Let's encourage to support Fuji RAW

Started Oct 16, 2012 | Discussions thread
Gazeomon Contributing Member • Posts: 552
Re: Money - a very simple explanation

Photozopia wrote:

Whilst I agree that for some users "... there are many scenarios where RAW processing is desirable ..." I'm not so sure about it being "... superior to in-camera processing, or simply required ..." nor that it is "... perfectly legitimate to ask for it ..."

All cameras produce 'raw' data. RAW is assumed to be the untouched data from the sensor - but is not 'unprocessed' information. All manufacturers have internal algorithms that create both the viewer friendly RAW and JPEG output we utilise.

Often the only viable method available in the early days of basic in-camera processors ... a need for external processing of a RAW file is a fairly questionable process nowadays. It is certainly not the 'digital negative' many assume. Newer Fuji models have the capacity to modify the finished 'JPEG' output in camera (as do those of many others) using original data solely: not, as now, customer use of an equally ersatz RAW file output ... as demanded by enthusiasts.

One only has to look at current results to see the draw-backs of this latter RAW approach - as those adhered to post-processing try to better the technology that produced the original. A Fool's Errand?

My comments re. internal processing are more than appropriate to this post. It is my opinion that more and more '... RAW please ...' requests will increasingly fall on the deaf ears of software developers in a relatively short period of time. In camera processing (with the effects you mention) is likely to become the norm, rather than the exception, even with discerning enthusiast or pro users.

Pro and enthusiast photographers once accepted the output of Kodak, Fuji, Ilford etc. as the camera delivered it ....i.e. as a piece of exposed film. Only a few chose (very rarely) to experiment or modify the results provided by the film manufacturers. You generally chose your 'look' based on film stock.

Rather than support dodgy RAW output from third-party sources, most camera manufacturers would rather do it themselves, and stand by those results. Increased in-camera computational power makes this more ever more practicable.

I think we are on a threshold - with any number of cameras now producing results that may make RAW a footnote in imaging history. It's not a case of 'demand it' ... more a case of '... why bother ...?

Raw file processing is a questionable process nowadays ?? In camera processing is becoming the norm?? Raw is becoming a footnote in imaging history ?? Go for a run to get some oxygen into Your starved brain.

-- hide signature --


 Gazeomon's gear list:Gazeomon's gear list
Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax K-3 Samsung NX500 Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 macro HD Pentax DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow