Total newbie: How to prove to myself that raw is worth it?

TLDR;

How to batch process raf files from my X-T2 so they look just like ooc jpegs, and then start tweaking from there? I have a Mac.

Hi, I have never processed a raw file before. But now I want to know step by step the most modern up to date way to process X-T2 raw files in 2017.

I would appreciate it if someone could point me to a link or write out the steps here that is specific to the X-T2 or at least recent Fuji cameras.

My motivation: jpeg looks good but I keep hearing raw is even better. I would like that pop and super clarity and soft light glow that many professional pictures have. i don't have much clue as to how to achieve that and have been scared off by others saying the Fuji jpeg are perfect, which means by extension I don't have much chance of out processing fuji right? In the end I just need to try it myself and see. But how long would it take to tweak my Fuji raf files? Ideally I want to batch process all raw so they look like out of camera jpeg (but still in raw of course) and then tweak from there.

Thank you!

You have just kicked the hornet's nest. May [fill in deity of your choice here] have mercy on you.

CZR

I have zero useful info for you. I just wanted to let you know I totally relate to where you're at. I know RAW will let you often get more out of an image than the jpeg will give you. But learning how to process RAW files is an entirely new and different skill, and every time I think it might be time to finally start learning, my eyes glaze over. Mostly due to the time you have to dedicate to learning complicated software and new jargon/concepts, and then the actual pocessing.

I'm not trying to dissuade you at all. Maybe you'll serve as an inspiration to me.

Which software would you use?

In lightroom/camera raw (ACR) you can just (mass) assign the camera profile you prefer to obtain a quite similar image to the OOC (Out Of Camera) jpeg.

Then you can experiment (on single images) what your preferred output is, and find which settings are applicable as a batch (sharpening/clarity and perhaps some curves job, in particular if you want to cut blacks and whites to obtain that trendy look...). Keeping in mind that in general you'd want to edit single images at that point.

Remember that you can edit OOC jpegs as well, because fuji ones are good enough to bear even a strong post processing. But again: the adobe simulations of fuji's jpeg output (developing raf in lightroom/ACR) are not that far.

Editing RAW files is worth it if you have a lot of time to spare an some will to learn (plenty of tutorials on the tube). Appreciating what they have to offer is not immediate (nor necessary if you're not going to make large, high quality prints).

In a "normal" workflow, you can stick to jpegs and go for raw editing when there's something to fix (wrong exposure, burnt highlights, white balance miss, special needs). That's because RAWs have more room for corrections.

The best advice is to look on youtube. Start for example with Tony Northrup`s channel.

For beginers it may be better to start to process jpeg files (small adjustments) and when you reach limits then go for RAW. To learn right processing is a very long process. At first you can copy the work of others and later develop your own style.

Unfortunatelly DxO, which is the best batch processing software, is not supporting Fuji Raw.

Edit: For displays it is often sufficient when you adjust only Highlights and darks or contrast. It may look better. However, when you need to recover more details in dark or bright areas then RAW may be the only way.

Thanks. I guess I should say that I will not be printing these out but rather viewing on a 4K tv or 4K monitor, maybe even 5K.

If so does this mean that raw files are a waste of time?

Given the free price,I want to inquire: How well does Apple photos' raw processing for the X-t2 approximate paid solutions such as Lightroom or iridescent?

SOOC JPG vs Raw fiddled via Adobe Camera Raw and then very minor Photoshop.

12mm Samyang

Rarely use RAW but fairly obviously, it turned a fairly rubbish picture into something rather cool. Obvs the colour, saturation etc are to individual taste!

To the OP, it's a valid question and it's always good to learn however I'm puzzled by why you associate "pop and super clarity and soft glow" with professional work? Those artificially induced attributes are some of the worst things in photography these days. Images are routinely over-processed to the point of looking fake. In other words, excessive post processing has really lowered the bar on much of photography. How well one is able to use software to manipulate images doesn't correspond with one's photographic skills.

I'll get my coat!

Craig268 said:

To the OP, it's a valid question and it's always good to learn however I'm puzzled by why you associate "pop and super clarity and soft glow" with professional work? Those artificially induced attributes are some of the worst things in photography these days. Images are routinely over-processed to the point of looking fake. In other words, excessive post processing has really lowered the bar on much of photography. How well one is able to use software to manipulate images doesn't correspond with one's photographic skills.

Click to expand...

Start with the RAW converter you already have, the one built in to your camera.

Turn on raw, then take a shot. Use the built in converter to mess around with that image. Change the exposure, white balance, etc. and even try some of the different film simulations.

Here is the best advice (yes, it is) on how to process your raw files: If you have to ask, don't process your raw files.

Let me explain because I am sure you are not convinced. Fujifilm worked hard so you don't have to use raw. Talking with a Fuji guy in Tokyo, he showed a couple a photos he took with a teleconverter. I asked him if processed the raw files and he replied "no stupid whythe hell would I do that? Didn't you realize that we work hard and designed cameras and color profiles so that you don't have to do that are you kidding me or just really dumb?". Actually he was much more polite but that what he actually meant.

Conclusion

RAW is there only if you messed up when you took your shot so you have a second chance to adjust exposure etc. So shoot JPEG+RAW if you want to be safe.

RAW is there if you have a very precise look you want to achieve and only you can decide how to process it. If that the case why you did you buy a Fujifilm camera?

You will only waste a lot of time and not gain much, if anything, by shooting raw only. So don't do it.

I know many people will disagree, but that's just Fujifilm's opinion. You will thank me later for all the time you saved and for improving your shooting skills because every time you will take a picture you will pay more attention to your settings instead of thinking that you'll fix/tweak from your raw file.

You're welcome.

"raf files from my X-T2 so they look just like ooc jpegs"

Save both in camera if what you want is JPGs that look like the OOC ones. You can marginally improve exposure if you shoot just RAWs and understand it in some detail but just expose for JPGs and keep the RAWs for if you have images where the lighting needs work.

There. Saved you a lot of PP time for only a little extra disk space.

FIrst of all there is no good or bad. it really depends on what you want and expect.

There is one fact though, there is simply more information in the Raw file than in the jpeg.

There is only one way, to find out if it is worth it for you ,invest in learning to process raw files and give yourself ample time to really appreciate the possibilities and then decide.

Raw processing initially might have a bit of a learning curve, but there is a lot of info available on the web as well as in books to get you started. raw processing in it self is NOT difficult. but as with anything you have to invest if you want to max the result.

There are many good ( but also awfull) resources on raw processing on the web. Creativelive and Kelby training are great resources to get you started for example, and others might chime in to point yuo to more.

Important is, pick one ( mainstream, as there will be more learning material available on the web) raw converter and stick with that until you get a good understanding, and do not get sucked into raw converter comparisons as they will not really help you as the differences are often only in the "detail" and a lot of the commparisons can only be appreciated when you have the basics covered well.

Some people will find Fuji jpg's good enough for everythig they do , others only want to process Raw. It is all fine, as long as you know why you choose.

I personally find that also with Fuji the RAW files gives me so much more flexibility that I always shoot raw. When I process the image myself, the result is always more to MY liking, just because I can make my own decisions, and for me that is what counts.

Still it is nice to have an in camera jpeg engine/rawconverter to create a very good image when time is limited , sometimes speed is more essential than optimal image quality.

So give it a serious (guided) try, be amazed by what can done with the raw file. and then decide it is worth it.

Kees

I have been amazed at the improvement that even default settings on raw converters can do, and it is a realisation I owe to these fora. However the vast bulk of my snaps are OK from the OOC JPGs. I process the RAW files if the light was difficult, but always save them. The big gain is scenes with a very high brightness range, RAWs can pull up the shadow detail in a way JPGs won't.

The histogram (another truth I owe to these fora) is from the JPG preview, so it isn't 100% correct for exposing RAWs (thanks to the fora) but the difference is sufficiently modest to make little difference. Even if exposed for the JPGs the RAWs still have a lot of data to call upon if needed. Just save both and use the JPGs unless you need the adjustments.

--
Andrew Skinner

To view pictures on 4K or even 5K is very different than to view on a computer monitor. There's a complete discussion on how to "accurately" capture the colors and texture of photos in different display media.

Based on my personal (limited) experience, I found the following:

1. Modern 4K TV's tend to sharpen the contrast and sharpness of a "normal" picture when shown on the big screen. So a picture that would look perfectly OK on a computer monitor might be too contrast-y or too sharp on a 4K TV. That's just the fact of life. You just have to experiment to see how you could get jpeg photos showing both good on a monitor and on your 4K TV. You might set your 4K TV with a specific combination of colors, tunes, and sharpness to accommodate still photos.

