repleo Loc: Boston

Why would you want to do all of that in-camera when it is so much easier to do it in the comfort of your armchair in front of a large monitor instead of a 3" screen out in the wind, cold, dark, heat etc? What's the point of that? Just to be able to boast that it is SOOC? The fact is, I doubt if many ardent SOOC adherents go to all of that trouble in-camera anyway. The only advantage you suggest for using the manufacturers' software is to be able to replicate the settings you customized in-camera. If the manufacturers software was somehow better, easier or more intuitive than competitors your suggestion may have some value. Of course you find some justification in the fact that the manufacturer's software was probably free to you.

Chicflat Loc: Tulsa, Ok,

Ysarex, I have a question. If you return to the raw image to process in the camera, aren't your efforts limited by the the smallness of the image that you are viewing on the lcd screen? I think looking at the detail would be really demanding on my 75 year-old retina-reattached eyes.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Absolutely yes. That's the point of the Fuji shell program X-Raw Studio. You still use the camera to do the processing but the camera is cabled to your computer where you can see a large screen image.

So for example you set the camera originally to take the photo using Fuji's Provia film simulation and all other adjustments at zero. When you see the image you think it might look better with the Eterna film simulation and the Highlights pulled to a -2. The camera will re-process the raw file for you with those new settings. My Canon and Nikon will do the same for their raw files but you're right the workspace is the camera LCD no other option for Canon and Nikon but the cabled to the computer option for Fuji.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I use #3 method for some pretty simple reasons...

#1 leaves considerably less room to adjust images as I may wish, to later change my mind about how to handle an image, or even to experiment with different versions of it. A processed JPEG just has less latitude for adjustment. I'm far less concerned about an image appearing "exactly as my camera saw it" and more concerned about making the finished image appear "as my eyes and mind saw the scene". If I've let the camera "do its thing" and reduce the image to a JPEG, there is much less that I can do with that image later, once I have it displayed on a large, color calibrated, graphic quality computer screen or am attempting to make a finished print from it. And, what if you get it wrong "in camera"? That can happen to anyone. I know it happens to me! Sometimes I simply have no choice but to use auto exposure and auto white balance, due to the action I'm shooting. I may not have time to dial in exposure compensation and can't use fill flash to open up shadows. While it's not impossible, JPEGs would significantly limit how much corrective work I can do on the images later.

#2 is able to emulate #1 ("as shot" setting), but offers more options to change and tweak an image. However, all camera makers' software I've used has been somewhat limited in what it can do. With this software most adjustments are global and I often want to do selective adjustments, to handle different parts of an image separately. For example, I may need to reduce noise in the shadows, but it's not a problem in other parts of the image where I'm more concerned about maintaining fine detail that noise reduction might negatively affect. Another thing I often do is sharpen only select portions of an image, or apply sharpening techniques more or less strongly to different areas. I also have three or four different methods of sharpening with my third party post-processing software, where the camera maker's software only offers one. But perhaps the most frequent thing I see is where various parts of an image need different white balance adjustments, such as an image that has a mix of shade and sunlight. No camera maker's software that I've ever used has been able to apply a particular color correction formula to one part of an image and a different formula to another area of that image.

When I first started working with RAW files I wasn't particularly good at it and post-processing software wasn't as capable as it is today. I shot RAW + JPEG a lot back then, because that way I could compare what the camera produced against what I was able to produce. In fact, I upgraded cameras to be able to do this. The first DSLRs I used could shoot RAW or JPEG, but not RAW + JPEG. (I had already been using Photoshop for ten year before I started pretty exclusively shooting digital. But it took time to learn to work with RAW. Once my post-processed RAW files images were consistently "better" than the JPEGs, I switched to mostly only shooting RAW. Besides, if I want I can always open the file in the camera maker's software and click on "as shot" and get exactly the same thing as an in-camera JPEG.

Please understand that in this case "better" is my own, subjective judgment call. That is as it should be. They are my images and I want to render them as I saw things in my "mind's eye".

It would be different if I were acting as a photojournalist or a technical/legal photographer, both of which I've done some work in at times. There "straight out of camera" and un-manipulated images can be important. In fact, for some jobs I've had verification software in my cameras that would lock out or at least flag any post-processing changes to images. These are examples of what you asked about... Situations where you should shoot JPEG instead of RAW with post-processing of any kind.

I also occasionally shoot JPEGs (actually RAW + JPEG, in order to have both) when there are short deadlines or large preview images are necessary. Maybe there isn't time for post-processing, such as when a sports photographer is shooting for a publication. Another time might be if working with a client who wants to see the image enlarged in order to give input on how it should be post-processed, where smaller thumbnails or previews just aren't sufficient.