Would You Like To Increase Your Photographic Skills? Try Shooting JPEGs

An example of a JPEG image shot in a difficult environment; I see plenty of shadow and highlight detail (click to enlarge)
All images in this post are from JPEG files
Fujifilm X-T2, 16-55mm f/2.8 lens @ 16mm; 1/12th sec. @ f/8; ISO 3200

I was thinking about exercises in which I could engage that would better my photographic skills.  One thing that came to mind would be to shoot JPEGs instead of RAW files.  RAW files are quite forgiving and can make up for poor technique, but since JPEGs are limited in their dynamic range and ability to radically adjust them during editing, shooting JPEGs would take a thorough understanding of their capabilities and limitations in order to retain maximum image quality.  Sloppiness in exposure, cropping or other bad habits would have to be eliminated otherwise risk ruining the image.  In other words, I would have to step up my game and learn to make no mistakes otherwise I might not bring home the images I wanted.

Digital cameras, their sensors as well as their internal processors, have gotten so good today that I read and hear about many photographers, including professional photographers, who would have never before entertained the thought, that are now shooting JPEGs instead of RAW files.  In fact, after some thought, I think JPEGs would serve my photographic purposes at least 85% of the time.  Only when certain conditions are in play, would a RAW file be necessary.  The trick is knowing and understanding those conditions.  Sadly, as we know, any photographer worth anything shoots RAW!  The experts tell us that, don't they?  Lol.

Baseball Hall of Fame, Cooperstown, NY (click to enlarge)
X-T2, 10-24mm f/4 lens @ 10mm; 1/60th sec. @ f/4; ISO 400

Almost always, still thinking in terms of how things "were" in digital photography, I still shoot RAW to maximize my files’ potential and give me the best chance in rescuing some sort of screw-up I might have made.  But is RAW necessary all of the time any longer?  

Over the past 5 years, I have consistently shot RAW + JPEG on my Fujifilm cameras for two pretty straightforward reasons. First, Fujifilm didn’t embed a full size JPEG preview into the RAW file so there was no way to view my image files on the LCD at 100% to check for critical focus and other parameters. This has changed with the X-T3.  The LCD panel still doesn't show a file at 100% but its pretty close.  Its close enough for me to now properly judge focus, etc.  

Second, I happen to really like the Fujifilm film simulations.  I think they are terrific.  Adobe does a pretty good job in replicating them in Lightroom Classic but not as good as does the Fujifilm engineers who actually engineered the original film stock.

When looking at those JPEGs that have accompanied my RAW files after uploading them into my computer, I find most of the time the JPEG has produced an image that is as good as my final edited RAW image.  Not all of the time, but most of the time under most circumstances.  Also in my situation, using Fujifilm cameras, Fujifilm's film simulations along with their sharpening algorithms, look better than I can produce in Lightroom Classic!  I will also mention, even though the image files in my Olympus cameras are M4/3 format and only 12-bit, the JPEGs are outstanding.  With Olympus, I just don't have the variety of settings to simulate film stocks.

Super Fine JPEG, Black and White, Square format; Derelict Deadrise Work boat (click to enlarge)
Olympus Pen-F; 12-100mm f/4 PRO lens @ 50mm; 1/640th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200

Here are some reasons to consider shooting JPEGs instead of RAW, on occasion, especially if you want to "up" your photographic skills.

We complain JPEGs have a lower quality than RAW files and that is true.  JPEGs are 8-bit files and are processed in-camera while RAW files are normally 12 or 14-bit and represent the light which fell into the photosites on your sensor.  No processing has occurred.  Your options for improving your JPEG files later in an image editing software program are restricted as compared to the flexibility a RAW files provides.

I like to present the difference between RAW files and JPEGS in this manner.  Shooting RAW is like going to the store and buying the ingredients to make a cake.  When you get back to your kitchen, you have an unlimited number of options before you in how you make that cake.  You can add ingredients, change proportions and leave out ingredients.  You can change the baking time.  Want icing?  Add it.  Don't want it?  Leave it off.

Shooting JPEGs is like going to the store and buying the cake already made.  You are now limited in what you can do to personalize or enhance the cake once you get home.  Someone else has made the decision as to what went into the cake, how long it was baked and how the icing was applied.

However, today's JPEG files are better than the Kodachrome, Ektachome, Velvia and Provia slides, just to name a few slide films, of yesterday.  All the pros shot with those slide films and others. If that very limited dynamic range of slide films was good enough for them, the better and more versatile JPEG files you can now create today could work for you.  But you have to experiment and fully understand JPEG limitations.  If you don't, you risk photographic failure.

Maine harbor scene (click to enlarge)
X-T2; 16-55mm f/2.8 lens @ 17mm; 1/400th sec. @ f/8; ISO 200

We often hear that limits and restrictions can make us better photographers.  We talk about limiting oneself to only one prime lens of a moderate focal length, most typically a 50mm (in 35mm terms) to make us work harder, force ourselves to see differently, move around more to properly compose and become more creative.  I think we can also add shooting JPEG files to that restrictive philosophy.  Shooting JPEGs can act in the same manner by forcing you to work within their file limits.  With the limitations that go along with JPEGs, you have to better select your subjects, think more about your exposures and come to understand what a JPEG can and can’t do.  You will actually have to learn your camera's JPEG settings, how to best adjust the in-camera tonal curve or highlight/shadow controls, what is the proper amount of sharpening, the appropriate color saturation and what type of color settings best suit you.  

You can also select black and white as an option in your camera.  Some cameras, such as my Fujifilm cameras, not only provide black and white, but red, green and yellow simulated filtration built into the JPEG settings.  Additionally, you can change framing ratios.  Why stick to 2x3 or 4x3 when you can switch to 1x1, 16x19 or other formats that may be settable in-camera.  Looking in a viewfinder showing a black and white image is entirely different that you might have experienced in your normal day-to-day photography.

If you choose to shoot with a JPEG file format, along with the decisions you now make for composition, depth of field, shutter speed, etc., before each exposure you may have to make several additional decisions.  Ask your self:

What exposure settings will capture the limited dynamic range and tonalities of the scene before me so I can make an image that reflects my vision?

What color palate (film simulation on a Fujifilm camera) do I want to use to reflect my vision?

Do I need to adjust contrast settings?  Do I want to open up the shadows, for example?

Do I want to boost or reduce overall color?  What "look" do I want?

What saturation does the subject require? What effect do I want?

How much sharpness would be appropriate?

Would this subject look better in a different format such as 1:1 or 16:9?

How would this subject look in black and white?  Does color contribute to the image or get in the way of the essence of what I am trying to capture?  Are strong graphics more important than color?

If I choose black and white, what in-camera filtration would be most appropriate to separate the important tones?

Is the dynamic range too much for a JPEG file?  Do I need to make an in-camera HDR (if your camera supports that) or do I need to shoot three images 2-stops apart (or more) and later blend them to capture what I want in the final image?

Pond (click to enlarge)
X-T2; 16-55mm f/2.8 lens @ 34mm; 1/180th sec. @ f/11; ISO 400

There are other questions as well but you get my point.  

Shooting JPEGs may make you a better photographer in the long run.  It may change the way you view the world and make you look at it differently than with your usual technique with your usual colors at a 2x3 format.  You could end up changing your photographic style by exploring new ways of photographing.

I might just try shooting JPEGs with different film simulations in my Fujifilm cameras, increase the contrast so my shadows go black, make custom alterations in the colors and other experiments, just to jump start my creative juices.  After all, I've pretty much been photographing the exact same way for almost 50 years now.  You might want to try it as well.  

If you are worried you might miss something by shooting only JPEG, well then, set your camera for RAW + JPEG as insurance if you have little confidence in your abilities.  Then, if necessary, you can always fall back on that RAW file for insurance.

Fall scene (click to enlarge)
X-T2; 16-55mm f/2.8 lens @ 48mm; 1/160th sec. @ f/5.6; ISO 200

Join me over at Instagram @dennisamook or my website, www.dennismook.com. 

Thanks for looking. Enjoy! 

Dennis A. Mook 

All content on this blog is © 2013-2019 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.