2. For the life of me, I found iPad (I have iPad Air 2) almost always displays very pleasant images from my photo collection, some actually were very bad shown on a PC monitor. I have not seen much discussion on how Apple did it with its iPad. If you have access to a later version of iPad, give it a try and you will know what I mean. As such, if Apple would come up with a 4K TV in the future, I would be the first to buy, as that tends to "remediate" my viewing challenge between different media.

pufftissue said:

TLDR;

How to batch process raf files from my X-T2 so they look just like ooc jpegs, and then start tweaking from there? I have a Mac.

Hi, I have never processed a raw file before. But now I want to know step by step the most modern up to date way to process X-T2 raw files in 2017.

I would appreciate it if someone could point me to a link or write out the steps here that is specific to the X-T2 or at least recent Fuji cameras.

My motivation: jpeg looks good but I keep hearing raw is even better. I would like that pop and super clarity and soft light glow that many professional pictures have. i don't have much clue as to how to achieve that and have been scared off by others saying the Fuji jpeg are perfect, which means by extension I don't have much chance of out processing fuji right? In the end I just need to try it myself and see. But how long would it take to tweak my Fuji raf files? Ideally I want to batch process all raw so they look like out of camera jpeg (but still in raw of course) and then tweak from there.

Thank you!

Click to expand...

How to batch process raf files from my X-T2 so they look just like ooc jpegs, and then start tweaking from there? Why reinvent the wheel?

Work on the basics of photography and get the jpegs 'right' before opening a can of worms. Shoot RAW + jpeg and tweak your best shots. Perhaps start with the converter Fuji provides?

Introverted Pirate said:

Here is the best advice (yes, it is) on how to process your raw files: If you have to ask, don't process your raw files.

Let me explain because I am sure you are not convinced. Fujifilm worked hard so you don't have to use raw. Talking with a Fuji guy in Tokyo, he showed a couple a photos he took with a teleconverter. I asked him if processed the raw files and he replied "no stupid whythe hell would I do that? Didn't you realize that we work hard and designed cameras and color profiles so that you don't have to do that are you kidding me or just really dumb?". Actually he was much more polite but that what he actually meant.

Conclusion

RAW is there only if you messed up when you took your shot so you have a second chance to adjust exposure etc. So shoot JPEG+RAW if you want to be safe.

RAW is there if you have a very precise look you want to achieve and only you can decide how to process it. If that the case why you did you buy a Fujifilm camera?

You will only waste a lot of time and not gain much, if anything, by shooting raw only. So don't do it.

I know many people will disagree, but that's just Fujifilm's opinion. You will thank me later for all the time you saved and for improving your shooting skills because every time you will take a picture you will pay more attention to your settings instead of thinking that you'll fix/tweak from your raw file.

You're welcome.

Click to expand...

+1 Ansel Adams was happy if he got 12 keepers a year. I shoot RAW + jpeg for 'insurance' and delete most of the RAW.

However many RAW only shooters here have a lot more experience with color than Fuji does. ;-)

Introverted Pirate said:

Here is the best advice (yes, it is) on how to process your raw files: If you have to ask, don't process your raw files.

Let me explain because I am sure you are not convinced. Fujifilm worked hard so you don't have to use raw. Talking with a Fuji guy in Tokyo, he showed a couple a photos he took with a teleconverter. I asked him if processed the raw files and he replied "no stupid whythe hell would I do that? Didn't you realize that we work hard and designed cameras and color profiles so that you don't have to do that are you kidding me or just really dumb?". Actually he was much more polite but that what he actually meant.

Conclusion

RAW is there only if you messed up when you took your shot so you have a second chance to adjust exposure etc. So shoot JPEG+RAW if you want to be safe.

RAW is there if you have a very precise look you want to achieve and only you can decide how to process it. If that the case why you did you buy a Fujifilm camera?

You will only waste a lot of time and not gain much, if anything, by shooting raw only. So don't do it.

I know many people will disagree, but that's just Fujifilm's opinion. You will thank me later for all the time you saved and for improving your shooting skills because every time you will take a picture you will pay more attention to your settings instead of thinking that you'll fix/tweak from your raw file.

Click to expand...

There will always be those whose don't shoot RAW and that's fine. But it does get quite tedious reading all this "RAW is just for those who can't get it right in camera". The implication being that those who shoot RAW just do it because they don't know what they're doing. If that were the case then no professionals would shoot RAW. People should shoot whatever suits them best.

If you want a go at dealing with RAW files, don't worry, there isn't any real mystery to it. If you have Lightroom, then just load all your files into Lightroom and choose the profile you want to use at the bottom of the screen (you can set this as a default). The sharpening will be there by default and you can tweak this if you want.

If they're perfect from the camera as some people claim (no whole set of images is perfect from the camera) then you have no more to do. Just click "Export". You have a set of jpegs or tiffs.

If you do want to make some adjustments then it can actually be easier to make the adjustments with RAW files than it is with an already finished file.

Shooting RAW + jpeg is the way to go so that you can have the best of both worlds.

pufftissue said:

How to batch process raf files from my X-T2 so they look just like ooc jpegs

Click to expand...

You can't get them to be exactly like the OOC JPEGs. And that's not just a Fujifilm thing. The JPEG engines in modern cameras are custom hardware chips capable of processing hundreds of parts of the Raw file simultaneously. Attempting to do the same thing with a general-purpose CPU that can only do one part of the image at a time would take a number of minutes per picture, and it's just not worth it. (Canon used to offer one about 10 years back, and even within Canon it was called "the world's slowest Raw processor.")

I'm told that the Lightroom profiles do a pretty good job of emulating the Fujifilm film simulations. I don't use Lightroom, so I can't speak from personal experience.

pufftissue said:

I would like that pop and super clarity and soft light glow

Click to expand...

That's not what Raw does for you. You can get those from JPEG just as easily.

What Raw gives you is more "exposure latitude" or "dynamic range," more control over coloration, and the ability to control Noise Reduction.

pufftissue said:

have been scared off by others saying the Fuji jpeg are perfect, which means by extension I don't have much chance of out processing fuji right?

Click to expand...

That's true of pretty much all modern cameras: you'll need a lot of practice with Raw before you start doing better than the in-camera JPEG engine.

Shooting Raw+JPEG is, in most cases, a great compromise. The Raw file's there to fiddle with if you want it, and the JPEG is there if you prefer that. Also, you can reprocess the Raw in-camera to get JPEGs with different conversion settings.

Let me add that for any post-processing, be sure you're using a calibrated monitor. And not everyone has the eyesight necessary for the task -- I don't.

--
Co-founder of the open-source LightZone Project: http://lightzoneproject.org/

John Motts said:

Introverted Pirate said:

Here is the best advice (yes, it is) on how to process your raw files: If you have to ask, don't process your raw files.

Let me explain because I am sure you are not convinced. Fujifilm worked hard so you don't have to use raw. Talking with a Fuji guy in Tokyo, he showed a couple a photos he took with a teleconverter. I asked him if processed the raw files and he replied "no stupid whythe hell would I do that? Didn't you realize that we work hard and designed cameras and color profiles so that you don't have to do that are you kidding me or just really dumb?". Actually he was much more polite but that what he actually meant.

Conclusion

RAW is there only if you messed up when you took your shot so you have a second chance to adjust exposure etc. So shoot JPEG+RAW if you want to be safe.

RAW is there if you have a very precise look you want to achieve and only you can decide how to process it. If that the case why you did you buy a Fujifilm camera?

You will only waste a lot of time and not gain much, if anything, by shooting raw only. So don't do it.

I know many people will disagree, but that's just Fujifilm's opinion. You will thank me later for all the time you saved and for improving your shooting skills because every time you will take a picture you will pay more attention to your settings instead of thinking that you'll fix/tweak from your raw file.

Click to expand...

There will always be those whose don't shoot RAW and that's fine. But it does get quite tedious reading all this "RAW is just for those who can't get it right in camera". The implication being that those who shoot RAW just do it because they don't know what they're doing. If that were the case then no professionals would shoot RAW. People should shoot whatever suits them best.

If you want a go at dealing with RAW files, don't worry, there isn't any real mystery to it. If you have Lightroom, then just load all your files into Lightroom and choose the profile you want to use at the bottom of the screen (you can set this as a default). The sharpening will be there by default and you can tweak this if you want.

If they're perfect from the camera as some people claim (no whole set of images is perfect from the camera) then you have no more to do. Just click "Export". You have a set of jpegs or tiffs.

If you do want to make some adjustments then it can actually be easier to make the adjustments with RAW files than it is with an already finished file.

Shooting RAW + jpeg is the way to go so that you can have the best of both worlds.

Click to expand...

It also depends on the camera system you use. Not all jpeg engines are created equal. I use Silkypix simply because it works great with Fuji but no converter is one size fits all. I do need to work with Fuji's in camera RAW conversion just for grins.