I see it a bit like this.
Jpg's are like polaroid's, nice for immediate sharing, and to roughly see what the end result can look like. JPG's are mediocre by design, the quality of the film simulation does not change that.
Mostly agree, though I think mediocre is a bit harsh. Polaroid is an apt comparison.
What I would find more useful is to have the option to generate SOOC tiff's instead of jpg. that would be more like shooting slidefilm instead of polaroids. ( I think not having this option is a disgrace to the engineers that created have put a lot of effort in creating the filmsimulation profiles in the firstplace!)
LOL - disgrace is harsh too, but I agree that outputting tiffs or DNG would be useful.
In the end it is just what gives the best results for you, it is all about what standards you set for your self. For me the end product I have in mind is always a print. For others it might be a post on flickr, instagram or facebook, in which case the JPG's may be good enough.
+1
for my goal, processing Raw's gives me better results and flexibility,so I don't think you are doing something wrong.
+1
Personally I have never fully understood the fuzz about Fuji jpg's , for me Fuji jpg's are only good enough for some general snapshots I do not really care about. (Which is actually better than what I have seen with other brands. ).
Exactly, everyone has his own purposes and standards.
However it depends a bit on what you're goal is .
+1 +1 +1
Good post. I'm not sure why anyone would choose to ignore you.
Maybe because it shows complete ignorance of the actual characteristics of slide film and childish 'format snobbery'? (Anyone who thinks a 16-42mp jpeg is only as good as a Polaroid print is clearly talking nonsense.)
If that's the reason for the 'ignore' then I don't know......
Pat
Some of his language might be a bit dramatic for people who care about "format snobbery" (whatever that is?) but he's mostly right IMO. Jpegs and RAW are simply different file formats with very different specs and capabilities. People use the format that make sense for a givin situation.
Its really very simple.
Fuji RAW files are 14-bit and uncompressed. This matters for landscapes destined for large prints because the file is capable of recording over 16,000 tones/shades between the colors. Shadowed tree tones can be raised with little or no posterization or banding between tones, and a great amount of tonal data can be recovered from blown highlights, like the bright strips of sky behind the dark trees. Color temperature can be more precisely fine-tuned and multiple color temps can be handled easily. Sharpening and NR enhancement can be accomplished using a variety of more sophisticated methods than the camera provides in jpegs. And of, course, the RAW file is unimpressed.
8-bit jpegs only have about 256 shades/tones available which is fine if no PP is performed. But once one starts stretching 250 tones for shadow and extreme high lot recovery the histogram falls apart revealing tonal banding.I think the analogy to Polaroids simply meant the individual image parameters (WB, exposure, sharpness, etc.) is baked-in and not meant for much extra processing.
