Bird/Wildlife Photographers: RAW vs. JPEG/HEIF

Hi everyone,

In this thread I would like to ask the opinions of experienced bird/wildlife photographers who shoot with Fujifilm X-mount cameras:

1. Do you shoot RAW/JPEG/RAW+JPEG/HEIF?
2. Why?
3. If RAW/RAW+JPEG: Do you almost always prefer processing RAW files over editing JPEGs?
4. Do you see significant benefits in working with RAW files instead of tweaking the JPEGs?
5. If yes, could you share a [tweaked or SOOC] JPEG vs. processed RAW comparison?

Until now, I've been shooting RAW+JPEG and editing my images using Capture One. But I must admit that in most cases, even after processing the RAW files, I prefer the look of the [tweaked] JPEGs. I understand the technical benefits of RAW files and the so-called freedom that they offer, and that one's post-processing technique is crucial, but I can't help but wonder if in the end it makes hardly any practical sense spending the time (and storage) working with RAW files.

When doing bird/wildlife photography, isn't the reflection of [near or perceived] reality is what our aim is? Processing RAW files to a degree that hardly resembles the light conditions and environment of the scene that was originally captured defeats the very purpose of bird/widlife photography, doesn't it?

When looking at thousands of bird/wildlife images shared on the internet, I can't help but wonder what the actual scene looked like. Enchancing a great image is good, but altering it for the sole purpose of impressing one's audience is wrong, in my opinion.

While this may sound like a complaint, I sincerely considering switching to a JPEG-only workflow and would like to hear your thoughts on this subject.

I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts, opinions and experiences. Thanks for all the replies in advance!

Kind regards,
Aron
––––––––––––––––––––––
http://aronimages.com

aronimages wrote:

Hi everyone,

In this thread I would like to ask the opinions of experienced bird/wildlife photographers who shoot with Fujifilm X-mount cameras:

1. Do you shoot RAW/JPEG/RAW+JPEG/HEIF?

RAW + JPG most of the time. May resort to RAW only if I find myself running out of card space during a shoot.

1. Why?

Firstly, you can always decide to get rid of the RAW after the shoot, but if you shoot JPEG only, you'll never get that RAW, which may come in handy depending on the conditions.

Secondly, for focus checking. Fuji has this weird quirk, where you can't significantly punch in if you shoot RAW only, so JPEGs help with that.

1. If RAW/RAW+JPEG: Do you almost always prefer processing RAW files over editing JPEGs?

For any serious editing I always go with RAWs. If I use JPEGs, it's to avoid editing.

1. Do you see significant benefits in working with RAW files instead of tweaking the JPEGs?

JPEGs fall apart if you try anything more than a few basic edits. If you tend to get the shot right in camera, JPEGs are fine.

Depending on your taste, one may find Fuji's demosaicing and sharpening a bit underwhelming. I personally like to sharpen any prints in Capture One.

Something similar could be asserted in regards to noise reduction, which is greatly superior when using programs such as DxO Photolab or Topaz DeNoise.

1. If yes, could you share a [tweaked or SOOC] JPEG vs. processed RAW comparison?

Capture One

SOOC JPEG

Notice how the red channel is completely blown in the SOOC file.

Until now, I've been shooting RAW+JPEG and editing my images using Capture One. But I must admit that in most cases, even after processing the RAW files, I prefer the look of the [tweaked] JPEGs. I understand the technical benefits of RAW files and the so-called freedom that they offer, and that one's post-processing technique is crucial, but I can't help but wonder if in the end it makes hardly any practical sense spending the time (and storage) working with RAW files.

That's perfectly fine. I consider RAW files as a safety net in case I need something the JPEGs can't offer.

When doing bird/wildlife photography, isn't the reflection of [near or perceived] reality is what our aim is?

I'd argue that's an artistic choice that only the photographer can make and not something set in stone. One may strive for a realistic or naturalistic portrayal of the subject, while others may seek something else.

Processing RAW files to a degree that hardly resembles the light conditions and environment of the scene that was originally captured defeats the very purpose of bird/widlife photography, doesn't it?

That is true if you are trying to capture the scene as it looked.

When looking at thousands of bird/wildlife images shared on the internet, I can't help but wonder what the actual scene looked like. Enchancing a great image is good, but altering it for the sole purpose of impressing one's audience is wrong, in my opinion.

That is perhaps a supposition you should take some time to think about. How can one be so sure of the purpose of various artistic choices made by a broad spectrum of photographers.

While this may sound like a complaint, I sincerely considering switching to a JPEG-only workflow and would like to hear your thoughts on this subject.

If you can get the results you desire go for it. I would still stress the importance of RAW files as safety nets, since you never know what kind of shot you may want to tweak a little more than the JPEG allows for.

Perhaps you may also consider revisiting some of your shots in the future and RAW files, although only used for archival/backup, may serve you well then.

I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts, opinions and experiences. Thanks for all the replies in advance!

Made a thread regarding SOOC JPEGs a while back: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65428740

If you really want to shoot JPEG only, Fuji is probably the best platform to do so:

Kind regards,
Aron

I use raw only for about 99% of my photography.

I like to process my photographs myself. I keep a very small amount from what I actually photograph and I don't change a lot. A tweak to contrast, exposure, white balance, selective noise reduction and sharpening and some highlight and shadow work. I like to remain faithful to reality and I see processing as a sort of bridge for the gap between that reality and the limits of camera sensors, particularly dynamic range.

The only time I use JPG (I'll also shoot raw files!) is when I have been using a pre-production camera and we are awaiting beta updates to raw processing software.

A good example is when I had the early pre-production X-H2S last year. A lot of our UK wildlife I photograph are seabirds and puffins are a great case in point. I was testing the autofocus of puffins in flight with rapid bursts. Wing up, wing down over and over again as they flew past me. The top side of a puffin's wing is very dark, almost black and the underside is much lighter, almost white. In sunlight they can be a bit of an exposure nightmare when stationary. Moving rapidly in flight takes it to another level of difficulty.

Capture One had not yet released a beta version to use so I could only review JPGs. Invariably with such contrast, we need to perhaps recover some detail from the darks and the brights. The JPGs just didn't hold the detail, highlight recovery turned over-exposed brights into muddy gray.

When we finally got a beta version of Capture One which recognised the X-H2S raw output, recovering feather detail from the brights was, as expected, vastly more effective, as was cleaner darks recovery. But it was mainly in the brights where the difference was noticeable.

Excellent response, book marked to read later after work in more detail. Thanks.

The subject makes little difference, the logic is the same.

I shoot JPG and raw.  I expose for the jpgs.  This gives me some highlight headroom in the raws.  It gives me a file format that is likely to be readable for ever and a backup file for every image.  Mostly the JPGs are perfectly useable and need no processing.  If not I have the data from the raw to process.

Raw files are more amenable to adjusting the lighting - overall density, highlights and shadows, colour temperature, there is no doubt.  Because of this I am not going to save only JPGs.  Adding JPGs to raws is only a modest space penalty.

It does mean I could expose a very little better if I shot only the raws.  However the highlights in my images are mainly white clouds, blowing them is very objectionable so the extra headroom exposing for JPGs gives me is largely a plus.

aronimages wrote:

Hi everyone,

In this thread I would like to ask the opinions of experienced bird/wildlife photographers who shoot with Fujifilm X-mount cameras:

1. Do you shoot RAW/JPEG/RAW+JPEG/HEIF?

RAW

1. Why?

RAW provides more latitude to adjust shadows and highlights and crops cleaner than JPEG. Most of my exposures are close to perfect out of the camera yet like everyone else there are times I goof and need to correct and RAW allow more room for an error. When photographing a subject with a large dynamic range such as a bald eagle, I can expose for the white head and then bring up the shadows to expose detail in the darker feathers as well as the head. Our eyes can see this yet the camera can not washout tweaking.

As I've just shown how much better RAW is than JPEG, why would I want extra files to manage shooting RAW + JPEG? HEIF is a new standard and software support is lacking at this time. Unless software appears that will do a better job than with RAW I will stick with RAW.

1. If RAW/RAW+JPEG: Do you almost always prefer processing RAW files over editing JPEGs?
2. Do you see significant benefits in working with RAW files instead of tweaking the JPEGs?
3. If yes, could you share a [tweaked or SOOC] JPEG vs. processed RAW comparison?

Until now, I've been shooting RAW+JPEG and editing my images using Capture One. But I must admit that in most cases, even after processing the RAW files, I prefer the look of the [tweaked] JPEGs. I understand the technical benefits of RAW files and the so-called freedom that they offer, and that one's post-processing technique is crucial, but I can't help but wonder if in the end it makes hardly any practical sense spending the time (and storage) working with RAW files.

This indicates that you need to improve your processing skills

When doing bird/wildlife photography, isn't the reflection of [near or perceived] reality is what our aim is? Processing RAW files to a degree that hardly resembles the light conditions and environment of the scene that was originally captured defeats the very purpose of bird/widlife photography, doesn't it?

Sometimes we want an image that reflects reality and sometimes we are creating art. How can one create images that look like reality when every individual sees differently? Everyone sees color differently and our eyes focus differently. There are accepted norms for vision yet even within the norms there are variations. Our minds are also involved and they interoperate what we are seeing. This is the case for the live view and the view of a photo/image. In the end it comes down to taste. Most people will like some things while there are some presentations that only some will like.

When looking at thousands of bird/wildlife images shared on the internet, I can't help but wonder what the actual scene looked like. Enchancing a great image is good, but altering it for the sole purpose of impressing one's audience is wrong, in my opinion.

Then you may hate paintings. Do you like art?

While this may sound like a complaint, I sincerely considering switching to a JPEG-only workflow and would like to hear your thoughts on this subject.

This is the old argument of slide for out of the camera results v negative that is processed and printed to ones taste.

I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts, opinions and experiences. Thanks for all the replies in advance!

Kind regards,
Aron
––––––––––––––––––––––
http://aronimages.com

I feel you are missing out on the artistic side of photography Aron. I enjoy painting with my camera and this may be a very natural image that I've pre visioned such as this swan preening:

Or the stained glass look of a fall reflection:

Take the color image of the swan and convert it to Black and White and we have a more art like image.

And now for a discussion of the art of the capture. I noticed that swans get into this position and that If I could get low enough I could get this very intimate view. It was 5 years from vision to creation which happened one morning at sunrise. I could see the dynamic range was way too much so I used fill flash to address the shadows.

The fall reflection was more immediate as I was out taking photos of fall foliage and saw this reflection in a puddle. I played with my zoom till I had a composition I liked and then too 25 images trying to get the ripple just right.

One can also create art with animal subjects such as this creative blur of a swan where I used flash to add some sharpness to an intentionally blurred subject.

Photography and xerography are different.  To limit one's view of nature to xerography is rather boring to me.  I do appreciate an image that shows the subject in what appears to be natural and create many images of this type.  In the words of Art Wolfe "Don't tell me how to do my art."

Morris

Morris

The blurred swan is gorgeous!

thomega wrote:

The blurred swan is gorgeous!

Thank you,

Morris

aronimages wrote:

Hi everyone,

In this thread I would like to ask the opinions of experienced bird/wildlife photographers who shoot with Fujifilm X-mount cameras:

1. Do you shoot RAW/JPEG/RAW+JPEG/HEIF?
2. Why?
3. If RAW/RAW+JPEG: Do you almost always prefer processing RAW files over editing JPEGs?
4. Do you see significant benefits in working with RAW files instead of tweaking the JPEGs?
5. If yes, could you share a [tweaked or SOOC] JPEG vs. processed RAW comparison?

Until now, I've been shooting RAW+JPEG and editing my images using Capture One. But I must admit that in most cases, even after processing the RAW files, I prefer the look of the [tweaked] JPEGs. I understand the technical benefits of RAW files and the so-called freedom that they offer, and that one's post-processing technique is crucial, but I can't help but wonder if in the end it makes hardly any practical sense spending the time (and storage) working with RAW files.

