That answer is wrong and you are wrong.

To explain away the visible differences we can all see between camera processed X-Trans files and alternative raw processor results as just differences in contrast, clarity, default sharpening, and input profiles is a mistake.

Demosaicing of the X-Trans CFA is a critical factor and plays a critical role. You are mistaken to discount it.

From DXO (https://www.dxo.com/tech-news/unique-sensor/):
"One of the reasons that the Bayer filter has proven so tenacious is that engineers are used to processing its data. Finding the best recipe for demosaicing Bayer sensors has kept researchers busy for four decades, and the highly sophisticated algorithms developed over the years have allowed them to mitigate many of the limitations fundamental to its design. Even fairly simple algorithms, such as those embedded in the first digital cameras, yield fairly good results.

The increased complexity of the X-Trans pattern, on the other hand, entails a demosaicing process that is far more elaborate. Fujifilm’s engineers are said to have spent five years waiting for their cameras’ processing power to catch up before introducing X-Trans in the X-Pro1 in 2012. At the same time, the research community has published far fewer papers about X-Trans demosaicing than they have for Bayer; not only is it a more complex problem but less research effort has been spent solving it. It seems fair to assume that current X-Trans demosaicing algorithms are still some distance away from achieving a theoretically optimal solution. This is one reason that Fujifilm enthusiasts often find themselves jumping between software packages in search of a solution that delivers the best results..."

At DxO, we have attempted to create better X-Trans processing in the past, but we were never quite satisfied with the outcome...

Today, image processing is being revolutionized by machine learning, particularly by a technology called convolutional neural networks...

X-Trans demosaicing is a great candidate for machine learning. Being more complex than Bayer demosaicing, the advantage of machine learning over traditional engineering should be even greater than that achieved with Bayer demosaicing. Our counterparts at Adobe demonstrated exactly this when they introduced their machine learning-powered “Enhance Details” feature in early 2020. Reviewers concluded that, while the difference for Bayer images was rather subtle, it was a significant improvement for X-Trans images.

At DxO, we leveraged machine learning in DxO PhotoLab to solve another highly complex task: our RAW conversion technology — DxO DeepPRIME and DeepPRIME XD — uses a single, huge convolutional neural network to apply demosaicing and denoising at the same time." [my bold]

OMG! Another case of engineers in the photo industry going off half-cocked without checking first with Scotty! You'd think they'd learn. You should contact DXO and explain to them that it's just contrast, clarity, default sharpening and input profiles so they can get that embarrassing nonsense about demosaicing off their website.

There are levels to photography...as with anything else.

Editing in Raw yields better results...no question about it.

So it is either you don't need quality in your images...that's a level of photography...not a high one but... a level.

Or you don't care about quality in your images...that's a level...below the one above.

Or you don't have the coin or skillset to edit raw...that's a level as well.

But don't ever kid yourself that jpeg is just as good.

That's just plain ignorance...the lowest level.

Yes I agree jpegs SOOC are better than they used to be. But in-camera jpeg compression does PERMANENTLY throw away data from your image files as it compresses it into a smaller file size, just the reality of jpegs. Uncompressed raw files keep ALL the image data your camera's sensor and lens can capture. Jpegs DO NOT contain all the image data that your camera sensor and lens captured, just a fact.

JUST THE FACTS that everyone in this discussion should understand:

From Adobe: " When an image is captured in a digital camera, it is recorded as raw data. If the camera format is set to JPEG, this raw data is processed and compressed before it is saved in the JPEG format. If the camera format is set to raw, no processing is applied, and therefore the file stores more tonal and color data."

The Full Adobe article:

"When to use raw vs. JPEG
Understand the advantages of shooting raw over JPEG and the creative flexibility you have when processing your files.


One of the choices you encounter on many digital cameras is whether to save the photos from your camera as JPEGs or raw files. This choice can have a significant impact on the processing options and possibilities available to you. The advantages of raw become clear once you start editing your photos in programs like Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.

What is a raw file?
When an image is captured in a digital camera, it is recorded as raw data. If the camera format is set to JPEG, this raw data is processed and compressed before it is saved in the JPEG format.

If the camera format is set to raw, no processing is applied, and therefore the file stores more tonal and color data. With more data stored in the file, there is more processing flexibility than a JPEG can offer. Here's a cooking analogy: a raw file contains the ingredients to make a specific meal that you can prep however you'd like, whereas a JPEG is that meal already cooked, and there is less flexibility in how you can modify it.


A JPEG, even one that is straight out of the camera, has already been “developed” by the camera’s image processor. Settings such as brightness, contrast, color saturation, and even sharpening may have already been applied. The look of a JPEG image can be changed in an image editing application, but since it is a compressed format designed to yield smaller file sizes, a lot of tonal and color data has been permanently discarded during the compression process. The result is a file with far fewer potential tonal values than would be possible in a raw file of the same scene. For some images, this difference can be critical.

