In-Camera RAW Processing

[shashinka-ichiban]

Maybe, I've never had a camera that can do this before. I know none of my Nikon big D's can do this, so why would I want to shoot in RAW (RAF format) in the X100, then process the raw file in camera opposed to using LR or PS? And what would a processed RAW in camera save as TIFF or JPG? If it were JPG, why wouldn't the camera take every image as a RAW, process and save as JPG?

 

[LabasArabas]

I too am interested in an answer to S I's question. What's with processing the RAW file in camera rather than in PS or LR? Is it for those that don't have RAW processing software?

cheers

 

[shashinka-ichiban]

I shoot NEF out of my Nikons, and RAF out of my Fuji S2 and S5, then just process in Lightroom or Photoshop as time permits, or as dictated by my photo editor. I simply never heard of shooting in RAF, then letting the camera process the RAF file in camera. If by most regards can't trust a camera to process a JPG, then why would I trust it to process a RAF file.

 

[drewbarb]

Yeah- I don't get the point of In-Camera RAW processing. If you are trusting the camera to do it for you, in the end isn't it that the same as shooting a jpeg, as the OP points out? And isn't the whole point of shooting RAW so that you can control all the variables to processing yourself? As in, later on, with your large (calibrated?) screen, fast processor, and powerful software? So why would I want to do that in camera, or let the camera do it for me? Are we- or am I- missing something here?

 

[Doug]

I'm also curious about this issue, because when you opt for the camera to output a jpeg, it certainly must be generated from the RAW, which might not be written to the card, saving just the jpeg. I can only guess that in-camera RAW processing refers to some way of having more control over exactly how the jpeg is generated. And is there an option to save the result as TIFF... I recall there was a TIFF output choice on my wife's old Nikon digicam.

 

[lhotse]

The only thing I can see this being useful for would be if we could have a bunch of presets for RAW processing - kind of like a user set/uploadable film simulation mode - kind of like the presets in LR.

I like to shoot RAW most of the time for the reasons listed above - but if I'm gonna be shooting B&W its nice to see immediately what the light is looking like in B&W - now here you an shoot RAW+Jpeg and set monotone in-cam knowing you'll get the RAW too, but often the in cam B&W is crap compared to what you can get from the RAW after the fact.

For me I could see user preset RAW conversion in cam being really cool but I imagine this is way beyond what is planned - maybe a firmware update or the x200 - best start saving (again) 🙂

 

[gliderbee]

Maybe, I've never had a camera that can do this before. I know none of my Nikon big D's can do this, so why would I want to shoot in RAW (RAF format) in the X100, then process the raw file in camera opposed to using LR or PS? And what would a processed RAW in camera save as TIFF or JPG? If it were JPG, why wouldn't the camera take every image as a RAW, process and save as JPG?

I think this is in fact what every digital camera is doing if "not" shooting in raw: it always shoots in raw (that's just the data coming straight from the sensor), stores this info in memory, then it starts working on it (depending on the camera settings), saves in JPG and clears the memory with the raw data.

If you're shooting in raw, it saves the raw data from internal memory as a raw-file to the memorycard without processing it any further.

If you're shooting in raw+jpg mode, it does not discard the raw-data from memory, but saves it as a raw-file along with a jpg.

Stefan.

 

[_larky]

Talking about RAW post processing, anyone know of anywhere good to learn about the potential of RAW?

 

[Jim-st]

I think this is in fact what every digital camera is doing if "not" shooting in raw: it always shoots in raw (that's just the data coming straight from the sensor), stores this info in memory, then it starts working on it (depending on the camera settings), saves in JPG and clears the memory with the raw data.

If you're shooting in raw, it saves the raw data from internal memory as a raw-file to the memorycard without processing it any further.

If you're shooting in raw+jpg mode, it does not discard the raw-data from memory, but saves it as a raw-file along with a jpg.

Stefan.

Exactly right Stefan. I can only think maybe this "in-camera RAW processing" is an option to generate a jpeg for any individual shot you might want in that format on a one-off (or n-off) basis, without setting the camera to output RAW+jpeg for every shot. If so, some (eg press sports photogs) might find it useful to have a jpeg to mail to a picture editor while also having the RAW file to take home, and without cluttering the card with duplicate versions of everything

Just my speculation, of course...

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Whatever the reason, the idea of doing RAW editing on the 3 inch monitor on the back of a camera seems silly. These little monitors aren't particularly accurate (you really can't judge exposure or color from just looking at them), so you couldn't really tell about the output, anyway.

 

[Jim-st]

Talking about RAW post processing, anyone know of anywhere good to learn about the potential of RAW?

If it suits your learning style, Reichmann and Schewe have done extensive video tutorials that you can buy from the Luminous Landscape site . I found the "From Camera to Print" series very helpful.
But I'd say the best way is probably to get a RAW processor and try it out. Lightroom is far more intuitive than Photoshop as an image processor, and Aperture is similar I think, and currently available at a very low price from the App Store - if you're on a Mac.

If you're shooting digital it's definitely worth getting familiar with one of these apps, and they're fun to use!

 

[_larky]

Thanks for that. I've been using Lightroom since release, and I always shoot RAW. It would be good to really understand it's abilities though 🙂

 

[malcD]

Thanks for that. I've been using Lightroom since release, and I always shoot RAW. It would be good to really understand it's abilities though 🙂

RAW does not have any abilities raw is raw you get picture info complete up to you how you use it ---- if you mess it up you have the raw info to start again ---- if you use camera jpg you have NO CHOICE

 

[Arjay]

If this capability means that I would get to shoot RAW files which I could subsequently develop into JPGs under user control (and try out different variations), I would indeed see some obvious user benefits:

I could avoid having to lug a full-blown, powerful notebook computer, and travel just with a netbook.

Netbooks generally don't have the computing power to run performance-hungry RAW converter software, so if I could shoot RAW files and then do some RAW development in the camera after the shooting session, I could travel light without sacrificing subsequent post-processing options.

The only thing that I wonder about is whether the camera would allow the user to re-load RAW files from the computer to a memory card for a developing session. In this way, one might select promising RAW files, and generate tweaked JPGs e.g. for instant printing, or to mail them home.

 

[shashinka-ichiban]

I can understated raw conversion in camera if the camera had the firmware or software in place to let me change the WB or other options on the LCD, but it sounds like Fuji is just going to let you look at the playback mode, pick a pictures, hit Fn, and suddenly the image is processed so I don't see any way to actually modify anything in the playback mode of raw images to make this of any value. I mean yeah it could save a RF file to TIF, but hell, all my Nikon dSLR write TIF, in fact I spent many years writing my images to TIF before going over to NEF just becasue I knew if I got on a foreign computer, or back to the office on a PC that did not have the ability to read NEF files, my arse wasn't in a sling. Still if all raw processing is, jsut re-saving the file from RAF to TIF, just let us have TIF as a save option to begin with rather than waste space for TIF and RAF. RAF files must be the only format I have ever encountered that saves larger than a TIF (or any other raw file format)

 

[Arjay]

SI, have you taken a look at this link? Aparently, it's in Japanese, and it offers a look into the camera's menu system.

I managed to get a rough idea about the menu's functions using Google Translate, but maybe you will be able to understand this better.

Scroll down to the set of menu pictures that have the Google Translate title 'The contents of the playback menu (example)'. The first picture below the title seems to be about RAW development - maybe you can help us to make sense of this ...

 

[Catto]

The only reason I could see for it to be useful would be if you were using an Eye-Fi wireless SD card, and wanted to transmit specific .jpg files directly to Flickr or Facebook that way, without bringing a laptop / netbook with you wherever you happened to be. Of course, you'd need wi-fi!