When doing bird/wildlife photography, isn't the reflection of [near or perceived] reality is what our aim is? Processing RAW files to a degree that hardly resembles the light conditions and environment of the scene that was originally captured defeats the very purpose of bird/widlife photography, doesn't it?

When looking at thousands of bird/wildlife images shared on the internet, I can't help but wonder what the actual scene looked like. Enchancing a great image is good, but altering it for the sole purpose of impressing one's audience is wrong, in my opinion.

While this may sound like a complaint, I sincerely considering switching to a JPEG-only workflow and would like to hear your thoughts on this subject.

I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts, opinions and experiences. Thanks for all the replies in advance!

Kind regards,
Aron
––––––––––––––––––––––
http://aronimages.com

The real beauty of this hobby is the ability we have to create whatever interpretation of the image you've captured that you wish. If you prefer creating an image that is as close as possible to what you remember seeing, then using post processing tools to bring that vision alive is absolutely a reasonable approach for many photographers. If your desire is to create art and use those tools to produce an end result that matches your own vision, that's OK as well. Many people choose to only work with JPGs, both for sheer convenience and saved time as well as a desire to not tinker with the image that has been captured. Others use the RAW image as a starting point and use post processing to realize their own interpretation and vision of the finished image.

There is no right and wrong here... only a matter of your own creative goals and process that you feel produces the result you want. And, that applies to whatever genre you wish to pursue, including wildlife photography. For some photographers, SOOC JPGs are absolutely the way to go, and it requires the skills to get the image as close to perfect as possible from the start. That is an absolutely legitimate approach and a real test of a photographer's skills. Others see a RAW file as a palette or a starting point for the creative process and regard post processing as the way to realize their own vision or interpretation of the image that they've captured. How close to "reality" the end result ends up being is strictly a matter of the photographer's artistic vision, and that's personal choice... neither right nor wrong IMHO. And it's my opinion that this applies to any type of photography, including wildlife.

Bottom line: if you see post processing as something that deters, rather than adds value to your photography, then your path forward is clear, and you're far from alone in that. However, for those of us who prefer to use post processing to help realize our own vision of the final image, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that either. That happens to be my own personal approach. Regardless which direction you take, you'll be in good company and there are excellent examples of everything from SOOC to heavily processed images shared here every day. Pursue whichever approach you desire and follow the path that helps you realize your own vision, regardless whether it's SOOC or post processed.

Thank you for all the comments so far. I am giving it some thought and will come back to this thread soon. In the meantime, I am looking forward to reading more opinions and suggestions.

Kind regards,
Aron

––––––––––––––––––––––
http://aronimages.com

There is absolutely no truth to the idea that OOC JPEGs are truest to the reality of the scene captured by the photo.

Cameras produce raw files from the image projected onto the sensor. These must be processed to be viewable by humans. OOC JPEGs are raw files processed by the camera’s built-in processor according to the manufacturer’s pre-defined choices.

When you save images as JPEGs, you save yourself the time and effort of post processing them yourself, but that is all. That makes perfect sense for casual snapshots and for photojournalists and others who must get their images out in a hurry. It is not particularly useful for wildlife or any other situation where image quality is more important than speed.

Fujifilm provides their users far more flexibility than any other manufacturer in choosing how their raw files get processed into viewable images, but those choices are always subjective.

If you like the OOC JPEGs better than what you get when processing the raw files, it just means that you like the manufacturer's choices and haven’t (yet) been able to duplicate their results. It certainly doesn’t mean that they are more faithful to reality than what you might get through your own post processing.

xtabber wrote:

There is absolutely no truth to the idea that OOC JPEGs are truest to the reality of the scene captured by the photo.

Cameras produce raw files from the image projected onto the sensor. These must be processed to be viewable by humans. OOC JPEGs are raw files processed by the camera’s built-in processor according to the manufacturer’s pre-defined choices.

When you save images as JPEGs, you save yourself the time and effort of post processing them yourself, but that is all. That makes perfect sense for casual snapshots and for photojournalists and others who must get their images out in a hurry. It is not particularly useful for wildlife or any other situation where image quality is more important than speed.

Fujifilm provides their users far more flexibility than any other manufacturer in choosing how their raw files get processed into viewable images, but those choices are always subjective.

If you like the OOC JPEGs better than what you get when processing the raw files, it just means that you like the manufacturer's choices and haven’t (yet) been able to duplicate their results. It certainly doesn’t mean that they are more faithful to reality than what you might get through your own post processing.

Absolutely spot on.  Totally agree.

I think this is an excellent summary - thank you.

Ditto, wonderfully expressed.
It's a discussion I have so much about this fallacy that jpg 'sooc' is somehow perceived as a more 'pure' form of photography.

I agree with the others here, very well said. Some people don’t seem to understand that the SOOC jpeg comes from same RAW data, but is edited automatically in-camera (in a hurry) with an algorithm making the all the editing decisions instead of the photographer doing it later in post. Neither process guarantees a “true to life result” but, with RAW, you will have the best opportunity to make that happen (if that’s what you’re after).
The thing with editing the RAW data yourself is that, just like making the initial composition/exposure, there is a certain amount of craft required in producing an optimal result. If you’re just a beginner at RAW editing, it is very likely that the camera’s sophisticated Jpeg processing, created by people who do know what they’re doing, will do a better job of editing than you - especially if you’re using a lens (like the 18-55) that receives significant proprietary in-camera correction and enhancement that won’t be applied automatically by your RAW editor. Like anything, there is something of a learning curve that must be navigated be becoming proficient. For those with some RAW editing experience/know-how, a SOOC jpeg image “look” can be closely replicated  with little trouble (and significantly improved upon), or taken in any number of alternate directions - either exaggerating reality or subduing it. Making all the decisions yourself, you can reproduce the image you saw in your head when you first pressed the shutter button, and with far greater technical/creative latitude than you could ever hope for with a jpeg - especially if you’re dealing with the challenging high contrast/low light subjects often encountered with bird/wildlife photography.

xtabber wrote:

There is absolutely no truth to the idea that OOC JPEGs are truest to the reality of the scene captured by the photo.

As just one example, my eye does not see the same bokeh that my lens "sees" and one lens  "sees" a different bokeh than another!

So which is the truest form?

Now there's nothing wrong with preferring out-of-camera results. Camera manufacturers often try to get a pleasing colour reproduction and tone-curve for good shadows, controlled highlights, etc, and it saves you time to use out-of-camera JPEGs.

But "pleasing" isn't the same as "exact reproduction". It just means that the camera defaults to a processing that many people like, with some parameters for "vivid", or "soft", or whatever picture styles.

Personally, I enjoy the process of raw file editing and sometimes I just boost shadows a bit for more visibility of details in dark areas and reduce the highlights for similar reasons. Sometimes I try to go for a more artful pleasing picture. Sometimes artful but still natural looking, sometimes I edit to get a mood.

And I do that with all sorrs of subjects including animals.

I've shot raw exclusively for many years; since long before I added an X-T20 to my kit nearly six years ago. As a dedicated bird and wildlife photographer since 2015, the primary benefit of shooting raw is the greatly expanded latitude to manipulate files in post. The ability to fine-tune white balance, to work with low-light exposures, and recover detail both in shadows and highlights simply isn't matched when working with a JPEG.

Well, after doing lots of thinking and tweaking RAW files, I came to a sad realization: the X-H1's buffer made the decision for me. I can't count the times I missed the shot, because the camera slowed down, or became unresponsive while clearing the buffer.

In other words, a JPEG image is better than no image at all. I might give RAW files another chance if I decide to upgrade my camera, but for now, it's a no-go for me.

aronimages wrote:

Well, after doing lots of thinking and tweaking RAW files, I came to a sad realization: the X-H1's buffer made the decision for me. I can't count the times I missed the shot, because the camera slowed down, or became unresponsive while clearing the buffer.

In other words, a JPEG image is better than no image at all. I might give RAW files another chance if I decide to upgrade my camera, but for now, it's a no-go for me.

The buffer on my X-H1 and X-T3 started clearing significantly faster when I upgraded to fast UHS-II SD-Cards.

What cards do you use?