RAW vs JPEG

Why do some people hate Fujifilm Recipes?

Posted on by Ritchie Roesch

Roaring Fork – Great Smoky Mountains NP, TN – Fujifilm X-E5 – Vivid Velvia

Some people really hate Fujifilm Recipes. Some people even loathe the mere idea of Recipes. Someone once told me that I’m doing much harm to photography by creating and publishing Film Simulation Recipes and encouraging people to use them. Why is it even slightly controversial? What explains the hate?

I don’t have any definitive answers, but my best guess is that most of it stems from the old rule-of-thumb that if you’re a serious photographer, you must shoot RAW. There was a time when RAW really was necessary because cameras sensors were less capable and JPEG engines were not nearly as good. This was especially true in the early days of digital photography, becoming less and less true as the years went on and technology advanced. Some brands have better JPEG output than others, and us Fujifilm photographers are especially spoiled. While you-must-shoot-RAW is generally outdated advice, a lot of people still hold onto it, and preach it as if it’s still gospel truth. For me, relying on camera-made JPEGs changed my life (no hyperbole), by making photography more enjoyable while simultaneously increasing my photographic productivity while simultaneously taking up less of my time that could then be devoted to other things (a win-win-win).

Related closely to the previous paragraph, I think there’s also a bit of gatekeeping. There are some who insist that there’s only one “right” way to do photography, which incidentally is whatever way they do it. All other methods are wrong. Don’t ever listen to anyone who says such things. You can do photography however you want, which can vary dramatically from person-to-person. There’s no right or wrong format, only what works best for each person, which could be RAW, or JPEG, or RAW+JPEG, or something else entirely, or sometimes one thing and other times a different thing.

Corn Crib – Great Smokey Mountain NP, TN – Fujifilm X-T5 – Classic Amber

There’s also a misconception that JPEGs are no good. It’s true that if you want to edit your pictures, JPEGs have far less latitude than RAW; however, if you aren’t editing or only lightly editing, that argument falls flat. In fact, most RAW shooters export their finished edited photos as (wait for it…) JPEGs. So it’s not so much that JPEGs are bad, it’s that they’re not nearly as flexible if you plan to extensively edit—if you’re not editing (or only lightly editing), there’s really no difference between Lightroom producing a JPEG and your camera doing so.

Some people believe that real photography involves two steps: capturing and editing (or darkroom, in the film days). Both steps are equally critical. They’ll tell you that Ansel Adams—the darkroom master himself—proved that two-step photography is essential; however, this ignores that Adams was a big fan of Polaroid photography (he wrote a whole book about it), and even coined the term one-step photography, which he said was “revolutionary” for both professional and amateur photographers. Using Recipes on Fujifilm cameras is a modern day version of one-step photography, where the second step—the editing step—is no longer necessary to achieve great results.

But, but… for best results, you must edit, right? Sometimes, perhaps; other times, not so much. It really depends. I have seen some extraordinary results straight-out-of-camera that you’d never guess were unedited. I’ve seen some camera-made JPEGs that look better than most people’s RAW edits. But it all depends. Sometimes editing a RAW file will produce results that the in-camera JPEG processor isn’t capable of. Either way, it doesn’t matter to those viewing the pictures, who don’t care how a picture was created. The only thing that matters is whether the photographer’s vision was conveyed, and, for a lot of people, Recipes do just that, and for others, it doesn’t. Some dismiss Recipes without even trying them because they assume they’re not good, but maybe they’d change their minds if they gave them a chance.

Joshua Tree Hotel – Kingman, AZ – Fujifilm GFX100RF – Agfa Ultra 100 v2

The analog equivalency of Recipes are color reversal (slide) film, and the equivalency of RAW are negative emulsions; back in the film days, nobody looked down on those who shot slides as less-than, and nobody thought those who shot negatives were better—it was simply different approaches, each with advantages and disadvantages. The tools are different, but the intent is similar. You choose the one that best delivers the desired results.