Raw has more options for correcting exposure issues
One of the main benefits of capturing a photo as a raw file is that the additional tonal and color data in the file offers more options, especially if exposure changes are needed.

With a JPEG, white balance is applied by the camera, and there are fewer options to modify it in post-processing. With a raw file, you have complete control over white balance when editing the image.
Lost detail in overexposed highlights cannot be recovered in a JPEG. In a raw file, even if the highlights appear to be completely white at first, it may be possible to adjust those tones and reveal highlight detail that is still present.
The same is true of darker, underexposed images. Shadow detail that is irretrievably lost in a JPEG can often be more successfully recovered in a raw file.
Noise reduction can be more effectively applied to a raw file than a JPEG.

Raw offers more processing flexibility

The JPEG processing applied by the camera is designed to produce a good-looking image right out of the camera, and this processing cannot be undone. A raw file, on the other hand, is processed by you; so you can decide how the image will look. In Lightroom, any changes you apply to a raw file can be modified at any time, allowing for maximum creative flexibility when you process the file. This flexibility, along with the possibility to significantly improve less-than-ideal exposures, are the main benefits of shooting in raw."

Cheers and best to you all.

No it does not fall under better versatility in editing.

Again it's camera make/model dependent; A raw file can typically be processed to exhibit superior technical IQ over a camera JPEG; sharpness and fine detail rendition, noise management, lens distortion/lens corrections, color accuracy and tone response, etc.

Camera JPEG processors all operate under the constant threat that the user will press the shutter release and hold it down. At that point the embedded camera software has to keep up. To do that the camera engineers have no choice but to do some corner cutting. They do amazingly well under duress.

This just came up in another forum I visit. The OP had a Nikon D3500. I went to DPReview and downloaded one of their sample images. Here's the photo (SOOC JPEG): https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9111488384/nikon-d3500-sample-gallery/5019520573 Here's a full res JPEG I created processing the raw file: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4hk162mtyuwfcv1b2kwve/d3500-raw.jpg?rlkey=trh5v73dcoyr3mqompm94mhtz&dl=0

Below is a 100% crop comparing the camera SOOC JPEG and my version of the processed raw file. My version of the image exhibits superior technical IQ not because I had more editing versatility but because I used better software that unfortunately Nikon can't put in their cameras. The D3500 is rated at 5 frames per second continuous shooting. If the embedded image processing software in the D3500 were the equal of what I used with PL-6 that 5 frames per second would not be possible.

Properly processed, raw files do possess greater dynamic range, a fuller color pallett, more tonal range, and all the picture data your lens, and camera can capture, uncompressed with data lost forever that happens in jpegs.

This is just the facts. If you dont understand that, then do more research.

Certainly if you dont process your raw files properly you can have no better ultimate image quality than a jpeg. But starting with a raw file gives you so much more to work with, without all the image data lost in a compressed jpeg file.

In is just a fact that you will NEVER know the FULL image quality your lenses and camera sensor can capture if you never capture raw files. For many that doesn't matter ,and they are fine with jpegs, compressed and processed by the camera's internal processor and algorithms.

For me personally I love getting the ultimate image quality out of the gear I have heavily invested in. So I always shoot raw+Jpeg.

Do whatever you prefer, whatever you like, it is all good and your personal choice.

Cheers and best to you.

The value of SOC JPEG is to see if you got what you intended, framed right, no lampposts sticking out of heads, etc. and to have something to process.
I process JPGs, I have yet to see a RAW that I got more out of than JPG processed.*
I don't shoot RAW at all, and use my 2nd card as where the overflow will go since I only re-format when full.
So why have RAW take up much more space than JPG if it doesn't give me anything useful?

*I have posted RAW files that UHH members were also unable to get more detail out of than I got processing JPG.

More and more I think I'm in the minority or maybe or little odd. I only have one camera body a D850, and only 4 lenses ( all Tamrons). I have 2 card slots and use the second slot for a backup. The cards in those slots are the only cards I have worth using. I do have several 16 and 32 cards and don't need them. And to add to all that I shot JPG all the time. I have tried shotting Raw several times but didn't think it was worth and work to do after the fact.I have a large yard/garden to deal with and my wife likes to see once in a while. I don't do a lot of PP except to crop or lighten some shadows, And to top it off I use the free Nikon editing software when I do PP. I have Photo shop elements 2018 that I use the eraser function on as it does a better job than Nikons version. Yes I do feel better Now that I've vented. I know I may be wrong about some of this my I'm happy with how it works for me. Let the format debate go on. Please note the minimally edited JPG's attached