8
Feb
2013

RAW for JPEG Shooters…

…and JPEG for RAW Shooters!

by Rico Pfirstinger

One of the most persistent flame wars on the “photographic Internet” is the endless fight between RAW and JPEG shooters. If it wasn’t so sad, it would be funny. Readers of my book know that I prefer a comprehensive approach to this hot topic by advising to shoot FINE+RAW (SHOOTING MENU > IMAGE QUALITY) at any time, no matter whether you consider yourself a part of the RAW or JPEG camp. There are plenty of good reasons for being inclusive instead of divisive.

Why “RAW only” shooters should use FINE+RAW

Even if you consider yourself a hardened “RAW only” shooter, FINE+RAW makes sense for you. Don’t forget that you can preview exposures on your camera only in JPEG format. This means that even in “RAW only” mode, your camera will produce a JPEG out of every RAW file it saves to provide you with a preview file. Otherwise there wouldn’t be anything to examine in playback mode.

However, these preview JPEGs in “RAW only” mode are low resolution—often so low that it is impossible to tell whether image details are in focus when you zoom-in to 100%. Shooting in FINE+RAW mode with an IMAGE SIZE of L obviates this problem. With this setting, the camera saves a high-resolution JPEG “print” in addition to the RAW “negative”: You can use this high-res JPEG for precise focus control immediately after you snap it by pressing the command dial, thereby enabling the 100% zoom function. Moreover, the high-res JPEG file is a good point of reference for developing the RAW file later in your personal computer.

Admittedly, you could also opt to shoot in NORMAL+RAW mode instead of FINE+RAW, which doesn’t actually affect the resolution of the JPEG. However, this setting produces files with greater compression, compromising image quality. Dedicated RAW shooters should pay attention to this fact, because in some modes, the camera saves only JPEGs without any RAW files! Think of motion panorama or of ISO, film simulation and dynamic range bracketing as examples for such modes. In all these cases, your X-Pro1 or X-E1 (or X100 and X100S) silently switch the image quality setting from NORMAL+RAW to NORMAL, which means the only image they write to the memory card is a quality-reduced JPEG! And what X-camera user likes to skimp on quality?

Wait, there’s more! The camera’s IMAGE SIZE settings (3:2, 16:9 or 1:1 format with resolutions L, M and S) aren’t available in “RAW only” mode. They are greyed-out. This feature can be valuable for RAW shooters, though, because the camera’s light metering is influenced by the current format settings. If you intend to shoot (and later crop) images to a ratio of 16:9 or 1:1, the light metering works more effectively when the camera’s image format is set accordingly. That’s because parts of the image that are superfluous will be automatically cropped out and won’t affect the camera’s exposure metering (which is based on the current live-view image). Furthermore, it’s easier to target your desired image area when the image format in the camera’s viewfinder matches up with your intended end result. Finally, the camera adjusts the size and shape of the autofocus fields and redistributes them according to your selected image format. This means that you can continue to use all 49 of the camera’s AF fields even when you are shooting in the exotic 1:1 format.

No worries: Independent from any IMAGE SIZE or IMAGE QUALITY settings you choose in the shooting menu, your X-Pro1 or X-E1 will always record a full-size L, 3:2 format RAW file. You will not lose a single pixel.

Why “JPEG only” shooters should use FINE+RAW

Now that the “RAW only” camp has been served, what about the “JPEG only” crowd? After all, this is what this article is supposed to mostly be about, right?

The reason to opt for FINE+RAW comes down to this: All X-series cameras feature an internal RAW converter (PLAYBACK MENU > RAW CONVERSION) that allows you to change an image’s JPEG settings anytime after you take a shot. However, before we examine the implications of this feature, let’s find out about those mysterious “JPEG settings” and let’s see what they actually are.

JPEG settings (or JPEG parameters) are camera settings that do not affect the RAW file. Instead, they only affect the look of any JPEG files your camera spits out. Thinking of RAWs as “digital negatives” and JPEGs as “digital lab prints”, the camera’s JPEG settings determine how the JPEGs actually look like.