Lastly, there are some who would say that Fujifilm Recipes are gimmicks, just shortcuts for lazy photographers. They keep people from learning the fundamentals. But Recipes don’t replace knowledge; they reward it. Knowing when a Recipe will do well, how light interacts with it, and when to switch or season-to-taste, takes experience and understanding. It takes more thought and effort while in-the-field to get the most out of them. Just like film, a Recipe won’t save a bad exposure or poor composition. It simply gives you a distinct palette to work within. Nothing lazy or gimmicky about that, just a divergent approach that’s more similar to classic analog photography.

I don’t believe that the majority of the criticisms around Fujifilm Recipes has anything to do with image quality, but about philosophy. Recipes challenge the idea that photography must be software-dependent, requiring the “right” post-processing skills, and a lot of time at a computer. If that isn’t necessary, it might make some feel uncomfortable because their identity as a photographer is closely tied to those things. If editing isn’t actually necessary, and half of your picture quality and aesthetic is determined by the second step, that can perhaps feel threatening and/or distressing, which explains the excessive negativity and combativeness. Then again, not everything is for every person, and that’s perfectly ok. Different strokes for different folks. There’s no right or wrong way to do photography, only whatever it is that works for you personally, which might look very different for each of us. If it’s Fujifilm cameras and Film Simulation Recipes, awesome! If it’s something else, that’s great. Maybe it’s a combination of things, just depending on the situation or your mood. As long as you’ve discovered and are happy with whatever it is, that’s all that matters, and the the naysayers’ words are meaningless.

Just Learn to Shoot & Edit RAW (say the gatekeepers)

Posted on by Ritchie Roesch

Fire, Truck – Lordsburg, NM – Fujifilm GFX100S II – 1970’s Summer Recipe

There’s a frustrating comment I receive every now and then. It’s been going on for years and years—pretty much since I started making Film Simulation Recipes—and it continues to this very day. It goes something like this: “If you just learned to edit RAW, you wouldn’t need Recipes.” It can be said many different ways, but that’s always the gist of it. Sometimes it’s stated a bit nicer with a beating around the bush, and sometimes it’s said more harshly, occasionally with swearing. I’ve even been told once that I’m doing much harm to photography. Someone even threatened me physically, should they ever see me on the streets.

All of that is crazy wild. It’s bananas. Did Edwin Land get this reaction with the Polaroid? Maybe, I don’t know. It just seems like a weird response to someone else’s personal workflow choice. It’s gatekeeping.

Horsetail Falls from Bridge – Columbia River Gorge, OR – Fujifilm X100V – Improved Velvia Recipe

Gatekeeping, which says that only photography done the “right” way is correct and all other methods are incorrect, is a big problem. To be clear: there’s no right or wrong way to do photography, only whatever works for you personally. Anybody who says otherwise is flat out wrong, and couldn’t be more wrong. But there are, unfortunately, many people who will tell you that photography must be done a certain way or else it’s less legitimate. There are a several reasons why people gate keep, so let’s look at some.

Photography is deeply personal, and many people tie their identity to how “skilled” they think they are. When someone else succeeds with a different method—shooting JPEGs, iPhone photography, etc.—it threatens the fragile belief that their way is the only legitimate path. It’s a defensive shield: If you do it differently and are successful, then my choices—and hence myself—might be less special.

Pool Remnant – Rodanthe, NC – Fujifilm GFX100S II – Kodak Tri-X 400 Recipe

Kind of similarly, people who learn a lot can mistake knowledge for superiority. You’re doing it wrong is a shortcut to feeling important. Unfortunately, this kills community. You see it all over the place in forums and comment sections of many websites. This is also used by trolls, who may think they’re knowledgable while oftentimes being quite ignorant.

Photography has a long, technical history. Many photographers were taught rigid rules, such as shoot RAW, use full frame, manual-mode is the only real mode, rule-of-thirds, sunny 16, and many, many more. These types of rules evolve over decades, but they always seem to exist. They serve a purpose: give structure to those early in their journey; however, over time, these types of rules tend to harden into what some believe to be absolute truths. Instead of guidelines that helped for a time, they become laws that must be followed. But, remember, in art rules are meant to be broken.

Barn by the Tetons – Grand Teton NP, WY – Fujifilm X-E1 – RAW edit from 2016

Photography used to be expensive, slow, and technical, which meant that only some people were photographers, and most were not. Now everyone has a camera in their pocket, and everybody’s making pictures. For some, that democratization feels like a loss of status. Gatekeeping is a way of preserving a hierarchy that no longer naturally exists. I’m a real photographer because I do it this way, and you’re not because you don’t. It’s a game of king-of-the-hill, except nobody else is playing.

Some photographers confuse process with vision. They think creativity comes from the mechanical steps—RAW workflow, layers and curves, editing rituals—rather than from seeing the world in a certain way. When someone simplifies the process, it feels like “cheating” to them. In the end, what matters is if the photo fulfills the photographer’s vision, not what specific steps it took to get there.

McWay Falls View – Big Sur, CA – Sigma DP2 Merrill – RAW edit from 2014

Gatekeeping in photography is almost always born from fear—fear of losing relevance, fear of being wrong, fear of being overshadowed, fear of loss of control, fear of competition, etc.. Creativity, on the other hand, comes from curiosity, play, and the freedom to break rules—rules that gatekeepers cling to as if they define the medium.

Getting back to the original statement that inspired this post—if I just learned to edit RAW—well, I shot and edited RAW for years. There are several pictures I’ve included in this article from that era of my photography when I did shoot and edit RAW. I know how to do it, I just don’t enjoy it, so I no longer choose to do it. I don’t personally find any fulfillment in sitting at a computer for hours making all sorts of various adjustments to my pictures. After doing it for years, I realized that it’s just not for me. And that’s ok. There’s no right or wrong way to do photography. I don’t feel that my photography suffers from a lack of RAW editing; actually, I feel that the restraint produces a more authentic result, which I’m quite pleased with.

Red Chairs – Cambria, CA – Nikon D3300 – RAW edit from 2015

Invariably, someone will drag Ansel Adams into this argument. Adams spent hours in the darkroom developing film and printing enlargements, with masterful dodging and burning. That’s how photography should be done, except now it’s Lightroom and not a darkroom. All of this ignores Adams’ love for Polaroid photography, which he called one-step photography. Typically, the first step is image capture, and the second is image development, but Polaroids only required the first step (hence, one-step photography). Adams wrote, “The effect of one-step processing on both amateur and professional creative photography has been revolutionary.” One of his well-known Yosemite pictures was captured on a Polaroid, and most who view it are unaware. He wrote a whole book about this topic. Using Film Simulation Recipes is a type of one-step photography, and it can indeed be revolutionary.

Anyway, just because someone chooses to shoot JPEGs on their Fujifilm camera with Film Simulation Recipes does not mean they don’t know how to edit a RAW file. And even if they don’t, that doesn’t make them any less of a photographer. It’s not how you arrive at the destination, it’s the destination itself—the photograph—that matters, and whether or not it fulfills the vision of the photographer.

Choose Your Journey & Don’t Care What Others Think

Posted on by Ritchie Roesch

Bench with a View – Prefumo Canyon, CA – Fujifilm X-E4 & Pentax-110 24mm – Pacific Blues Recipe

“If you want that look, you’ve got to shoot RAW. JPEG Recipes are for amateurs, and nobody serious would ever use them. RAW editing gives you complete control.” —Anonymous person on the web trying to be a gatekeeper

I get tired of being told that if you’re serious about photography, you must shoot RAW and not JPEG. It’s such a worn-out argument that keeps getting repeated. I discussed it at length last year in The RAW vs JPEG Debate Needs to End… Again.

Simply: do whatever you want, and don’t worry about what other people think. There are a lot of people who play gatekeeper, but they shouldn’t have any say in your photography. They have a way that works for them—which is great—but it’s wrong to suggest that their way is the “best” or “only” way, and that you must approach your photography the same as they do. My personal approach works best for me, their way works best for them, and what works best for you might not look anything like either. You have to decide for yourself what works best for you. There’s no right or wrong way to do photography, only what does or doesn’t work well for you.

