JPEG or Raw?

[Macto]

What file of photos would you prefer to take with Fujifilm? Which is more suitable, jpeg or raw?

 

[Alan Sh]

I do both. JPG for a quick view of what I can expect and then I do post processing using the raw files.

Alan

 

[GreatOceanSoftware]

What file of photos would you prefer to take with Fujifilm? Which is more suitable, jpeg or raw?

I started in the Fujifilm Mirrorless line with the XT1 when it was released, and shot JPEG only. Memory cards were slower and processing RAW seemed too cumbersome. But it was easier to blow out the highlights in those earlier cameras and processing eventually became easier, so I started shooting RAW+JPEG and have ever since. I think that would have been with the XT3.

I mainly process the JPEGs unless I need to salvage an image or change film simulations after the fact. I also archive both formats.

FWIW,

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I always shoot RAW, the results are potentially better (especially in low light or high dynamic range situations), but it requires that you make all the processing decisions yourself. If you are new to RAW processing, or don’t want to deal with it at all, Fuji’s SOOC jpegs are usually very good. Shooting both is generally a good idea as you will always have the best source to work with in the future, or if you like the shot, but the jpeg looks lousy. With both a RAW and the jpeg you will always have a reference image to work from - especially important when you’re new to RAW processing as you’ll have something to improve upon.

 

[g7_chord]

If you take post processing seriously, in the same way that film photographers took darkroom processing seriously, you want raw because a JPEG has much of the data thrown away. If you just use shots the way they came from the camera, then you need to shoot JPEG. Since cards and hard drives are huge these days, many people shoot and keep both.

I shoot only raw because every photo of mine goes through Lightroom and dealing with a raw is no more trouble than dealing with a JPEG would be.

Fine art photographers nearly always shoot raw. Event, sports, and snapshot photographers mostly shoot JPEG.

 

[tonybelding]

I haven't had a chance to try shooting in HEIF format yet, but I want to. I have a camera on the way that supports this format, and I do my photo work on a Mac, so most of the software there should work with HEIF.

It seems like it should have most of the same benefits as JPEG, but with more leeway for post processing adjustment, which has always been the main shortcoming of JPEG.

 

[Phil BH]

I always shoot RAW, and have for many years, starting back when I began shooting digital with Canon. It gives me much more flexibility and has the capability of sowing more detail.

RAW images can be processed in seconds most of the time, and for greater quantities of images, such as processing many from a promotional photo shoot, or even a wedding, they can be batch processed. I generally batch process when I need proofs, and any that are chosen can be edited individually if necessary.

Phil

 

[sir_c]

How much do you like post processing and making multiple variants of the same photo? How much time do you want to spend upfront optimizing your camera settings for given situation?

 

[Weebsy]

Very personal choice. I started JPEG shooting with an XT1. Then did more with Raw files when I switched to an XT2. I ended up finding spending too much time editing the RAW files, took the fun out of picture taking. Now using XT5, have one slot Raw and one JPEG. Virtually always use the JPegs unless there’s an issue like under or over exposure.
Archive my best unedited Raw files. I can understand why some people just use Raw.

 

[Batdude]

If you take post processing seriously, in the same way that film photographers took darkroom processing seriously, you want raw because a JPEG has much of the data thrown away. If you just use shots the way they came from the camera, then you need to shoot JPEG. Since cards and hard drives are huge these days, many people shoot and keep both.

I shoot only raw because every photo of mine goes through Lightroom and dealing with a raw is no more trouble than dealing with a JPEG would be.

Fine art photographers nearly always shoot raw. Event, sports, and snapshot photographers mostly shoot JPEG.

--
Marc

The Fujifilm jpegs are simply astonishing IMHO. I compared the raw and jpegs when I had the XT3.

Let me just say that if I’m not shooting a wedding in a complicated scenario I would definitely take photos in jpeg. Some of the photos I took at the last wedding I helped, I was really really impressed and surprised as to how beautiful the photos come out. Only did minor adjustments. And man the sharpness and detail is just fenomenal, and yes I too pp in Lightroom.

So when you said that “the data gets throw” I’m just scratching my head on that one

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

If you take post processing seriously, in the same way that film photographers took darkroom processing seriously, you want raw because a JPEG has much of the data thrown away. If you just use shots the way they came from the camera, then you need to shoot JPEG. Since cards and hard drives are huge these days, many people shoot and keep both.

I shoot only raw because every photo of mine goes through Lightroom and dealing with a raw is no more trouble than dealing with a JPEG would be.

Fine art photographers nearly always shoot raw. Event, sports, and snapshot photographers mostly shoot JPEG.

