Jump to content

RAF underexposed in Affinty Photo

jw432

By jw432
in Fuji GFX 50R / GFX 50S / GFX 50SII

 Share

Recommended Posts

jw432 Rising Star

jw432

Posted
Posted

I find when I look at my images on the camera (evf and lcd) and in Fast stone they look good.  When I load them into Affinity Photo they are underexposed.  This might be an Affinity Photo issue.  Are you finding similar?  I also have Dynamic Range set to 400, would that cause this?  Maybe I need to check with Affinity Photo on their software and compatibility with Fuji RAF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Herco Rising Star

Herco

Posted
Posted

Though I don't use Affinity Photo and I therefore can't check it, it is most likely caused by the Dynamic Range setting. By setting DR to 400% you're essentially underexposing by 2 stops. I know that Capture One reads the RAF-file and adjusts accordingly. It's very likely that Affinity doesn't do that. Whether it's for all Fujifilm cameras or only for this one (GFX50R?), I can't tell. RAF-files from the GFX cameras are different from the X-Trans cameras. Even between the different models there are variations, hence that software specifies not the sensor type/generation but specifically the camera model. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jw432 Rising Star

jw432

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks, Herco - I suspected something like that.  I have both FastStone and Nomacs image viewers and they show the image as I would expect.  It's only Affinity Photo that has the issue, I'll contact them.

Regarding Dynamic Range, it's one of the least used settings for me, I usually just use auto.  However I generally shoot manual mode and like to control all the settings, with an understanding of what I am choosing and why.  I see on the GFX 50R that when I lower iso to 320, dynamic range is reduced from 400 to 200 and I receive a warning, or yellow dynamic range icon.

Can you (or anyone) either point me to an article or explain the choices involved in picking a dynamic range?  Historically I tend to shoot landscapes with the lowest ISO possible, using a tripod.  Are there merits to shooting landscapes with a higher iso, say 400 with a 400 dynamic range?  If dynamic range is simply changing the exposure why do I even need it?  I can already control the exposure.

I think I generally understand the concept of dynamic range, but I am definitely lost when I hear that it just changes the exposure.   What am I missing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Herco Rising Star

Herco

Posted
Posted

Rico Pfirstinger wrote some books on Fuji X-cameras incl. a few pages on DR. It's in all of his X-pert Tips books. Furthermore, cambridgeincolour.com has extensive explanation pages on all sorts of photographic topics. Just search on their site for dynamic range. The key is that you cannot correct blown-out highlights but it is easy to correct deep shadows in post processing. Cameras have two ways of addressing this: either an HDR-feature or an extended DR feature. 

The extended DR-setting on the camera works for jpegs. It typically underexposes your raw file by 1 or 2 stops and than with the in-camera raw conversion to jpeg it leaves the highlights as is and amplifies only the midtones and shadows to produce a jpeg with detailed highlights (because under exposed) and nice blacks and greys (corrected in camera). Effectively its 1 extra stop of DR in practice.

The HDR feature actually creates multiple images with an exposure bracket and combines these images into one, using the highlights of the underexposed image and the shadows and midtones of the other images. HDR can also be used for raw images in post.

As for your typical situation, you only use raw-files and no jpeg I believe. Best approach IMO is to leave the DR setting to 100% and do the exposure correction in Affinity Photo. In order to do that you should set the live view function on to see the effect of the exposure on screen and switch on the histogram. Than set the exposure in such a way that the highlights (right part of the histogram) do not blow out. So stay within the border of the histogram at the right. The shadows might get blocked and the midtones way darker than you want, but that is easily corrected in post with the Shadow and Midtone sliders.

By using this method you can use the base ISO of the camera (ISO100 in case of the GFX50R) which is always preferable in landscape photography. The fact that below ISO320 the camera limits you to DR 200% is because it needs 'room' to do the corrections.  From 320 to 2 stops down is ISO80 which the camera cannot handle (ISO100 is the lowest) without trics like extended low ISO which you should only use as a last resort. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • PoorAlchemist
      Is the X-H2S “dynamic range improvement” a myth?

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      Is the X-H2S “dynamic range improvement” a myth? Since the release of the Fujifilm X-H2S, Fuji has heavily promoted: the sensor’s internal 14-bit readout, the new F-Log2 profile, and a supposedly tangible improvement in video dynamic range compared to previous generations (X-T4, X-S20, etc.). But when you look at actual laboratory measurements, the narrative starts to fall apart. What the numbers actually show (measured data, not marketing) Based on IMATEST / SNR-style measurements: X-H2S ≈ 12.2 stops at SNR=2 ≈ 13.6 stops at SNR=1 Measured in ProRes HQ, high native ISO (1250) X-T4 ≈ 11.8 stops at SNR=2 ≈ 13.4 stops at SNR=1 Measured in H.264 / H.265, lower native ISO (800) The real-world difference is about 0.2 to 0.4 stop, depending on the threshold used. This is nowhere near a generational leap. The core question: where did the 14-bit promise go? If the X-H2S sensor is truly read internally at 14-bit, a simple question arises: Why does this extra bit depth not translate into a measurable increase in usable dynamic range? Because: the final recorded signal is still 10-bit, read noise appears to cap the signal before those extra bits can matter, SNR curves remain very close to those of the X-T4. In short: 14-bit upstream, same ceiling downstream. And what about F-Log2? F-Log2 is supposed to: extend highlight latitude, better exploit the sensor signal. Yet in practice: measured dynamic range barely increases, what we mostly see is curve redistribution, not actual expansion, shadow noise rises earlier. This raises a legitimate concern: Are we just looking at a remapping of the same dynamic range, rather than a true physical gain? Provisional conclusion (but an uncomfortable one) Based on the available data: the X-H2S “dynamic range improvement” appears largely overstated, the 14-bit readout looks more like a theoretical talking point than a measurable benefit, F-Log2 seems primarily like a grading convenience, not a sensor-level breakthrough. Open but serious question Is the internal 14-bit sensor readout and F-Log2, in practice, a damp squib with no truly palpable impact on real-world video dynamic range? If anyone has: independent measurements showing otherwise, or a demonstrable gain beyond ~0.3 stop, I’m genuinely interested. But for now, the numbers simply do not support the narrative.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • MARRIEDGUY9
      Sunset

      By MARRIEDGUY9 · Posted

      nothing special, I thought the sky looked cool, handheld, unedited, 16-80 around F11.  Bay inland of Indian River, DE right after sunset.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • PoorAlchemist
      Best Firmware for Each Fujifilm - Based on Edvard Test

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      Hello everyone, Recently, I've come across the very detailed videos from Edvard (@edvard2942 on YouTube) about Fujifilm autofocus performance. His tests highlight what he sees as a regression in AF fluidity and reliability starting from certain firmware updates, and that the best results aren't always with the latest versions. I'd love to start a discussion here to compile, based on your experiences and Edvard's tests, a kind of “best firmware list”for each body in terms of autofocus smoothness and reliability (especially in photo and video AF-C with older lenses). Here's a summary of what's already well-established from Edvard's analyses (feel free to correct or add details): • X-T3 Firmwares 3.00 / 3.30 are considered the best – smoothest AF, most natural transitions, fastest and most frequent lens motor adjustments. From firmware 4.00 onward (the one that aligned it with the X-T4), there's a clear loss of fluidity in micro-adjustments and quick distance changes. • X-T4 The AF from the initial firmware (~1.00) already uses the algorithm introduced on the X-T3 with 4.00. It's less smooth than the X-T3 on 3.xx, but generally stable. Later updates did not restore the older X-T3 smoothness. • X-H2S Very early firmware (around 1.03) is significantly better than later ones (3.xx, 5.xx, 6.xx, 7.xx), which degraded fluidity. However, even this best version remains below the X-T3 on 3.xx in terms of pure AF smoothness. I'd really like us to expand this list with other bodies (X-H2, X-T5, X-H1, X-Pro3, etc.). Which firmware gives the best AF according to you, or according to the Edvard videos you've seen? One specific question that's bugging me: Can we expect early X-T4 bodies (with factory/original firmware) to be as smooth as the X-T3 on firmware 3.xx? Or is the difference already there from launch? Thanks in advance for your feedback, any downgrade experiences, and tests with different firmwares and lenses. This could help a lot of people optimize their setup.
    • DavidJohn
      Bob

      By DavidJohn · Posted

      Bob is a well-known and much appreciated street performer, musician, comedian, and sometime circus performer. GFX100RF.  3200 ISO   1/60 sec.  f4.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    • Greybeard
      Spots on my every images

      By Greybeard · Posted

      If the spots are in the same place every time then its likely a dirty sensor - you can buy a sensor cleaning kit and do it yourself or take it in to get cleaned professionally.
×
×
  • Create New...