<snip>???? The problem is the in camera jpgs are created using image adjustments not easily made in the commercial processing programs (or so I’m told), and they can often be more pleasing to me than what I can quickly produce from the raw files. As a matter of fact, sometimes they are better than what I have produced with rather elaborate adjustments on a raw file..........
How about other camera brands? I don’t know. Do you think your camera produces jpgs, although they are limited in how they can be altered compared to raw files, that, on a good day, with a few simple adjustments can produce an image of “exhibition” quality?<snip>
Bill, if I am reading you right, you are not asking about the advisability of just shooting jpgs, generally, but are asking what cameras besides the Fujis have worked out the in camera processing to the point that, because of their advantage in controlling the processor and knowing exactly what is coming off their sensor, they can do the RAW processing for you. And spit out a perfect jpg. For a given style, every tone curve has already been worked out and applied, already been color graded to achieve that given style, etc, exactly as you might do it at the computer, provided the in camera styles, at least one or two of them, match what your vision is. I do think some manufacturers are at this point now, Fuji, as you noted. I think the newer Nikons do this as well, and it is a capability that is probably overlooked by most users. What you can do is not limited to the jpg styles that are presets which come in the camera, under “Picture Controls”. Those can all, each, be adjusted for contrast, sharpening, clarity, hue, etc, but the camera capabilities to use in body processing to generate almost any look you want, color or monochrome, go way beyond those if you create your own picture controls, or acquire them from others, and load them into the camera. Nikon has software to do this, Picture Control Utility, which is more complicated to explain than I will go into here, but it takes advantage of everything found in Nikon’s proprietary RAW developing software.
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-a...iques/the-importance-of-picture-controls.html
The above probably isn’t instantly comprehensible, but my point is that yes, there are some things that can now be done in camera to process the RAW files, essentially using RAW processing software in camera, which can be just as good as anything you would do yourself with 30 minutes at the computer...(there is no reason it wouldn’t be)......provided you like the custom “looks” available. And at this point, at least for Nikon, you can load the camera with custom picture controls of your own devising, so you are not limited to those that come in the camera. I’ve got jpg outputs for Provia and Velvia and Tri-x and TMAX 400 in my Z7, for example. Maybe Fuji can do that as well.
You can still print “big”, because the jpg file sizes are huge if you choose them to be.
Personally, I’d say if you were going that route, shooting and outputting jpgs, either be fully in or fully out. The advantage is that it’s quick, and you get what you want out of the camera. If you are still going to take it to Photoshop and futz with it, just shoot RAW, because you just squandered your advantage. More or less.
These days, in camera processing is a great alternative, and not “inferior”, if you always distill down to jpgs at the end of Photoshop anyway.
Downside, as has already been noted, is that if you are scrolling through LR in a couple of years and see a file that you realize you can do something better with, you have just killed your chances to do a nice job with that, because there is no RAW file to be had.
