Jump to content
photobob

Fuji X Raw files converted to Adobe DNG

Recommended Posts

I have been shooting Fuji X (T-2) for about  18 month and generally shoot Raw +.  I use the JPEG most of the time since they are outstanding.

After communicating with DXO on why they don't support the XT they basically said it was because of the X tran sensor and their algorithms are designed for the Bayer array. I used the DXO prime noise reduction when needed.

Since I still use stand alone  Photoshop CS-6 it will also not open my Raw Files. My previous system was Pentax and I shot in Adobe DNG with satisfactory results.

The DNG ,being a universal file format gave me confidence that it will be around. So my current workflow is to convert my RAF files to DNG and I am happy with the results.... but after reading about conversion on this forum, I would like to know what I am missing by not using the converters usually discussed. 

When I first got the Fujifilm X t2 I made and compared images from the Raw files converted with the Fujifilm software and those files converted with the Adobe DNG Converter and did not notice any difference in the output quality, so I am curious why the users are using the other available conversion software?

Photobob   (Bob H)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't tried this recently (so maybe it has improved), but I had a similar conversation with DxO.  I wanted to use Iridient Developer/X-Transformer to convert the Fuji raw files to dng, and then process to completion in DxO.  While DxO did recognize at least some dngs, it did not like the ones coming out of the Iridient workflow,  I wrote them that they were missing a great opportunity to add Fuji shooters to their potential customer base by not recognizing the dngs from Iridient.   They didn't need to deal with the X-Trans format, they just had to modify the list of acceptable dngs,  I never heard any more from them.

DxO obviously has a small number of employees, but they are not at all open to suggestions, and not interested in expanding the list of potential customers.  Not hard to understand why they are in financial difficulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 1:41 AM, photobob said:

I have been shooting Fuji X (T-2) for about  18 month and generally shoot Raw +.  I use the JPEG most of the time since they are outstanding.

After communicating with DXO on why they don't support the XT they basically said it was because of the X tran sensor and their algorithms are designed for the Bayer array. I used the DXO prime noise reduction when needed.

Since I still use stand alone  Photoshop CS-6 it will also not open my Raw Files. My previous system was Pentax and I shot in Adobe DNG with satisfactory results.

The DNG ,being a universal file format gave me confidence that it will be around. So my current workflow is to convert my RAF files to DNG and I am happy with the results.... but after reading about conversion on this forum, I would like to know what I am missing by not using the converters usually discussed.

What you're missing is better rendition of fine detail from your XT-2 raw files. A little Internet research with topics like X-Trans worms,  watercolor effect, LR, and Adobe should bring up some tens of thousands of pages for you to examine (somewhat contentious and the amount of misinformation you will encounter is massive). Bottom line: Adobe's methodology demosaicing the X-Trans CFA does a weaker job with fine detail rendition than the alternative raw converters. There's various things that can be done to mitigate the result but ultimately if you have Adobe do the demosiacing of the X-Trans array the problem is uncorrectable. It's not a show stopper problem. A lot of folks are very happy with the results they get from Adobe/X-Trans and don't get worked up over this.

If you want to see the difference then go to dpreview.com and download this sample file for the XT-2: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3430551079/fujifilm-x-t2-samples-gallery/2929672995 Treat it as you would your own XT-2 raw files and process it in Photoshop. Then compare the central section of the image with the sample attached. Use Photoshop and try to produce equivalent detail as seen in the sample attached.

On 11/22/2018 at 1:41 AM, photobob said:

When I first got the Fujifilm X t2 I made and compared images from the Raw files converted with the Fujifilm software and those files converted with the Adobe DNG Converter and did not notice any difference in the output quality, so I am curious why the users are using the other available conversion software?

Photobob   (Bob H)

 

x-trans.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments. SW Rick seems to share the frustration I have with DXO . It has always been my choice for noise reduction (Prime) and once a file is converted to a DNG you would think it would be easily read......agreed it's their loss.

Thanks Graflex ( I use to use  one) . Your right about not getting worked up since most of my work is event, street, travel  and candid portrait, I have not noticed . But I am getting more involved with landscape work so I will start saving the RAF's which I have discarded in the past. The included photo gives a good indication of the issue. When  I encountered it I just added a little " Clarity" in camera raw.

Going back to using my Graflex 4 x 5 or my  RB-67 , I look at a few of the commercial images I produced with them now, and they don't compare to the IQ produced with the crop sensor in the X-T2.  Those who are reaching their photographic maturity in the digital age are fortunate to be working with this equipment . The" nit picking" on image quality will only make it better.

Bob 😁 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,
        I am new to Fuji (awaiting an X100F),and find myself with a similar situation. I'm using LR 5.7,and PS6. Together they do all I need currently,  shooting Canon. I prepared for the arrival of the X100F by updating ACR to 9.11 and getting the latest DNG converter. I thought I was all set, and ready to go, not being previously aware of the RAW conversion issues people are experiencing. After downloading and processing the sample image graflex linked to (Thank you), I'm concerned. Pixel peeping, the leaves look awful, even with my old eyes. Then again, I don't normally view images blown up to 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GovMule.

I hadn't checked this feed for a while, but after seeing answers to my previous post, I started to  save the RAF's that I had previously discarded after converting to DNG

I recently downloaded the free Capture One Express for Fujifilm, and to my surprise my DNG converted images look better than those from Capture One. I used one of my own images rather than the one suggested by Graflex. But there seems to be a lot of chatter about Xtran sensors & resolution and then a lot of images that look great to me.

I looked at busy areas and high detailed parts in images I processed from converted DNG and processed in Camera Raw ( Old version in CS-6) and they were better than what I got in the Capture One software from the RAF's  . I am using the latest DNG converter.  It could just be me, I'm not a "Pixel Peeper" 

Share this post


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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...