Jump to content

Hello from Cornwall (& RAW advice)


Recommended Posts

Hi there,

Back in January I went to my favourite camera shop (London Camera Exchange in Plymouth) with the idea of trading in my Sony NEX-5 for an a6000. I also took my old Canon EOS 350 & associated lenses along with a Leica D-Lux3 compact, just to see if I would get a decent part exchange valuation against the proposed new Sony. They gave me a good quote for the old gear, so I was *just* about to seal the deal on the a6000 when I said to the assistant "Is there anything else I should consider as a Sony alternative?" They showed me an Olympus OM D (which was very nice) & then showed me the Fuji X-T10 - Wow! What a brilliant camera. I was immediately knocked out by the build quality & the whole feel & appearance. Needless to say I walked out with the kit with the 18-55 & 55-200 lenses; what a revelation the Fuji system has been - no regrets at all.

 

I have one main question re' processing the Fuji RAW files. At present I have a 9 year old iMac which means I'm restricted to using Lightroom 5.7.1, which can't handle the RAW files natively (I have to convert them to DNG before Lightroom will touch them). I've had a look around online & Iridient Developer seems to be well regarded for handling the X-Trans RAW files; does anyone have experience of Iridient or, come to that, any other RAW processors?

 

Apologies for rambling & if this needs to be posted to a more relevant thread please let me know.

 

Thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

LR 5.7 handles Fuji raw files without any conversion. Mine does anyway.

 

Are you sure you are up to date with Camera raw? 

 

As for Raw processing there are tons of alternatives and if one is only going to be flamed by the people who like other raw processors.

 

If you have an older mac you should have Aperture. Aperture works just fine and now that the NIK suite is free you can add that to the plug ins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MikeG you appear to have appropriated my forum name "Mike G", this name I have used for many years on several forums, please desist!

 

Would an administrator please adjudicate!

Edited by Mike G
Link to post
Share on other sites

MikeG you appear to have appropriated my forum name "Mike G", this name I have used for many years on several forums, please desist!

 

Would an administrator please adjudicate!

You appear to be 'Mike G' (Mike space G); when I registered the system let me have 'MikeG' (no space) therefore not the same name, therefore no appropriation of name, therefore no need for an admin' to adjudicate!

Link to post
Share on other sites

MikeG, don't ya just know this is going to lead to confusion, but hey I appreciate what you say! Please don't take this personally!

 

Many years ago I used to live in Helston when I was in the Royal Navy, happy days.

No problem, Mike! One of those quirks of the system I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly.

 

No system can possibly equate Mike G to MikeG and refuse someone to register the second moniker if the first already exists.

 

I have news.

 

If anyone comes around with the wish to register under Mike   G ( two spaces  in between) the system will create another identity, also mike g (lower case) will be, then another identity.

 

But the avatar of Mike G, I think, is pretty distinctive and I bet that the two of you look pretty different.

 

Happy Days!

Link to post
Share on other sites

LR 5.7 handles Fuji raw files without any conversion. Mine does anyway.

 

Are you sure you are up to date with Camera raw? 

 

As for Raw processing there are tons of alternatives and if one is only going to be flamed by the people who like other raw processors.

 

If you have an older mac you should have Aperture. Aperture works just fine and now that the NIK suite is free you can add that to the plug ins.

What camera are you using? I think the issue Lightroom 5.7.1 has is specifically to do with the X-T10, not Fuji files in general. This thread on another site seems to suggest that a workaround is to fool LR into thinking it's looking at files from an X-T1 rather than an X-T10 by batch altering the camera type in the EXIF data using an EXIF editor of some sort, which seems to be quite a faff to say to say the least.

 

I assume Camera RAW is up to date, given that I only recently installed LR as part of the Adobe CC package which I got a discount on via subscription to 'Digital Camera' magazine.

 

Again re Aperture, that doesn't want to have anything to do with files from the X-T10 (it imports it, but then says "Unsupported Image Format") & given that Aperture is dead in the water as far as Apple is concerned I've pretty much decided I'll have to give up on it. Having said that, does the 'NIK' suite enable Aperture to read the Fuji files?

 

Obviously the main problem is that my iMac won't update beyond OS 10.7.5. & Lightroom won't update beyond 5.7.1. I'll be upgrading my computer in 6 months or so, so hopefully I won't have these issues once I've done so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recently took a nose dive into a concrete path, I'll pass on that for the time being, if I was to post my current visage it would scare off most of the members!

 

Not turning out to be a very good year for me so far, but surely now it can only get better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a X-t1 and a X-E2 with the software updated to the latest version.

 

Both cameras work perfectly with Aperture and with LR.

 

The X-E2 is virtually the same as the X-T10, so much so that, lacking a book including the newest software on this camera, people selling the X-T10 alternative manual recommend X-E2 owners who have updated their camera to the latest system to use the X-T10.

 

Aperture does the “ unsupported format” thing If you try to open several images, whilst ,open one by one, will do it. Mine does. Good Luck!

 

Mike G.

 

You are indeed going through a very rough patch. All the best!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Milandro, yep this is turning out the my "Annus Horribilis"

 

I too have Aperture + Lightroom and have no problems opening Fuji RAFs or JPEGs in either. IMHO the Aperture treatment is slightly better than Lr, sadly Aperture doesn't have the tools that Lr does!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully it will all pass and you will get better. Unfortunately we all have to deal with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune at some point in our lives although sometimes one fames more than his fair share.

