You Should Never Shoot JPEGs; Only Shoot RAW; JPEGs Are Bad; Or Are They?

All images are from in-camera JPEGs made with a Fujifilm X-T4, and various Fujifilm lenses.
(Click any image to enlarge)

I have a confession to make.  I, the dedicated, diehard, always set my camera for the RAW file format believer, extoller of the virtues of RAW files and foibles of JPEG files has fallen in love with the JPEG images that are coming out of my Fujifilm X-T4.

This wasn’t an ‘all of a sudden’ kind of thing or an instant revelation.  It was a gradual change that initially came with me setting my camera to record both RAW + JPEG Fine, as an experiment, to find out just how well JPEG files really are today versus years ago when everyone's opinions about them were formed.  Then, over a period of months and directly seeing how the JPEGs compared to my RAW files in many situations, gradually I found that most all of the time the JPEG files were as good (sometimes better) as my RAW files and required almost no editing.  The upshot is that I kept shooting JPEGs waiting for my little experiment to to reveal that I really couldn't trust JPEGs.  Well, that didn't happen.

Since March of this year I've been exclusively using my X-T4 (you may remember I sold all of my Olympus and Nikon gear) and, you probably haven't realized it, almost all of the images I've posted on this blog have been from JPEG files.  I find the Fujifilm JPEGs excellent.  Most often I find the JPEGs look like I want my RAW files to look after I would spend time editing them.  On occasion and this still doesn’t make sense to me but it’s true, I can't get the RAW images to look as good as the accompanying JPEGs.  In those cases the JPEGs look better, have more fine detail and are sharper.  I've come to think the JPEG image files are that good, especially using the sharpening and clarity applied in-camera versus in Lightroom Classic.

Here is why we are told JPEGs shouldn't ever be used:

➤They are 8-bit files versus RAW files which are 12 or 14-bit files.  The greater the bit depth the more flexibility you have in editing in a variety of ways.

➤They have all of the exposure, contrast, color, saturation and other settings "baked in" so editing them is limited as compared to RAW files. 

➤If you try to edit them too heavily, you will experience banding in areas of subtle tonal changes such as a clear blue sky. 

➤They can't handle the same dynamic range as RAW files so highlights and shadows can't be as fully recovered. 

➤They are compressed, at a minimum, of 25% resulting in data loss in the image files.

➤The largest color gamut you can have is Adobe RGB (set in-camera) whereas you can assign ProPhoto RGB to your RAW files in various editing programs. 

➤Once you set your camera for certain JPEG parameters, you are stuck with just those and you lose any ability to change film simulations, color profiles, sharpening, etc.

All of those things I just wrote are true.  However, none of them likely will make a difference in your everyday photography.  I'm not saying never, there will be situations where JPEG files won't work as well as RAW files, but if you understand your camera's abilities and menu settings, have it set properly for the situation and carefully expose, these issues probably won't affect your images and you won't see a difference.  Sometimes, however, you will find situations that even RAW files can't handle.  Then we bracket even those files.  Also, you can't expect to overexpose or underexpose your images two stops or more and get good results.  Even with RAW files, in those situations you are pushing the boundaries of what can be recovered and look good.  Again, you have to have a thorough understanding of your camera and its abilities.

After photographing many, many subjects in a wide variety of circumstances over the past  months, I have rarely found that the JPEG file doesn't fully suffice for my needs, whether for electronic use or for prints.  Contrary to what you've been told, JPEG files can be edited, color balanced, contrast adjusted, shadows and highlights recovered and just about all of the other types of editing you I do on your RAW files—just not as extensively.  But, as I said, if you are a careful photographer, you shouldn’t need to extensively edit.  

Where I've found JPEGs are a bit lacking is in extreme contrast situations.  In those cases, for example an extremely contrasty bright sunlit day with dark, heavy shadows and a clear blue sky, the bright sky will lack some of the blue color.  A RAW image will edit better in a circumstance such as that.

Don't get me wrong.  JPEG files are not as purely versatile and malleable as a RAW file. They won't work in every situation.  You have to play with them and gain the experience you need to know when they won't suffice.  Additionally, yes, I know I am throwing away data and JPEG files are only 8-bit and not nearly has high quality as RAW files, but in my experience the JPEGs out of my X-T4 have been beautiful and very satisfying.  In some cases, as I mentioned, better than I can make the RAW files look.  Seriously.  There is some kind of Fuji magic involved, I think.  Lol.  And, yes, if you are wondering I still shoot RAW + JPEG as an insurance policy.  I'm conservative in that way.  I like to have a backup plan and that insurance policy is having those RAW files, just in case.