JPEG settings are:

  • White Balance
  • WB Shift
  • Film Simulation
  • Color
  • Sharpness
  • Highlight Tone
  • Shadow Tone
  • Noise Reduction (NR)
  • Color Space

As you have probably noticed, there settings are scattered over the shooting and setup menus of the camera. With the exception of color space, they are also directly accessible via the Quick Menu and can be saved in sets known as custom shooting profiles. The same JPEG settings are available when you activate the camera’s internal RAW converter.

JPEG settings strongly affect the look of an image. The very same shot can look quite differently depending on what JPEG settings you have chosen. Here’s an example of a snapshot I took recently—the following pics all show the same RAW image (“digital negative”) processed with different camera JPEG settings to produce different “digital prints”.

Let’s start with three different color versions:

And here three different black&white versions, again all courtesy of the X camera’s flexible JPEG parameter settings:

As you can see, there can be both strong and subtle differences between different “digital prints”. There are virtually billions of possibilities of how you can combine these JPEG settings to generate an actual image. Quite overwhelming! With normal cameras and as a “JPEG only” shooter, you would have to know/guess and then set the “perfect” JPEG parameter combination for each image in advance. Can you actually do this? Honestly, I can’t.

But even if you can, you’d still only get one single version of your shot. What if you want more than one version, like a punchy black&white rendering, a standard color version and a cool, high-contrast color version of an image? Sure, you could try to post-process your single JPEG multiple times on your computer, but as a matter of fact, most JPEG shooters don’t really know how to do that, or they simply do not want to post-process their images. They want their camera to output pleasant results, that’s all.

Additionally, due to their compressed nature, JPEGs aren’t the best medium to radically post-process an image. If you have to post-process a JPEG (Fuji’s JPEGs are quite robust), it’s always better  to start with a file that already resembles the intended result as much as possible. The less you have to change, the less the quality will suffer.

This is where RAW comes in for dedicated, hard-core JPEG shooters. With the internal RAW converter, you don’t have to worry about which combination of “perfect” JPEG settings to choose before you take the shot. You can deal with that later—anytime, as often as you like. As long as you record and keep the RAW file of a shot (you can copy RAWs back from your PC to an SD card anytime), you can produce and compare as many different JPEG versions of it as you like. And by doing so, you will learn a lot about how those precious JPEG parameters practically work, what they do and how to use them.

In other words: If you are a hard-core JPEG shooter and you really want to learn how to maximize the camera’s JPEG potential, do keep the RAWs and play with them in the internal RAW converter.  It’s the best “learning by doing” approach there is. Not only will you quickly become an expert in applying different JPEG parameters, you will also be able to generate better JPEGs with optimized looks for different applications. This is JPEG heaven!

For those with limited playtime, my book Mastering the Fujifilm X-Pro1 contains a comprehensive section explaining and illustrating the camera’s different JPEG settings. Another good thing is the fact that these settings are virtually the same between all Fujifilm X-series cameras. If you know one, you do know all.

In conclusion, the availability of the camera’s internal RAW converter  is quite practical and reassuring. Instead of worrying about white balance, white balance shift, film simulation modes, color saturation, highlight contrast, shadow contrast, image sharpness, noise reduction or which color space to pick, we can concentrate on properly framing, exposing and focusing a shot. Honestly, that alone is challenging enough for most of us, isn’t it? It certainly is for me.

Let’s not forget that nobody is perfect. Even the most experienced JPEG shooters make mistakes. I do! There’s always a possibility of setting unpleasant JPEG parameters or accidentally mixing something up. By keeping the RAW, such errors will not matter, as you can change and improve all JPEG parameters anytime after the fact.

Why settle with this coming out of your camera…

…when you may actually have wanted something like this (or vice versa):

There’s an additional bonus in using the internal RAW converter: In case you didn’t nail the exposure of your shot, you can correct it using the converter’s PUSH/PULL PROCESSING function. That’s yet another safety net, and you can still consider yourself a bona fide JPEG shooter. No matter what parameters you change or fiddle with, your end result will always be a JPEG coming straight out of the camera, including “Fuji Colors” and all.

Finally, nothing is keeping you from post-processing such optimized out-of-camera JPEGs on your personal computer. For example, the Sepia version of the shot that I have shown above can easily be turned into an even more “effectful” image:

Any trade-offs?

There’s no free lunch, isn’t it? True. In order to cherish the wonderful world of FINE+RAW, performance and storage considerations have to be addressed.

For RAW-only shooters, picking FINE+RAW does not make much of a difference regarding camera performance and storage requirements. Just make sure to use the fastest SD card available on the market, as this really makes a difference handling the camera’s data flow. The additional high-res JPEG file will consume a few more megabytes, that’s all.

For JPEG-only shooters, saving the larger RAW file along with a smaller JPEG will significantly use up additional storage on SD cards, so using a card that’s large enough is certainly a good idea. For example, a 16 GB card in an X-E1 or X-Pro1 will hold more than 500 FINE+RAW shots. However, the most important aspect is using a card that’s really fast, like a Sandisk UHS-1 card with 95 MB/s nominal write speed. Don’t cripple your X-series camera with slow class 6 or class 10 cards.

To summarize the trade-offs: As long as you use the fastest SD cards on the market, you will be okay when setting your camera to FINE+RAW.

Using adapted JPEG settings to enhance EVF/LCD usability

There’s another aspect to this story: Since your camera’s EVF and LCD are “WYSIWYG” devices, they will always reflect your current JPEG settings.

Let’s say you want to take a high-contrast shot with stark shadows and highlights against the sun on a bright day. So you set SHADOW TONE to +2 in the shooting menu to emphasize shadow contrast and blacks. However, when you do so, much of your scene will appear all black in the viewfinder, making it difficult to precisely frame the shot.

In situations like this, setting SHADOW TONE to –2 would result in a much better user experience. Yes, your initial out-of-camera JPEG would not look as “high-contrasty” as intended, but you can always change the contrast settings of your JPEGs later to your liking by using the built-in RAW converter. So before you declare the EVF or LCD “unusable” in certain situations, consider making them “reusable” by adapting the camera’s JPEG settings.

So here we have it: With Fuji X-series cameras, RAW shooters are better off also recording JPEGs. And JPEG shooters are better off also keeping the RAWs. Everybody wins!

For your convenience, here’s a TOC with links to my previous X-PERT CORNER articles:

Rico Pfirstinger studied communications and has been working as journalist, publicist, and photographer since the mid-80s. He has written a number of books on topics as diverse as Adobe PageMaker and sled dogs, and produced a beautiful book of photographs titled Huskies in Action (German version). He has spent time working as the head of a department with the German Burda-Publishing Company and served as chief editor for a winter sports website. After eight years as a freelance film critic and entertainment writer in Los Angeles, Rico now lives in Germany and devotes his time to digital photography and compact camera systems. His book “Mastering the FUJIFILM X-Pro1” (Kindle Edition) (Apple iBook Store) (German version) is available on Amazon and offers a plethora of tips, secrets and background information on successfully using Fuji’s X-Pro1 and X-E1 system cameras, lenses and key accessories.

  • George

    Do you have any images with visible quality differences between JPEG fine and normal?

    • Isaac

      George, I was surprised by your comment because the writer isn’t talking about a visible difference in quality. The writer states the fact that your options are reduced by only choosing one or the other.
      Having both lets you have the freedom of choice to produce the developed photo that you want to create.

    • http://www.lets-ride.de Rico Pfirstinger

      That will very much depend on the subject and of course the amount of post-processing one applies to the result. The only reason to choose NORMAL would be an imminent lack of storage space. But that’s pretty far-fetched in the days of 64 GB SD cards. The availability of a NORMAL JPEG format has historic reasons. There was a time when storage was much more expensive.

      • George

        Thanks for the explanation. But have you ever _seen_ any differences?

        • MJr

          Probably something like this:
          http://bellsouthpwp.net/o/r/oranje/snaps/jpeg_fine-vs-normal.jpg

          And this is a true but exaggerated example of jpeg compression:
          http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00G/00GExG-29703184.jpg

          • George

            Thanks, but those are from a Nikon camera from 2003, not from the X-Pro 1. Of course you can see JPEG compression artifacts in general. My question is under which circumstances they become visible with the X-Pro 1.

          • MJr

            JPEG hasn’t changed. They might use a higher or lower degree of compression but the effect will be most similar. As explained below, and as you can see in the example (which is what it was for), it shows up with subtle gradients, fine detail, edges, and shadows. A little loss is fine for displaying and sharing, that’s what jpeg and compression is for, but that is the only thing it is for, as soon as you want more it starts falling apart. Like re-cooking a already cooked dinner. You’ll only take these images once, and storage is growing, soon we’ll laugh about wanting to save a few GB. I can’t imagine only having jpegs, let alone such lossy ones. I’ve made new jpegs from most my raws many times now, because raw converters just keep getting better at interpreting the data. I’d kick myself if i couldn’t, seeing the results now compared to a few years ago.

        • rasterdogs

          George,
          From the tone of your questions it seems that you may be skeptical? Why not do your own tests and draw your own conclusions?

          • George

            I did my own tests but didn’t see differences. That’s why I’m asking if anybody else has seen those with the X-Pro 1, and under which precise circumstances. Until I see them, I remain skeptical indeed :-)

    • David

      George – The quality of jpeg files these days is actually very good, but you will definitely notice an advantage with RAW if you are trying to recover highlights or lift shadows in post production. It’s much easier to correct white balance and you get much more latitude to correct a badly exposed image in RAW.

  • Michel

    Thank you…………………

    • http://www.lets-ride.de Rico Pfirstinger

      I don’t shoot NORMAL, so I have neither seen nor looked for any differences. I’d consider doing so a waste of time, as I know they must exist due to the fact that JPEG compression is not lossless, so the more you compress, the more you lose.

      Since NORMAL files are clearly smaller than FINE files, there has to be a difference due to increased compression. It’s the same as saving JPEGs with 95% or with 70% “quality”. You can compare them, and you will eventually see differences depending on your subject and other settings, like sharpening parameters. Often, such differences (compression artifacts) will show in colored areas with subtle gradients (like a blue sky) or in highly detailed subjects.

      If, for whatever reason, you prefer NORMAL quality over FINE quality (or simply don’t care), knock yourself out and choose NORMAL. Nobody is stopping you. ;) However, most users will try to get the most robust JPEGs possible, as one can always create more compressed versions later.

      Btw, the internal RAW converter always generates FINE JPEGs, size L, format 3:2. It would be nice if the internal converter could also output 16 bit TIFFs. Such files would be great for major post-processing. The common complaint with the internal converter is not that its FINE JPEGs are “too good” and “overkill”. It’s quite the opposite, as many users would also like to have the option to create lossless 16 bit version of their shots.

      If someone has the time and interest, he could shoot different scenes in NORMAL+RAW using different JPEG parameters (especially NR and sharpness settings, like NR -2 and SHARPNESS +1), then redevelop the shots in the internal converters as FINE JPEGs with identical settings.

      • George

        Thanks again. I find the question interesting because once one stores tens of thousands of images on rented online storage, compression settings do translate into a money difference. As you say, both “fine” and “normal” are compromises, so the question becomes which compromise is still acceptable. Since I use pictures (if at all) to look at them, what is visible determines what is acceptable for me. For some cameras, it is easy to spot a difference e.g. shooting paintings. For the Fuji’s “fine” and “normal” though, I haven’t been able to see something yet. Seeing such differences is partially a question of where to look, so examples that show that would be interesting to me.

        • http://www.lets-ride.de Rico Pfirstinger

          Just create a compressed or smaller version for online storage on your PC or Mac, using the quality settings of your choosing, and keep the RAWs, TIFFs or high-quality JPEGs offline.

          Or get more online storage, it’s actually quite inexpensive. I have more than 100 GB of storage in my Dropbox, and it costs me very little. That’s room for about 25,000 FINE JPEGs.

          • George

            Sure, there are more complicated ways to optimize cost. But why go through all those hoops if nobody can see any difference between “fine” and “normal” other than file size, anyway? With all the effort spent on testing camera and lens quality, testing JPEG compression quality isn’t that uninteresting, yet it’s so rarely done.

