[Schraubstock]

...in-camera tools to make my JPEGs look the way I want...

The problem is your "want" may differ from shot to shot and your eyes may not always see and your brain may not always remember everything correctly. The camera has only got a very small brain and it is struggling enough as it is and it can't always know what you want. Does this make sense ?

Greetings

[gazonk]

I would say that a lot of DSLR owners rely on their camera's JPG engine and use something like iPhoto for pre-canned effects and cropping.

If they're already using iPhoto, they could start using RAW without even noticing, though (except that they would of course notice that (at least heavy) WB and exposure adjustments would work much better than before). And some probably do without really understanding much of what the difference between JPEG and RAW really is.

[JPT]

Does this make sense ?

Yes. It makes complete sense! Getting bigger cards and another hard drive is on my to-do list. I don't need convincing, but I need to take the time to experiment.

I still think it is right for camera makers to make sure their cameras can be as automatic or customisable as the user wants though.

[monochrome]

If they're already using iPhoto, they could start using RAW without even noticing, though (except that they would of course notice that (at least heavy) WB and exposure adjustments would work much better than before). And some probably do without really understanding much of what the difference between JPEG and RAW really is.

I don't think any of us who frequent a Forum like this understands what the average (at least American) consumer dSLR user really does with the camera and files. The key word in the quoted sentence is 'If' (they're using iPhoto) and the response is 'They're probably not.'

[gazonk]

I don't think any of us who frequent a Forum like this understands what the average (at least American) consumer dSLR user really does with the camera and files. The key word in the quoted sentence is 'If' (they're using iPhoto) and the response is 'They're probably not.'

It depends on what you mean by "probably". Apple has a relatively high market share in the US market, and if they're using a mac, they're using iPhoto if they haven't actively chosen anything else.

[mikemike]

Apple has only about 6% marketshare in the desktop market (on par with Pentax's marketshare in DSLRs). Their marketshare amongst ILC owners is probably higher than that but still I wouldn't say it is "high" by any stretch of the imagination. I have never used iPhoto, but simply having a piece of software and using it for its most basic purposes doesn't make you a power user of its more advanced features which when you are talking about an already developed JPEG, is doing virtually any post processing on it beyond crop.

[y0chang]

apple has only about 6% marketshare in the desktop market (on par with pentax's marketshare in dslrs).

apple is doooomed

[IchabodCrane]

Apple has only about 6% marketshare in the desktop market (on par with Pentax's marketshare in DSLRs). Their marketshare amongst ILC owners is probably higher than that but still I wouldn't say it is "high" by any stretch of the imagination. I have never used iPhoto, but simply having a piece of software and using it for its most basic purposes doesn't make you a power user of its more advanced features which when you are talking about an already developed JPEG, is doing virtually any post processing on it beyond crop.

If you're talking about JPEG files, iPhoto might not do wonders but then again Lightroom won't, either. If you're talking about RAW files, iPhoto can do much more than just the very basics.

[kadajawi]

Also don't forget that people get more and more used to the idea of post processing due to Instagram.

[6BQ5]

If they're already using iPhoto, they could start using RAW without even noticing, though (except that they would of course notice that (at least heavy) WB and exposure adjustments would work much better than before). And some probably do without really understanding much of what the difference between JPEG and RAW really is.

We imagine using iPhoto as a mini version of Aperture or Lightroom, which can be done to a certain degree, but the "average" user probably uses this package for pre-canned effects, cropping, and minor adjustments like brightness, contrast, etc. Something like a histogram is foreign and unnecessary to them. iPhoto also has a way of managing libraries and groups of pictures and such and I think a lot of people appreciate that. That's how I started using iPhoto a long time ago and that's why moving to Aperture was a natural progression for me.

I think we have to understand that we here on the forum have a very high standard of performance and quality. It's rare, and often misunderstood. Processing RAW is hard and it takes time. We make time because we enjoy the creative process. It's a large part of what makes the image and we love the image - from the moment we see it in our mind's eye to when it appears on the screen / in print. For others the image is just a small part of what could be a larger creative process. So for them, they look for the highest quality in-camera JPG engine available. Those happen to be found in cameras with big sensors. Big sensors have typically been found in big DSLR bodies. This is changing as small bodies get better and better but so are DSLR cameras. I have a feeling that thanks to Sony's recent MILC FF body we'll soon see FF being as common as APS-C is today. And hence, the race between small and large will continue. In the end, everyone will win since technology can only move one way : forward (generally).

[kadajawi]

Does it matter if they "only" use pre-canned effects, and do minor adjustments? I exclusively shoot raw, and that is mostly what I do to my photos in Lightroom. So what? If needed I can do more. You have to start somewhere. Maybe they now use iPhoto with JPEGs... at some point they may switch to raw. Then to Aperture or Lightroom.

As for processing raw being hard and taking time... not really. You can easily do a few raw photos per minute. The software, like Lightroom, is very simple. It is powerful, yes, but it's not much different from what you may already have on your phone, or iPhoto. Want it brighter? Slide the exposure or brightness slider to the right. Change white balance? Use the white balance and tint slider. Super simple. Imagine those tasks in Photoshop... you need to know under which menu they are hidden, how to use them, and it takes much more time. Lightroom also lends itself to experimenting, since everything can be undone. I'd argue processing JPEGs is at least as hard as raw.

[Clavius]

Does it matter if they "only" use pre-canned effects, and do minor adjustments? I exclusively shoot raw, and that is mostly what I do to my photos in Lightroom. So what? If needed I can do more. You have to start somewhere. Maybe they now use iPhoto with JPEGs... at some point they may switch to raw. Then to Aperture or Lightroom.

As for processing raw being hard and taking time... not really. You can easily do a few raw photos per minute. The software, like Lightroom, is very simple. It is powerful, yes, but it's not much different from what you may already have on your phone, or iPhoto. Want it brighter? Slide the exposure or brightness slider to the right. Change white balance? Use the white balance and tint slider. Super simple. Imagine those tasks in Photoshop... you need to know under which menu they are hidden, how to use them, and it takes much more time. Lightroom also lends itself to experimenting, since everything can be undone. I'd argue processing JPEGs is at least as hard as raw.

I do most of my RAW processing in DxO. And I find that I generally use the same settings for the same camera/lens combinations. Lens A needs just a little bit more of setting X and less of Y for my taste. I've wished many times that I could just upload my DxO presets to my camera so the right-out-of-the-camera-JPGs are in fact my developed RAWs.

[6BQ5]

As for processing raw being hard and taking time... not really. You can easily do a few raw photos per minute. The software, like Lightroom, is very simple. It is powerful, yes, but it's not much different from what you may already have on your phone, or iPhoto. Want it brighter? Slide the exposure or brightness slider to the right. Change white balance? Use the white balance and tint slider. Super simple. Imagine those tasks in Photoshop... you need to know under which menu they are hidden, how to use them, and it takes much more time. Lightroom also lends itself to experimenting, since everything can be undone. I'd argue processing JPEGs is at least as hard as raw.

Difficulty is a matter of perception. Enthusiasts/amateurs like us are passionate about imaging and we wanted to take the time to learn about post processing. After a while it become second nature. We developed some presets that get us 90% of the image we want and then we fine tune the rest of the way. As Clavius said, we adjust for lens effects like color distortion, dodging and burning to even out tones, etc. It's very easy, as you say, to get a few images done per minute. This process competes against the in-camera JPG engine where most people are 99% satisfactory with the instantaneous color/tonal result. The number one adjustment is cropping. Those users have a completely different software interface to make their image adjustments. There are a few tools, some pre-canned effects and they are good with that. I've shown people what Aperture and RawTherapee look like and they said it looks hard. Perception.

[monochrome]

It depends on what you mean by "probably". Apple has a relatively high market share in the US market, and if they're using a mac, they're using iPhoto if they haven't actively chosen anything else.

Apple has only about 6% marketshare in the desktop market (on par with Pentax's marketshare in DSLRs). Their marketshare amongst ILC owners is probably higher than that but still I wouldn't say it is "high" by any stretch of the imagination. I have never used iPhoto, but simply having a piece of software and using it for its most basic purposes doesn't make you a power user of its more advanced features which when you are talking about an already developed JPEG, is doing virtually any post processing on it beyond crop.

To assume Apple owners use software bundled with the machine merely because it is bundled with the machine is a false assumption. One cannot even assume Apple users crop, or adjust lighting in jpegs, or ever even open iPhoto.

Such assumption is our own personal expectation and experience projected without merit onto the entire universe of Apple owners.

[normhead]

To assume Apple owners use software bundled with the machine merely because it is bundled with the machine is a false assumption. One cannot even assume Apple users crop, or adjust lighting in jpegs, or ever even open iPhoto.

Such assumption is our own personal expectation and experience projected without merit onto the entire universe of Apple owners.

An extremely dicey thing to do, given the diverse nature of Apple owners.