A friend and I passed Holland Park Mews as we were walking from the tube station, heading to Holland Park and the Kyoto Gardens.

As you may or may not know, mews houses were originally stables for the benefit of the main house. Then they were converted into cottages and now the ones in this mews are desirable because they are in Kensington.

As stables they were built in the second half of the 1800s, and I guess they were not all converted into dwellings at the same time.

I wonder what the properties are like inside?

The 67 properties are Grade II listed buildings, so the exteriors cannot be changed. But inside some of them might house 21st century modern kitchens and bathrooms.

Who knows?

When the wisteria blooms in the next couple of weeks, it should be an even prettier place to photograph.

The wonkiness of this photo is because I took it with the Pano camera setting on my phone.

The glass and steel building at the far end of the road is University College London Hospital (UCLH).

The red brick building is the Cruciform Building.

It houses the Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, the UCL Medical School, and a library.

It was constructed in 1906, designed by Alfred Waterhouse, and it used to be the site of the hospital.

Waterhouse was a real fan of Gothic Revival architecture.

He also designed the Natural History Museum, which as you can see in the photo below, has got that same Gothic feel.

Tamara and I have been to the Natural History Museum quite a few times.

We went there recently to see the Life Beyond Earth exhibition, and touched a piece of the Moon – which was a pretty cool experience.

I get a kick out of knowing that Waterhouse designed both buildings and helps me see a more connected London.

Why haven’t all camera brands perfected the art and science of colour? After all, they have surely been at it long enough.

Even the most recent brands to make digital cameras have been doing it for at least twenty-five years.

Yet we still hear that the colours from Brand X are off and that they tend to green or magenta or whatever, or that the skin tones are too orange or red or something.

Fuji made film long before they started making digital cameras, and if you read the forums you will hear people laud Fuji colour science.

When I shot Nikon I thought Nikon images gave a more neutral representation of scenes in nature. Certainly they were better at reproducing greens faithfully.

And Ricoh, at least from the evidence of the GR III that I shoot with, also gives neutral colours.

But back to Fuji, because part of ‘amazing colour science’ is that the SOOC (straight out of camera) JPEGs also have ‘amazing colour science’.

So here are two images. One is a RAW file converted to JPEG, and the other is a SOOC JPEG.

SOOC JPEG means that I set the camera to record a RAW file and a JPEG with every shot I took. So the two photos here are the same image, with one processed in the camera to make a JPEG and the other version left as a RAW file.

With the SOOC JPEG the camera did all the work preparing the JPEG, and I did nothing except resize for the Web.

With the RAW file, I processed it with Adobe Camera Raw and then resized for the Web.

Why You Might Care

I generally shoot RAW because there will be times when I mess up the exposure when taking the shot. And RAW files give a lot more leeway in tweaking them than JPEGs do. There’s a technical reason for that, but I won’t get into it here.

But assuming you don’t mess up the exposure and you want to share images without using post-processing software like Photoshop, then it helps if the JPEGs are so good that you don’t need to post process them at all.

So then the only question is, does Fuji fit the bill? Are the two versions of the image above pretty indistinguishable?