Jump to content

Which of the following settings has an impact RAW files?


yellowmatic

Recommended Posts

I've read somewhere that Dynamic Range settings (100% - 300%) has an effect on the RAW file as well as the Jpeg, but in what way? I haven't noticed a difference to be honest. But what about other settings, like Grain Effect? I did some test shots and I did notice an effect on the RAW files, am i imagining this or could the be an issue with the processor? And finally NR, does it affect only the Jpeg or the RAW files too? Thanks for any clarification. X-E3 user.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dynamic range settings of more than 100% cause the 'gain', i.e. ISO, to be lowered locally in bright areas to reduce/prevent clipping and thereby 'protecting your highlights'. SO it does affect RAW. Most other settings only affect RAW processing i.e. the JPEG.

Grain affect does not affect the RAW image data, but it stored in the RAW metadata.

Beware - it is difficult (arguably impossible) to 'look at a RAW file'. When you try to look at a RAW file, you are either looking at an embedded JPEG thumbnail preview, or the software that you are looking at the RAW file with is processing the RAW file on demand to generate a JPEG that it is displaying on the screen. Depending on the software, and/or its settings, it may be looking at the RAW image data and its embedded metadata and taking the original camera settings, i.e. grain affect, into account.

Edited by bazmataz
Link to post
Share on other sites

...and, although, I don't use Lightroom, I bet there is a setting/mode in LR that will look at the RAW processing metadata in the RAW file and will show you LR's interpretation of the STRONG GRAIN setting, and other in-camera settings. Certainly CaptureOne the equivalent RAW processing engine, which I use, optionally does do this.

You have to remember that the RAW file is not an image, its the data required for a RAW processing engine, like LR, CO, or even Windows Image Viewer, to create one, and they will all do it slightly differently. Software that doesn't have the capability of processing and rendering the RAW file at all may dig out the embedded JPEG thumbnail from the RAW file, and display that instead.

BTW - I use CO, rather than LR, because it is widely believed to make a better job of rendering Fujifilm's weird X-Trans RAW files better than LR, and most other engine's.

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

    • As @Greybeard wrote, there is more going on than just saving a changed setting. Even if it were only that, it would still be tricky. Different settings take up different size spaces in the file. Trying to overwrite that can easily wreck the file. Early computer based EXIF editors would not do more than report settings for the raw files they would allow users to read. Your Velvia image file may take 2MB more storage than the Provia one, but changing from one to the other seamlessly would be difficult to pull off without a massive amount of processing. All while doing other camera stuff. RAF is vastly different in what it does than JPEG or TIFF or ...
    • I didn't know about that JPG. But for me it would be handy if the "RAW including that JPG" could be updated. I don't want to bother about editing photos on a computer. I just use the computer for archiving them and I "use" the photos on the tablet where I have my viewing archive. Just ideas. Digital photography could be so "easy" or "convenient" if all those things were possible. I want the pictures, good pictures. I don't want to bother with software. Sometimes it is a little detail which can make your experience so great, or which can spoil everything.
    • Yes I used that software years ago with an X100F, but  then it stopped working, because the new software no longer worked on my computer (32 vs 64 bit). At the moment I am a Linux user on a 10 year old machine. My most modern "computer" are my phone and tablet.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...