Listen FUJI and ADOBE : we want a proper good software to get good RAW development

baobob

Forum Pro
Messages
19,689
Solutions
22
Reaction score
17,068
Location
Brittany, FR
So just let start, the foliage issue thread has demonstrated after many other threads the lack of really good RAW developer software for X Pro1 apart the free RPP written for Mac

Moreover users want a simple workflow without having to play with files and programs more than needed.

Next one please
 
The thread you reference illustrated that the 'issues' people are having, are down to their inability to master the ACR toolset.

But it's easier to just blame the software when there's no 'easy button'.

--
http://www.dodkin.com
[email protected]
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad
 
I'm with Chris on the Adobe Raw converter. I've had few problems with it.

As a contrarian, I'd like to have the Fuji in-camera Raw to Jpeg conversion utility as a stand-alone app to run on Windows and Mac. That would be great and would help to minimize a fair amount of the FUD.

I've been a real 'shoot only RAW' zealot but the Fuji jpegs are often as good or better than what I can get using the Adobe raw converter as long as I expose correctly. There is more headroom converting the raw files.

-Framus
 
You are right anf wrong
Right we can reach the average quality of ACR (Fuji= Canon)
Wrong : RPP much better anyway with my photo of the tree
So it's perfectly correct to ask for improvement
The result with the canon and ACR are still average

The Adobe softaware is the kind of do everything engine, but as far as RAW is concern IMHO it's average
Cleraly others do better
 
It is a real issue but does depend on the image/scene, so does not affect everyone's shots. Distant fine detail. RPP shows it is there. ACR is munging the detail in an attempt to remove artefacts. So is Silky. So is in-camera JPEG.

It is not inability to use the s/w.

And if you wonder what is the point of peeping the pixels, well that must be Fuji's fault for telling us how clear and detailed their images are with this camera. So - we look and actually decide they are not.

Before I get branded as a troll, I love the X-Pro 1 and the X100 and I know there is more to IQ than detail. The truth is that the X-Pro 1 RAWs hold more detail than most are getting to see at the moment.

How much of this 'matters' in the real world when down-sized for web or printed, I do not know.

Lee
 
Sorry - to correct, the images ARE clear and detailed on the whole. In some scenarios, they are less so.

Lee
 
Well you could look to the JPEG RAW compparison in the studio shot comparison tool of DPR

You will notice that the RAW and JPEG are basically the same for the Fuji whereas for other cameras the RAW reveals fine details

This just shows that fine detail are smeared in ACR / LR

You can also compare the Imaging Resouce studio shots and see the same smearing effect

Weather this phenomenon is important for you is really a personal position. As a landscape photographer, I found the foliage rendition really average with ACR whereas RPP is much better.

What is the point of launching a new sensor that is supposed to improve the IQ when yiu introduce a new trad off

I also agree that aprt pictures where small details are important, the X Pro is a fantastic camera

I'm just surprised that some are obviously biased towards one editor and just refuse to admit a published reality

They are absolutely free to think that this does not matter at all
For some it does matter This is our fundamental biodiversity .... and democraty

We just want Fuji to provide a clean good simple RAW editor

It is that simple!

Teeth :-)
 
I've been saying the same and have come to a few more conclusions.
  • It definitely seems to be due to poor sharpening technique. Step 1 is to not sharpen in lightroom and use USM instead.
  • On images where its especially prevalent using high pass sharpening instead of USM helps.
--
d e s o l a t e | m e t r o p o l i s
http://www.desolatemetropolis.com
 
I use Adobe CS5... no support for Fuji RAW.
I use the SilkyPix software as well.. not bad but cllunky interface.

I have been using the Demo Version of LightRoom 4.1... not bad but I have never been a LightRoom fan... prefer Photoshop but have not sprung for CS6 with support for the Fuji RAF files.

Here is the off point section... I also use Picasa for quick edits sometimes and while the latest version of Picasa does not support the Fuji RAW files it does render them although improperly.... but ... even improperly rendered the amount of detail is abundantly clear in the files rendered by Picasa... just not in a useable fashion.

I know this may not make sense to some but when you view the JPGs next to the RAF files in Picasa you see an incredible amount of difference in detail and dynamic range in the RAF files compared to the JPGs.. and as we all know, the JPGs are very good.

It would be amazing if Picasa beats Adobe to rendering the RAF files properly.. even though the fine control will not exist in Picasa.

While Picasa is not what I would call a serious program for post work it is currently showing there is so much more detail and range in those RAF files.... that's all.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
Blog: http://boxedlight.com/blog

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
 
You should read Reid Reviews if you are serious about your X Pro-1. It is a paid subscription but most enjoyable to read and very informative. Not only concerning raw conversion but on many useful topics on how to best use this cam. In fact Fuji software engineers are the who will most benefit from the reviews as there are many useful ideas for future firmware upgrade.
 
I want to start off by saying that I think the Fuji x pro 1 and the X100 are superb pieces of equipment with a lot more potential than they are given credit for. That said......

I want to believe that the file capability of the x pro 1 is outstanding in all regards whether it be a jpeg or raw file.

It seems to me that Fuji had enough time, and certainly realized that there was a final stage software issue with the most popular program in the market for getting excellent results for Fuji raw files.

Jpegs are okay as someone said especially if you nail the exposure which is not a hard thing to do, but it is still and 8 bit file vs 12 or more bit raw file. More data to work with.

It is not like Fuji did not have enough time to figure out the processing formula and no camera company is arrogant enough to think that a raw file produced in a camera is finished after it is processed in an excellent raw processor.

Their movement to an unconventional sensor design is to be commended. What can't be understood is how they released it without understanding that it was not working right even in their raw processor engine of choice, Silkypix.

I have the whole system to date and I love working with the design of this camera. I am fortunate to several different manufacturers systems and everyone of them produce incredible raw files in Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop.

I even have quite a bit of Micro Four Thirds gear including the latest OM-d. No issues with the files.

I have spoken with other developers i.e. Raw Developer for Mac. They produce excellent results, but do not deal with lens corrections. When I spoke with them about the Fuji, it was far from the top of their priority list because of so many other new cameras. They noted that the Fuji x pro 1 was very hard to write for and it took a back burner to what they could get done now.

Because of all of this I have, with deep saddness, shelved the Fuji x pro 1 system in my office until they get it right. In the meantime, the OM-d is producing excellent results as are my other systems.

I hope they all start to put their heads together. It is a great camera but would be better with a sensor and software combination that gets the images promised.

I guess if you are only going to put image on the web its okay. So is a hundred dollar point and shoot. This system was a lot more than 100 dollars.
--
Elliot
 
Yes I agree I have a subsciption since i bought my X100 last year.
Excellent reviews

Coming back to the point, Reid shows cleraly the loss of fine details with ACR. This fact appears in DPR review and Imaging resource studio shots as well

These are facts, not opinions nor allegations

Wether this can bother the photographer entirely relies on kind of photography, preferences, etc...

I'm still on demand for a good RAW converter for Windows that I can integrate in a comfortable workflow (not having to play with 3 programs..)
 
I've seen Sean Reid's photography. I would tend to trust Chris more. Chris has posted some excellent photography from the X Pro on another forum.
 
We just want Fuji to provide a clean good simple RAW editor
And I want world peace, everyone being happy and dancing in the streets; with free beer and hot-dogs; and rainbows without storms—and unicorns returning to green fields filled with wild-flowers. Hah!!! Just close your eyes, turn around three times, click your heels together and wish real hard.

Hardware companies are not software companies. NikonView was worse than a virus—at least a virus does something. I have many bundled applications, and most are truly feeble.

Any programmer can hack together a simple RAW editor with a bit of study.

On the other hand, a good RAW editor will never be simple—the parameters involved in RAW conversion are complex, if one is to take full advantage of what RAW offers in terms of control. It was said that anyone with reasonable ability could become a competent darkroom worker with a couple of years experience. There were only two controls—white balance and exposure. Now the learning curve is vastly beyond these.

We are faced with both of those—plus shadow and highlight controls; gamma, vibrance and saturation that are related, but react differently; sharpening that works different from clarity; colour temperature and tint; settings for the black and white points, luminance and chrominance curves, high-pass sharpening with four control sliders and noise control; hue, saturation and luminance control of eight bands of the spectrum; compensation for lens distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration, barrel and pincushion distortion, horizontal and vertical perspective—and you have not even opened the file in Photoshop yet. While film could be mastered in a couple of years, we in digital are still learning, and will be continuing to learn for the foreseeable future just to keep up with developments.

Under the hood where we can not look, there are routines that work with the RAW format. By the way, it is not an image file like JPEG, but rather a container file that may have an identifying header that tells the program the byte order, an embedded thumbnail and/or JPEG preview, makers' notes that inform the program of the camera's specifics, image metadata, and of course the raw data off the sensor. What actually is included in the container is up to those who create the RAW specification for the specific camera model.

Also under the hood is the de-mosaic engine, and with the X-Pro1, an entirely new pseudo-random colour filter array has been introduced. Fuji has been working with Adobe for months, and they now have a functional routine, but it may be many versions from now that something approaching a final fully functional version is achieved.

Not even Fuji could afford to wait for months with warehouses full of inventory around the world, while the engineers at Adobe worked upon solving the puzzle. It could well be a year or more before we really see the X-Trans sensor's full potential being realized.

Simple is easy—good is not. Also one no longer becomes a master in a couple of years like it was in fume-room days. The learning curve in comparison—is huge.

--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
 
Well, this is going about a well as I expected.

I will add the I think Adobe DNG would be a good addition to the firmware (if possible).
 
The camera already does the conversion.
I'm with Chris on the Adobe Raw converter. I've had few problems with it.

As a contrarian, I'd like to have the Fuji in-camera Raw to Jpeg conversion utility as a stand-alone app to run on Windows and Mac. That would be great and would help to minimize a fair amount of the FUD.

I've been a real 'shoot only RAW' zealot but the Fuji jpegs are often as good or better than what I can get using the Adobe raw converter as long as I expose correctly. There is more headroom converting the raw files.

-Framus
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top