Fuji X100 Digital SOMETHING from Fujifilm

[Frankie]

......Just as wet lab competence is a matter of course for seasoned analog photographers, digital 'light room' post-processing with its specific competences will still be required......

Many lamented in these forums that [whatever local lab/outlet] stops processing films. Many had asked how to process a B/W roll...as if it's a deep dark secret. Most ridiculous, many think scanning a negative for inkjet printing is the best workflow.

Meanwhile, on the digital side, many think the camera should also be a hand-held dark/light-room. The camera should support all functions from exposure to print. Much of such debates are simply waste of energy.

All films, chemicals, papers, also labs are dumb. They do things to a [manufacturer or operational] specification. We the photographers, are supposed to learn the basics first before getting creative. Likewise in digital photography.

If one wants ultimate control, shoot RAW, but learn exposure first. There is no point garnering control but abhor the work.

 

[user237428934]

I don't see that RAW is a sign for professional use. I need the latitude of film and the latitude of RAW files quite often because I'm just too sloppy for always thinking about correct exposure. I think about framing and aperture and let the semi-automatic of the camera do the rest. The RAW-latitude is a great help when I have to correct things. I'm just not professional enough to use JPG 🙂

 

[Tompas]

Since the thread is currently about RAW or JPEG...

I have not yet used a digital camera (a X100 is likely to be my first one):

Is it a hard performance hit to set the/your camera to RAW+JPEG (JPEG for convenience and normal use, RAW just in case)? I would imagine that it takes the/any camera longer to save away in both formats -- 'too' long?

 

[Frankie]

......Is it a hard performance hit to set the/your camera to RAW+JPEG (JPEG for convenience and normal use, RAW just in case)? I would imagine that it takes the/any camera longer to save away in both formats -- 'too' long?

We don't even know yet if the X100 will support simultaneous writing of both file types. All we know is that there is a RAW button [back/right].

I suspect the camera could be set to JPEG but would also write RAW on-demand.

 

[user237428934]

Since the thread is currently about RAW or JPEG...

I have not yet used a digital camera (a X100 is likely to be my first one):

Is it a hard performance hit to set the/your camera to RAW+JPEG (JPEG for convenience and normal use, RAW just in case)? I would imagine that it takes the/any camera longer to save away in both formats -- 'too' long?

The M8 is the only camera I know that takes too long for writing RAW+JPG. But I don't know why people use both formats. When I begin to compare the colour of the RAW and JPG version for every photo then I needed much more time. I made the decision to go with RAW. BTW Lightroom + RAW gives much better colours out of the box for my Canon 5D than JPG out of the camera.

 

[semilog]

The M8 is the only camera I know that takes too long for writing RAW+JPG. But I don't know why people use both formats. When I begin to compare the colour of the RAW and JPG version for every photo then I needed much more time. I made the decision to go with RAW. BTW Lightroom + RAW gives much better colours out of the box for my Canon 5D than JPG out of the camera.

RAW + JPEG is plenty fast for my purposes with the 2-year-old Olympus E-620, and the Oly JPEG engine in particular is known for being outstandingly good (see DP Review articles on the E-620 & the E-PL1 -- they rave about the quality of Oly JPEG output, as does Kirk Tuck).

In my own experience out-of-camera JPEG from the E-620 was generally better than the default RAW conversion in LR2, and it's about as good as LR3. The E-PL1 is supposedly even better than the E-620.

So it comes down to the specific camera and RAW developer used, and the conditions under which the files are generated.

It remains to be seen how good the JPEG engine in the X-100 will be.

 

[user237428934]

RAW + JPEG is plenty fast for my purposes with the 2-year-old Olympus E-620, and the Oly JPEG engine in particular is known for being outstandingly good (see DP Review articles on the E-620 & the E-PL1 -- they rave about the quality of Oly JPEG output, as does Kirk Tuck).

Could you please explain why you use RAW + JPG? Do you throw one version away after looking which one is better?

 

[djonesii]

why I use raw + jpeg ...

why I use raw + jpeg ...

Could you please explain why you use RAW + JPG? Do you throw one version away after looking which one is better?

I have a mamiya ZDb digital back, the screen on the thing is abysmal. ( a bit depressing as they originally retailed at 10K ) Any how, for $50 I got a cheap battery powered 7 inch digital picture frame. About 1/2 the weight of an iPad, a 1/10 the cost, and it has a CF input.

I shoot raw for editing, and jpeg for reviewing as the frame cannot do a raw conversion. Depending on your workflow, you could easily substitute in a netbook computer for the frame, and still view your pictures on the external device quickly.

Dave

 

[ederek]

djonesii - ^^^ that is a cool workflow example of in-camera jpeg!

Could you please explain why you use RAW + JPG? Do you throw one version away after looking which one is better?

I shoot both RAW + JPEG because the camera shows the JPEG on-screen when reviewing a shot (digital M). The JPEG can be set to B&W, so therefore, when reviewing on-camera I see it in B&W. This helps me focus on composition and tone and not be distracted by color.

Also, if one needs to share images before getting back to 'home base' with a computer having a raw image processor, it provides more options (just need a card reader).

 

[Pherdinand]

This is the best video I have found on the O/EVF.

Also the unambiguous Fuji confirmation about manual focusing.

http://latesthightech.com/photokina-fujifilm-x100-hands-on-demonstratie/

She's rather hot! She could skip the "umm"s though!

 

[cam]

Could you please explain why you use RAW + JPG? Do you throw one version away after looking which one is better?

i know you didn't ask me, but i'm adding my voice.

i *always* shoot RAW and black and white JPEG but, honestly, only use RAW to process my images. i like the control i have over the image, rather than a certain manufacturer.

the reason i do the b&w JPEG is for what i view on the screen, for the occasional chimp (focus, exposure, etc.) when i have the luxury of time to do it... firstly, all my shots are pretty much destined for black and white anyways, so that is what i shoot for. secondly, i am possibly the opposite of colour blind -- i am colour sensitive. i have trouble assessing both focus and exposure when the image is in colour on a little screen. i guess i am blinded by colour rather than the other way around.

i keep both RAW and JPEG (come on, hard drives are cheap!) because the RAW format i shoot, DNG, can occasionally get corrupted. keeping the JPEG covers my @ss.

*********************

i also know a lot of people that prefer to save time and work from JPEGs and i can't fault them for it. they are pros on a deadline or avid enthusiasts who would rather merely tweak instead of being quite so anal as i am -- so the better the JPEG, the better for them (and for me, if my RAW gets corrupted)... in most cases, they also shoot RAW as well on the off chance that they got the shot of their life. for them, shooting RAW covers their @ss.

*********************

there is something to be said for shooting both RAW and JPEG -- and keeping both, if your images are important to you.
it's all down to personal preference

 

[JoeV]

The only valid reason I've personally come up with for shooting both RAW and JPEG is if I'm travelling with my netbook computer and need to post images while on the road.

I don't have my RAW conversion s/w installed on the netbook for two reasons: 1)I'm too cheap to buy an external drive with which to run the install disk; 2) My particular RAW conversion s/w is processor and graphics-intensive, and thus won't run well on the netbook.

So, I'll shoot RAW+JPEG, post the JPEGs during the trip as needed, and save the RAWs for when I get home.

~Joe

 

[NickTrop]

That's nonsense...life is short, and I don't need to spend more time on post than I already spend. Moreover, for high-ISO shooting, in-camera JPEG has at least the potential to correct a sensor's output pixel-by-pixel, providing better noise suppression (because it's tailored to the specific sensor in one specific camera) than any generic post- camera RAW developer. The better JPEG engines get it right enough of the time that little or no RAW processing is needed...Obviously, some images demand RAW, especially when you blow the exposure or the scene's DR or WB is wonky.
Whether these features are useful or not depends NOT on whether you are "serious" or not (whatever that actually means), but rather on what your specific goals are for a given project.

