But the journey from a raw capture to a satisfactory print (or even on-screen image) involves more user work and input.
If I may respond here. So film especially chromes are what we used to call (wyswyg). So one visualized what they would get with film and assuming correct range of exposures, the results pretty much matched. Yes maybe some touching up of drum scans including cleaning “worms” from the scan. Not usually much adjustment necessary.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. None of it.
Chromes are what we used to call (wysiwyg)?????
The term wysiwyg didn't exist before the personal computer age.
"Chromes" were an accurate representation of the original scene? By whose standards?
Early Kodachrome had purple to black skies with many other colors wildly exaggerated. By K64 skies were cobalt blue and many photographers demanded their "Real" Kodachrome back. Ektachrome had deficiencies in every color. Agfachrome looked nothing like Kodak colors. Velvia exaggerated everything.
No color film ever produced accurate renditions of any original scene.
I've been a drum scanner operator for over 30 years. I've been involved in color reproduction in Offset Lithography and Photography for 50 years. Other than the fact that I don't have the opportunity to reshoot historical images that are on film with digital equipment (because the opportunity is gone), the arrival of digital photography has improved every aspect of color and image reproduction. Other than those historical images, I would never choose film to shoot any important image. And I wouldn't hesitate to assure a client I could nail the requirements for image quality, no matter the criteria, using digital equipment.
We couldn't come close with film technology to the quality we routinely produce now with digital cameras and methods. Not even close. And most of the image quality from the film era is trash (even in the hands of us pros back then) compared to that which even modest digital cameras are now capable of making.
(BTW, "worms with drum scans?" What worms? Are you getting confused with the problems that some older, 4/3 format Fujifilm sensors had?)
With all equipment, a certain level of competence and expertise is necessary. If someone is having trouble getting good results with equipment at the level of the GFX system, it's not the fault of the equipment.
Very simply put, for image quality, not requiring me to take out a second mortgage for gear, the GFX system is the best I have ever operated. It's not the fastest, doesn't have the range of lenses of others. But it's image quality is simply superb.
With proper computer calibration and using ProRGB, assuming proper exposure, there is usually little to do other than the standard sharpening and cleaning unless someone has an extreme range of light, assuming base ISO.
No.
I found the raw GFX files malleable enough but required far too much effort to obtain something acceptable - my own experience.
Very rarely could obtain similar results vs D850 and x1d.
Before my GFX I had D800E and D850 equipment. Great gear. I did professional work with it all day long. No complaints. No excuses. Money in the bank. Got the work done, slept well at night. In terms of ultimate image quality - no match for my GFX100S and GF lenses.