          • MJr

            I certainly can. And if you want to edit it in any way its flaws become exaggerated even more. Even if you just save to a new file without any editing. They don’t call it lossy for nothing.

            And trust me, testing compression has been the opposite of rarely done. Have you ever visited the internets ? ;)

          • stando

            I also suggest not to waste effort to investigate in which scenes the differences are visible or not visible. I prefer to store maximal quality = RAW and also fine JPEG. Keep those larger files on at least 2 hard discs. For online storage you could use smaller files in order to keep cost acceptable. But for me most important is to think about future …. I expect to see my images also in 30 years and this time I believe also our current best quality files will not be sufficient for the available displaying devices.

  • Peter

    Rico,

    Thanks for another great read. I did buy the kindle version of your book but haven’t had a chance to look at it, so therefore a question: When I look at the differences between the raw file and the jpeg files of my x10, I notice that the jpeg files contain more “content”, in other words it seems as if the left, right, top and bottom sides have been ‘cut off’ in the RAW files. For example, when I take a wrist shot of a watch on my wrist, the jpeg picture ‘squeezes’ the watch (I assume lens correction) yet it shows more of my arm and hand, which seems odd to me as both files do have 4000 by 3000 pixels. How does that work with the x-pro1? The effectcis visible in both LR4 and C1? I never noticed this with my nikon although I shot mainly RAW-only. Hopefully my question is clear, otherside I can send some examples.

    Thanks, Peter

    • http://www.lets-ride.de Rico Pfirstinger

      The X10′s internal converter is squeezing the image a bit to crop less of the pic at certain focal lengths. The external converters correct more accurately (using the same RAW metadata), but they crop more of the image that way.

      • Peter

        Thanks Rico,

        Do you know if the X-E1/X-Pro1 jpeg converter does a similar thing when the 18-55mm lens is mounted?

        For a while I thought it was just me but sometimes the dimensions did not seem right. So there is an additional reason to shoot RAW with the X10 as well. I will try various focal lengths (as you say, in some situations raw-files are not recorded). At 18mm (ff eq) the difference is substantial.

        • http://www.lets-ride.de Rico Pfirstinger

          No, not that I know of.

  • Mel

    A useful artical. I have always shot Hi JPEG and RAW on all of the cameras I have owned that offered this feature, although my reasoning has never been based on quality issues but rather those of proprietary formats.
    I archive all my shoots and, on occasion, dip into these archives to use images I shot many years ago only to find that the RAW files are no longer supported by my current version of Photoshop. Fortunately I’ve been able to recover images using older CS versions. For me it’s simply a safety factor, RAW formats constantly change and in years to come many of them will be inaccessible, but if nothing else I will at least have a Fine Quality JPEG, which is better than nothing.

  • Christian

    I made the opposite experience:

    I developed 8 year old RAWs from 2005 and with all the new tricks of LR4 suddenly previously unusable shoots (back than in ISO1600) are now fine thanks to much better RAW processors with lightyears better noise reduction!

    These still work on pretty old files :)

    • Mel

      That’s useful to know Christian, thanks for the advice, I’ve been pondering whether to go LR4 or PhaseOne, I think that’s tipped my hand.

    • Pdf Ninja

      That’s strange. I’ve never seen Adobe dropping support for an older camera. Quite the contrary, it always improves RAW support. For example, I can take a Nikon D50 RAW and process it better than my camera did back in 2005. Camera JPEGs don’t improve, RAW processor always do, no exception.

      Every RAW has an embedded JPEG, which actually isn’t low resolution at all. It has some compression artifacts, though. On the Fuji X-E1 I shoot FINE+RAW, at least until Lightroom properly implements the X-Trans demosaicing.

      • http://www.lets-ride.de Rico Pfirstinger

        Indeed, Adobe also improved support for various older Fuji cameras, like EXR cameras and even the X100.

  • Christian

    So thanks for another great artical – and always shoot a RAW with your jpg, because what might be an unusable shot today well be a great picture in a couple of years :)

  • rasterdogs

    Rico,
    Thanks again for another great article. I often crop images to square format. I didn’t realize that selecting the differing formats in camera affects the metering.

  • rasterdogs

    And conversely….Ken Tanaka on shooting Jpegs:

    http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/03/ken-tanaka-shooting-jpeg-instead-of-raw.html

    Mr. Tanaka’s www site:
    http://www.kentanaka.com

    This is not offered as a contradiction to Rico’s observations but as a point of view from an accomplished photographer.

    Personally I enjoy post processing raw files in the ‘digital darkroom.

    There are lots of ways to skin this cat.

    • http://www.lets-ride.de Rico Pfirstinger

      Thank you for the link. It’s indeed quite interesting, but I can hardly see this article offering a different POV on our subject here, because Ken is apparently at least partly shooting with a Sony and other cameras that do not feature a built-in RAW converter. So as a JPEG shooter, he has to use his camera like all the other JPEG shooters who don’t have access to built-in RAW conversion: He needs to know and set his JPEG parameters in advance and better get it right. There is no “RAW for JPEG shooters” option in the Sony universe. You would need to transfer the RAWs to your computer and develop them in Lightroom or Sony’s own converter.

      In the end, he is recommending to use JPEG, “because that’s where the money went”. Indeed, the money went into the internal RAW conversion and in-camera processing, so don’t dismiss an internal RAW converter if you have one. Fuji realized that many of their customers like those “Fuji colors”, so they implemented the RAW conversion option (which is actually a JPEG optimizing feature geared to JPEG shooters) in the X series. And yet, many users simply dismiss it. They are used to dismissing it, because many other cameras (notably Sonys) don’t offer it, and because JPEG shooters are sometimes allergic to anything called “RAW”. Maybe Fuji should have called the feature “JPEG generator” instead of “RAW conversion” – JPEG shooters would probably love it. It seems like Ken has overlooked that feature, too, when he mentions the X10. ;) He wouldn’t be the first.

      This raises an important issue: Many new Fuji X users have already been “trained” and “conditioned” by other cameras they own(ed), so they tend to overlook specific Fuji features and often do not unlock their potential. Instead, many expect that their Fuji to work exactly like their previous Leicanikony camera. Well, it won’t.

      So use a Fuji like a Fuji, recognize its specific qualities, its strengths and weaknesses, and make the best of it. You know the drill: If you got lemons, make lemonade! And if you are a JPEG shooter and got a built-in RAW->JPEG converter, well, then use it to make better JPEGs! :)

  • rasterdogs

    For sure the Raw converter in the Fuji X-series cameras is excellent. I’ve used mine so much that I’m wearing the printing of the ‘menu ok’ button.

    I’ve found the converter to be a great tool to learn how the various settings affect the OOC Jpegs.

    I have a fond hope that FujiFilm will release the in-camera converter as a stand-alone app that works on Windows and Mac. Not sure if that is even possible. I do believe it would cut through a lot of the FUD about raw converters for the X-trans raw files.

    • http://www.lets-ride.de Rico Pfirstinger

      That’s a common wish, but I don’t think it will happen, as Fuji is already bundling an external RAW converter called RFC EX, which is basically Silkypix version 3. Though outdated, it is still much more powerful than the internal RAW converter. The internal converter really is a “JPEG engine”. It only offers JPEG parameters and some push/pull functionality. Very easy to understand, it simply mirrors the settings in the shooting menu. No cropping, rotating, highlight recovery, color editing, sharpness/detail control, perspective correction… however, the free RFC EX offers all that, and there is an upgrade path to Silkypix 5 at a reduced price for Fuji camera owners. Here in Germany, it is 129 Euros, quite competitive with LR, and certainly cheaper than C1.

      I don’t see Fuji bundling another, second free external RAW converter software that is doing the same as the internal converter. That would make three free RAW converters coming with each X series camera!

      It is also important to mention that Silkypix 5 often generates better results than the in-camera engine, if you know how to use it. So personally, I think I am better off with the built-in engine (which is great for what it does) and SP5 as different options than with only the internal engine in both a camera and a convenient PC/Mac version.

