Raw conversion topic VERY confusing! - can anyone clarify

[JoyN]

Please could someone - preferably a wedding photographer give me their step by step workflow for processing Raws from Xt-1 ? - I didn't fully realise that they aren't best converted in LR so the thought of taking them via another converter seems like alot of extra work! - I have swapped from Canon for the advantages fuji offer in noise at higher iso so quality and sharpness is my primary concern. If I have to use another converter then ok but which one? And do I still use LR for tweaking exposure /colour etc - there are a lot of conflicting opinions out there!

Also another prob is I have a windows 10 laptop and also an imac running yosemite so I do need some consistency between the two. Thankyou

[flysurfer]

I have no problems with Lightroom CC. No need to use another converter from my side, especially not for wedding stuff.

[olli]

Joy, if you are already using and are comfortable with Lightroom I would suggest that you keep using it for now and decide for yourself whether there is an issue. If you think there is, then you can start looking at alternatives. If you think there is not, then you will have saved yourself a lot of time, effort and money.

[Max_Elmar]

Unless you want to completely re-invent your workflow, Lightroom is probably the way to go - esp with Mac and PC together. (But you may want to read about the latest Adobe CC "security" updates on that Mac.) The conversion in LR is very good - especially with some practice, good presets, and a well-organized workflow, it's just not as good as it can possibly be - IMO. With my Fuji X cameras, I develop the RAW files in Iridient Developer before I do anything else with them. (Iridient is Mac only.) If it's a tricky file, I output a 16 bit TIFF for post. It's a delight to work with those files. Fuji is a travel/hobby camera for me. My professional work is still mostly Nikon RAW files (D800, D810) going directly into LR. I am mostly a Landscape/Architectural photographer, so things might be different for you.

 

Good luck! 

[Adam Woodhouse]

One thing that no one seems to ever mention when working with RAF files in Lightroom is you must set the correct Process type either when you import (as a preset) or after you import.  By default, Lightroom will set the RAF process to be Adobe's implementation of file rendering.  You must change it to a Fuji "process" or you won't be happy.  The default Adobe looks horrible with RAF files and people will complain that Lightroom sucks for RAF files when they aren't using it right.  When you change the Process to a Fuji Processs, the image will look great and you can tweak.

 

I created a preset and when I import a wedding I apply the preset during the import.  It's pretty slick doing it that way.  My preset (which is simply my own preferences) is a little bump to the whites, a little bump to the shadows, a change to the sharpen value to approx 50 from its default (which I think is around 20) ... and a change to the RAW Process from Adobe to Fuji Provia.

 

If you don't know where you change the RAW Process, it is on the LIBRARY tab, bottom right ... below Keyword and Metadata ... under CAMERA CALIBRATION.,  Change the Process there.

[idwilson]

Slight confusion here. What you're talking about is a colour profile, which only affects the way in which your RAF file's colours are rendered. It doesn't change the processing of the files in any other way, and the "Provia, Astia, Velvia, etc." settings are simply Adobe's (very good) attempt to match Fuji's film emulation. It certainly isn't a "Fuji Process", although better rendering of the X-Trans files is long overdue.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Adam Woodhouse]

Sure.  Process ... colour profiler ... sweet sauce.  Technical mumbo jumbo.

 

Point is ... it needs to be set when importing RAF or much more work needs to be done to the images ... and if this isn't known, one will assume that Lightroom renders RAF files poorly upon default import.

 

Thanks for clarifying though.

[flysurfer]

Adobe Standard is just as valid as any of the film simulations (which aren't that good, except for the new versions Adobe made for X-Pro2, which are quite on the mark). See https://www.flickr.com/gp/ricopfirstinger/53VgT3

[Burb]

Point is ... it needs to be set when importing RAF or much more work needs to be done to the images ... and if this isn't known, one will assume that Lightroom renders RAF files poorly upon default import.

As far as I know your statement is not correct and the so called Fuji process don't need to be set for better rendering! As mentioned by idwilson it's just a color profile simulating the Fuji film simulation. In other words it can help you by color correcting the RAF files like the in camera JPEG rendering would do. But it's not a mandatory action to get better or sharper or whatever results.

[idwilson]

As a short post-script, there are two ways of judging Adobe's "film simulation" profiles.  The first is to ask how closely they match those implemented by Fuji on the cameras themselves, and I can quite understand if some people are disappointed by the differences.  As someone who shoots exclusively RAW, however, a much more important question is: Are the film simulation profiles better than "Adobe Standard"?  The answer to this question is a resounding "yes"; in fact, I've yet to use any camera where "Adobe Standard" is worth using.  On my Canon cameras I always use "Camera Standard", "Camera Neutral" or a custom profile made with an X-Rite Colour Checker Passport.  I tried using custom profiles for my Fuji cameras, but found that "Camera Provia/Standard" was head and shoulders above them.  If Adobe improve these colour profiles as a result of the X-Pro2 being released then great, but personally I'd prefer them to put their efforts into sorting out the well-documented X-Trans demosaic problem.

 

Ian.

[flysurfer]

Adobe and Fuji demosaicing look almost identical. So this means that Fuji's internal JPEG engine must have a well-documented demosaicing problem, too. OTOH, many regard the built-in engine as the benchmark.

 

Adobe's problem ist that applying too much sharpening quickly brings out ugly X-Trans artifacts, and that seems to be the issue that Adobe is willing to improve on in future ACR editions.

 

As for changing the demosaicing: anything is possible, but that would mean a departure from Fuji's own demosaicing method.

[Adam Woodhouse]

Lots of good info here Joy.  Has it helped at all?

