Workflow: Do you like your pictures raw or pre-cooked?

Over the years, I’ve flip-flopped on my attitude to taking JPEGs in addition to RAW images. Fortunately, I have never shot JPEG only. But, I have often used RAW+JPEG, sometimes as a belt-and-braces approach, sometimes to try out various in-camera presets. Occasionally, I admit, simply because I thought I might just need them — totally without logic. Nevertheless, is it really necessary to create in-camera finished images?

Perhaps this is heresy these days, as camera manufacturers focus increasingly on processing recipes, film simulations and every possible means of creating a perfect image right there in the camera. It’s what you expect from a smartphone — instant gratification — but what if you never need instant results? What if you rely entirely from choice on post-processing RAW images, as I do?

Maybe I’m in a minority, and this article is by way of a prompt to ask readers their preferred workflow — JPEG only, JPEG and RAW, or RAW only. I realise there is no clear answer. It’s a matter of personal preference and of individual requirements. The big other question, is what do you intend to do with the images you have shot? However, it does no harm to consider whether creating an off-the-peg tandem can be wasteful.

RAW only

I can manage perfectly well shooting RAW only. Apart from the fact that I never need to share images, except after “developing” back at base, there’s less clutter when processing pictures, and a significant saving in disk space.

Over the past two years, however, I went through some doubts. I was at peak JPEG last year, largely because of reviewing the Fujifilm X100VI and GFX100RF. Both cameras, true to Fuji practice, major on excellent “film simulations”, a Fujifilm strong point.

Indeed, the RF actively encourages the choice of in-camera treatment, especially when the options are available on the focus ring at a flick of the wrist. It seemed churlish to review these cameras if I couldn’t discuss the film simulations, so I decided to embrace them.

Simulations and recipes

In reality, though, it isn’t necessary to keep changing film-simulation presets with Fuji cameras unless you want to share them immediately, as you might, for instance, with a smartphone image, or with a “real camera” image connected to a smartphone.

Lightroom users can access all of Fujifilm’s in‑camera simulations during post-processing and apply them retrospectively to any photograph as required. The same principle applies to Capture One for Fujifilm, Fujifilm X RAW Studio, and Fujifilm’s own Silkypix-based converters. However, while Adobe and Fujifilm have collaborated to produce Adobe RAW Fujifilm presets, there are likely to be some differences between results. If you use a Lumix camera, you can access all the camera LUTs you have downloaded from within Lightroom.

It’s fun to experiment and work out which of the settings provides the best starting point for further tweaking if necessary. I prefer to transfer the decision from shooting to post-processing. There’s more time to consider the options and create the most compelling images.

Moving to Leica, I truly enjoy the Leica Looks and the built-in JPEG styles on Leica’s latest cameras. Unfortunately, similar freedom to apply recipes in post-processing is not yet available for Leica. Furthermore, only a sub-set of available Looks can be loaded into the camera at once, and they are applied at capture time rather than during RAW development in the computer.

The terminology

Incidentally, a word on terminology for less experienced readers, since the subject can be confusing. I realise that most of our readers are experienced photographers and that this is basic stuff. But it does no harm to repeat. If you know all this, fast-forward to the next section.

A RAW file is an unprocessed format containing all data captured by the camera’s sensor. People often refer to it as a “digital negative” because it preserves maximum detail, dynamic range, and full colour information. RAW (or, perhaps more accurately, “raw”) isn’t an acronym and simply refers to an “uncooked” state, ready for the chef’s ministrations.

File extensions vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, such as .ARW for Sony, .RAF for Fuji and .RW2 for Panasonic. Leica and Ricoh, however, use Adobe’s open-source DNG (Digital Negative) standard, which is growing in popularity, and in general is more convenient. For one thing, it isn’t necessary to wait for post-processing packages to add the ability to handle non-standard RAW files.

A JPEG (named after the Joint Photographic Experts Group which developed these important standards) or JPG (taken from the file-name extension) file compresses image data to produce a specific, pre-determined result. It occupies less space than the RAW file and is ideal for sharing. HEIC is a similar image format, which is the default on Apple devices, and optional for example in newer Fujifilm and Lumix cameras, capable of storing more information than JPEG in a more compressed form.

What are the advantages and, if any, the disadvantages of using RAW only?

Saving RAW only or RAW+JPG

Let’s look first at the advantages of out-of-camera JPEGs. If you wish to have instant processed images to share, without waiting for post-production, then JPG or HEIC output is for you.

You can easily understand these advantages if you need to share pictures immediately and don’t have the time (or inclination) to post-process the session before needing the shots. I think this is a decision any of us can make, depending on our workflow.

Here on the Macfilos team, for instance, we have differing approaches. Jörg-Peter Rau, as a working photo journalist, finds additional JPEGs essential because he requires instant access and cannot wait to get back to base to process the day’s pictures. I suspect this applies to many news professionals where time is important.

Another colleague, Jon Cheffings, takes the opposite view and shoots entirely in RAW because he prefers to rely on post-processing and seldom has an urgent need for a particular picture. His Lightroom database is unencumbered by tandem JPEG files.

The advantages of turning off JPEGs are substantial in space-saving, especially now that high-resolution sensors in full-frame and medium-format cameras are the norm. The Fujifilm GFX100RF, with its MF sensor, is one of the biggest offenders in my workspace when it comes to file size. RAW files are roughly 70-120MB, depending on compression, and full-quality JPEGs vary between 10-40MB. This soon mounts up.

Halfway house

I have lived in a halfway house for some years. I have often gathered JPEG files for no real reason, especially in the past, when I didn’t really worry about space restrictions. That is no longer the case, and I now question the need for automatic collection of JPEG conversions. However, I do frequently harvest JPEG files when reviewing cameras so I can provide examples of results based on a set camera standard which anyone can reproduce.