Exactly right... My two cents. "RAW" is mostly for people who want to be "photographers" and feel the need to anally futz with photos doing things (less successfully) in post sw that would be been done instantly and better by the jpeg engine. Photographers know that jpeg engines are just fine unless you screw something up (probably because you want to be a "photographer" and shoot manual...)

Jpeg engines get it right 99% of the time. Program exposure in modern cameras get it right 99% of the time. RAW files are a waste of hard drive space and slow down the work flow most of the time. RAW works best when you screw something up...

I never shoot RAW. I futzed with it initially... scratched my head and wondered what's the point of this? And correctly went back to shooting jpeg, as I laugh at the RAW "photographers" and their pretentions...

"Photographers" gave camera and software companies a new revenue stream I'm sure they never considered in the wackiest collective dream of their marketing depts. So, you want what now? You want the unprocessed bits and bytes direct from the sensor unprocessed? Ummmmm alright-y then... (-Snickers- These photography guys never cease to amaze me... it's like they want to throw their money at us...) Nikon especially capitalized on this silliness with their proprietary "NEF" files and expensive CaptureNX2 sw... laughing all the way to the bank thanks to silly "photographers"...

 

[ederek]

<snip>I never shoot RAW. I futzed with it initially... scratched my head and wondered what's the point of this?<snip>

So... the rest of your statements were based on... extensive experience? 😕

Nice to see you haven't lost your provocative edge! 😉

Ok, back to trying to be a "photographer"... 🙄

 

[v_roma]

The amount of things said in this forum as absolute undeniable truths probably surpasses any other forum I've had the pleasure to interact with. I guess if it's what you do, it must be the correct way and everybody else is an idiot.

What do you call people that develop their own film and do things like dodging and burning?

Exactly right... My two cents. "RAW" is mostly for people who want to be "photographers" and feel the need to anally futz with photos doing things (less successfully) in post sw that would be been done instantly and better by the jpeg engine. Photographers know that jpeg engines are just fine unless you screw something up (probably because you want to be a "photographer" and shoot manual...)

Jpeg engines get it right 99% of the time. Program exposure in modern cameras get it right 99% of the time. RAW files are a waste of hard drive space and slow down the work flow most of the time. RAW works best when you screw something up...

I never shoot RAW. I futzed with it initially... scratched my head and wondered what's the point of this? And correctly went back to shooting jpeg, as I laugh at the RAW "photographers" and their pretentions...

"Photographers" gave camera and software companies a new revenue stream I'm sure they never considered in the wackiest collective dream of their marketing depts. So, you want what now? You want the unprocessed bits and bytes direct from the sensor unprocessed? Ummmmm alright-y then... (-Snickers- These photography guys never cease to amaze me... it's like they want to throw their money at us...) Nikon especially capitalized on this silliness with their proprietary "NEF" files and expensive CaptureNX2 sw... laughing all the way to the bank thanks to silly "photographers"...

 

[chrisso]

Could you please explain why you use RAW + JPG? Do you throw one version away after looking which one is better?

I always have my camera set to both (Epson RD1).
It takes no time to write both to the card.
The RAW files aren't always viewable on my computer until I launch Capture One for example. Jpegs pop up quickly in iPhoto if I just want to see ballpark what I've got.
I actually occasionally use JPEG's when a friend wants a quick copy of one of my images, or I want to send someone an image via email. Regarding images I value for my own use, I always launch Capture One and work with the RAW files.
In the end, if my camera took a long time to write jpeg and RAW I might stick to RAW only, but as it doesn't, it gives me more choice.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

JPEG compression is not a problem: JPEG allows for lossless compression schemes that typically give 3:1 savings in space and allow restoration of the image without losing details.

The problem is everyone is using 8-bit per color, which is not a limit of the JPEG standard. 16-bit RAW sensor values are being scaled to 8-bits. That is a big loss in range. 12-bit per color schemes have been in the JPEG standard for a long time. JPEG2000 includes 16-bit per color schemes. I do not think that a consumer-grade camera is using JPEG2000 yet, but high-end sensors incorporate it.

 

[semilog]

To claim they can be superior to manual processing is courageous.

A lot of verbiage, much of it technically accurate, but in many places missing the point for practical picture taking. I'll leave the rest of it without further comment.

On this point, however, I want to say something further.

Sensors exhibit very substantial sample variation. Like many other electronic components, sensors are binned by quality. Grade 0 sensors used in scientific and technical imaging have essentially no defects (e.g., hot and cold pixels) beyond a stringent threshold. Rather boring scientific monochrome cameras with grade 0 sensors (say, a 1.4 megapixel front-illuminated microlensed interline transfer Sony) are generally in excess of $8000, and often sell for $15000 or more.

Sensors of that bin quality will not be found in mass-produced pro/consumer cameras. These devices will therefore exhibit subsstantial sample-to-sample variation.

A RAW file contains no data that describes the pixel-level defect profile of a specific sensor, and cannot compensate for this variation. An in-camera JPEG engine can easily store and utilise such an individual profile. In fact, in scientific imaging, for critical applications, we always profile the individual sensor, even though it's generally grade 0.

And that is why a good in-camera JPEG engine can, in principle, in some applications, trump the RAW developer on your computer.

 

[semilog]

JPEG compression is not a problem: JPEG allows for lossless compression schemes that typically give 3:1 savings in space and allow restoration of the image without losing details.

The problem is everyone is using 8-bit per color, which is not a limit of the JPEG standard. 16-bit RAW sensor values are being scaled to 8-bits. That is a big loss in range. 12-bit per color schemes have been in the JPEG standard for a long time. JPEG2000 includes 16-bit per color schemes. I do not think that a consumer-grade camera is using JPEG2000 yet, but high-end sensors incorporate it.

A question to the folks who know about JPEG as a technical standard.

I may be wrong about this (and PLEASE correct me if I am), but I know that RAW schemes and DNG use a linear encoding of sensor data which distribute relatively more digitisation bits for high illuminances and sparser digitisation for shadow values. Is it the case that JPEG can use a logarithmic encoding so that similar numbers of bits encode, say, Zone II/III and Zone VII/VIII?

 

[gavinlg]

Lol. You guys are nuts. You spend thousands and thousands of dollars on camera gear and lenses to get the ultimate shooting equipment you can, and than you allow your cameras processing chip to "bake" your files to however the software engineers hastily chose to tune it, remove all the excess data so that if you don't like the way it's rendered a color or a tone, you can't change it anyway.

If I shot JPEG files I wouldn't have work. Simple as that. They wouldn't hold up to what I have to do to get them how the clients want them. And it's nothing drastic, just dodging/burning and highlight recovery through some pretty advanced methods. You'd never know by looking at the end file, but a lot of work goes into them. JPEGS fall apart when you look at them wrong. Not only that, they're actually no easier or quicker to work with - RAW is just as easy and quick.

Just think about this: for every shoot I do I can tune each colors luminance, saturation and hue exactly how I want them, I can tint shadows and highlights certain hues, and I can pull back about 1.4-2 stops of highlights if need be, and push about 3-4 stops of shadows without excess noise. Why wouldn't I want that extra control for no extra effort? People spend hours researching noise performance and dynamic range of cameras and digital sensors but they're willing to forego the potential for significantly better and more tunable output by using a pre-baked jpeg file - Blows my mind!

It's kind of like eating microwaved dinners every night. Sure it works and you can live off it and it's a little easier, but I'll cook my own food using my own ingredients thanks.