I tended to capture my shots in jpeg. This was true especially on my Fuji X series camera. The jpg coming out from the camera were often spot on and tweaking the RAW files were just time consuming to be quite honest.
On the other hand, my Leica M and Q could only produce reliable photos when the scene were captures in RAW. Their jpg were either too soft, or too harsh. They could not be relied upon. Their RAW conversions however - I used the native Aperture software - were amazing. They were consistently sharper and render nicer tones.
The Sony however, were a bit of a hit and miss.
RAW
Jpeg - in this pair, the jpeg had a significantly cooler tone to the jpeg. Contrast also a bit higher.
RAW
Jpeg. The difference in dynamic range is pretty obvious resulting in higher contrast in the jpeg. The tone is also slightly warmer.
RAW
Jpeg. Sorry about the crop but I prefer the jpeg on this one. The shadow appeared to be more defined but I think this is from the post-processing.In the last few weeks, I had been trying out snaps exclusively using RAW. The Sony files coming out from the Alpha 7R mark II were a pain since the captures were 42 MP, producing RAW files of 53MB each! It could slow down my post-production. The Fuji - 24 MP - were bearable. The question was, was the extra effort worth it?
I must say that there were subtle differences between the RAW and the captured jpg. The tones were more consistent and the colour tended to be richer. I wasn't sure about the sharpness though. The jpg at 42 MP were certainly sharp enough ....
RAW
Jpeg. I prefer the more life-like tone of the RAW on this one.
RAW
Jpeg. I prefer the jpeg on this one. It seems that jpeg from the Fuji is more pleasing compared to the Sony.From now on, I plan to stick to RAW. This would be especially the case as I plan to move to medium format at some stage. Better get into the habit ....
