Fujifilm X100F - RAW VS JPEG! Let's have a look...

A comparison between the RAW and JPEG Format of the Fujifilm X100F!

What do you guys think? Jpeg is good enough?

I Forgot to mentioned:
All RAW Images are set to the same film simulation.
I don't have the grain option turned on in camera and the noise reduction is set to -4.
I have the highlights set to -1 (when shooting acros).

------------------------------------------

SUBSCRIBE
If you like content like this consider subscribing to this channel and click on the Bell icon to get notified when new videos are up!

SUPPORT
Support me on Patreon, where I give early access to videos, share bonus clips and post monthly Q&A videos:

FOLLOW ME

MUSIC
All my music comes from Epidemic Sound:

------------------------------------------

MY TOOLS

------------------------------------------

WEBSITE

#streetphotography #rawvsjpeg #fujifilmx100f

[dwlphoto]

JPEG's are good. And sometimes even good enough - at least for me.
I shoot RAW+JPEG most of the time. But sometimes I set the camera to just shoot JPEG. I really love the Film Simulations Fuji provides with their cameras.

[AndrewGoodCamera]

Don't let Jared Polin see this! ;) (Love that shot at 2:32, great job)

[HogbergPhotography]

Thankyou, I always contemplate if I "dare" to shoot jpeg only with my X100F, but this really proves it, and with DR400 it is nearly impossible to blow the highlights. Fujifilm rules.

[kahfui]

Thank you Samuel for the great effort in making this video.
Nowadays I've been shooting jpegs in film bracketing mode (classic chrome, velvia, acros-r).
In that way, i could easily get straight-out-of-camera that I really want.
When i really get a good one, sometimes I would just print it out on instax (instantly) as a gesture of goodwill to my subjects.

[rgarciamainou]

Hey Samuel, if you just apply the film simulation to the RAW file, you may get similar results, but doing a little fine tuning on your raw file after that, will always give you better results. Because the camera, at the end works by algorithms and you have your eyes to adjust for the subject and your intention. Sharpness is not the most important thing, and can be fine tuned depending if you want to watch in a small screen, projector or print your picture. By fine tuning the RAW file you can correct/change very easily, the WB, Dynamic Range, Exp, and Shadow/Highlight balance. Those things work very badly on jpegs.
I’d go as far as saying that SOOCs only work for online viewing, and it doesn’t matter which camera you use, a well processed RAW file can have the same color signature or “look” (I am deliberately simplifying this).
You made a great effort on the video, but the only thing you end up comparing is not RAW and SOOC JPEGS, but Lightroom's interpretation of the film simulation against the camera's. Nevertheless great photos! :)

[joeltunnah]

I shoot raw on my X100F, and then process in camera. That way I’m not stuck with one film simulation, sharpness or contrast/saturation level.

But it looks like the raw conversions in this video haven’t been sharpened?

[krzysztofkurzaj]

I don't quite understand how you compare them. Did you convert RAW file to JPEG "as is" and compete it to JPEG out of a camera or are you actually comparing RAW (technically a JPEG preview embedded in RAW) with JPEG from camera?

[julieholland]

Im using the original fuji X100 and shoot jpegs + RAW but use mainly the jpegs, with my canons I always shoot RAW. I think Fuji makes life easier

[myoung]

Right, the raw files are super clean and devoid of those artifacts that make those film simulations look like film. It's really surprising how detailed and clean fuji files are when you view at 100% in raw.

[secretd]

once you start tweaking the image or adjusting color/luminance, that's where raw comes into play. Otherwise if you want to go straight "out of the box" of course jpeg is the way to go. But glad to see how close the jpeg is. A lot of times when i shot nikon, you can't compare the jpg to the raw it's like night and day.

[joseuribe]

I can see the dynamic range on the RAW image is quite a bit larger than Jpeg. Highlights are brighter on the RAW files

[eunicebellamkonda]

I have a question about the camera settings, I tried shooting in fine+raw and my raws were more sharper than the jpegs. The jpegs were were so blurry compared to the raw images. Any reason why that’s happening? Is it my SD card? Or is it the settings that I haven’t figured out? If it is the settings can you please let me know what it is I’m doing wrong??

Thank you Sam😊

[williamgoss]

Really interesting film. And some lovely photos ! Thks.

[luisv]

There's a software call Raw Therapee that can match raw to jpeg colours with just one click, the tool - Auto matched Tone curve > the film like > just need to save

[davex]

I shoot RAF + JPEG fine, but most of the time I use JPEG right away, they are just as good as that ! ;)

[sunflowerisland]

What is the size of a typical RAW and a Typical JPG out of camera?

[lawrose]

All the JPEGS look sharper to me! Fujifilm simulations are a big feature of the X100F. Whether in processing raw, or SOOC, to use the simulations the end result is a JPEG. I’m satisfied with what the camera does to produce JPEGs and it sure saves time and storage.

[jakeduggan]

Once you play around with the film simulations and get it just right in custom settings eg. Classic Chrome -1 highlights + 2 contrast -1 color it is hard not to like the JPEGS. Fuji X Raw studio is pretty good for RAW to JPEG conversions and saving your settings as a custom setting in camera. X Raw uses the cameras processor to convert images. Fuji files work much better with Capture 1 and Fujifilm actually endorse/support it over Light Room. Grain and noise is naturally added to the clasic chrome and acros film sims in the JPEG images, it's why it is a film simulation. I'm not trying to being a troll, I love your content. I just think the comparison is a bit pointless.

[johnpatterson]

Thank you for the effort you have made in producing this video.  it is virtually impossible to compare RAW v JPEG unless you state the post-production that was used on the RAW image.

[vitabcdefghijklmno]

The difference is when you put in for editing, that’s where RAW files have more latitude to play with. What’s the point of showing this sample photos side by side anyway, it shows nothing.