Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There's a bug (C1 doesn't read XP2 raf metadata correctly)

 

C1 need to fix it!

 

 

Indeed. No lossless RAW support, no metadata support, no official film simulations (especially no ACROS). Basically the worst converter possible for the task at hand.

 

Lightroom and Silkypix are the currently only converters with ACROS support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. No lossless RAW support, no metadata support, no official film simulations (especially no ACROS). Basically the worst converter possible for the task at hand.

 

Lightroom and Silkypix are the currently only converters with ACROS support.

 

Don't laugh....

 

But I've really got into SilkyPix lately, (the paid one) ok it's a bit quirky (a bit like Fuji X cameras :D ) but the results work well for me and what I like to shoot.

Edited by adzman808
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a bug (C1 doesn't read XP2 raf metadata correctly)

 

C1 need to fix it!

I'm confused.

 

What capture one version do you have?

 

I am looking at a file I shot with the XPro2 on screen in C1 Pro 9.1.2.15 and it is rendered. I then set a process recipe to load it as a 16bit TIFF in Photoshop CC, which it was able to do. What am I missing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused.

What capture one version do you have?

I am looking at a file I shot with the XPro2 on screen in C1 Pro 9.1.2.15 and it is rendered. I then set a process recipe to load it as a 16bit TIFF in Photoshop CC, which it was able to do. What am I missing?

C1 v9

 

Put the 35 f2 on and go shoot a brick wall, load the file into c1 and tell me what you see (hint: distortions)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

C1 v9

Put the 35 f2 on and go shoot a brick wall, load the file into c1 and tell me what you see (hint: distortions)

This is the lens. It has distortion. You need to apply correction. Adobe is correcting the lens flaw automagically. C1 has a lens correction feature and if it isn't built in, you can put it in yourself.

 

In any case, it seems the statements above that C1 doesn't work with the Xpro2 are just mistaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only had the camera for a day but I have already found that I can get smoother and more noise free images by using the Acros profiles in the 'camera calibration' box in Lr6.6 CC. Basically I can make a few presets and just keep shooting Raw as I always have done and forget about all those camera settings. I had been hoping for more from the jpeg output but that's the way it goes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the lens. It has distortion. You need to apply correction. Adobe is correcting the lens flaw automagically. C1 has a lens correction feature and if it isn't built in, you can put it in yourself.

In any case, it seems the statements above that C1 doesn't work with the Xpro2 are just mistaken.

C1 has a in built profile for the 35/f2

 

But c1 isn't capable of implementing that profile with the XP2 beacuse it apparently isn't able to work with XP2 RAW metadata... If you think that constitutes working.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the original post author is happy with the in-camera ACROS jpeg, simply open it (once) and re-save it as a TIFF. No more 'lossy' issues to deal with. Spending hours trying to match a RAW file to the original jpeg is certainly a wasted effort, though I do recommend shooting RAW + JPEG, and archiving the RAW for future use. Spend the time you save, shooting more images!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Indeed. No lossless RAW support, no metadata support, no official film simulations (especially no ACROS). Basically the worst converter possible for the task at hand.

 

Lightroom and Silkypix are the currently only converters with ACROS support.

 

Disagree. Depends on what is important to you. Lightroom is slow, lacks basic customization, and is still very bad at handling fine detail and noise reduction. I find Capture One is the better option even with it's current limitations for the X-pro2 --which are indeed frustrating.

 

Capture One has a lot going for it. Color editing abilities are far superior, workspace is fully customizable, hotkeys are customizable, default rendering is definitely superior, imports/exports everything significantly faster, etc.

 

I like the easiness of using the film simulations in Lightroom but when I realized how easy they are to replicate in C1 it became far less of a selling point. I did a few tests comparing LR's film simulations to my C1 preset equivalents and the results were nearly identical in most cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capture One doesn't really support the X-Pro2. It's irresponsible to call the current situation "support". C1 can only open a handful of several thousand images I took with this camera, because it still can't decode compressed RAWs. Even these images aren't fully usable because of the digital distortion correction issue. And even the few remaining images still can't be rendered (lossless or not) with Acros (which is what this thread is about), because C1 doesn't support any Fujifilm film simulations. Never did, never will. AFAIK, there still isn't any third-party (aka user generated) profile for Acros.

 

Even Silkypix and AccuRaw now support the compressed RAW files, so do Lightroom/ACR, Iridient and PhotoNinja. Also, the problems wrt lens corrections are unique to C1. In any case, Adobe and Silkypix support all four Acros profiles. Iridient told me that they will add the new film simulations in the future.

Edited by flysurfer
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

A jpg is fine for many forms of "serious" work, eg I wouldn't be alarmed to hear that a wedding photographer used it. But it fails under specific conditions - eg if you want to take images of scenes with a high dynamic range at maximum quality and are willing to spend a serious amount of time in post processing.

