Alpacaman
keen bean
Now there lies an interesting point. Do consumer cameras do this?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
If you can do a dark current correction (my Olympus E-620 definitely can), then yes.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Again, a person on the internet confuses his own requirements with everyone else's – and at the same time misstates (at least my) arguments. There's a reason I shoot RAW+JPEG, and that is that in many but not all cases, I need the extra data. But many other times I do not, and JPEG is indeed faster, especially if JPEG is the deliverable.
I will note that for my professional work the file format is always single- or multichannel .tiff or .bmp (or a derivative), uncompressed and subjected to sensor-specific dark current and shading corrections. But we use these data sets for quantitative analyses. So I do understand optical sensor array output, how it's generated, what do do with it, etc. As do some others here (Brian, Frankie et al).
Also, if you think that the engineers who work on JPEG algorithms for Canon or Olympus or Apple or (on topic, here) Fuji are "hasty," It's a strong bet that you don't know many of the people who actually do this sort of work. They generally have advanced degrees in relevant technical areas, quite often with deep specialisation in image processing, signal processing, machine vision, etc. As in this job, for example.
Many of the people in my field would actually qualify for the above job. How about in your field?
Last edited:
cam
the need for speed
how did this thread get into a RAW vs JPEG debate?
and why does it really matter?
can't we agree to disagree? or are we trying o make sure Fuji listens to us and has fantastic JPEGs and/or pristine RAWs, depending on our personal preferences?
this is going to be a long, long five months...
and why does it really matter?
can't we agree to disagree? or are we trying o make sure Fuji listens to us and has fantastic JPEGs and/or pristine RAWs, depending on our personal preferences?
this is going to be a long, long five months...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Well, we were talking about the ability of the X-100 to output JPEG files that mimic the looks of specific films, and somebody got his britches in a knot over the idea that any "serious" photographer might ever want to shoot JPEG, even though many serious photographers do in fact shoot JPEG at least some of the time, and have excellent reasons for doing so. Someone else took the equally vacuous position that shooting RAW is always dumb.
And most others took the sensible position that there might be times and even technical reasons to shoot both, depending on goals and requirements.
Last edited:
user237428934
User deletion pending
I use RAW too but what you write sounds like you couldn't work with JPG files in PS and that's really not true. There is only a small difference between working with JPG or RAW.
- You are slightly more limited when changing colour temperature
- You don't have as much dynamic range latitude where you can restore shadows or highlights.
Besides that, working in PS with RAW or JPG is absolutely the same.
cam
the need for speed
thank you for explaining.
... the ability to have JPEGs mimicking film would be very cool! one of my favourite JPEG engines was on the original GRD, very Tri-X like. the JPEGs were also quite hearty and could take massive amounts of manipulation... thank god, too! if you were waiting for the RAW to process in-camera, your subject was likely to be in another country by the time you could take another shot
Paul T.
Veteran
WHat a pointles conversation! THe attitude that mimicing certain film types is a negative feature is simply wrong. I might well do that for my holiday snaps. But to counter argue by saying that shooting jpegs all the time is cool is silly too. Most magazines, for instance, won't accept jpeg files for critical (full page etc) shots.
Can we get back to black vs chome or whether the covering is plastic or leather? It would be more meaningful.
Edit: One reason, I should have added, for why magazines and book publishers don't accept jpegs for crucial purposes is that editing on a jpeg is destructive. If a file's changed, then saved, the date compression is performed all over again. It degrades the file.
Can we get back to black vs chome or whether the covering is plastic or leather? It would be more meaningful.
Edit: One reason, I should have added, for why magazines and book publishers don't accept jpegs for crucial purposes is that editing on a jpeg is destructive. If a file's changed, then saved, the date compression is performed all over again. It degrades the file.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
You should do what you want. In my experience you can get significantly better IQ out of shooting RAW - mainly in the way of being able to tune the file to how you like it. If you have your reasons to use JPEG over RAW, thats cool.
I base my opinion on that I can get a better file out of a RAW file than any JPEG, and such has been the case with my 1d, my 5d, my Oly e-3, my e-p1, my d300. I've done a lot of personal testing. I don't care if the man on the moon has designed the JPEG algorithms. That doesn't mean I'm discounting it completely, it has it's uses sure, but not really for me. JPEG by nature is a slim file - one that's already had most of it's available data thrown away, and therefore can never give the flexibility of processing that a RAW file can. Obviously what you actually photograph dictates how important this is to you. For me, it's really important.
My field is being a photographer, not a theorist or scientist. It doesn't matter to me what the field illumination or flux capaciter hyperdrive is, I only care what works in the final output from camera to publication.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
That was sort of my point. Although I personally think you're understating the benefits, the RAW file is no more difficult to work with.
gavinlg
Veteran
More on topic, have the fujifilm digital cameras ever had film emulation JPEG modes that worked well? I borrowed a Fujifilm s5 Pro for a week and from what I recall it had jpeg film presets, but they didn't deliver what they promised. It did have a lot of highlight room though - even in the JPEGS. If fujifilm think that the x100 is going to have more DR, it's going to be pretty impressive.
Paul T.
Veteran
I didn't notice this post before. It's not really true. jpeg images lose quality every time they are opened, edited and saved. If you convert it to tiff, then always work on the tiff file, that eliminates the problem, but that eliminates the time/space saving of working with jpeg in the first place.
I personally save all my GF1 images as jpegs because my Photoshop's stopped working. But i recognise there's a sacrifice involved.
With film emulation modes, can you revert to a 'neutral' file?
user237428934
User deletion pending
Not when you use smart tools like Lightroom or Aperture because they never touch the original file
Paul T.
Veteran
Not when you use smart tools like Lightroom or Aperture because they never touch the original file
That's true, Tom. But if you know that, you'll also know how 8bit jpegs are much more likely to fall apart during heavy editing than tiff or RAW files. And my point wasn't so much about what the photographer can do, as the person to whom s/he is sending the file. Most mags won't accept jpegs for crucial photos; they want RAW or TIFF.
So. Chrome or black? Otherwise this won't just be one of the longest camera threads on rff, it will be one of the most repetitively OT...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Paul,
A lot depends on (a) the magazine, (b) what you or they mean by 'crucial' and (c) how well they know you, i.e. how good your JPEGs are.
Cheers,
R.
cam
the need for speed
can't help you on the chrome or black, but i can on the covering...
"leather-like" is the answer i got in person at Photokina. feels like leather, looks like leather, but tastes like chicken.
(sorry, old joke
)definitely not real leather.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
I have only ever read one news-type report on the Internet saying "chrome or black" in its rather lacking table of specifications...I dismissed it as erroneous.
De-chroming and repainting this camera won't be easy. So chrome it is...and since it is made of magnesium, no brassing possible.
Off to Tokyo on Monday. I will look for any signs of even a display model in the many camera super-marts. Will post findings soon as I return home...in a couple of weeks.
Arjay
Time Traveller
It depends what file format you're talking about:
Raw file formats usually are designed for non-destructive editing, i.e. they always contain the original sensor data and include a 'sidecar' file which holds a description of all processing steps that have been defined in the previous editing sessions. So, the actual image including all manipulation steps is rendered completely anew every time the file is opened. Only if a raw file is saved e.g. as a TIFF, will the original image data be rendered into a modified image that will be the base of that new file. So, in a raw file, reverting back to 'neutral' is possible.
JPG was designed before non-destructive editing became popular, and thus doesn't contain the previous editing steps, but just a rendering of the results of previous steps. Thus, JPGs cannot be 'reset' to neutral.
Last edited:
