Reading mode: Light Dark

RAF processing with PaintShop Pro X15

Go to last post
RonJG

RonJG

Well-known member
Messages
200
Reaction score
60
Location
Sydney, AU
Still playing with it but looking promising.

Open RAF in PSP X5, adjust exposure value, click "edit", make the changes you need to colour, etc,

Add sharpening - High Pass with radius 1 and strength 85

Save as jpg

Open jpg in PSP X5, select USM and apply radius .7 and strength 100

Seems to get rid of the watercolour nonsense, but the process is prone to making highlights clip.

Much more fiddling is in order.



R
 
This is another dcraw based converter. It has known issues with zipper effect and color artifacts. I tried it a couple months ago. You can search the forum for dcraw to find more info.
 
MrFresno said:
Randy Benter wrote:

This is another dcraw based converter. It has known issues with zipper effect and color artifacts. I tried it a couple months ago. You can search the forum for dcraw to find more info.
Click to expand...
It does indeed have some issues with artifacts. Gets rid of the so-called "watercolour" thing, but introduces some other nasties.

I'm going to give Oloneo Photo Engine a shot later today to see how it pans out. It's supposedly better than anything else out there at the moment.

Damned shame we can't get the best out of this rather brilliant sensor.

R
 
Oloneo is also based on dcraw so it has similar output.

The general consensus is that CaptureOne is the best option right now, but it is expensive ($300). You can download a free 60-day trial.
 
Last edited:
MrFresno said:
Randy Benter wrote:

Oloneo is also based on dcraw so it has similar output.

The general consensus is that CaptureOne is the best option right now, but it is expensive ($300). You can download a free 60-day trial.
Click to expand...
The best option is Silkypix bundled with the camera (and available from Fujifilm website), as it has absolutely best conversion quality, and costs nothing. TIFF files produced by Silkypix can be used by all other software, so convenience is not an issue.
 
abelits said:
abelits wrote:
abelits said:
Randy Benter wrote:

Oloneo is also based on dcraw so it has similar output.

The general consensus is that CaptureOne is the best option right now, but it is expensive ($300). You can download a free 60-day trial.
Click to expand...
The best option is Silkypix bundled with the camera (and available from Fujifilm website), as it has absolutely best conversion quality, and costs nothing. TIFF files produced by Silkypix can be used by all other software, so convenience is not an issue.
Click to expand...
I tried Silkypix but it drove me nuts trying to navigate through the stupid workflow process. Perhaps I'll have to bite the bullet and give it a bit more time.

Is there a tutorial you're aware of out there somewhere - particularly one which provides suggested settings to use?

R
 
RonJG said:
RonJG wrote:

Is there a tutorial you're aware of out there somewhere - particularly one which provides suggested settings to use?
Click to expand...
I believe, there is a link to a nice tutorial posted to some old thread, however the most important things to keep in mind are:

1. RAF files are never updated, however Silkypix keeps options associated with each of them.

2. Left column, from top to bottom.

3. Sharpening increases noise, noise filtering decreases sharpness. Raising both too far will create hideous defects.

4. Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V copy and paste the whole set of processing settings from image to image.

5. Curve and highlight recovery/dynamic range tools (buttons at the bottom left) can be used to adjust what regular exposure compensation and contrast will not.

6. There is the last stage of sharpening (unsharp mask) available in the "Development" / save dialog.

7. 16-bit TIFF files allow more precision for postprocessing.

8. Sometimes loading both TIFF from Silkypix and JPEG from the camera as layers in an editor can be useful (either as a reference, or for mixing/masking layers).
 
Last edited:
abelits said:
abelits wrote:
abelits said:
Randy Benter wrote:

Oloneo is also based on dcraw so it has similar output.

The general consensus is that CaptureOne is the best option right now, but it is expensive ($300). You can download a free 60-day trial.
Click to expand...
The best option is Silkypix bundled with the camera (and available from Fujifilm website), as it has absolutely best conversion quality, and costs nothing. TIFF files produced by Silkypix can be used by all other software, so convenience is not an issue.
Click to expand...
RFC does a fine job with details and it is cheap, but it is the worst option when it comes to recovering highlights and shadows. Even the in-camera processor can get more DR from an image than RFC.
 
MrFresno said:
Randy Benter wrote:

RFC does a fine job with details and it is cheap, but it is the worst option when it comes to recovering highlights and shadows.
Click to expand...
It has a button for that (looks like a ball with highlight on it). Press it, it will show a "highlight controller" tool window with dynamic range/highlight recovery parameters. Take into account that in-camera dynamic range expansion shift the exposure down, you will have to do the same with exposure compensation or manually, to get away from over-saturation, and restore desired brightness in Silkypix.
 
abelits said:
abelits wrote:
abelits said:
Randy Benter wrote:

RFC does a fine job with details and it is cheap, but it is the worst option when it comes to recovering highlights and shadows.
Click to expand...
It has a button for that (looks like a ball with highlight on it). Press it, it will show a "highlight controller" tool window with dynamic range/highlight recovery parameters. Take into account that in-camera dynamic range expansion shift the exposure down, you will have to do the same with exposure compensation or manually, to get away from over-saturation, and restore desired brightness in Silkypix.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware of the various controls in SilkyPix. The software just doesn't have the capability to handle highlights and shadows nearly as well the other options. It is especially poor at lifting shadows.
 
Last edited:
MrFresno said:
Randy Benter wrote:
Yes, I am aware of the various controls in SilkyPix. The software just doesn't have the capability to handle highlights and shadows nearly as well the other options. It is especially poor at lifting shadows.
Click to expand...
That's impossible. Lifting shadows means compressing in the upper range and expanding in the lower one (r-shaped curve). Silkypix has contrast center adjustment and manual curve control, that both do just that. Saturated highlights are difficult because they lost information and have to be approximated/guessed, but in shadows all you have to care about is noise -- please don't tell me that Fujifilm has a noise problem in shadows, even trolls will laugh at you.
 
abelits said:
abelits wrote:
abelits said:
Randy Benter wrote:
Yes, I am aware of the various controls in SilkyPix. The software just doesn't have the capability to handle highlights and shadows nearly as well the other options. It is especially poor at lifting shadows.
Click to expand...
That's impossible. Lifting shadows means compressing in the upper range and expanding in the lower one (r-shaped curve). Silkypix has contrast center adjustment and manual curve control, that both do just that. Saturated highlights are difficult because they lost information and have to be approximated/guessed, but in shadows all you have to care about is noise -- please don't tell me that Fujifilm has a noise problem in shadows, even trolls will laugh at you.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to tell you that Fuji has noise problem in shadows. I clearly indicated this is a problem with RFC. I can use CaptureOne, Adobe or even the in-camera processor to lift deep shadows while retaining detail and color. RFC just can't do it. If you are up to the challenge, I will post a raw file tomorrow and you can try to prove otherwise.
 
MrFresno said:
Randy Benter wrote:

I am not trying to tell you that Fuji has noise problem in shadows. I clearly indicated this is a problem with RFC. I can use CaptureOne, Adobe or even the in-camera processor to lift deep shadows while retaining detail and color. RFC just can't do it. If you are up to the challenge, I will post a raw file tomorrow and you can try to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
Then post it. And tell me where exactly are the shadows where you want to see details.
 
abelits said:
abelits wrote:
abelits said:
Randy Benter wrote:

I am not trying to tell you that Fuji has noise problem in shadows. I clearly indicated this is a problem with RFC. I can use CaptureOne, Adobe or even the in-camera processor to lift deep shadows while retaining detail and color. RFC just can't do it. If you are up to the challenge, I will post a raw file tomorrow and you can try to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
Then post it. And tell me where exactly are the shadows where you want to see details.
Click to expand...
Here is the raw file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/153on4uwbz4xfvz/DR Test.RAF

It starts like this:







Please try to make it look like this:







Please share the results in full size and also share your RFC settings. It would be greatly appreciated if you could help get this kind of highlight and shadow recovery out of RFC. Please only process once (combining different exposures in other software is cheating). Thanks.
 
MrFresno said:
Randy Benter wrote:
Please only process once (combining different exposures in other software is cheating). Thanks.
Click to expand...
How so???

This is not even highlight or shadow recovery, it's a photo that has half of it severely underexposed and half of it severely overexposed. While the result that you have, is acceptable, the decision of how to deal with those completely different areas, is pure guesswork on the part of the software if it is not chosen by the user. Really, I would not even dare to take such a picture and expect it to look like anything.
 
abelits said:
abelits wrote:
abelits said:
Randy Benter wrote:
Please only process once (combining different exposures in other software is cheating). Thanks.
Click to expand...
How so???

