JPEG above, raw below. Fuji X Pro-1, 35mm f1.4 lens, ISO 200 (base sensitivity of the sensor) f5.6
Well, these two images are from the same “capture” or press of the shutter button and neither file was touched after they were
1. a 1/950 of a second glimpse by the sensor,
2. a stream of 1’s and 0’s created from tiny pulses of current in 16 million also-tiny buckets on the sensor. (This is the raw” file because it’s unrecognizable as an image. It’s the elemental form, not yet an image)
3. sent through a chip in my Fuji XPro-1 to make a view-able and Fuji-chosen colorization of the 1’s and 0’s (this is the JPEG version)
4. both files stored on a card and later given to software from Adobe called Lightroom
5. Lightroom looks at all the 1’s and 0’s and makes what IT (Lightroom) thinks is the scene’s colors and light values. Values ready to be changed, sort of a middle ground. A “raw” file that expects further instruction on the “look” of the image. A working hypothesis of the scene.
Boy, that’s a lotta lineage. They look pretty different… same picture.
With the Fujis I get to pre-select the look of the JPEG from a list of older film stock names that have known (historical) characteristics, like Fuji’s old very bright-high-contrast-color-stock, “Velvia”, (as selected for this JPEG) or for example, “Classic Chrome”, like older Kodachrome sort of…
But I’d rather make my “looks” from the raw starter file because I can change it and customize it MUCH more. The raw data is complete and malleable.