But in theory, that could work - just convert the file(s) you want to send, and once they're .jpgs they get uploaded...
R

 

[dougi]

I imagine it is similar to the raw development on the Pentax K5 I just got. You can change jpeg resolution, white balance, ISO (changing exposure), noise reduction, highlight and shadow correction, lens distortion, colour space and format (tiff or jpeg).

In other words, a simple in camera raw developer for those rare times you do need an output quickly. Perhaps on holiday where you don't have your processor with you but do have a jpeg viewer.

 

[shashinka-ichiban]

SI, have you taken a look at this link? Aparently, it's in Japanese, and it offers a look into the camera's menu system.

I managed to get a rough idea about the menu's functions using Google Translate, but maybe you will be able to understand this better.

Scroll down to the set of menu pictures that have the Google Translate title 'The contents of the playback menu (example)'. The first picture below the title seems to be about RAW development - maybe you can help us to make sense of this ...

I'll have to take a look at it later on. I think I have skimmed it once before but I do not recall it having had much information that was really useful. I spend more time in the states than Japan now and I've become a bit sloppy with my reading of kanji over the years much to my embarrassment.

If you shoot one of the Nikon D3 cameras with dual CF slots, you can configure the camera to write RAW (NEF) files to one card and an in-camera processed jpeg to another card. You can have your cake and eat it too if you have a pressing need for a quick jpeg and still maintain a separate set of RAW files. Many cameras allow you to write both a RAW & jpeg as the image is shot, but this fills a card quicker than either just a RAW file or just a jpeg.

I never use the cards this way in my Nikons. I just use card two as overflow in case I run out of space on card one while shooting that way I do not need to pop out cards. I sorta got bit in the arse early on with the D3 a few years back and decided it was not worth risking again. The D3 and D3s does not have in-camera processing of RAWs like the Fuji is claiming or we are all assume it has.

 

[Quash]

I will resurrect this thread and weigh in with the hope that it does not digress into a "RAW only" litany.

I extensively PP in-camera on my Nikon D90. I have an Eye-Fi card and directly upload my photos to Picasa for storage. I always shoot RAW+Fine. Some photos I upload as jpegs. Some I transfer as RAW to my computer, PP in Lightroom and save the RAW file. Many I process in-camera and then upload to Picasa via Eye-Fi. It cuts out the desktop and my D90 outputs some very nice photos when I process RAW in camera.

When doing in-camera processing, it is mostly adjusting WB on a Kelvin scale to taste and cropping. I will also +/- exposure, convert to monochrome and adjust the colour or contrast at times. But, mostly it is WB of lowlight indoor photos and cropping. It takes a photo which I like and only requires a minor tweak and gets it to where I need it. And it cuts out the desktop, speeding up workflow. I am doing this for individual photos. If I want to batch process a set, I'll just load in to Lightroom.

Each process has its place. There is not a right or wrong method. Ask some pro photogs who only ever shot OOC jpegs. I am not a pro and do not see every photograph I take as worth of my time in Lightroom, no matter how short.

Someone commented that the LCD screen on the back of camera is not appropriate. Yes and No. I do not fully agree. I can calibrate my desktop monitor, compare against prints for accuracy and then go back to my D90 lcd and adjust it until I get a close match. It's not perfect but it's pretty good. I know my tool and can mentally adjust for what I know are its deficits.

This allows me the confidence to know what I process in-camera will print or appear on the web the way I wish.

Again, for me the main value is cropping and adjusting WB, with other options also being used. It's not the place foe detailed PP work but it does have its place. There is nothing like taking a photograph I like, doing a few in-camera conversions of it, protecting it (which automatically uploads to Picasa) and sorting/culling online. No desktop. For special photographs, I save the RAW online and to desktop to PP now and in the future.

The X100 has a number more in-camera PP options than the D90, so I'm looking forward to trying it out. For those who keep an open mind, they may also find a place for it in their workflow.