Why I Ditched RAW and Never Looked Back
The RAW versus JPEG debate has been doing the rounds on YouTube and across photography blogs for as long as I can remember. It's one of those arguments that never quite dies — and honestly, it probably never will. But what's brought me to writing this particular blog isn't the debate itself. It's the attitude that surrounds it. The gatekeeping. The sneering. The absolute conviction some people have that their way is the only way, and anyone who does it differently is either lazy, ignorant, or both.
I've been reading comments and blog posts on this subject for the past few days, and while most people make reasonable points on both sides, some of the comments I've come across over the years are something else entirely. Here's one that stopped me in my tracks:
"Cool, but jpegs are for lazy people who don't care to learn the art of photograpjy. You think the real analogue artists from the past paid someone to develop their images, not having control over how they were developed and turned out? heeelllllzzz nooooo."
I'll leave that there for a moment. Not just the argument — which we'll get to — but the fact that this person managed to misspell 'photography' while lecturing others about learning their craft. Fat fingered f#cker.
But someone else in the same comments thread made a far more interesting point in response:
"If that's a serious comment, an argument could be made that JPGs only serve people well who have mastered the art of photography enough to set their cameras properly, pay attention to lighting, etc. and don't need, or like, to fiddle with RAW files."
That's closer to the truth. And that's what this blog is really about.
My Journey — In Reverse
Most photographers follow what you might call the standard path. They start with JPEG, get told they should be shooting RAW, make the switch, and never look back. The RAW file becomes the default, the safety net, the professional standard. That's the direction of travel most people take.
I went the other way.
I shot film for years — because back then, that's all there was. Black and white film, mostly. You loaded the camera, you shot the roll, you sent it off or developed it yourself, and you got what you got. There was no going back and fixing it later. You either read the scene correctly before you pressed the shutter, or you didn't. That was the whole game.
When I eventually moved to digital, I did what most people do — I read a ton of books, watched YouTube tutorials until it was information overload, and arrived at the same conclusion every single source pointed me towards: you must shoot RAW. So I did. For years, I shot RAW. I was happy enough with my images. Not all of them were brilliant — a fair percentage went in the digital bin, but that's part of learning. I didn't question it, because everyone said it was the right way.
Robbers Bridge, Exmoor — shot in RAW, processed in post. A scene with exactly the kind of dynamic range that makes RAW genuinely useful. This was my workflow then. It isn't now.
I'd always shot in black and white on and off, switching the camera into monochrome mode and making the usual tweaks to contrast and sharpness in-camera, while still capturing the RAW file alongside the JPEG. Then when I decided to go fully exclusive in black and white, I sold everything and went back to film for a few years. I still shoot film to this day, and I still develop everything myself.
Then the Sony A350 came back into my life — my second time owning this camera — and something shifted.
I set it up the same way I always had: RAW + JPEG. But I noticed I wasn't touching the RAW files. Not because I was lazy. Because I didn't need them. I'd spent serious time learning how that camera works — how it meters, how it handles light, what the sensor does in different conditions. The JPEGs I was getting out of it were exactly what I wanted. Not perfect every time — plenty still went in the bin — but the keepers were keepers without needing a RAW safety net.
Stretton Sugwas, Herefordshire — shot on a Kodak Box Brownie with Ilford Delta 400
And then the other thing happened. The thing that finally made me stop shooting RAW entirely.
I realised I was cheating myself.
If I'm shooting exclusively in black and white, how can I genuinely claim that when there's a colour RAW file sitting on my memory card for every single shot? It felt dishonest — not to anyone else, but to the whole reason I'd committed to shooting this way in the first place. Black and white JPEG in camera is a commitment. It's a decision made before you leave the house. Having a colour RAW file in your back pocket undermines the entire point of that commitment. So I stopped. I haven't shot a RAW file for probably getting on for two years or more from the time of writing this, and I think I've taken maybe two colour images in the same period.
The A350 and Why It Matters
The Sony A350 is not a modern camera. It was released in 2008. It has a CCD sensor, a basic monochrome mode, a few sliders for contrast and sharpness, and not much else in terms of the processing options that modern cameras offer. There's no AI, no eye tracking, no sophisticated JPEG engine producing silky output regardless of your settings. What it has is character. The CCD sensor produces images that many photographers — and as it turns out, a fair few AI systems — describe as organic and film-like, with a tonal quality that suits black and white work particularly well.
Sony a350
I chose that camera specifically for what I do and how I like to shoot. And I've spent a disproportionate amount of time learning its quirks, understanding how it handles different light, knowing exactly what I'll get from it in a given situation. That's not laziness. That's the opposite of laziness.
And to be upfront — I do still edit some of my JPEG images. They need to fit with my wider body of work, and I want a consistent look across the site and my prints. But I'm not spending hours in front of a screen dragging sliders around. A few gentle adjustments at most, and a good number of images don't need touching at all. I'm also under no illusion that every frame I take is a keeper — a decent percentage goes straight in the bin, and any photographer who tells you otherwise is lying. The difference is that the editing is a finishing touch, not a rescue operation. The work was done before I pressed the shutter.
