[mecrox]

I know a couple of people who are in the "Fuji JPEGs are awesome" camp. They have their film presets and they shoot them for weddings and portraits. There are advantages to this if the JPEG quality is good enough. When you look at their portfolios one of the first things you notice is how uniform it is. Because they are using the same film simulation all the time their portfolio doesn't look like a bag a Skittles. A lot of times when I look at a portfolio it is pretty obvious that I'm looking at a random collection of the photographers best photographs taken over the years. You can see the style change, the processing change, and you know your not really looking at real portfolio. Sometimes you open one up and it become obvious that the photographer recently bought Topaz Adjust.

Its extremely rare for me to shoot JPEG, but I have setup presets in LR that basically keep my work uniform. I would love to be able to create a profile in LR (or any software) and be able to upload that to my camera. I would also like to be able to create a color profile for the camera like the X-rite Passport does and have that apply to the JPEGs. I would probably shoot JPEGs more if these features were available. It has become common for us to need to put images on social media during the event or even a shoot. I have done shoots for bands where their manager blasted 5-6 images out to social media while we were shooting and encouraged fans to come watch the shoot. There is a definite need for high quality JPEGs.

For people who's goal is fine art and each image is unique and stands on its own, post processing is a skill that must be mastered.

Maybe a lot of this comes down to the main camera-makers still being stuck in the analogue world. In that world the moment they've sold you the camera their involvement ceases and they head for the hills. Film and labs take over from there.

In the digital world, that doesn't work. Whether they like it or not, the camera-makers are involved, or are expected to be, all the way to an image's final landing point. I'm expecting a lot of changes to PP in the next few years, or rather to much better ways of not having to do it much. It's not hard to think of more automated PP in camera based on some clever scene recognition instead of one-size-fits defaults. Better apps, better software in cameras, better comms, better file formats. Mobile will probably call the shots. Apple have already fired a salvo with HEIF/HEVC. Chances are the camera-makers will have to collaborate or pay the penalty. Given their uncertain position these days, they likely have no choice.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 08-26-2017 at 09:03 AM.

[Winder]

Maybe a lot of this comes down to the main camera-makers still being stuck in the analogue world. In that world the moment they've sold you the camera their involvement ceases and they head for the hills. Film and labs take over from there.

In the digital world, that doesn't work. Whether they like it or not, the camera-makers are involved, or are expected to be, all the way to an image's final landing point. I'm expecting a lot of changes to PP in the next few years, or rather to much better ways of not having to do it much. It's not hard to think of more automated PP in camera based on some clever scene recognition instead of one-size-fits defaults. Better apps, better software in cameras, better comms, better file formats. Mobile will probably call the shots. Apple have already fired a salvo with HEIF/HEVC. Chances are the camera-makers will have to collaborate or pay the penalty. Given their uncertain position these days, they likely have no choice.

I think Fuji understands because they have been on both the capture and print side of the business. Canon has been in the print side of the business for years. Part of the problem is that Japanese companies in general suck and software. Look at how much trouble they have with simple WiFi software and apps. User interfaces seem to be a struggle for the Japanese. You would think that camera makers would understand the importance of connectivity in the current market, but they obviously don't. A small company like VSCO does a better job than a massive company like Nikon/Canon/Sony.

[reh321]

I am not arguing that in-camera JPEGs are not adequate for the majority of photos out there. This is the problem though:
- I want to shoot in a museum, so I have to alter the camera's WB settings, sharpening and NR settings.
- I go outside to the museums flower garden, so I have to re-change the WB settings, and reduce NR and perhaps change the sharpening, then chimp and tweek.
- After that, I go to dimly lit restaurant. Rinse, wash, repeat.

The quality of the JPEGs are fine, it is the camera's interface that makes it frustrating for a lot of first time DSLR owners. There is a reason why a lot of new DSLR owners complain that they are actually getting better results from their cell phone than their new camera.
There is no reason (besides lack of vision and resources) why a camera company could not create a user friendly, intuitive samsung galaxy/apple i-phone interface for developing RAWs.

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"

[cali92rs]

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 missed my point.
My point was that camera companies would gain customers by making it easier to get decent files out of midrange cameras. How much easier can you get by swiping left and right to change settings??

[Kunzite]

Swiping left and right to change settings is not "easier", it's a consequence of having no proper interface. There is no tactile feedback, it won't work in rain, it interferes with the shooting handling/position...
The reason it might seems easier is that people are accustomed with it.

[Aristophanes]

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 ----------

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.

