Q2 JPEG and Raw file size

Woodman100 wrote:

I can't agree with your comment simply because virtually every camera exports its own file version of RAW, no main stream maker is exporting true RAW data because of the amount processing going on in camera. I agree that the RAW converter you use has an impact on what you see, for example Lightroom never treated Fuji 'RAWS' well.

But still, you can not see the raw. Because it does not look, it's just a bunch of data. Something has to make an image from that.

There are differences baked in before you get to the conversion stage. You can output from several different manufacturers ( I do all of the time) in Raw and the files look different even using the same adapted glass on each camera. That can only ever be down to difference in sensor and in camera preparation of the RAW data. I am not talking about in camera previews.

Yes, there are differences in raw, because cameras are different. But that still does not make raw look in any way on its own. If you take the same raw file and open it with two different image viewers you will likely get two images that looks differently.

Consider this: right now your combination of camera and viewer renders images that you consider better looking than your SOOC jpegs. But what if your image viewer gets an update that changes the way raws are rendered and now the raw is dull and boring?

To saying you like your raws look without considering how it was rendered (viewer) is like saying you like the movie just by reading its script.