Is XF1 Raw Redundant?

Discussion in 'Fuji X10, X20, X30, XF1, and X-S1' started by Oahu Kamaaina, Feb 2, 2013.

  1. Oahu Kamaaina

    Oahu Kamaaina New to FujiXspot

    8
    Feb 2, 2013
    Oahu, Hawaii
    After wounding my wife's S95 I replaced it with a brown XF1. We always shoot RAW+JPG but my early experimenting with the XF1 shows that its JPGs are so good and the RAF software so average, that there seems to be little benefit to even shooting raw unless you're in some very unusual situation where you may well need to work on dynamic range later. Am I being blinded by a pretty face or has anyone else experienced this?
     
  2. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
    All X cameras have internal RAW converters, hence I am shooting all X cameras FINE+RAW.
     
  3. Oahu Kamaaina

    Oahu Kamaaina New to FujiXspot

    8
    Feb 2, 2013
    Oahu, Hawaii
    Thanks for your comment.
    I do too but find that I rarely use the raw files and can't achieve much improvement when I do. Do you actually use the raw files? Do you get noticeably better images when you do?
    I find myself questioning why I do this other than that's the way I've always done it.
     
  4. Luke

    Luke FujiXspot Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    856
    Jan 31, 2013
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    Luke
    I rarely RAW unless it's a tricky lighting situation. There is so much latitude in the JPEG that I can tweak them pretty hard before they fall apart.
     
  5. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
    Since my (and most of my fellows') photographic skills aren't evolved enough to guess, pick and set the best out of several billion possible JPEG setting combination before each shot and I also mostly lack the time to change such settings while shooting (after all, I am then busy picking DR settings, exposing right & framing my shot), I very much welcome the opportunity to change, adapt and optimize these settings anytime after taking the shot.

    So yes, I pretty much change the JPEG settings of 90-95% of my shots after I take them (and be it only to try out different variations).

    For JPEG shooters, the internal RAW converter really is a blessing and one of the best and most powerful features of the X series.

    Since this topic is so vital, I have decided to feature it in my next X-PERT CORNER article.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Oahu Kamaaina

    Oahu Kamaaina New to FujiXspot

    8
    Feb 2, 2013
    Oahu, Hawaii
    Me too! That's the point I was offering but apparently didn't express myself well. Thanks for the comment.
     
  7. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
  8. Armanius

    Armanius FujiXspot Top Veteran

    691
    Feb 1, 2013
    Texas
    Muttley
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Oahu Kamaaina

    Oahu Kamaaina New to FujiXspot

    8
    Feb 2, 2013
    Oahu, Hawaii
    "And In Conclusion..." :)

    I appreciate all of the comments on this question. Maybe I'm missing something, but I've yet to see an example of a RAW processed file that is meaningfully better than a correctly exposed JPG from the camera. Most of us can recognize when there is backlight, low light, snow, etc. so we can usually tweak the camera correctly before taking the image, to get a decent JPG to work on in PS. It seems that the examples of the various JPGs from RAW are not as true to the subject as a straight fully-auto EXR JPG would give. Sure, one can make the whites chalky or make the image blue or brown, but those are artistic expressions, not truer examples of the subject as it appears to the naked eye. I'm sure there are cases where having a RAW file around is worth it, but it seems like one can switch to RAW+JPG in those rare situations. But as a default shooting mode because that's the way I've always done it (and it is for me) seems to be a habit, not a necessity.
    I've owned early EXR cameras and was less than impressed with their IQ, but the current X series seems to provide great JPGs from the camera without having to resort to provided average desktop RAW processing software. If DxO or ACR support these cameras better in the future, then I may revert to my old habit and spend the time and space to save a RAW copy too. But for now, I'm usually happy to start with the EXR JPGs straight out of the camera.
     
  10. flysurfer

    flysurfer X-Pert

    Feb 1, 2013
    Nuremberg
    Rico Pfirstinger
    I find it impossible to shoot high DR and other subjects JPEG only. It's probably because I am not talented enough to get all settings right before the shot (it's also time-consuming), so I appreciate the built-in RAW converter to optimize my JPEG settings after I took the shot.

    The internal RAW converter is okay for most subjects. I am pretty good at using it, I like combining push/pull with different film simulations and different shadow tone and highlight tone (aka contrast) settings to generate nice and robust JPEGs that can be further post-processed.

    So I rarely have to use external RAW converters. There aren't that many that fully support EXR RAWs, anyway, basically only Lightroom/ACR.

    Here's a set with a few comparisons: http://www.flickr.com/photos/25805910@N05/sets/72157632648264532/
     
    • Like Like x 1