In most cases, nevertheless, I don’t really need JPEG files but often leave them turned on in camera settings out of laziness. I have frequently reasoned, illogically, that they might come in useful, even though I know that they won’t — and that I can recreate them instantly from the RAW image.

Space Saving

There are additional ways to save space, even with RAW files. Most manufacturers use (optionally) lossless-compressed RAW. Sony was a notable outlier for years, with only lossy compression on many models, and later added lossless options on newer bodies and via firmware — but not all models gained it.

In principle and in practice, proper lossless RAW compression does not reduce image quality. Once decompressed, the RAW data are bit-for-bit identical to uncompressed RAW from the same source.

Nevertheless, even in compressed mode, the average Leica SL3 RAW file uses between 70 and 80MB of disk space, while JPEG sizes vary wildly with resolution and subject, but are typically in the 10-30MB range at the full 60MP resolution. That’s serious disk space over the course of a year.

It is particularly relevant if, like me, you are reluctant to delete anything even if I’ve decided not to give it even a one-star rating. It might be useful, sometime, I think… (again, a false assumption and I need to try harder).

Even smaller sensor cameras are capable of producing clutter. Fujifilm’s X100VI with its 40MP sensor is no miser when it comes to file sizes. RAW files can range from 40 to over 80MB, depending on compression settings, and between 10 and 20MB for full-quality JPEGs.

While using compressed RAW files brings no penalties, shooting JPEG instead of RAW typically results in a significant loss of editable data. That impacts dynamic range and colour flexibility. While JPEGs can look almost as good as RAW in certain conditions and at smaller sizes, the fact remains that they are compressed 8-bit files.

Electronic view

One reason to have a warm feeling for in-camera processing is that most cameras are focused on JPEG settings, and there’s a tendency to feel you are missing something, or failing to take full advantage of the camera’s capabilities.

It is especially so when cameras such as the Fujifilm GFX100RF and the new X-E5 have dedicated access to film simulations. It seems like a crime not to use them. On the other hand, switching to RAW only makes vast swathes of your camera’s menu redundant, enabling you to concentrate on what’s vital.

However, JPEG recipes can come in useful even if you are set to shoot RAW only. The film simulations and recipes control the image in the viewfinder or on the screen, so you can flick around to set the scene to best advantage.

Vivid, nostalgic, cinematic, sepia or monochrome, you can set the JPEG and view the scene. I find it helps to visualise your finished output, especially if you intend to convert from colour to monochrome. And, as I said earlier, you can add the simulations in post-processing.

Furthermore, many people prefer setting the viewfinder to a monochrome version because, often, black and white can help with visualisation. If you haven’t tried it, give it a go.

Housekeeping

My Lightroom database, which goes back about 20 years, is cluttered with JPEG images which are duplicates of RAW files and which I will never need again. I imagine many of us are in a similar position. I have recently done housekeeping on earlier years, and I plan to remove all unnecessary JPEGs, but I admit I am one of the biggest offenders in not keeping up to date.

In general, I have a tidy mind, although my lofty ideals of order do not always correspond with reality. Periodically, I have to kick myself to clear up the clutter and return to a state of organised bliss. This is a principle that I need to apply more to my photographic library.

Shooting tandem JPEG files might be comforting (there’s always the nagging suspicion that you’re missing out on something) but is certainly not necessary.

RAW images give you maximum quality and editing flexibility, while JPEG bakes in decisions (often, in the case of presets, someone else’s preferences) and discards data at the moment of capture. I can’t imagine a time when I would use a high-resolution camera and shoot only JPEGs. RAW files preserve all the sensor information, which you can then interpret properly in post-production and use in the future if you wish to re-edit and publish a cherished image. And you can change your mind if you don’t get it right first time.

Image quality and dynamic range

As we all know, RAW files provide maximum available detail in shadows and highlights, and a wider usable dynamic range. This is particularly valuable in high-contrast situations, such as backlit subjects or bright skies with dark foregrounds. Furthermore, in low light, RAW allows sharpening and denoising algorithms and much more detail to work with.

In modern editors, RAW workflows are non-destructive. The system stores adjustments alongside the original data, allowing you to create multiple versions of a single frame without degrading the original. JPEGs, by contrast, serve as the finished product and work best for quickly sharing images before post-production — or when post-processing isn’t needed or possible.

Exclusively RAW

Working exclusively in RAW definitely simplifies file management because you can avoid RAW+JPEG tandems and the annoyance of multiple versions per frame. It also makes for a consistent, pre-determined workflow. And, of course, there is the big advantage of saving at least a third of the space occupied by every photograph you take.

Modern software makes handling RAW eminently practical, so the traditional speed argument for creating JPEGs is less valid than it once was. If you care about extracting the maximum quality, deciding on RAW-only shooting is a sensible and obvious choice.

We are grateful to reader Michael Farley for his invaluable contribution to polishing some of the more technical aspects of this article.

What’s your view? Do you shoot RAW only, or always add a JPEG for good measure? And if so, why? Many photographers, as I’ve mentioned, absolutely do need tandem JPEGs for instant access and sharing, but does this apply to you?

Review of Fujifilm X100VI	Review of Fujifilm GFX100RF
Shoot film — the real negative	Pure monochrome or conversion?

---

Make a donation to help with our running costs

Did you know that Macfilos is run by five photography enthusiasts based in the UK, USA and Europe? We cover all the substantial costs of running the site, and we do not carry advertising because it spoils readers’ enjoyment. Any amount, however small, will be appreciated, and we will write to acknowledge your generosity.

---