[cali92rs]

The reason it might seems easier is that people are accustomed with it.

So your opinion is to not give consumers what they want, rather what they SHOULD want (SHOULD want according to the tiny population of DSLR enthusiasts).
Sounds like a recipe for 1% marketshare.

[Kunzite]

When I have an opinion, I'm stating it - I don't need others to make up "opinions" for me, thank you very much.
Ideally, camera makers should find a way to appeal to those clueless smartphone users. However, they should not compromise the superior interface of a dedicated camera for it.

[biz-engineer]

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.

No , there is an Auto Mode for every Pentax DSLR. You put the camera in Auto mode and it does everything for you, it even recognize the scene and decide if that a portrait, landscape etc... and it works great.

---------- Post added 27-08-17 at 19:42 ----------

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.

They don't need a PC or Mac, they have the full choice: use default JPEG processing options native to DSLR, or shoot raw and process the images later, it is even possible to have both RAW+JPEG done in real time, have the RAW saved in one SD card and the processed JPEG processed and saved in the second SD card, the size of JPEG is also select-able. Personnally, if I want to upload photos to the web, I just set RAW+JPEG2M and I don't do any processing. Best regards.

[cali92rs]

When I have an opinion, I'm stating it - I don't need others to make up "opinions" for me, thank you very much.
Ideally, camera makers should find a way to appeal to those clueless smartphone users. However, they should not compromise the superior interface of a dedicated camera for it.

Straw man argument...
No one is arguing that camera companies should not build DSLRs.
However, they should not ignore the vast majority of the population that does not care about sensor size, cipa data, financial reports etc.
By the way, the statement "clueless smartphone users" reek of snobbery, but it is not unexpected.

[Kunzite]

Did you title your post "Straw man argument", because that's the only way this could make sense?
I just said they should - let me quote myself - "find a way to appeal to those clueless smartphone users", in other words to the people accustomed to a smartphone interface but not to a dedicated camera's.

It's not snobbery, but a state of things - people have to experience and understand a dedicated photographic tool in order to see its benefits. If they didn't, they don't know what it's all about - thus, clueless smartphone users.

[monochrome]

Not one person in this discussion has commented on the abysmal ergonomics of a smartphone. Holding a small stack of index cards with one hand and touching their flat surface with another doesn't lend itself to anything more challenging than a snapshot.

Why do we assume dSLR makers want to or should make a mass-volume consumer product? They shouldn't. They can't. They lost that market. Over and done. They might have added touch screen and a powerful processor to compacts, (oh wait - Ricoh could do that to the GR), but what's the point of a $750 compact? They're dead.

Camera makers are moving and should move toward expensive products for wealthy consumers - the more expensive the better - where a phone and it's shortcomings are actual limitations. The jpeg engine in a dSLR isn't a limitation. Stop acting like it is. Inability to post-process RAW files on a camera monitor isn't a limitation because you can't do it on a phone either. Stop insisting it is.

The laptop is already there. Stop acting like it isn't. Post-Processing software (good software) should be free. Work on that. It should be a brand-identifier. Obsolete Adobe. Buy FastOne or RawTherapee and make it exclusive to your brand.

Forget WiFi. Unless you put an IMEI # and data contract on the camera you can't do social media anywhere nearly as efficiently. You're tying yourself to the very platform that wants to erase you. Once you admit that, make products that do what your users want them to do. Stop asking the other guys' users what they want. They're the other guys' users!!

Apple won the low end. Deal with it. Make something Apple can't replace with a pocketable device. Figure out how to make a profit. And for the love of money, figure out how to sell it in America.

[Kunzite]

Not one person in this discussion has commented on the abysmal ergonomics of a smartphone.

I tried to, and was called a snob

[reh321]

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 ----------



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.

You use lots of words, but you don't say much.
I understood your point completely. You are ignoring my point completely.

My point is that people who use smart phones do not want to do PP.

When they use a smart phone, they take a picture, skip PP, and use the image.
Pentax's latest cameras, the K-70 and KP, provide the closest thing yet to that capability.

[monochrome]

So your opinion is to not give consumers what they want, rather what they SHOULD want (SHOULD want according to the tiny population of DSLR enthusiasts).
Sounds like a recipe for 1% marketshare.

It's a recipe for 100% market share of those who want what an ILC does. Let's face facts. Very few Instamatic owners wanted an LX. But very many Instamatic owners wanted 126 film cartridges and flashcubes.

By your reasoning Pentax should have reconfigured the LX to accept cartridge film and tungsten wire flash.