4 ms·

I personally interpreted that as professionals knowing how to do more post-shot tweaking than amateurs. That obviously doesn't matter if the results are bad, bu

I personally interpreted that as professionals knowing how to do more post-shot tweaking than amateurs. That obviously doesn't matter if the results are bad, but if the defaults require significant tweaking that isn't going to be something that will stop a professional, although they might find it annoying as a matter of workflow.

fleddr 4y ago
"but if the defaults require significant tweaking that isn't going to be something that will stop a professional, although they might find it annoying as a matter of workflow." Well, it's funny how that could go either way. A huge amount of amateurs use RAW and they might actually have more time/interest to do max tweaking on a file compared to a pro, who is on the clock. But there's also big differences between disciplines. In landscape photography, people use RAW to maximize the use of dynamic range, hence tweak it a lot. In sports and wedding photography, not so much. To comment on the Nikon domain, Nikon is widely praised for its color science. Their engineers spent decades perfecting it and it even carries through in lens design. In the case of wedding photography, typically the photographer wants to Nikon rendering as it was intended. And it's not just color science, also tone compression and noise reduction. Done from the source. If you'd take that RAW file and open it "neutral", without the proprietary demosaicing, curves, noise reduction, you're going to spend forever trying to reproduce the Nikon look. You fully dismissed a huge amount of value and are unlikely to regain it. That's why I strongly believe that both amateurs and pros want the camera vendor's rendering in RAW as a starting point. Unfortunately, this is only fully possible in their custom crappy desktop apps.