RAW vs JPEG - Freedom Or Limiting

[Ysarex102 96]

You may not get the best possible results from the RAw if exposing for jpeg.

That's not a maybe. I went for my morning walk today in the park and snapped a rather touristy pic of the Art Museum on the hill and bridge below over the river. Here's the processed image:

And here's the JPEG the camera made: Trying to edit this JPEG to look like my processed image above would be a fools errand -- it's trashed.

To take the photo I set the exposure comp to +1.3. Fair to assume the camera JPEG is 1 and 1/3 stops overexposed. My exposure for the sensor in the camera is perfect which made it very easy to process the raw file. I set an exposure that fully utilized the sensor -- I used all of it. If to get a good JPEG I had to expose 1 and 1/3 stops less that would leave 60% of the sensor unused -- basically a 60/40 split, a JPEG exposure would use 40% of the sensor and 60% would be left unused. Consider this analogy; go to the grocery store and buy a gallon of milk (128 ounces). When you get home pour 76 ounces down the drain and you get to put 52 ounces in the frig. Now the photo I took after this one the EC was +1, so a 50/50 split. Some photos I take I only have a +.7 EC but in others I make it to +2 and above (75/25 split -- you get to keep 1 quart of milk after dumping 3). Point being the discrepancy is often significant.

Now it varies from one camera manufacturer to another. My Nikon does the above the least of my cameras and I rarely see an EC greater than +1 whereas my Fuji is worse than my Olympus used here, but they all do it to a greater/lesser degree.

But with RAW also, you will get more to edit with. So it's still worth shooting Raw + jpeg.

You're right even a raw file that only uses 40% of the sensor is still better for editing than a camera JPEG and I'd still rather have that underexposed raw file than just the JPEG. But JPEG otherwise offers me no advantage that's worth underutilizing my camera sensor by 60%. I can't comfortably walk with my bigger FF camera (3 pounds) and so I walk with this 1 pound M4/3 Olympus PenLite. That's 4 times less sensor area than my FF camera and so all the more reason for me to use that smaller sensor to maximum advantage. Shooting JPEG would actually be more work for me and more time consuming. As I noted above I like lighting conditions (side and backlight) that are challenging for the camera processor -- there is no "get it right in camera" option and so I'd have to shoot the JPEG planning to then attempt a repair in post -- that's going to be more difficult and take more time (if it's even possible) than just saving and processing a raw file.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

Shooting JPEG would actually be more work for me and more time consuming. As I noted above I like lighting conditions (side and backlight) that are challenging for the camera processor -- there is no "get it right in camera" option and so I'd have to shoot the JPEG planning to then attempt a repair in post -- that's going to be more difficult and take more time (if it's even possible) than just saving and processing a raw file.

Here's an example of that situation. I take photos in lighting conditions like this all the time.

That's severely backlit. In this photo I set an EC on the camera of -2.7. That was necessary in order to retain the brightest diffuse highlight in the sky. Again I used all of the sensor placing that brightest highlight right at the sensor's saturation threshold. Here's the JPEG the camera created.

What's the JPEG shooter going to do in this situation to get a decent image? They're going to give up the sky and increase exposure for the lantern -- so blown highlights. Best case they may have a camera with an HDR function that will bracket and combine multiple exposures. It's not going to produce the result I got and they'll still be facing a struggle post process to try and repair it. For me this is as easy as the Art Museum photo above -- they're both the same exposure after all.

 

[KJ_North]

All good points from many in this post.

Maybe for just a quick viewing show etc the Jpegs are more than satisfactory. However if you are looking to print them etc you likely need to post process to get the absolute best image you can make especially when heavily Enlarging/Cropping.

The Bottom line is what are "YOU" going to do with the photo? So really no right or wrong answer what do you need a Jpeg or a RAW?

 

[smoke665]

Winner, winner, chicken dinner^^^^^^^^

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex While not disputing the advantage of RAW vs JPEG, for your use, @AlanKlein outlined a much different use. In his post, "It depends whether the time is worth the results. For example, I do slide shows where each photo displays 3-5 seconds. Using jpegs is faster. I might use 200 pictures from an 800 shot photo shoot. No one sees shadow details or cares. If it's a little light or dark overall". Having done some slide shows myself, I can confirm he's correct, in that people don't view an image long enough to form an opinion on IQ. He's also correct about time, there's a big difference in processing time for one file vs 800. Of the 200 he says he "might" keep, say he only spends 3 mins per shot on average, editing/converting a RAW file to a useable JPEG, that's 10hrs additional time.