Fujifilm gives us a wide variety of film simulations to match just about anyone's preferences.  Add to that, the ability to push or pull shadows, highlights, add clarity, add or reduce color saturation, increase or even prioritize dynamic range, etc. and the JPEGs from Fujifilm cameras can handle just about any situation.  If you have extremely high contrast situations, set the Eterna film simulation, which is very low contrast, very low color, etc.  It looks like an unprocessed RAW file.  But it will hold detail in those high contrast situations.  

If you like saturated landscapes, dial in Velvia.  Portraits?  Astia.  General all around photography?  Provia or Pro Neg Std (or H).  If you like a bit of a nostalgic look to your images, dial in Classic Chrome or Classic Neg.  If you like black and white, you can choose two different renderings with three filtrations settings each.  Additionally, if you aren't sure which film simulation you may like for any given subject, you can set your camera to bracket three different film simulations with each exposure.  Once any of these film simulations are set, you can then modify them to your own taste beyond what Fujifilm provides.  If you want to take a deep dive to fully understand what engineering Fujifilm puts into their film simulations, take a look at this Imaging Resource article.  It will tell you why you can't fully reproduce these in LR or PS.

There are two easy ways to handle just about any situation in which you may encounter.  You can a) set your camera to bracket three different film simulations, three different exposures using one film simulation or three different dynamic ranges.  Alternatively, b) make three custom settings of your favorite film simulation—one group of settings for high contrast scenes, another group for normal contrast scenes and the third for low contrast scenes.  Then you can just use the Q-Menu to dial in the appropriate one almost instantly by rotating the command dial.  Potentially a third way is to use a combination of the two of these methods.

There is a website and YouTube channel by the name Fuji X Weekly, operated by a fellow by the name of Richie Roesch who has extensively experimented and developed tens of film simulation recipes that can be dialed into your Fujifilm camera.  I'm talking current and years ago  discontinued film types such as Kodachrome I from the 1950s, print films, various slide films, black and white films, etc.  Check out his site if you would like to see how you can mimic many different types of films from different photographic eras.  He freely gives his recipes away.

Also, there are some books available that extol the virtues of shooting JPEGs.  Check out Gordon Laing's book, "In Camera: Perfect Pictures Straight out of the Camera."  If you are not familiar with Gordon's work, he tests a multitude of cameras and lenses on his YouTube channel entitled, "CameraLabs."  He is one of the most well respected, thorough and unbiased gear testers I've seen.  His site is one of the ones I visit to get an accurate and unbiased narrative on new cameras and lenses.  He is a believer in JPEGs.  If anyone should know if one can be happy with JPEGs, he is the one.  Also, I have read of several other professional photographers that primarily use Fujifilm JPEGs instead of RAW files.

But wait!  There's more...  It gets better.

If you are a bit hesitant to shoot JPEGs and don’t want to use the extra memory space needed to store both file formats on your hard drive, you can have the benefit of both RAW + JPEGs by shooting just in RAW, connecting your Fujifilm camera to your computer and using Fujifilm’s free X-RAW Studio software to create the perfect JPEG using your camera’s image processor.  You get the best of both worlds, so to speak.  In fact, you can make as many JPEG versions or your RAW photo in color or black and white as you wish.  All of the controls in your camera’s menu are duplicated on your computer screen so you can play with various film simulations and adjustments to your heart’s content.  When you are satisfied you've created what pleases you most, then upload your newly created JPEG files from your memory card just as you normally would.  Your original RAW files are untouched.  Additionally, if you prefer to maximize quality, you can save the newly converted files as TIF files instead of JPEGs.

If you are shooting with Fujifilm cameras, seriously consider experimenting with JPEGs for your work.  In fact, which ever camera system you are currently using, you might benefit from experimenting with shooting JPEGs.  Experiment with your camera settings (the correct camera settings is key.  I cannot emphasize that enough) to find the most pleasing ones for the kinds of photography you practice.  

When it comes to editing in Lightroom, I almost never have to edit beyond slight adjustments in exposure, highlights, shadows and color balance.  Nothing like what needs to be done with the RAW files.  I never thought I would say this, but I'm now a convert.  Pssst.  But I still will (secretly) keep the RAW files if I every need them.  Lol.

I don't think JPEGs may be right for all of you, especially if you desire or demand maximum flexibility and image quality.  There are circumstances where JPEG files may not handle certain situations and if you get your exposures very wrong you won’t be able to successfully edit your images. There may be certain kinds of photographic work where RAW files fit the bill much better.  But I think most of us would be just fine with JPEGS most all of the time.  

Join me over at my website, https://www.dennismook.com.  

Thanks for looking. Enjoy!  

Dennis A. Mook  

All content on this blog is © 2013-2021 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.