Originally posted by Rondec This whole conversation makes no sense to me. It has a poor understanding of what post processing entails and what people "really want."
On one hand, it is stated that people want better image quality. That's fine. The question is how you get to better image quality. The issue for most people with regard to image quality is not a lens correction issue. It just isn't. Lens corrections straighten curved lines and fix vignetting and that's about it. The problem really has to do more with knowing how to use the camera combined with having some composition skills and visualization of how you want your finished image to look.
What I find that most people mean when they are talking about post processing is that they want the sort of results that Topaz Suite offers, or skin retouching software or even HDR effects offer. I just don't know that running an image through Snapseed --regardless of the presence of lens profiles -- is going to really give much benefit over out of camera jpegs.
What the camera industry has missed is the mass switch mobile OS as both he main means of processing photos and viewing them.
Currently the camera manufacturers have a duality: in-camera JPEG processing, meaning either auto or user-driven manipulation of the RAW file through dedicated processor including lens correction, WB, HDR, even keystone on some models. You can even adjust levels etc. on the fly at composition with the final output JPEG.
Except that this all relies on switching from shooting mode, so losing "moments' in the field in many cases. It also means trying to upgrade the post-processing system on a not very good, 3" screen. Even with some of the touchscreen now, the backlighting, glare and just the small size make this very challenging combined with he face down ergonomics of the camera as a poor editing platform. But this is how the industry tries to keep control of post-processing.
The Olympus Pen-F model is an attempt to entice customers to compose and edit at the same time using (some pretty good) art filters and other controls. Almost all lower-end DSLRs and mirrorless have the same options.
The other duality is to load onto a PC/Mac...not mobile OS. They give you a CD or download for a dedicated desktop app that handles RAW andJPEG and can do reasonable editing. But all this presupposes the consumer wants to manage and edit photos this way, via a desktop/laptop, mostly stationary editing experience.
But the smartphone revolution in photography demonstrates a far superior way to manage and edit and share photos.They use superior screen real estate and resolution combined with some excellent dedicated apps at low cost to manipulate photos easily and share them readily. What they cannot do is the basic in-camera replication of:
1. Lens profiles
2. HDR
3. Lens and focus stacking
4. WB and some levels (app dependent)
5. EXIF manipulation
And many other RAW-derived processes, like sensor shift, etc.
So it's in-camera JPEG versus the mobile OS app. Given the screen real ease, processing power, cloud interaction, and social connectivity advantages of the mobileOS, it's not even a contest.
Now, the camera manufacturers have missed this boat because their Japan-centric ideology about how their tech should work. It's in"their" camera or nothing, really, with a grudging nod to an enclosed, half-heaterd CD.
And the problem is NOT mobile OS processing power, especially for smaller files. Today's iPads, for example, have nearly the same processing power as many consumer-grade laptops. This is all because the ILC side of the industry does not grasp that the desktop reliance is d-e-a-d for the mass market. It's largely gone. You could count on maybe 5% of all ILC buyers using LR or similar, but the other 95% want what their mobile OS device does, with superior ease-of-use. The preferred OS by far for the vast majority of photography now is mobile OS.
The camera manufacturers never did for mobile OS what they did for desktop, which is create dedicated RAW processing apps distributed with the sale of the camera. They didn't even need to make a full Adobe Bridge equation either...just some basic integration. They've had about a decade to "see" this, and still no major manufacturer is heading the right way.
A major contributor to the ILC market decline is the abysmal state of post-processing options for the mid-range consumer. It's too PC-reliant, too laborious, and uses lousy, time-consuming software.
---------- Post added 08-27-17 at 11:51 AM ----------
Originally posted by reh321 How often do cell phone users change WB settings??? As far as I can see, most of them don't even know that such a thing exists!! The user interface on my Pentax cameras is better than the user interface on any phone I've ever used - on the camera, I can make any common change without ever getting into menus. No, you are over-thinking this issue. Phone cameras are popular because
(1) they are "free"
(2) they add neither mass nor volume
(3) they are today's poster child for "modern"
You're kind of missing the point.
The cellphone user is the one Pentax etc. want to upgrade to an ILC, to do what a smartphone can bear do with optics, larger sensor, speed of AF and shooting, etc. Thos engineered, innate, hardwired advantages in tech and market.
But when you start with an ILC, even Pentax, one of the main controls you are confronted with is how to set JPG white balance.
So you learn that, and histogram along with the PSAM from a good ebook or YouTube....so far so good.
Now Mr. Smartphone convert wants to do a little more and suddenly....they need a PC or Mac, dedicated post-processing software, and all sorts of intermediaries to do what the smartphone does natively.
The user barrier becomes a time-consuming wall that most $0.99 apps covered 5 years ago. And if you take the RAW for in the road, mobile OS doesn't go there.
So your ILC investment is locked into a PC-centric universe that is cumbersome and dwindling, not to mention another costly investment.