R-D1 "Film1,2,3" Profiles?

[Didier]

Perhaps I'm a Yahoo (the classical kind), but I can fix almost all of those problems on jpegs with a program like Picassa. I do it all the time on almost every photo I shoot. I'm sure it's not as felxible as working with the raw image, but I do like the results I get with this basic software. Perhaps we should switch, if you've never tried Picassa, and compare notes.

I know Picasa as I'm graphic designer. I know several hundred other graphic and photo editing tools, too, not counting video, 3D and interactive. The most positive of Picasa is the fact it's for free, and as usual, you get what you pay for - in this case a slow and akward tool.

As posted earlier, RAW files do content much more potential for successful editing than JPG's, and Epson's PhotoRAW is very very easy to use (and for free, too, for R-D1 owners). I really don't want to force you to take profit of it, but your self-declared laziness has more to do with "don't wanna learn another tool" than "this tool is easier than this" (btw this is a very frequent phenomenon amongst computer users - "This is the best tool because it's the one I know").

There are x-thousands of threads about JPG/RAW in the web - useless to count and follow them - but maybe you should really try the RAW workflow before starting more threads about that topic.

Best,
Didier

 

[ampguy]

Hi Didier,

I just set my RD1 to R mode, but I'm using the original non-s firmware, do I still get raw + jpg files from the card? I'll probably know later today, just wondering.

I plan to use raw and picasa for awhile, though I plan to checkout Elements 5 and the bundled Epson sw sometime soon.

I doubt the Epson sw does everything picasa does, like 1 button publishing to my blog, etc.

 

[ZorkiKat]

The question should be the other way round: if you use a $2k, RAW-featured digital camera with even more expensive lenses, why using the low-end consumer format jpg? IMO, it's usable for quick'n'dirty snapshots, but otherwise too limiting.

Because the expensive $2k digicams have better image processing engines than the cheap low-end consumer cameras? :angel:😀

 

[ZorkiKat]

Fuji Pro files are an interesting bunch, if you ask anyone who still use the S2 or are using the S3, they will often state there is no reason to work with RAW because the JPEGs are so good right out of the camera. That has everything to do with the dynamics of that sensor and the camera's processing... plus RAW files slow the Fuji cameras down quite considerably.

Lately, I've been using my 3 year old Fuji S2 more and more precisely for this. After almost a year of not seeing any action, its back in service again.

By setting the colour, tone, and sharpening controls to "standard" (there are normal and high settings too), the resulting jpg is typically flat, a bit off coloured and have non-neutral whites and greys. It looks just like what the RAW setting of this camera would make, except that RAW files are about 5x larger and look rather pink. And yes, it slows down the camera to an almost disabling degree.

Those flat dull Fuji jpgs give plenty of room for PP tweaking, and fine results often are obtained in less time (with less disk space too) than converting the files and then editing them.

Jay

 

[IGMeanwell]

With that in mind .... did you see the specs on the S5

now this I am very interested in

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0612/06120701fujis5pro.asp

 

[ZorkiKat]

With that in mind .... did you see the specs on the S5

now this I am very interested in

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0612/06120701fujis5pro.asp

The specs are impressive.

The S2 is my first digiSLR. Then the S3 came along, but this model didn't seem to have any significant improvement over the S2, except for the elimination of the expensive C123A secondary batteries and a sensor slightly better in handling highlights. So I opted for Canons instead- DSLR #2 and #3 were Canon 300D and 350D.

BTW, there was no model S4 made. From what I heard, 'S-4' somehow doesn't sound good or mean well in Japanese 😀

Jay

 

[Didier]

Because the expensive $2k digicams have better image processing engines than the cheap low-end consumer cameras? :angel:😀

I doubt the jpg output is better on high-end cameras - the opposite is even more likely!
Didier

 

[Didier]

I'm using the original non-s firmware, do I still get raw + jpg files from the card?

I upgraded the firmware the day I received my R-D1 - but AFAIK with the old firmware you could choose RAW or JPG but not both together.

Didier

 

[Topdog1]

Didier,
Ok, thanks. I will take your suggestion and let you know what happens.

Regards,
Ira

 

[ZorkiKat]

I doubt the jpg output is better on high-end cameras - the opposite is even more likely!
Didier

Well, I have a few digicams of sorts to compare various jpg outputs. On the lowest end of the scale, I've a Kodak Easyshare, then a Canon G4 (which I no longer have, but still have the files on disc), the Fuji S2 DSLR, and Canon 300D/350 D. The jpg output of the Easyshare look snappy, but tend to look quite artificial and too 'electronic'. That of the Canon G4 is perhaps several times better, not bad at all, but still too video-like when compared to what the DSLRs make. The Fuji S2's output, as mentioned previously looks as flat as a RAW file made with it. The Canon 300D and 350D make snappier jpgs than the Fuji, but without the plastic look of the G4.

The DSLR jpgs are many times more flexible than what the Easyshare gives. The inboard processing quality made by the software built into these cameras appears to be proportionate to the cost of the camera. 🙂

Jay