This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

RAW Conventions

Discussion in 'X-T2, X-T1, X-T20, X-T10' started by Rneedle, Mar 11, 2017.

  1. jamie allan

    jamie allan Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    1,451
    Location:
    Glasgow Scotland

    -Return to Top-

    'Given the expertise on this forum I certainly am not the one to ask. But my (limited) understanding is that due to the non-Bayer nature of the Fuji sensors it is difficult to directly obtain a DMG file from them; that is the standard Adobe DMG converter can not 'make sense' of the raw data stored in the Fuji.'

    I don't know if this is correct - well certainly not for my set up. I have an X-E2 (with Xtrans CMOS II sensor) and run Adobe Bridge and Photoshop CS3. Obviously CS3 is well past being updated to be able to open X-E2 RAF files so when needed I run Adobe DNG Converter(ver 9.1) on the RAF files I want to edit in CS3. What you do have to do is set up the DNG Converter preferences for the particular ACR version you are using. Just one thing to note - and it may be due to my set up as described above - but the resultant DNG files are significantly larger than the RAF files they are taken from. For instance an image I just checked (I shoot RAW+ Jpeg) was a 4.76MB Jpeg, 32.1MB RAF and when converted to lossless DNG ended up at 51.1MB.[/QUOTE]
     
  2. Rneedle

    Rneedle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    1

    -Return to Top-

    Hi James,

    You are obviously correct. The fact that a RAF files opens in LR shows that LR is rendering the RAW in some form.

    So the question remains for someone with more expertise than I....

    R
     
  3. khunfred61

    khunfred61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2014
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    france

    -Return to Top-

    Helo
    Just a personal advice: Iridient is better for extracting finest details of X-trans RAW. Converting in DNG, then import into LR, the best for recovering HL and intuitive workflow. More: FUJI film profiles (Acros, classic chrome, etc...) are included in LR.
     
  4. AdrianG

    AdrianG Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    691
    Location:
    CH, UK, GHA

    -Return to Top-

    That's not correct, LR has no trouble at all to read Fuj's RAF's of currently all X-Trans cameras. If a new model comes out, you may have to wait for a short while until they support it. Iridient does a slightly better job converting RAF's, but I think it only works on OS X. I guarantee you, the differences in detail resolution between OOC JPEG's, LR and Iridient with the 24mp sensor are invisible on any print size you will ever consider, leave alone on the 1 to 2mp internet resolution. Other differences are a different story.

    Aye, but they clearly don't look like Fuji's own in camera simulations. Simplified and generally speaking, if you shot film and prefer the natural quality of film, you probably prefer Fuji's look, if you prefer the more polished, sterile look of digital images, Adobe's profiles are the way to go.
    Cheers!
     
  5. khunfred61

    khunfred61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2014
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    france

    -Return to Top-

    This is your point of view. I use LR for a couple of years now, and X-trans RAW files slow the system. Not an issue for me, as I have a very small workflow.

    There is now an option to get only X-transformer, usable on Windows. If no mistake, Iridient full software is available for Windows but it's still a Beta version.

    Your own point of view again. Iridient produces a better and more natural aspect, with more details (no crop needed to perceive this).

    LR mixes colors perfectly the same as Fuji in-camera. After having choosed a film profile in LR, my own work is not finished: I need changing contrast/tone curves, etc... and I canget exactly the same results. Fast checking: shoot JPEG+RAW and comparison after RAWs PP.

    I don't know what these words mean objectively.
    Outside from Fuji marketing Cinderella's kingdom, even the best digital film simulation can't be compared to silver film: the grains of films remain unequal and random. Fuji did a good job, maybe Fuji cameras produces the best JPEGS, compared to other brands, but these film profiles can be 100% produced with PP in LR.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017

Share This Page