 

 

I do a lot of serious paid work with JPGs. I don't deliver them that often, but I use the Fuji system to it's fullest. 

 

For almost everything, I shoot in JPG + Raw. about 80% of my work is in black and white, and regardless, I want to see the full tonal picture in black and white when I'm shooting. So the JPG gives me the live preview in black and white. Now I have my own presets I use, and most of the time I simply use the black and white as a quick tonal check on an image before I edit it--but for 95% of the images, the jpg gets tossed and I edit the raw. 

 

But occasionally I will use the black and white JPG. Especially with Acros. For high ISO pictures (think dancefloor at a wedding) the grain is much more pleasant than the noise. Also, the trend for many dance floors, even at very high end weddings, is to have the dancefloor flooded with colored light. This can be a nightmare at higher ISOs with skin tones, as there is no way to "smooth" out the tonal map on some skin. But the JPG doesn't hold that color info, and simply captures the tonal values. I find that this, plus the grain effect over the noise, makes that little JPG very useful sometimes. In fact, I've been editing a wedding all day today, and those Acros jpgs have saved more than a few photographs where the image/composition/content was excellent but for the distracting color and weird skin tone gradation effects. You can fix most of it in PS, but it takes waaaaaaayyyyy to long to do for anything but the most important images. Rather, I just edited the JPG and kept a clean, consistent image that was fine for delivery. 

 

For me, this is the number one reason I won't really plan on going back to DSLR--as much as I loved my canon 5DMX + L bag. And it's a huge selling point for mirrorless generally. For a black and white shooter, mirrorless isn't just "better" than DSLR, it's like comparing apples and oranges. The best OVF still cannot compete with a black and white "what you see is what you get" EVF in terms of speed and accuracy of workflow. And what's ore, even with my color work, I still prefer black and white in the EFV as I can see a much more subtle tonal picture without the distraction of color. 

Edited by W Neder
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

 

I don't know why you find it ludicrous but I certainly don't.

 

 

Even the best jpg with the least compression still has only 8 bit color where the RAW file has 14 bit color. That is reduction of a factor of 64 per color or a factor of 262144 for the complete color map.

 

So per R,G,B color you only use 1/64th of what the camera captures and throw away the rest, being 98%.

 

To me jpg is extremely lossy, maybe nice for pictures from your phone but not for serious camera work.

 

ah good thing that you know your math, congratulation. Only 1/64th, jesus! Thats terrible. Out of camera jpgs MUST LOOK REALLY BAD BECAUSE OF THIS NUMBER!

 

Yeah.

No.

 

What you (maybe!) might not know is, what difference it will make in real life. And what 256 different tones per channel actually translates into an image, compared to 4096 or 16384.   

In the end: you send processed 8bit jpgs to your printshop, right?

Does it make a significant difference, when captured a JPG or RAW? Yes and no. It depends so much on your scenery, your processing and what you actually want in the end.

JPGs can be very well be used in serious photowork and general photography! If you know what you are doing and plan your shot (that means: think about it before!)

 

What JPGs can't be used: for internet wars of gear-centric pixel-peeper that like high numbers! 

 

And the information is not "thrown away" but translated into 16 millions of colors. The image does not become suddenly worse in image quality.

12bit or 14bit RAW has much more information, I totally agree. You can easily recover 2 stops of highlights with even years old Aptina 1" sensors like in the Nikon 1 cameras. New cameras give you great option to correct the desired latitude in your shots easily in post. If you need it, like when working to optimize the image in the way you want or need.

 

But could you imagine, that there are people, who deliberately chose jps over raw files? Even pros, that send bloody unaltered and compressed JPG? FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PRESS? HOLY COW, THEY MUST BE AMATEURES NOT TO HANDLE  42MP 16BIT RAW FILES!! 

 

They have something going for them: consistency and a mind towards exposure. Shooting jpg means thinking about what you want in terms of exposure and not underexpose to avoid any clipping and boost exposure +5EV on your crazy awesome 135 FF camera files...

 

No. OOC JPGs have severe limitations. You just cannot pull them that much in post like raw files and will see artifacts much sooner.

Still, I can pull out one stop of highlights on my Fuji JPGs, if needed.

So if you do a good job on exposing your image, you still have some room for modifications!

And no, JPGs are not extreme lossy. I would bet that you could not tell the difference in print of moderately processed JPG and RAW file.

 

Just my opinion. Pixel peeping drives you mad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi guys, Sorry if this is a stupid suggestion that doesn't solve the problem.

 

If you post process a raw file with the SilkiPix raw converter from Fuji, this can apply an Acros preset and then you can further further post process out to a  16bit uncompressed TIFF file. That Tiff file can then be post processed further in Photoshop and Silver effex Pro 2 if required.

 

The TIFF files are massive  but it gets you what you want.

 

Or have I misunderstood?

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...