Should I go RAW only?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
knickerhawk
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,442
Like?
Re: What?
In reply to Charles2, 11 months ago

Charles2 wrote:

knickerhawk wrote:

Charles2 wrote:

Depending on the camera, the camera JPG may be good for many uses yet difficult to duplicate. Even the software from many camera manufacturers does not duplicate the JPG; the camera JPG recipe is apparently regarded as a secret sauce.

Which camera companies and which cameras produce noticeably different jpegs compared to processing the image in their proprietary raw converters (with same settings as in-camera)? It makes no sense to me that camera companies would deliberately handicap their proprietary raw processing software. What's the upside to that?

By the way, I can personally attest that it's not true for Nikon and Olympus raw processing software.

Pentax, Fuji, Olympus (for an EP1), Sigma.

I have an Oly EPL1 and an Oly EM5.  I don't use Olympus Viewer much, but I've used it more than enough to determine that there is no difference in its output compared to straight OOC jpegs (assuming similar settings applied).  I'd be interested in any sources for your conclusion that the EP1 is a different case.

The computer-based programs from the camera manufacturers are free, so revenue from them is not an issue.

It seems like it would be a big issue for any camera manufacturer that promotes the raw shooting and processing option for its cameras, if that option renders images differently from in-camera jpegs.  Would be shooting themselves in the foot to go to the trouble of offering a raw output option, develop the end-user software to support raw conversions but then dumb it down to operate differently from the in-camera processor and especially to offer a lower quality raw alternative to the in-camera jpegs.  Very counterintuitive to me, not something I've ever read about before.

We could speculate why; for example, are techniques hidden in camera firmware that would be easier to disassemble from a computer program? The fact remains that many users note the difference.

Sounds like a stretch to me, but I lack the programming skills to really speculate.

The fudge factor is "noticeably different." Agreed, the difference is often not much.

I think the real likelihood is that inexperienced users have experimented without understanding that their settings in the raw conversion software were different from the settings in the camera and then drew false conclusions from that.  Either that or they're using other raw processors and getting confused by the fact that their images when processed in them look nothing at all like the OOC jpegs.  That's a very common issue that might bleed into the false assumption that ALL raw processors - including the camera manufacturer's own - would render a different look from the OOC jpeg.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
LazyNew
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow