Fuji Corporate Response on LightRoom Raw Conversion - Bummer

Jamie Pillers said:
Each of these manufacturers have come up with sensor/software that produces unique 'looks' to their camera outputs. All of them are gorgeous in their own ways. The one plus-side feature that the X-Pro1 and X-E1 cameras offer is the lack of an anti-aliasing filter. This is not a minor issue in my mind. Being able to produce large prints that are still very sharp, with no image softening caused by an anti-aliasing filter is very useful.
Click to expand...

The GXR, E-M5, and M9 all also have no-AA filter, Jamie.
 
digitalintrigue said:
Have you shot much with the X-Pro1 or X-E1?
Click to expand...

No, and I have no interest in doing so. I've worked with the Fuji EXR raw files enough to know they're a pain, and frankly I don't like these cameras ergonomics and controls very much. They look like they'd be great for me, but I find them uncomfortable and fiddly in use.

I know many love them, and am happy for their joy. But they just don't do it for me at all.
 
digitalintrigue said:
If you want to discuss whether 'very close' is an appropriate phrase, sure. 🙂 That's valid, but claiming that the post stated that JPEG = lossless is not accurate.
Click to expand...

The problem is the post implied or assumed there is such a thing as a lossless jpeg available in photography. There is a lossless jpeg standard. As far as I know all commercially available jpeg compression is not lossless. Even for a perfect exposure and WB, the qualitative equivalence of a compressed jpeg would only be valid for the initial image since subsequent versions undergo compression a second time when saved as another jpeg version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom