[reh321]

This has nothing to do with the thread title.

Please read my words in their context.

But with Kodachrome, you had no choice. It certainly wasn't something you could develop at home. And like all transparency film, already baked. Digital Negatives, just like my film negatives which are scanned to DNGs, allow me , just like Ansel Adams, to make the image I saw.

I scan media to TIFF; I see no advantage to DNG in that setting,

Long ago, I thought once you pressed the shutter, that was it. I had no idea. Every photograph is, to some degree, concept, capture, edit and presentation, even if it's "whoa, click, whoa and send".

I do try to get it as right in camera as I can but the DNG is the raw clay to be molded. Maybe it agrees with my imagination out of camera but it is the image I saw that I care about so I will change it to get it as close to what I saw as I can.

I choose to follow the same rules followed by those who document our world, which is exactly how I view what I am doing, so I have developed habits which capture what I saw without any further intervention on my part.

[mee]

And lets not forget that Pentax offers DNG raw as an option as well. As Adobe is the processing standard, that's virtually as "future proof" as it can get.

Windows 10 natively opens DNG files too. So I don't really need a 3rd party image viewer.. if all I want to do is skim through images I can do it on any Windows 10 PC.

You can get codecs for other brand's formats though to make them function in the same manner as DNG does. But I think it is a nice touch to use a 'standard' like DNG. One of the nice pluses with Pentax.

[thibs]

Reads DNG or displays embedded jpeg? (Which better than nothing anyway)

[Rondec]

Not with RAW. Only with JPEG. The moment you load RAW into your PC you need the PC software to handle the lens corrections.

RAW needs a developer. That's the way it is. If you don't want to develop your photo then you shoot jpeg. I think there would be a significant backlash if camera companies started pre-baking their RAW images.

If you own Lightroom you get all of the lens corrections for free. If you use free software like Rawtherapee, you can steal the lens corrections from Lightroom. But the fact remains that you'll need some sort of software package that can develop your RAW file -- this despite the fact that Pentax cameras do shoot DNG files which are fairly ubiquitous.

[Aristophanes]

RAW needs a developer. That's the way it is. If you don't want to develop your photo then you shoot jpeg. I think there would be a significant backlash if camera companies started pre-baking their RAW images.

If you own Lightroom you get all of the lens corrections for free. If you use free software like Rawtherapee, you can steal the lens corrections from Lightroom. But the fact remains that you'll need some sort of software package that can develop your RAW file -- this despite the fact that Pentax cameras do shoot DNG files which are fairly ubiquitous.

The problem is, fewer and fewer consumers are using PCs to develop. They are using mobile OSs. I was a tester for Apple Aperture and we watched the market wither. Even Adobe LR sells far fewer subs that you'd realize. If you had to build a camera industry off of the Lightroom subscription basis, you'd be down to a single camera maker for all ILCs worldwide.

Current large sensor camera manufacturers have tied themselves to the PC industry as their lab, and that's not in a good place right now. that dependency is creating a wedge between smartphone cameras and every other camera, with accessibility to market and viewers vastly favouring the smartphone.

So the ILC system has to evolve to get away from the PC=centric "lab" because th blunt reality is, people want good optics and good cameras, but they don't want to run the darkroom, and JPG often doesn't cut it enough.

[Rondec]

The problem is, fewer and fewer consumers are using PCs to develop. They are using mobile OSs. I was a tester for Apple Aperture and we watched the market wither. Even Adobe LR sells far fewer subs that you'd realize. If you had to build a camera industry off of the Lightroom subscription basis, you'd be down to a single camera maker for all ILCs worldwide.

Current large sensor camera manufacturers have tied themselves to the PC industry as their lab, and that's not in a good place right now. that dependency is creating a wedge between smartphone cameras and every other camera, with accessibility to market and viewers vastly favouring the smartphone.

So the ILC system has to evolve to get away from the PC=centric "lab" because th blunt reality is, people want good optics and good cameras, but they don't want to run the darkroom, and JPG often doesn't cut it enough.

Most mobile OSs don't have the power to develop RAW images. Using jpegs is the best you can do and most people who want to do better will spring for a laptop or desktop option.

And as far as what "people" want -- they just want jpegs that are good enough out of camera.

[monochrome]

The problem is, fewer and fewer consumers are using PCs to develop. They are using mobile OSs. I was a tester for Apple Aperture and we watched the market wither. Even Adobe LR sells far fewer subs that you'd realize. If you had to build a camera industry off of the Lightroom subscription basis, you'd be down to a single camera maker for all ILCs worldwide.

Current large sensor camera manufacturers have tied themselves to the PC industry as their lab, and that's not in a good place right now. that dependency is creating a wedge between smartphone cameras and every other camera, with accessibility to market and viewers vastly favouring the smartphone.

So the ILC system has to evolve to get away from the PC=centric "lab" because th blunt reality is, people want good optics and good cameras, but they don't want to run the darkroom, and JPG often doesn't cut it enough.

Most mobile OSs don't have the power to develop RAW images. Using jpegs is the best you can do and most people who want to do better will spring for a laptop or desktop option.

And as far as what "people" want -- they just want jpegs that are good enough out of camera.

Frankly, I have contemplated paying to have my RAWs developed and returned with proper printer profiles. Others might pay to have them printed as well.

Talk about full-circle . . .

[thibs]

Frankly, I have contemplated paying to have my RAWs developed and returned with proper printer profiles. Others might pay to have them printed as well.

Talk about full-circle . . .

Develop RAW on mobile?
From a power point of view, it may now indeed be quite OK.
Practically though... with tiny and very bad (colour wise) mobile screens this could get funny.
Oh sorry, it already exists, it's called Instagram. (of course the last sentence is tongue in cheeks).

[mee]

Reads DNG or displays embedded jpeg? (Which better than nothing anyway)

I have no idea. I don't set DNG+JPG when shooting and the DNG that Windows shows is a 100% view, not just a thumbnail. Either way it gets the job done of seeing the image.

[Aristophanes]

Most mobile OSs don't have the power to develop RAW images. Using jpegs is the best you can do and most people who want to do better will spring for a laptop or desktop option.

And as far as what "people" want -- they just want jpegs that are good enough out of camera.

If in-camera processors can do RAW then so can mobileOS processors.

It's like the ILC market cannot talk to the 99% rest of the photography market.

[Rondec]

If in-camera processors can do RAW then so can mobileOS processors.

It's like the ILC market cannot talk to the 99% rest of the photography market.

The question isn't can they do RAW, the question is can they do it better, otherwise what is the point?

[biz-engineer]

If in-camera processors can do RAW then so can mobileOS processors.

Digital camera processing architecture is 80% designed to process image data in hardware around a low power processor such as ARM core in charge of the 20% basic OS and remaining tasks for operating the camera actuation and user interface, that is why things such as graphical user interface, connectivity etc.. is so poor compared to PC and mobiles devices. Image processing on PC or mobile plateform is done sequentially in the upper software layer of the OS. In digital camera, on the other hand, noise filtering and sharpening are performed in hardware by mean of multi-tap digital filters and JPEG compression is also implementation in hardware by means of 2D fast Fourier transform, together pipelined into a double access RAM architecture. While the data coming form the sensor is written into the RAM, the processor is able to read the previously written RAW image data from the output at its own speed, because obviously, the user must be able to take another picture at any time even is currently processed image processing isn't yet completed). Guess what, a D500 or D5 can spit out 10 frames per seconds up to over 200 frames, try to do that with the most powerful PC you find, not to mention a tablet or mobile device...

[Aristophanes]

Ah wrong. Digital camera processing architecture is 80% designed to process image data in hardware around a low power processor such as ARM core in charge of the 20% basic OS and remaining tasks for operating the camera actuation and user interface, that is why things such as graphical user interface, connectivity etc.. is so poor compared to PC and mobiles devices. Image processing on PC or mobile plateform is done sequentially in the upper software layer of the OS. In digital camera, on the other hand, noise filtering and sharpening are performed in hardware by mean of multi-tap digital filters and JPEG compression is also implementation in hardware by means of 2D fast Fourier transform, together pipelined into a double access RAM architecture. While the data coming form the sensor is written into the RAM, the processor is able to read the previously written RAW image data from the output at its own speed, because obviously, the user must be able to take another picture at any time even is currently processed image processing isn't yet completed). Guess what, a D500 or D5 can spit out 10 frames per seconds up to over 200 frames, try to do that with the most powerful PC you find, not to mention a tablet or mobile device...

But for post a mobile OS only needs to do what a PC does, process RAW in a separate app afterwards. iOS can do so already for its native files, as can SnapSeed.

The camera manufacturers have a dilemma as most of their shooters in the West use PCs, and most elsewhere do not. they use JPEG, as do almost all journalism sources (AP and otter's do not permit RAW or edited submissions).

Post is post. A mobile OS needs to do the same as a PC going forward, or ILC sales will suffer.

[biz-engineer]

Post is post. A mobile OS needs to do the same as a PC going forward, or ILC sales will suffer.

This is not going to prevent me shooting animals with 600mm lens and uploading the pictures via wifi connectivity to my android phone.

[Rondec]

The whole point is really for camera companies to emphasize the strengths of ILCs in comparison to phones. Telephoto is one such area, shallow depth of field photography another, and high dynamic range images a third. Most of those things do not need any third party software for processing at all -- out of camera jpegs will probably be fine -- although you can get an extra 10 to 20 percent of detail with post processing versus straight out of camera jpeg.

Maybe micro four thirds lenses are different, but I seldom use lens corrections -- whether in camera or in post processing. They just aren't needed in general.