This is not even highlight or shadow recovery, it's a photo that has half of it severely underexposed and half of it severely overexposed. While the result that you have, is acceptable, the decision of how to deal with those completely different areas, is pure guesswork on the part of the software if it is not chosen by the user. Really, I would not even dare to take such a picture and expect it to look like anything.
Click to expand...
The OP was nice enough to suggest what can be done with other software and ask for some constructive input. S/he never said the example was a good image. It is merely an example of how both extremes can be recovered.

Holier than thou quips do not help this thread.

I think we would all be happy to have an RFC option that returned more acceptable results in highlights and shadows. Unfortunately, the only options now are many-turn workarounds involving various software (if we want to avoid LR issues, zipper issues, etc.).
 
abelits said:
abelits wrote:

Then post it. And tell me where exactly are the shadows where you want to see details.
Click to expand...
abelits, you're the one made the above comment. Instead of now bowing out on your attempt to modify the posted photo, why don't you just go ahead and give it a try, as you said you would?
 
Last edited:
MrFresno said:
Randy Benter wrote:
MrFresno said:
abelits wrote:
MrFresno said:
Randy Benter wrote:
Yes, I am aware of the various controls in SilkyPix. The software just doesn't have the capability to handle highlights and shadows nearly as well the other options. It is especially poor at lifting shadows.
Click to expand...
That's impossible. Lifting shadows means compressing in the upper range and expanding in the lower one (r-shaped curve). Silkypix has contrast center adjustment and manual curve control, that both do just that. Saturated highlights are difficult because they lost information and have to be approximated/guessed, but in shadows all you have to care about is noise -- please don't tell me that Fujifilm has a noise problem in shadows, even trolls will laugh at you.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to tell you that Fuji has noise problem in shadows. I clearly indicated this is a problem with RFC. I can use CaptureOne, Adobe or even the in-camera processor to lift deep shadows while retaining detail and color. RFC just can't do it. If you are up to the challenge, I will post a raw file tomorrow and you can try to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
I am not sure I would want to go as far as "RFC can't do it", but I have to admit that C1 is particularly clever in that respect. The shadows/highlight tools rely on Levels and Curves, but determining which regions of an image to apply them to is where C1 shines, IMHO. Whereas other software often blows out the highlights or creates a hazy image when lifting the shadows, C1 somehow manages to restrict the effects to just the right regions (most of the time). Its automatic masking routines seem to be quite smart.

Someone experienced with PS (for example) may be able to duplicate what C1 does by taking a 16-bit TIFF from RFC into PS. I wouldn't call that "cheating" as we are all interested in getting the best result, and whatever method works is welcome, IMO. Besides, a lot of people use PS/LR/Aperture anyway for final touch-ups, so such a workflow would be perfectly acceptable for most, I would guess. It would be for me.
 
MrFresno said:
Randy Benter wrote:
MrFresno said:
abelits wrote:
MrFresno said:
Randy Benter wrote:

Oloneo is also based on dcraw so it has similar output.

The general consensus is that CaptureOne is the best option right now, but it is expensive ($300). You can download a free 60-day trial.
Click to expand...
The best option is Silkypix bundled with the camera (and available from Fujifilm website), as it has absolutely best conversion quality, and costs nothing. TIFF files produced by Silkypix can be used by all other software, so convenience is not an issue.
Click to expand...
RFC does a fine job with details and it is cheap, but it is the worst option when it comes to recovering highlights and shadows. Even the in-camera processor can get more DR from an image than RFC.
Click to expand...
I don't know what I'm doing wrong with Silkypix, but I get better details with Capture One, and I find C1 more intuitive to use overall. I just wish there was a stripped down version - I don't need or want the cataloging stuff.
 
BTW, I agree that C1 is superior, IMHO, to Silkypix 5 and RFCEX in resolving highlights-shadows with excellent results. Even with SP5's Dodging tool, Exposure Bias and Contrast, I was not able to get the results Randy did. However when I worked Randy's file in C1, I managed to achieve similar highlight-shadow recovery as Randy's, but the window screen (right side) got a comic book effect (not sure how to explain/describe it) which I believe is due to moire, and I'm not sure if it is a C1's weakness or my own inability to get the best of C1 in that area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top