have had images in a gallery once, but never a museum. I don’t know what the “museum quality standard” is, but there’s at least one photographer whose edited JPEGs from his iPhone are in an art museum (in London, I believe… additionally, I have seen another exhibit in Scottsdale from a different photographer), so whatever the “standard” is, I would assume yes. I say that without any firsthand experience, but I will add: I have printed 2’ x 3’ from X-Trans III & IV cameras using various recipes, and they looked quite good. Perhaps it depends on the specific museum, and probably more so how compelling the picture is. I’m sorry that I am not more helpful.
Also late to the show. Im a bit new to all this. But what if Im not sure whether I want the final image to be black and white or color? Can you convert a color jpeg to black and white, and still look good. Or maybe this means i need raw + jpeg..
Color and B&W are so different. To capture the best picture, it’s often best to consider if it should be color or monochrome prior to exposure, and not leave it to later. That’s my opinion, anyway. If you shoot RAW + JPEG you do have the flexibility to decide later, but I’d definitely encourage you to consider ahead of time if it will be color or B&W so that you can figure out how to best include the color or the tones in the frame.
So what i’m doing is not of the above.
I shoot JPEG but nevertheless i make an extensive processing in Silver EFEX (vignette, grain, curves, selective brush etc.).
That’s my way and it works for me.
Silver Efex is a great program. I used to use it frequently. Thanks for the input!