RAW vs JPEG: Why I Choose JPEG

Welcome to my YouTube channel!

Yasmeena's YT @yasmeenaco

#fujifilm #fujixseries #leica #photography #photographer #neewer #fujixseries #fujiphotographer #jpg #jpeg #raw #rawphotos #gratitude #photographyphilosophy #leicadlux8 #leicacamera #cameraworld #photographyworld #leicaworld #fujiworld #format #photographyformat #rawphoto #jpg

[mikeainsworth]

Alleluia! Common sense and the 'old way' reigns

[rodneyharvey]

Good to see you back. Great video. I've been shooting JPEG + Raw for about 6 years because most off my photography has been travel related and a lot of birding. It was in case I was in a hurry to get "a" shot and didn't think I had time for fine adjustments. As time went on and I figured out ahead of time the best settings for the environment I would be shooting in I've spent a LOT less time editing and using the JPEG's 90% of the time or more. Now especially with my recent purchase of the FUJI X-T50 with 40MP files I've decided to give JPEG only a try. Especially with the use of the film simulations. Misinformation in politics and also in photography does no one a service. Research for yourself and then come to a conclusion. This applies to all situations in life. We live in a world comprised of a lot of lazy sheep.

[nosher_]

This is outrageous 😊. How could high end laptop/desktop computer, memory drive, editing software & camera manufacturers be expected to make a living, if everyone had this outlook. They need people indoctrinated to believe they must shoot every subject in RAW (preferably, multiple times & in burst mode) instead of taking one decent JPEG.

[johnneubauer]

David, - I agree with you 100% on shooting raw. Upgrading software all the time is not my idea of taking pictures and there is simply not enough time in my day to sit down and manipulate every picture I took trying to give it the JRN look. Also, I think that raw fits very well into the AI world that most photographers are entering into today. Not my style, - I consider myself a purest.

I also would humbly suggest that you take a look at "iPhone 16 camera: DISAPPOINTING AND MISLEADING" that is on the Tony and Chelsea Northrup channel. I think that you will find it interesting & informative.

I have watched this husband and wife for the last two decades and have never written a comment to them yet, - but I have learned a lot.

Thank you as always.
Don't let the trolls get you,
JRN

[petercameron]

About two years ago I started using primarily jpeg. Digital cameras are essentially a computer with a lens and sensor slapped on the front. Once you learn the camera and what it can do, most of your photo editing can be done before you take the shot. I think the jpeg vs. RAW debate comes down to a choice of whether you want to do the processing before or after you take the shot. I’d much rather spend more time taking pictures.

[andrewcrossley]

Good points made. When I was taking on my Fuji 6x9 (8 shots per roll), I used my ancient Weston meter (still works) and took great care to ensure any exposure compensation would be pretty much on the ball. Usually involved a tripod and either Provia or Velvia. Results were typically 5 or 6 good shots per roll as it was an expensive activity. Same for my EOS1.
I was quite late into digital, electing to go with Canon in the mid 2000s with a great compact that took 4mp images (G3). Whilst it was bought for factual records for reports where short run prints embedded into word files were needed, I really enjoyed using it on business trips to the USA. All I ever took was JPEG. Then I started the DSLR game, again with Canon, as I had a few pro lenses. Somewhere along the way when compact memory cards became much cheaper, then SD cards came along, I started using the JPEG and raw options. Goodness knows why as with visible histograms it became easy to check exposure on site. My mirrorless secondary system is still Canon but the great little M series. It’s light, easy to use but I still waste a lot of space on unnecessary RAW back ups.
I always used Fuji film and was lucky to get hold of an X100VI on its release date. Apart from its clunky user interface compared to Canon, I’m really enjoying the film Sims. They take me back to the mid 1980s where I used to cart around 2 SLR bodies, one with Velvia and the other usually with Reala. Now I get all the benefits of matching the sim to the subject and the ambient light. I don’t bother with RAW on the Fuji as it’s not really needed. But it just feels to me like I’m back in my Fuji 6x9 days. More time planning and checking the image quality and not faffing around with all the digital tech. Whilst all the Canon gear is immensely capable, it’s more of a work tool. The simple, fixed lens Fuji is pure fun and gives great results especially for travel. It’s off to Spain then France over the next few weeks. With EasyJet’s tiny bag limits, it’ll be a blessing in disguise and I can take a spare pair of shoes instead of some crazy 3 or 4 kg pro Canon kit.
I just added the Fuji wide angle converter for the X100VI to take buildings and landscapes. Not a lot of money for the converter but I guess the Fuji and all its add on bits is hardly cheap.
At the other extreme, I went sailing in Croatia last week and only took an iPhone 15 pro max. My sailing friends were amazed by what that could do in the right hands. In summary it’s the photographer not the tech…..

[WhoIsSerafin]

I keep going back and forth on this since the beginning of digital on what I use depending on my mood. I’m not judgmental on which is better. For me it depends on my artistic style at the time and how much I want to manipulate the photo. Sometimes I’m in a minimalist mood and some years I go the opposite. Lately it’s been nothing but raw.

[ActualCounterfactual]

In my experience spanning decades in photography, I've seen how both RAW and JPEG formats serve their distinct purposes. RAW is often invaluable for technical or business-critical images, offering flexibility during post-processing that some projects truly demand. However, I believe JPEG is perfectly sufficient for most scenarios, especially where images will primarily be viewed on screens and mobile devices.
The intense attachment some photographers have to RAW often creates a divide in discussions like this. The truth is, at the high resolutions and pixel densities common on today's screens, the need for RAW can sometimes be overstated—JPEG provides a balance of quality and manageable file size that fits most everyday viewing purposes. That said, RAW has its place when specific, precise quality control is essential. Each format has its strengths, and it's about knowing when each truly matters....
Personally.. I shoot 98% JPEG and no client ever complained about that, anytime, any place.

[blackhrt]

👍💯I’m a Fuji user now (formerly Nikon, still have my D7000). Bought the X-T5 primarily because I wanted smaller kit and wanted film sims. I’m perfectly happy with jpeg. I’m not much of a software guy and hated spending my time editing photos. Now I spend my time taking photos and then looking at them in my library not editing. Life is good.

[Lightwriter]

I shoot JPEG with my DLSR's when I know there are no problems with light and I like it because as you said, the work has already been done during the photographing. I shoot RAW when I know the circomstances are phototechnically not, or even far from, ideal, with te idea... maybe I get something out of it haha... With my new Leica DLux 8 till now I only shoot DNG because I love the felxibility of the DNG-files. I am amazed every time again when I work with these files in Lightroom. And I love it doing so. And that is for me the point.. making photo's and post-processing must be fun, relaxing and sometimes amazing....

[nicholasbrocklebank]

Totally agree with you David! Learn fully how to be a photographer 👍📷😊

[peterfritzphoto]

You make some excellent points, David. I shot film professionally in the 80s and 90s, and the shot you took was the shot you got. If you didn’t understand the light, the characteristics of the film stock, and the myriad exposure combinations available to you, you’d fail - especially on Velvia. There was no software to rescue your images. Since getting the D-Lux 8, I’m enjoying the simplified process of shooting mono JPEGS, but I still find value in lifting shadow detail or pulling highlights back a bit when the light on the day wasn’t what I’d have liked. 👍

[simrtechd]

For me, negative is like RAW; let me explain.

JPG = a person who takes photos with film (like 35mm), hands it to a lab that develops the film according to the manufacturer’s standards, and then the operator in the darkroom makes basic adjustments to ensure your photo comes out well. Today, it’s the camera that develops the image internally and produces the photo based on the manufacturer’s settings.

RAW = a person who takes photos with film (like 35mm) and develops it themselves, allowing them to bypass the manufacturer’s standards during development. In the darkroom, they can expose the negative more or less to create different effects and apply filter, etc. Today, this is equivalent to RAW and software like Lightroom.

So if you don’t like this process, that’s fine, but don’t criticize those who do.

I would love to see a wildlife photographer who can’t afford to say, “I’ll come back when the weather is better.” They have to work with the conditions, and they’re happy to have RAW files to crop or reduce digital noise.

When people say that Raw is for professionals, it’s to give them peace of mind in case something goes wrong at the moment, like changing light conditions or a shift in white balance. It’s much easier to correct the white balance in a RAW file than in a limited JPG.

When you’re taking a photo in a controlled scene from start to finish, then yes, you can shoot in JPG.

In any case, I’m really glad I can reduce the digital noise in my old photos from 2005 with my EOS 5D, and today’s software does wonders.

[eliseomoran]

Clever observations. Internet is a wonderful place, but too often full with fools wanting a like or a follower.

[robertyanal]

I will point out that if you know what you’re doing jpeg is often the way to go. RAW is more forgiving. Paradoxically, RAW might be more suitable for beginners than for pros.

[donaldpirie]

Hello from Scotland.

I turned 66 on Sunday and have been taking photos since I was about 8. I shoot RAW. The reason? I am not good enough to shoot JPEG. I aspire to being good enough one day to shoot JPEG. In other words, it is because I am NOT a pro that I have to rely upon RAW.

It’s so refreshing to listen to someone cuts through the rubbish and sees things for what they really are. Thank you.

[moltonlava]

Overall great video, and I was very interested in your take here. I have to say though, "I shoot JPEG because I know what I'm doing" sounds just as egotistical and dogmatic as the "I Shoot RAW" zealots on the other side. What I got from what you were saying is that you're pleased with your camera's JPEG output and don't like spending your free time post-processing, which is totally valid. Many of us shoot RAW because we enjoy post-processing or we're trying to achieve a certain "vision" that wasn't possible when we made the photo (just like old school photographers used to do in the darkroom).

[stevendente]

I am sure that it will come as no surprise that many of us disagree with you about this on certain levels. Yes, you can develop a shooting methodology that allows you to get repeatable quality results within the confines of JPEG algorithms, coupled with built in processing of the camera being used. But make no mistake, the sensor is gathering the same RAW data, and then doing the processing in camera. In doing so the camera and software engineers are deciding on color, detail, and other artistic choices. Further, the JPEG algorithm is reducing your bit depth from 12/14/16 bit down to 8 bit, and using a lossy compression algorithm. This workflow limits the file types, resolutions, and other image quality choices you are able to provide a client. Since digital image making is largely based on software whether done in camera by others, or in post by the image maker using software and algorithms of his choosing, it is a large reach to criticize those that choose another workflow than you do. I accept that your choice in workflow works for you, the type of photography you choose to do, and the type of clients that you have cultivated. Since you are a successful photographer making a living doing just that it makes no sense to argue that choice you have made. But for many others a more flexible workflow, with more photographer based control is a better choice. There are very good reasons all the professional camera equipment suppliers have RAW formats available, and editing software exists to support those other workflows. Image making is a comprehensive component based system based consisting of a photographer with is vision and skill, the equipment markets and the output they produce, the editing software whether in camera or on a computer, and finally the output format which is largely determined by the distribution and use cases.