Reflection of a Broken Door – Litchfield Park, AZ – Fujifilm X-E4 & Fujinon 27mm – Fujicolor 100 Gold Recipe

If you’re interested in learning more about my approach, I’ve discussed it extensively in various articles on this blog for years and years. It’s been a journey, and I invite you to travel along with me if you’re interested; otherwise, I published an article on Moment’s website earlier this year where I typed out my approach and why it might be preferable (click here). I don’t expect that everyone should approach photography this way—it’s simply what works for me, and it might or might not be what works for you. If you think it might work for you, too, that’s awesome, and I hope you’ll follow this website.

I just don’t appreciate when people tell me that my way is the wrong way. I’ve actually been told that I’m doing great harm to photography by suggesting that RAW editing isn’t a requirement. Or, more condescendingly, if I just learned to use RAW software, I’d realize why it’s superior (which ignores the years and years and years of experience I have RAW editing…). If you have a way that works for you that’s different than mine, that’s wonderful! Different strokes for different folks. But please don’t go around telling people that your way is the only way or the best way or the way that all serious photographers must use, because that’s nonsense and factually untrue. It’s simply the approach that you prefer, and that’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. It may or may not be what works best for another person.

One day the argument that you must shoot RAW will end. Shoot RAW if you want to and if it works for you, or shoot JPEG if you want to and if it works for you. Or shoot film. Or whatever other technique you like. Or do one approach sometimes and another approach at other times. There is no single path, and you get to choose your journey. Whatever anyone else thinks about it doesn’t matter at all.

The RAW vs JPEG Debate Needs to End… Again

Posted on by Ritchie Roesch

Straight-out-of-camera JPEG from my Fujifilm X-E4 using the Pacific Blues recipe.

I read a couple of articles over the last several days that bothered me, both of which stated that you must shoot RAW. These articles come up often—it’s nothing new. I’ve written about it before, and even before that. The sentiment of “only amateurs shoot JPEG” and “you really should shoot RAW” get old. Those are tired, worn out statements that are largely based on “truths” that are no longer true. My hope with this article is to simply provide a counter-point. This blog and all of you who use Film Simulation Recipes are a strong testament that speaks louder than this article ever could, so I’ll try to keep it brief.

First, I want to make this very clear: do what works for you. If RAW works for you, do that. If JPEGs work for you, do that. If editing JPEGs works for you, do that. If film works for you, do that. Or any combination of those things or anything else, do that. Whatever you have found that works for you, that’s what you should be doing. If what you are doing isn’t really working for you, try something else. There’s no right or wrong way to do things, just different ways, some of which work for some and some of which work for others. Different strokes for different folks, right?

One reason why I think the “RAW vs JPEG” debate keeps coming up is because more-and-more photography consumers (not photographers, but those who view photographs) detest photo manipulation. Photoshop has become a bad word. Whether it’s a photo contest where the winner exceeded the editing allowed by the rules (and so has their title stripped), or the magazine cover where the girl no longer looks like how they really look, or the picture in the news where things were added or subtracted to change the meaning of the image, or the image that’s just been edited so much that it’s no longer believable—whatever the story, sometimes photography consumers feel that photography is dishonest, and the manipulation of an image equals a manipulation of the one viewing it. There appears to be a lack of honesty by photographers, particularly when they edit so much. You might agree or disagree with this sentiment, but the sentiment is real. I know this because I once defended Steve McCurry’s use of Photoshop, and because of this someone accused me in a college paper of wanting little girls to have low self-esteem.

Straight-out-of-camera JPEG from my Fujifilm X100V using the Vintage Color recipe.