The argument that JPEG shooters haven't learned their craft only holds up if you assume that post-processing skill is what defines a photographer. It doesn't. Getting the exposure right before you press the shutter is a skill. Reading light before you raise the camera is a skill. Committing to a tonal range in your mind before the image exists is a skill. These are things you cannot fix later, and because you cannot fix them later, you learn them properly.
Hedsor Church, Buckinghamshire — Sony A350, black and white JPEG.
It's Not Just Me
I'm aware this could all sound like one person defending their own unconventional choices. So let me point out a few other people who have said similar things — people with rather more public profiles than mine.
Photojournalism — arguably the most demanding and unforgiving form of photography there is, where you get one chance at a moment that will never happen again — has a long history of JPEG shooting. Scott Kelby, one of the most widely read photography educators in the world, openly admits he shoots sports in JPEG. Most professional sports photographers he knows do the same. And Getty Images, the world's most commercially demanding photo library, reportedly requires its photographers to submit in JPEG. Not RAW. Not RAW + JPEG. JPEG. These are people shooting under pressure, on deadline, in conditions they can't control, producing images that end up on the front pages of newspapers and the covers of magazines. If JPEG is good enough for that, the lazy amateur argument starts to look a bit thin.
Where RAW Actually Makes Sense
Just to be clear, this is not an anti-RAW blog. RAW files are genuinely useful in certain situations, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.
For commercial work, studio photography, and professional commissions where you cannot afford to get it wrong, RAW gives you the kind of safety net you sometimes genuinely need. For colour photography in particular, where white balance, skin tones, and colour grading all require precise control, the extra data in a RAW file is legitimately valuable. For recovering badly exposed images — particularly in challenging conditions where the light changes faster than you can adjust — RAW gives you something to work with that a JPEG simply cannot match.
Here's the thing though: I don't shoot colour. I don't do commercial work. I walk in the Chiltern Hills with a dog and a 2008 Sony camera, and I make black and white images. The RAW advantage in colour processing is irrelevant to me. The highlight recovery argument falls away when you've taken the time to learn how your camera meters. The dynamic range concern is largely a product of shooting in situations that don't suit your camera — and if you've studied your equipment properly, you know which situations those are and you adjust accordingly.
Highland cow, Odds Farm, Buckinghamshire — Sony A350, black and white JPEG. She didn't care what file format I was shooting either.
For black and white JPEG shooting specifically, the case for RAW is considerably weaker than most people realise. You're not manipulating colour channels in post, because there are no colour channels. You're not making white balance corrections, because they have almost no visible effect on a monochrome image. You're working with tone, contrast, and texture — all of which you can influence in camera if you know what you're doing.
The Gatekeeping Problem
The real issue behind a lot of the hostility towards JPEG shooting isn't technical at all. It's philosophical. And as one writer I came across put it, it might also be something more uncomfortable than that.
If shooting JPEG produces results that are genuinely as good as edited RAW files — and in many cases it does — then the hours spent in Lightroom or Photoshop are optional, not essential. For photographers whose identity is closely tied to their post-processing skills, that's a threatening idea. It suggests that the editing step, which they've elevated to an equal or greater importance than the act of capture, might not actually be as critical as they've always believed.
That doesn't make post-processing worthless. It's a legitimate skill with real value in the right context. But it does mean that people who don't do it aren't doing photography wrong. They're just doing it differently.
There is no right or wrong format. There is only what works for you, what produces the results you want, and what suits the way you actually work. RAW, JPEG, RAW + JPEG — they're all valid. What's not valid is the certainty that one approach is the only serious one, and that anyone doing it differently hasn't really thought it through.
The Bottom Line
I've been shooting photography long enough to know the difference between a RAW file and a JPEG, and what each of them can and can't do. I've tried both, over a long period, and I've arrived at a clear preference for my own work. That preference is backed up by a published book, prints that people have bought, and images I'm genuinely happy with. If that's what laziness looks like, I'll take it.
If you shoot RAW and it works for you — brilliant. If you shoot RAW + JPEG and it works for you — brilliant. If you're thinking about trying JPEG only, give it a proper go. Not a weekend. Long enough to learn your camera properly, dial in your settings, and stop relying on post-processing to do the work that should happen before you press the shutter.
And if anyone tells you that JPEG shooters are lazy people who don't care about learning the art of photography — ask them when they last managed to spell it correctly.
Elvis on a walk in the Chiltern Hills — straight out of camera, no RAW files were harmed in the making of this image!!
Oh, and one final thought. As someone who carries minimal kit and walks for miles with a large white dog, there is one undeniable advantage to shooting JPEG that nobody ever seems to mention. JPEG files are considerably smaller than RAW files. Which means a lighter memory card. Which means less weight in the bag. Which means I can walk further. And given that the camera doesn't weigh as much without all those extra RAW files on board, I can hold it steadier in low light as well.
You're welcome.