 

Another reference that may help is -> 

[thesquire]

Can't clarify 'cause don't do conversions of RAWs at all.  Perhaps someone would enlighten me why conversion is ever necessary?  I use Lightroom to post-process RAW files, then export them as Tiffs or as JPEGs for use on the Web and for Slideshows. In Lightroom post-processing any of the Fuji film emulations can be applied non-destructively if you like those emulations.  So, again, why conversion?

[Adam Woodhouse]

I think the word "conversion" is used here to simply mean the processing of a RAF file into a JPG.

[flysurfer]

Can't clarify 'cause don't do conversions of RAWs at all.  Perhaps someone would enlighten me why conversion is ever necessary?

 

Because there is no image without it.

[Mevl]

hello guys sorry to bump into this conversation. 

I'm new too fuji, and realised the format is RAF. I do use CS6 photohop only and I have all updates to date. 

How do you post process RAF? I can not open them in Photoshop for some reason. Even my camera raw is the latest. I'm forced to convert them to dng.

[lysander]

Try this too:

 

SHARPENING X-TRANS FILES IN ADOBE LIGHTROOM

http://petebridgwood.com/wp/2014/10/x-trans-sharpening/

 

The "key difference between Raw files from conventional sensors and Raw files from X-Trans is that they favour different DETAIL slider settings: part of the sharpening control set within the DETAIL panel of the DEVELOP module."

[Adam Woodhouse]

RAW files first open in Camera Raw.  From there you bring them into Photoshop.  When in Photoshop, and you want to open an image via File -> Open ... and you select a RAF file ... Photoshop will open Camera Raw.

 

But for Camera Raw to support the RAW file you are opening, Camera Raw has to support it.  If your Camera Raw is out-of-date, it won't know what to do with the raw file (for Fuji, it is a RAF file).  You may just need to update your Camera Raw (google how to do this).

 

If you are out-of-luck and Adobe no longer updates your version of Camera Raw, then you are out of luck.  I'm not sure how far back Adobe is going when they update Camera Raw.  I have the monthly subscription, so my Camera Raw, Photoshop and Lightroom all stay up-to-date automatically.  Paying approx $120/year isn't something that I get excited about, but it sure is convenient having the software update itself and knowing it is always current.

 

 

hello guys sorry to bump into this conversation. 

I'm new too fuji, and realised the format is RAF. I do use CS6 photohop only and I have all updates to date. 

How do you post process RAF? I can not open them in Photoshop for some reason. Even my camera raw is the latest. I'm forced to convert them to dng.

[Anbaric]

hello guys sorry to bump into this conversation. 

I'm new too fuji, and realised the format is RAF. I do use CS6 photohop only and I have all updates to date. 

How do you post process RAF? I can not open them in Photoshop for some reason. Even my camera raw is the latest. I'm forced to convert them to dng.

 

The final compatible version of Adobe Camera Raw for CS6 is 9.1.1. Here is Adobe's camera vs ACR version table:

 

https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

 

Looks like the X-Pro2, X-E2S and X70 will never be supported. The IR version of the X-T1 didn't make the cut either, though the original X-T1 is OK. So for unsupported cameras it's either DNG, or use a standalone converter like Fuji's own Raw File Converter package and convert to tiff or jpeg:

 

http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/myfinepix_studio/rfc/

 

[Mevl]

#anbaric

#Adam Woodhouse

 

Thanks for the info.

 

I will stick with CS6, and slowly find replacement for it. I still use Aperture for organization so I'm out of luck no matter what. 

 

Everything is in cloud and I do not like it, I still have 4Mbits internet connection  

 

 

[Adam Woodhouse]

I have 3Mbits internet connection due to living in a rural area with old phone lines (only DSL is an option).  I have Adobe Cloud subscription and as much as I don't like paying the $10+ a month ... it isn't much and it is very convenient knowing I always have an up-to-date product to use.  This goes for Lightroom and Photoshop.  I don't save my images online, they are all local.  The only time my computer needs an internet connection for using the Adobe products is to do an update.  If it is a patch, it happens quickly.  If it is a full download, I simply tell the Adobe app that runs in my toolbar to do it manually ... and I kick it off before I go to bed.  Works great.

[sir_c]

 

 

Everything is in cloud and I do not like it, I still have 4Mbits internet connection

 

Don't know what you mean by that? The Adobe software is still installed on your own local PC. It does not run from the web or so...

[Rauber]

The problem with Adobe Fuji film simulation is not sharpness. The images are as sharp and detailed as the OOC images. The problem are the blacks. With Adobe Standard you get nice graduated dark details. You can see the folds or structure in black or dark clothing. If you select a single Fuji profile the dark parts went down the drain. They become so dark they seem to clip. Even if you push the shadows by +100 in LR you will not get them back properly. Instead you get a grainy noisy area that looks ugly. If you compare this with the OOC images they don't drop the dark parts to black that much. The details in the dark areas are well preserved like in the Adobe Standard profile. I can only talk about X-Trans I and II. And I have to say that the effect differs between the simulations with Pro Neg Std being the best but noticeable darker than the Adobe Standard profile.

 

The film simulations of Irident Developer only grade the colors and do no gamma correction. So they are a very nice starting point. I tried Silky Pix and he film simulations are brighter than the Adobe ones too but the colors are not as similar to the OOC like the Adobe ones. I own the VSCO film pack with Velvia and Provia but the colors look way different, the contrast is higher and the overall look is different to the Fuji OOC film simulations. And the Adobe film simulation colors are similar but different from the Fuji OOC colors. The OOC JPEG colors have a very fine warm glowing that Adobe can't reproduce... In the end the Adobe images look a little bit flat but the OOC JPEG too. I mean we are talking about nuances here. The average user will not see a difference between most of the images at all.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Rauber