As to creativity, the slide show is his creative function, the images are secondary to that so in his case, he saves time without limiting his creative function.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

@Ysarex While not disputing the advantage of RAW vs JPEG, for your use, @AlanKlein outlined a much different use. In his post, "It depends whether the time is worth the results. For example, I do slide shows where each photo displays 3-5 seconds. Using jpegs is faster. I might use 200 pictures from an 800 shot photo shoot. No one sees shadow details or cares. If it's a little light or dark overall". Having done some slide shows myself, I can confirm he's correct, in that people don't view an image long enough to form an opinion on IQ. He's also correct about time, there's a big difference in processing time for one file vs 800. Of the 200 he says he "might" keep, say he only spends 3 mins per shot on average, editing/converting a RAW file to a useable JPEG, that's 10hrs additional time.

What works for one in this debate may not work for another. I've also found myself using JPEG on several occasions where I need a quick shot for social media.

I saw Alan's post and I entirely understand the point. I originally responded to a comment that shooting RAW + JPEG covers all bases. I pointed out a problem with that and Alan commented on my comment and I added a clarification.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

All good points from many in this post.

Maybe for just a quick viewing show etc the Jpegs are more than satisfactory. However if you are looking to print them etc you likely need to post process to get the absolute best image you can make especially when heavily Enlarging/Cropping.

The Bottom line is what are "YOU" going to do with the photo? So really no right or wrong answer what do you need a Jpeg or a RAW?

Yes, to further clarify we have two topics here concerning Option A and Option B.
Topic 1. People have different needs, expectations, and levels of involvement such that Option A is best for some folks and Option B is best for others.
Topic 2. Since Option A and Option B both resolve to the same end i.e. a finished photograph, are there objective differences between the two beyond just the different levels of involvement of the various users? And yes there are.

 

[William Baroo]

I'm amazed there is any controversy in 2026.

Recently, I saw a guy say raw gave no editing advantage, without qualification. That was just nuts. To me, editing headroom is the entire purpose of raw. Raw images have saved me from disasters in situations where it would have been completely impossible to save JPG's. And what if you're satisfied with your JPG, but later, you have an idea for changing it? Good luck with that.

 

[KJ_North]

I'm amazed there is any controversy in 2026.

Recently, I saw a guy say raw gave no editing advantage, without qualification. That was just nuts. To me, editing headroom is the entire purpose of raw. Raw images have saved me from disasters in situations where it would have been completely impossible to save JPG's. And what if you're satisfied with your JPG, but later, you have an idea for changing it? Good luck with that.

Yep has saved my photos endless times.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

That's not a maybe. I went for my morning walk today in the park and snapped a rather touristy pic of the Art Museum on the hill and bridge below over the river. Here's the processed image:

View attachment 294839

And here's the JPEG the camera made: Trying to edit this JPEG to look like my processed image above would be a fools errand -- it's trashed.

View attachment 294838

To take the photo I set the exposure comp to +1.3. Fair to assume the camera JPEG is 1 and 1/3 stops overexposed. My exposure for the sensor in the camera is perfect which made it very easy to process the raw file. I set an exposure that fully utilized the sensor -- I used all of it. If to get a good JPEG I had to expose 1 and 1/3 stops less that would leave 60% of the sensor unused -- basically a 60/40 split, a JPEG exposure would use 40% of the sensor and 60% would be left unused. Consider this analogy; go to the grocery store and buy a gallon of milk (128 ounces). When you get home pour 76 ounces down the drain and you get to put 52 ounces in the frig. Now the photo I took after this one the EC was +1, so a 50/50 split. Some photos I take I only have a +.7 EC but in others I make it to +2 and above (75/25 split -- you get to keep 1 quart of milk after dumping 3). Point being the discrepancy is often significant.

Now it varies from one camera manufacturer to another. My Nikon does the above the least of my cameras and I rarely see an EC greater than +1 whereas my Fuji is worse than my Olympus used here, but they all do it to a greater/lesser degree.

You're right even a raw file that only uses 40% of the sensor is still better for editing than a camera JPEG and I'd still rather have that underexposed raw file than just the JPEG. But JPEG otherwise offers me no advantage that's worth underutilizing my camera sensor by 60%. I can't comfortably walk with my bigger FF camera (3 pounds) and so I walk with this 1 pound M4/3 Olympus PenLite. That's 4 times less sensor area than my FF camera and so all the more reason for me to use that smaller sensor to maximum advantage. Shooting JPEG would actually be more work for me and more time consuming. As I noted above I like lighting conditions (side and backlight) that are challenging for the camera processor -- there is no "get it right in camera" option and so I'd have to shoot the JPEG planning to then attempt a repair in post -- that's going to be more difficult and take more time (if it's even possible) than just saving and processing a raw file.

The jpeg is overexposed +1.3 when shot and appears overexposed. So I don't know what you're proving. The fact you overexposed it +1.3 for teh RAW proves nothing. WHat I;d like to see is you exposure it normal for the jpeg. Then let's see what range you can get from the RAW.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

Here's an example of that situation. I take photos in lighting conditions like this all the time.

View attachment 294841

That's severely backlit. In this photo I set an EC on the camera of -2.7. That was necessary in order to retain the brightest diffuse highlight in the sky. Again I used all of the sensor placing that brightest highlight right at the sensor's saturation threshold. Here's the JPEG the camera created.

View attachment 294840

What's the JPEG shooter going to do in this situation to get a decent image? They're going to give up the sky and increase exposure for the lantern -- so blown highlights. Best case they may have a camera with an HDR function that will bracket and combine multiple exposures. It's not going to produce the result I got and they'll still be facing a struggle post process to try and repair it. For me this is as easy as the Art Museum photo above -- they're both the same exposure after all.

Pictures like this where the ground is in shade and you have sky in the frame is one of the times where jpegs suffer. So, using raw or raw + jpeg, bracketed shots, or graduated ND filters is required.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

@Ysarex While not disputing the advantage of RAW vs JPEG, for your use, @AlanKlein outlined a much different use. In his post, "It depends whether the time is worth the results. For example, I do slide shows where each photo displays 3-5 seconds. Using jpegs is faster. I might use 200 pictures from an 800 shot photo shoot. No one sees shadow details or cares. If it's a little light or dark overall". Having done some slide shows myself, I can confirm he's correct, in that people don't view an image long enough to form an opinion on IQ. He's also correct about time, there's a big difference in processing time for one file vs 800. Of the 200 he says he "might" keep, say he only spends 3 mins per shot on average, editing/converting a RAW file to a useable JPEG, that's 10hrs additional time.

As to creativity, the slide show is his creative function, the images are secondary to that so in his case, he saves time without limiting his creative function.

When I do slideshows using a video editing program (Adobe Premiere Elements), I find I spend most of my time making the video arranging the stills, adding short video clips if I have those, finding appropriate music to overlay, creating titles and credits, creating text entries, editing clip lengths, coordinating the music with the right clips, etc. The editing of still photos (Lightroom v6 original) usually is just cropping and minor overall adjustments to exposure, saturation and other short edits, usually on the JPEGs if I can do them. I'll use the raws rarely.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

The jpeg is overexposed +1.3 when shot and appears overexposed. So I don't know what you're proving. The fact you overexposed it +1.3 for teh RAW proves nothing. WHat I;d like to see is you exposure it normal for the jpeg. Then let's see what range you can get from the RAW.

The JPEG is very overexposed but the raw file (same exposure) is not overexposed. Image quality improves with increasing exposure and image quality degrades with decreasing exposure. It's a direct relationship. By exposing the sensor to capacity you get the best possible image quality for that camera system -- and that's what I did with the Art Museum raw file. What I've shown is that in order to get a good JPEG with that Art Museum photo I would be forced to expose less than the full capacity sensor exposure I used for the raw file. An exposed-less JPEG (and companion raw file) then would have reduced image quality relative to what I got in my exposed-more raw file. The choice to expose for a good JPEG in that example then would force acceptance of image quality that is slightly less than the maximum the camera system is capable of delivering.

 

[greybeard50 22]

If there would come up a reason that one had to shoot in jpeg and could see that the image would need a lot of processing, they could shoot in jpeg FLAT or NEUTRAL. These color settings add minimal "in camera" processing and will take post processing much better than other color settings.

 

[Tinstafl132 128]

I used to shoot pretty much only raw but one shoot I put it on raw and jpg but now with the X2Dii there is an hdr setting but it needs to in heir so I will shoot the next time in both formats. It will be interesting to see the differences.