 

 

 

Using the NIK suite in combination with Aperture gives me a lot of flexibility and actually I am very pleased of the results.

 

LR has incredible archival capabilities and, I think, that that would have been a great tool to have when I was working for the Royal Dutch library where we where handling tons of images which needed being archived.

 

The only thing that I miss is the lens correction.

 

On the other hand we've used all manner of lenses for what they were, without any corrections, throughout the history of photography and learned to work WITH them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aperture does the “ unsupported format” thing If you try to open several images, whilst ,open one by one, will do it. Mine does. Good Luck!

 

 

No luck for me on that; I've tried importing a single RAF file from my X-T10 into Aperture (version 3.4.5, which seems to be the latest version of Aperture that I can run), the file imports BUT I get the "Unsupported Image Format" warning. Weirdly, the 'Info' tab on Aperture displays all the usual data there, but all of the controls on the 'Adjustments' tab are greyed out.

 

It looks like I'm going to have to go down the route of converting my Fuji RAW files to DNG in order to get Lightroom to handle them, with the option of using Iridient Developer or RawTherapee or darktable (or some other RAW converter) for those RAW files which I want to get the absolute best out of.

 

Any alternative suggestions gratefully considered! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Teach me. What's wrong with that. I am not on many forums, I have limited experience. I used my name because I want to stand by what I say and not "hide" behind an anonymous nick. If it would have been taken I would choose something else but since it was free I didn't see a reason to use something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is still a very small forum. I am a long standing member in fora operating for over 25 years, where there are many more members than here.

 

Name duplication, when you use a name, for your monicker, as common as Mike or George, are common.

 

It is virtually impossible to claim “ ownership” of names or avatars (unless it is your own picture like in your case an Mike G’s case) .

 

Using a monicker that isn’t your first name is a good way to avoid overlaps. This forum has plenty of possible things like that many seem to favor their first name.

 

So we have a Marcel and a Marcelo, Marcelo_Valente, Marcello, marc, Marc B, Marc G.

 

But we have Michael G ( also a potential Mike G?),  Mike ( should he trump them all?), Mike B, Mike K, Mike KC ( Oh boy confusion!), MikeG, MikeM... .

 

There is a georg and a georged, and a number of similar variation.

 

So Mike G is as different from MikeG as any other name.

 

Yes, a member could voluntarily  relinquish his name (this forum allows you to change your monicker and the system will display your monicker history showing the changes) but with a name like that sooner or later there will be someone else accessing the system which cannot account for any minimal variation on the name Mike an G. (mike g, mike_g, mike-g, MiKEG...)

 

These things happen and the longer this forum will exist the more these things will happen.

 

Personally I found more annoying people whom use same avatars because THAT is really much more confusing.

 

Relax in the word is the word.

 

I see you’ve changed, after this conversation, your monicker from George to George_P, which I suppose means that you saw how, having a monicker with your own name only would be asking for problems some time down the line because some other George would register.

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case you could have left the monicker to George, but , of course it is your very good right Sir to do whatever you want just as it is the one of MikeG to call himself that way. ( Please, indulge me, “ what’s  it will not be kingly?”  I am not familiar with this expression and its meaning or sense completely escapes me, sorry about that.)

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites

like when someone who is called George will register himself as george?

 

How about George II? Very kingly.

You produced that at 11:20 am so you could ask yourself what you meant by that. Never mind. This is way too far off topic already. brgds
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.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Its a little more than just the metadata - there is also a 13MP jpg stored in the RAF file - if the RAF file was to be updated I'd probably prefer another copy.
    • Have you tried using the Fujifilm X Raw Studio software on a computer? You can still use the camera for the actual conversion and it would solve most of your problems in naming and batch conversion.
    • Hello. If I shot in "Velvia", but decide later that "Provia" would have been better, why can't the camera switch the "Velvia" setting to "Provia" in the RAW file? It is just a setting within the RAW file. Overwriting the original parameters is easier for me because I don't have to bother with additional files on a computer. Just let me save those parameters. The image won't be altered, just the parameters used later by the converter to generate the image. For me that would make sense. I don't want to lose my time because I have to boot a computer where some software is running. It could be done within seconds in the camera.
    • I have owned several X100 models most recently the x100v and also the Leica Q2 and Q3.  In my opinion as a 20+ year enthusiast the comparison is apples and oranges.  Both systems have their strengths.  If you love the Fujifilm system or are mainly a jpeg shooter, the x100vi is the one to buy.  When I initially purchased the Q2, I quickly realized that this was intended for post processing.  The jpegs were acceptable but not as robust as Fuji.  The Q3 is solidly built with simple controls, tilt screen, an intuitive menu system, Summilux 28mm lens, 61 megapixels, weatherproof, IBIS, improved low light performance and dynamic range.  If the Q3 is within you budget, my suggestion would be to try (or purchase)  both and decide what fits your needs and style.  
    • Your last point does not make a lot of sense. It is similar to saying ‘take a raw file, run it through LightRoom or whichever raw convertor you are using to find a neat version but then overwrite the saved parameters in the original raw file instead of saving the new version as a separate image.’ Raw files store the image as shot. Using what you are suggesting, if someone needs to go back to the original ‘as shot’ image, it would be impossible.
×
×
  • Create New...