The Fujifilm jpegs are simply astonishing IMHO. I compared the raw and jpegs when I had the XT3.

Let me just say that if I’m not shooting a wedding in a complicated scenario I would definitely take photos in jpeg. Some of the photos I took at the last wedding I helped, I was really really impressed and surprised as to how beautiful the photos come out. Only did minor adjustments. And man the sharpness and detail is just fenomenal, and yes I too pp in Lightroom.

So when you said that “the data gets throw” I’m just scratching my head on that one

Much of the image data is thrown away in a JPEG. Try correcting a jpeg with a significant white balance error - it can’t be done properly. Why? Because the necessary color data required to do that is no longer present.

 

[Jerry-astro]

What file of photos would you prefer to take with Fujifilm? Which is more suitable, jpeg or raw?

In my case, at least, it is (and always has been) RAW. The JPG has been useful as a quick preview, but really nothing more. I'm one of oddballs who actually enjoys post processing which probably comes from my pre-digital film processing days [and feels like] a millennium ago. I've found that most of my images can be improved a bit, at least, with some post processing of the RAW file and I'm fortunate enough to have the time and inclination to do additional processing.

For folks who do very little PP and mostly work with JPGs, then there's probably little reason to dive into RAW processing. However, for us weirdos who actually get some enjoyment from PP, I would never consider doing it any other way. That said, if I was a professional dealing with hundreds of images at a time, I suspect my approach might be very different.

--
Jerry-Astro
Hillsboro, OR, USA

 

[Batdude]

If you take post processing seriously, in the same way that film photographers took darkroom processing seriously, you want raw because a JPEG has much of the data thrown away. If you just use shots the way they came from the camera, then you need to shoot JPEG. Since cards and hard drives are huge these days, many people shoot and keep both.

I shoot only raw because every photo of mine goes through Lightroom and dealing with a raw is no more trouble than dealing with a JPEG would be.

Fine art photographers nearly always shoot raw. Event, sports, and snapshot photographers mostly shoot JPEG.

The Fujifilm jpegs are simply astonishing IMHO. I compared the raw and jpegs when I had the XT3.

Let me just say that if I’m not shooting a wedding in a complicated scenario I would definitely take photos in jpeg. Some of the photos I took at the last wedding I helped, I was really really impressed and surprised as to how beautiful the photos come out. Only did minor adjustments. And man the sharpness and detail is just fenomenal, and yes I too pp in Lightroom.

So when you said that “the data gets throw” I’m just scratching my head on that one

Much of the image data is thrown away in a JPEG. Try correcting a jpeg with a significant white balance error - it can’t be done properly. Why? Because the necessary color data required to do that is no longer present.

Yes I know I completely understand that, but that wasn’t the point of my comment.


I can go to the store and decide to season and cook a delicious rib eye steak, but damn they never come out like the one from Ruth Chris

The color tones, the sharpness and detail out of a Fujifilm camera set to jpeg have (always) been one of Fuji’s strengths.

So again, yes there are reasons why sometimes you (should) shoot in raw or both raw/JPEGs, but sometimes you just don’t need to, what the heck for?

Oh and one more thing, shooting in jpeg is indeed a lot of fun

 

[Oregon Dawg]

What file of photos would you prefer to take with Fujifilm? Which is more suitable, jpeg or raw?

I prefer to shoot JPEG.

That said, I have an X-T5 with one card slot set to RAW and one slot set to JPEG. I rarely process RAW files anymore. Sometimes I use Fuji X-RAW studio on a RAW file to explore different film simulations. But mostly, I just shoot JPEG and do some light processing in Apple Photos.

Which is more suitable? That is a subjective question. Suitability is personal decision based on the individual photographer. There really is no right or wrong in this case, it's just a decision each person makes for what works best for them. You will need to choose for yourself.

Batdude mentioned fun, I agree that shooting JPEGs is more fun (for me) than RAW. Lately I've been enjoying the Reala Ace film sim.

 

[Jomppak]

What file of photos would you prefer to take with Fujifilm? Which is more suitable, jpeg or raw?

Both. I use SOOC jpegs is possible, but if any changes is needed, I use RAWs for post processing. In most cases, the jpegs are just fine.

 

[Lester Lefkowitz]

Back in the day when everything digital was very slooowww, for fast-action, short-deadline pros, JPG + RAW was a friend: quick download and edit with the JPGs, save the RAW for final edits and important stuff.

Today, assuming the use of Lightroom Classic: I find no need to shoot two files of everything; just RAW is fine. On the Lightroom screen, JPG + RAW look identical. If you need to send someone a JPG, the Export command instantly makes a JPG in any size and quality you need, one or 1,000 in a batch. And, as someone mentioned, it's easy to batch process them all identically if appropriate.

While OOC JPG quality has improved greatly (since my X-E1), there are many time when the deep shadow and highlight recovery available in a RAW image has saved my rear end, detail unrecoverable in a JPG.

Just because an image is RAW, one doesn't HAVE to spend time in post processing. Sometime it, too, is fine as it comes from the camera. And it takes no longer with a RAW file to make overall adjustments for exposure, highlight/shadow, color balance, etc. than the same adjustments with a JPG. Batch processing is available for both.

For sure, the ability to tweak a JPG can also be excellent, and in many (most?) cases, the difference in even a moderately large print between the two would be hard to discern. But, also for sure, there are cases where the adjusted RAW would be far superior. In my classes, I show a number of examples of RAW vs. JPG, usually contrasy outdoor scenes, where the JPG is a very poor second after all attempts at post processing adjustments.

We all have different needs and priorities.

Lester Lefkowitz, author of The Manual of Close-Up and Macro Photography, Volumes I & II.

www.MacroPhotographer.net

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

If you take post processing seriously, in the same way that film photographers took darkroom processing seriously, you want raw because a JPEG has much of the data thrown away. If you just use shots the way they came from the camera, then you need to shoot JPEG. Since cards and hard drives are huge these days, many people shoot and keep both.

I shoot only raw because every photo of mine goes through Lightroom and dealing with a raw is no more trouble than dealing with a JPEG would be.

Fine art photographers nearly always shoot raw. Event, sports, and snapshot photographers mostly shoot JPEG.

The Fujifilm jpegs are simply astonishing IMHO. I compared the raw and jpegs when I had the XT3.

Let me just say that if I’m not shooting a wedding in a complicated scenario I would definitely take photos in jpeg. Some of the photos I took at the last wedding I helped, I was really really impressed and surprised as to how beautiful the photos come out. Only did minor adjustments. And man the sharpness and detail is just fenomenal, and yes I too pp in Lightroom.

So when you said that “the data gets throw” I’m just scratching my head on that one

Much of the image data is thrown away in a JPEG. Try correcting a jpeg with a significant white balance error - it can’t be done properly. Why? Because the necessary color data required to do that is no longer present.

Yes I know I completely understand that, but that wasn’t the point of my comment.

I can go to the store and decide to season and cook a delicious rib eye steak, but damn they never come out like the one from Ruth Chris

Well, I guess Ruth Chris better understands the available seasonings and possibly possesses more finesse in the grilling process and/or has a better grill.

The color tones, the sharpness and detail out of a Fujifilm camera set to jpeg have (always) been one of Fuji’s strengths.

Sure, but better color, better sharpness (and less noise too) are all possible with the RAW file and good software.

So again, yes there are reasons why sometimes you (should) shoot in raw or both raw/JPEGs, but sometimes you just don’t need to, what the heck for?

Because it always looks better. Pretty much every image can be improved with a tweak or two. If I’m going to tweak it anyway, I might as well use the far more flexible RAW file

Oh and one more thing, shooting in jpeg is indeed a lot of fun

IMO, post processing is a lot of fun too, and is critical for achieving the best possible results, both technically and creatively. Having to worry about the in-camera jpeg settings rather than just concentrating on composition, focus and optimal RAW exposure makes jpeg shooting much less fun, also IMO.

 

[Alan Hewitt Photo]

IMO, post processing is a lot of fun too,

I'm 100% with you here. Although I don't particularly enjoy the edit process, I do enjoy seeing my work come to life step by step in front of me as I process the raw files.

I don't get this 'SOOC' mantra, like it's some sort of pure photography concept that I hear so much (1). It's not, raw files are being processed by presets and output as jpgs.

Do I want my photographs processed by an in camera software process (2) or do I want to control every single bit of it? Luckily, we have a choice for our preferences.

(1) - I don't necessarily mean here!
(2) - I know Jpgs can be extremely good, but just not as good as what many of us can achieve with raw with the luxury of time. Yes they have their uses around immediacy.

--
Wildlife photographer | Private Safari Guide | Podcaster
FUJIFILM UK & Formatt-Hitech Ambassador.
www.alanhewittphotography.co.uk
www.africanphotographysafaris.com
FACEBOOK: AlanHewittPhotography
INSTA & TIKTOK: alanhewittphoto

 

[BeatX]

Both 50/50

 

[Northcoast216]

Been shooting since the 70's. Fully understand the RAW advantage however JPEG is more than adequate and it is editable. Photography technology today is complete science fiction as compared to the film days of the 70's. Really, it's beyond incredible what we have. JPEG has its place but w/50 years experience under my belt, JPEG is fine.