I think a lot of these “RAW is better” articles and videos stem from a response to this sentiment, which is fine. I don’t blame anyone for trying to defend what they do when someone criticizes it. Trust me, I get it. Where I do have a problem is that many times in the defense of RAW the JPEG photographer is insulted. The argument is, “I have to shoot RAW because JPEGs suck.” Or, “Only amateurs use JPEG.” It’s as if the JPEG shooter must be put down in order to make the RAW shooter feel superior. That’s just lame. Yes, there was a time early in the development of digital camera technology where the straight-out-of-camera JPEG was no good and so RAW really was the only viable option for quality images, but that day has long passed, especially for (but certainly not limited to) those who use Fujifilm cameras. That argument is old and tired and no longer based in truth. It once was true, but now is a myth. Perpetuating that myth helps no one. Insulting people definitely doesn’t help.

Of course, Ansel Adams is always brought into this. Well, he was the darkroom master, so obviously he manipulated his photos to a significant degree. Usually an Ansel Adams quote is included, which proves the point that you should never rely on straight-out-of-camera pictures. Adams never would have. Except this ignores his work with Polaroids—he loved Polaroids, something a lot of people are unaware of. There’s a whole chapter (entitled One-Step Photography) in one of his books where he discusses the benefits of not having to use a darkroom. Ansel Adams is hugely inspirational, and his words are highly motivating, but I don’t think he would be strictly a RAW shooter and staunchly against straight-out-of-camera JPEGs—it is a disservice to the legendary master to just assume he would be against JPEGs.

The real arguments that should be made to defend the use of RAW are these:
– It’s my art, and as the artist I get to decide how it’s created. I understand that not everyone will like it, but a lot of people seem to, so I’m going to keep doing it my way.
– I capture undeveloped digital images that, like film, must be developed through a process, and I have a specific process for it that works well for me.
– Images have been manipulated to create the final picture since the beginning of photography—over 150 years!—so what I’m doing is nothing new and well within the traditions of the art.
– I enjoy using photo editing software, and adjusting the pictures is half the fun for me.

Straight-out-of-camera JPEG from my Fujifilm X-E4 using the Positive Film recipe.

Notice how all of those arguments are strong, and none of them insults anyone. Unfortunately, there will always be those who disagree, and you’ll never change their minds. Perhaps just being as honest and straightforward as practical will help. If you swapped the sky with another sky, just say so. If you removed people from the frame, don’t hide that fact. Don’t make the manipulations that you did a big secret, which makes people believe that you’re hiding something from them. Or do keep it a secret—it’s not really any of my business what you do or don’t do, and I don’t really care. It’s your art, after all, so you get to decide what you do and what parts of your process you want to keep a mystery.

My process is straightforward. I program Film Simulation Recipes into my cameras, and I use camera-made JPEGs that are unedited (aside from minor cropping and straightening). While I basically don’t edit anymore, I certainly used to. I used to be a RAW photographer. I used to spend up to 30 minutes on each picture in software. That process worked alright for a time, but my current process works for me now. It saves me so much time, it makes creating photographs more enjoyable, it allows me to be more in-tune with my camera and the scene (because I have to get it right in-the-field or else), and I still get the look I want—the aesthetic I would have made if I had edited a RAW image in software. I love it! But I fully understand that it’s not for everyone. If it works for you, great! If it doesn’t work for you, great! If it works for you sometimes but doesn’t other times, great! You’ve got to do what works for you, and ignore those who say that there’s only one “right” way to do things.

The “RAW vs JPEG” debate needs to end. Photography consumers don’t care how you achieved your picture, except in those cases where people feel that they were duped by a heavily manipulated image. I suggest being upfront about how much editing you did, if you did a lot—but that’s up to you, and is between you and your audience. Otherwise, nobody cares if you shot RAW and edited in-software or if it’s a straight-out-of-camera JPEG, or anything else in-between. One process isn’t better or worse than another—they each have advantages and disadvantages, so it is simply a matter of if what you are doing works for you or not. If it works, that’s awesome! If it doesn’t, then try something else. Mic dropped, debate over.

RAW vs JPEG? The Debate Needs To End

Posted on by Ritchie Roesch

50096353482_fc0c94781b_c

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!