      So while I agreee that it would be nice and practical to also have a desktop version of Fuji’s JPEG engine, I’d be unhappy if Fuji dropped its close relationship with Silkypix as a consequence. And they probably would have to do that for financial reasons. This could become a perfect case of “be careful what you wish for”.

      • Hanseberhardt

        How do we start a campaign to pressure Apple to make their Aperture software compatible with Fuji X-trans sensor now that so many photographers use the Fuji X-Pro, Fuji X-E1 and and X 20 cameras?

        Can this lobbying be done under the Fuji Rumours umbrella?

        Should this idea of petitioning Apple also appear in other forums for the Fuji X cameras and Apple Aperture software??

        • http://www.lets-ride.de Rico Pfirstinger

          As far as I know, Apple is already working on X-Trans support for Apple Camera Raw.

  • daenu

    Rico, thank you very much for your detailed and precise information on how these Fuji cameras work!

  • Hanseberhardt

    Just received the book MASTERING THE X-PRO 1 from Amazon, relevant to me, as I am now using my new X E-1. I made a wise decision purchasing the book, essential really. The book and the X-PERT CORNER are a terrific. Thanks Rico!

    • http://www.lets-ride.de Rico Pfirstinger

      Always happy to help. Please drop a review at Amazon, if you can free the time.

      • Hanseberhardt

        Have placed a very positive book review at Amazon already

  • Don

    Just come across this site after purchasing an XE-1. Lots of useful info and I’ve definitely learned a few things. I will check out your book Rico, thankyou.

  • http://oneview.weebly.com/ Richard

    Hi Rico, Thanks for the article. I’ve just bought an X100s and in the process of setting it up. I mainly work in B&W, threfore shoot RAW. Am I right in thinking that I can set up to shoot B&W jaeg and still have a full colour RAF file?
    Regards Richard

    • http://www.lets-ride.de Rico Pfirstinger

      Yes, you can!

      • http://oneview.weebly.com/ Richard

        Thanks for your reply Rico

  • kecajkerugo

    Hello all, anybody knows if any of the current converters, especially the Silkypix, is deigned to directly reflect back the Fuji film simulations? Can I just select from the menu of any of these converters Astia or Velvia and do not waste my time in an attempt to recreate the film simulation modes? It is my decision point to switch to Fuji X cameras but so far I was not able to find anything like this. Even the in-camera RAW converter does not provide batch processing capability which would be perfect for me (and others looking for such feature), despite its limitations in providing an ample flexibility.

  • nycandrewp

    Two points I’d like to mention for the next versions …

    1- Fuji really needs to offer an option to save lossless (or slight loss) RAW files with much smaller file sizes. When shooting various versions of a scene, having to select only a few for archiving/ future potential further retouching is a real downer. I know memory is cheap and getting cheaper, but it puts the X cams in a completely different ballpark re computer configurations (more like D800 types )

    2 – The in camera RAW processing is great, but a bit cumbersome – why not allow tethered operation to a PC, using virtual controls on the PC and operating the X cam as an external hardware processor? .. USB 3.0 would work, may need the X cam to be powered via a AC converter, or better a docking station

  • Steve

    I am a JPG shooter, and use the in-camera raw development options all the time (mostly to change white balance).

    are there any chances that future firmware versions will allow batch processing? Similar to the Pentax implementation (i.e. you select the images and then you can change white balances on all the images selected)?

  • The Blackbird

    The reason I will never use RAW is because I simply can’t be bothered wasting time post-processing. On default camera settings with standard JPG, the x100s delivers absolutely stunning pictures already (assuming the scene in front of me is stunning by itself). There’s nothing more I need. The small post-processing I might need is easily done in Lightroom in a few seconds without needing RAW anyway.

    For me shooting RAW is losing…. time, battery and card/harddrive space. But, each to his own I guess :)

  • Mguel

    Reading an old post preparing for my shipped X-T1. Great article! it convinced me to stop being an only RAW shooter (as I have been since my first DSLR), at least on my Fuji, but also will keep my RAF files instead of converting to DNG considering all the issues with RAW conversion and since I hope Lightroom improves X-Trans conversions on the future.