Fuji X-Raw Studio first look by Thomas Fitzgerald

Started Jan 26, 2018 | Discussions thread
stevo23 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,760
Re: Nope

JamieTux wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

JamieTux wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

celestialemissary wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

celestialemissary wrote:

I will use it to create presets for my Q menu in camera since it's easier to see and make changes on desktop and that is it...

I don't copy. It's for developing files I thought. You can use it to change settings in your camera?

Yes you can.
I will make many different version of same file on desktop and later use the settings I liked best in camera and make q menu based on that.

24" screen vs 3"

I did that already and with a 27" screen. I just didn't have my camera tethered to it my computer. I didn't have to change the settings to plug it in because I just used my SD card to read the files in Lightroom. There's no advantage, it's just novel.

Lightroom doesn't do the same job as the camera in creating jpegs (and lots of threads on this form state that it's not as good for various reasons).

Have you ever actually compared what you can do off-camera directly to what the camera does? Noise reduction in-camera is terrible. If you think otherwise, I would literally say you need to train your eyes. Just the fine adjustment alone would make off-camera conversion better.

Of course I have but most of the time the Fujifilm jpeg output is good enough for me sharing with my family and friends or even printing pretty large onscreen. Today's jpegs are better for a 30 X 20 inch print than raw from a decade or so ago when I started as a pro (raw was also better than film for large prints).

I wouldn't know. I've only come into larger sensors when D600 came out. Before that, I was using film and small sensors.

And the camera has access to any number of other superior third party plugins etc. With x-studio, you're stuck with jpegs and a very small set of adjustment. How anyone thinks that's better I'll never understand.

Who has said it's better? You keep telling people it's worse and for you it may be, I haven't seen a single person disagree with you yet!

It's been part of the argument all along, I don't recall if here. More than one person has claimed that the processor in the camera is faster and better at converting to jpeg. It's been one of the arguments since it came out.

I've seen a lot explain some benefits. Although from my point of view I love the Acros simulation.

It's a good simulation and if you're using in-camera jpegs, I like it fine. But it's always leaving me wanting. SilverEfx is such a great tool for monochrome. It's a necessity for weddings.

There's also a direct comparison of onscreen changes and potential in camera changes, Lightroom doesn't offer this either, so there's 2 differences there

If one is shooting raw, when would there be "comparison of onscreen changes and potential in-camera changes"? You're double counting here. And over stating the usefulness of the one.

That was an explanation of the previous posters use case that you are (still) ignoring or not understanding.

I know and I get it. But it's incorrect to say that Lightroom or other 3rd party developers can't do it. You can use them to get the same feedback so you can set your in-camera jpeg output.

This software is just interface for incamera converter. I don't know what some of you thought it would be.

What some of us had hoped for and wanted it to be, and have been waiting for years...is a decent replacement of the SilkyPix program that is so clunky and useless. Some of us had hoped that Fuji, like no one else could, would finally come up with that one stellar raw converter that actually does the best job of all on Fuji files.

That would be great! Maybe this can be a stepping stone towards that. In some ways it is that too, a raw converter that uses the camera settings when it converts, plus you can change a whole batch in the same way at once.

In no way is it a stepping stone. It uses the camera's puny processor which is only accounting for a small fraction of the potential adjustments that can happen in something like Lightroom. This thing is doomed to be abandon wear.

My wife, son, daughter and mother do not edit raws and buying software to do so would be a waste of money. Giving them a free tool to do so and let them understand the benefits of raw which may lead to different software being used later, I would call that a stepping stone.

But don't you find it a bit cumbersome as opposed to importing into Apple Photos for instance? X-Studio isn't exactly the thing I would hand a beginner.

For individual file manipulation (rather than conversion) a lot of people will already have a workflow. Like you I use Lightroom, but as I don't use the subscription version I would need to add a new raw converter *somewhere* in my workflow if I get a new camera.

Yes, but I don't need/want one that is so anemic that it wont even give me tiff files or allow me to adjust various tonal ranges or give me the ability to apply different raw development profiles or apply highlight recovery or structure etc. etc. You'll never be able to do that in-camera.

It does let you adjust tonal ranges and profiles, highlight recovery and sharpness...

Absolutely it does not. It only has highlights (not enough adjustment for recovery), it does not have structure/clarity. It doesn't have mid tones and all the other tones you can adjust apart from highlight and shadow.

The key part of what you are saying is it's not good enough for YOU and your needs and wants, that's fine, again no one is arguing

But they are! An they're arguing with points that are incorrect. Like what you JUST said above.

Instead, it's just the weirdest idea to come onto the scene and seriously not worth the time and effort. It's the camera all over again, doing the mediocre job that it always has done when converting raw files to jpeg with the splotchy noise reduction and limited adjustment capability.

For you

And many others. It's a waste. Using it takes your post processing skills backward. Major fail.

Fine we all get that you don't see the value!

Good! Then why try to argue against?

For someone that doesn't want to buy additional software or that likes the in camera output but wants to understand settings or batch change something after capture (or that just loves the Fujifilm jpegs) it makes a lot of sense.

You need to branch out mate. Take your work to the next level!

I've lived off my photography in the past but I ended up not enjoying it, and so now do it for fun! I've already told you I use Lightroom, I've also done a lot of manipulation in Photoshop and used Capture One, Phocus, etc a lot.

Yea, me too. I learned a long time ago, hobbies are great and work is great. And the less the two are the same the better.

If I was chasing ultimate IQ I wouldn't be using APS-C and Lightroom.

Yes - I would be chasing a Phase One 100Mp camera. But I'm not, I just want the best IQ I can get from what I have which in and of itself is very good. Maybe I'll go back to full frame one day. Or even GFX for wedding work. Again.

 stevo23's gear list:stevo23's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +3 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow