I'm just curious, if there was a web-site/web-portal related to RAW image processing what features you would prefer to use on it:

  • RAW image processing (from different Cameras)
  • Implementing different filters on-the-fly
  • Using different Noise Reduction algorithms
  • Converting to different formats (JPEG, PNG)
  • Getting intermediate file formats (YUV, RGB)
  • ISO3200 to ISO800 programmatically
  • any others?

Is the portal like this is absolutely meaningless? Or you will use it for some use cases?

Could you please share your opinions?

I have an idea to develop such a service and what I'm looking for is people that might be interested in using such a thing.

closed as not constructive by Matt Grum, user2719, NickM, John Cavan, mattdm Feb 1 '13 at 13:49

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • What do you mean by "ISO3200 to ISO800 programatically"? The ISO of a RAW file is fixed when you take it - you can't (meaningfully) change it in a program. – Philip Kendall Feb 1 '13 at 10:16
  • Yes, but I can try to do this in SoftWare. Imagine that you can change ISO of your images without using a camera. – gahcep Feb 1 '13 at 10:32
  • You can't do that in software; it was fixed by the analogue gain of the sensor. Nothing you do afterwards can affect that. You could underexpose it by 2 stops in post-process, but that would be an ISO 3200 image underexposed by 2 stops, not an ISO 800 image. – Philip Kendall Feb 1 '13 at 10:40
  • Ok, but I can try to simulate it, don't you think? Look here. Primitive, but the idea is clear. – gahcep Feb 1 '13 at 10:46
  • 1
    Uploading such an image is a big issue. RAW size is often too big. I consider an idea to link the site with a several online storages (like dropbox) to take all these RAW images previously uploaded by their owners. – gahcep Feb 1 '13 at 12:04

As Russell pointed out, this only makes sense when the user has little computing power but high bandwidth. That may happen sometimes, but usually it will be the opposite.

Computing power is plentiful and cheap. When people are at their usual workplace, they most likely have abundant computing power. That's also when they probably have the best internet connection, but the local computing power still wins. And this is ignoring the serious issues of security, privacy, paying for a service, where the results will be stored, etc.

When off site, most people that know they will be taking pictures and intend to process them will have a laptop with them. Again, computing power is available but internet connectivity maybe less so. About the only scenario I can think of where this makes sense (again, ignoring security, privacy, etc), is if someone has only a smartphone or small tablet with them. But then you have a user interface problem. To do post processing right, you need to see the pictures at a reasonable resolution and preferably in a situation with controlled or at least known lighting.

I sometimes take pictures in remote places where I may not see another person all day. When I get back to the car in the evening where I can post process pictures from the day, most of the time there is no internet connection at all. When I do have it, it will be over a cell modem. Clearly, doing processing in the laptop is a necessity.

So far I've skipped over the issues of security, privacy, cost, and where and how my data will be stored, backed up, and archived. These are serious issues which alone would probably prevent me from using such a service even if uploading and downloading were instant (which is essentially what they are when locally processing). I don't want to only be able to processes photos when there is a internet connection, let alone a fast one. And no, I don't know what you'll really be doing with my pictures regardless of what you may claim. What happens when your enterprise goes bust? Will all the servers be suddenly shut down one day without warning? How will I get at my data? I expect you won't be doing this for free, so how much will this cost? It just doesn't make any sense, at least not to me.


If it was very low cost per image or (preferably)(of course) free, and had low usage overhead, and worked well and you definitely did not lose or assign any rights to your images and they were secure against external access THEN I'd potentially find it useful.

Attractions are the ability to have a range of features (if that was the case) not available in any one other program, and the swapping of processing power for communications bandwidth (I have more bandwidth than processing power :-) ). Ability to use from remote locations without having to have software with you a bonus.

BUT it's hard to see how you could reasonably compete against major existing PC based programs for features.

Value of this opinion: Moderate to low.
Because: I'm a photographic (main job is as an EE) with photography as an obsession with paid work undertaken when it seems 'fun' to do so. So I don't represent the professional user demographic that you probably need to appeal to.

  • Hi, Russel. Thanks for your opinion. I have in mind a few kill features that weren't described here as well :) . All that you pointed on (security, remote access, set of features) are quite right and will be for sure of major importance for me if I decided to develop such a service. Thank you again! – gahcep Feb 1 '13 at 9:56

Few years ago I found a site which processed raw pictures but there were a few problems.

Professionals and amateurs were an interesting group of users, but they mainly already have good image processing software. Secondly, users don't trust, so they don't want to upload images.

Another problem is saving the picture. Most of us want to keep the processed image saved, so we can edit something a few days after we processed the image. If you do so, your site security must be very high for keeping images safe, so your costs of mainntenance are getting high.

Maybe you should try, but first let it be a small project and with a few features, then if you are satisfied with your work, continue.

Also, there are reasons why on the web you can find small number of sites which can process raw files, and probably that is a starting point where you should start investigating.

  • Hi Mr.M. Yes, I got your point. Indeed the question of keep all images in safe is always open. Thank you for sharing your opinion. – gahcep Feb 1 '13 at 10:35

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.