GFX 100RF profile in LR / ACR - still not correct

[marc aurel]

Today I saw that Adobe has updated ACR with support for the GFX 100RF. That was of interest for me because when I got my RF first I reported, that the there must be a bug in the embedded profile or in Adobes interpretation of the profile: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4799858

The JPG out of cam shows correct distortion correction (straight lines are straight).
The raw developed in LR differs slightly.
The conversion in ACR 17.3 released today is identical to the LR version.

So there is still a bug in the chain - either the embedded profile in the raw fille is wrong (which would be Fujis problem). Or the interpretation by Adobe is wrong (which would be their problem).

Could please someone else who already has the camera check if the see the same as I do? Do JPGs out of camera differ from RAW developed in LR / ACR differ concerning distortion and falloff correction?

 

[AndyGordon]

Not quite what you asked for, but on C1 mobile and desktop on both jpeg and raf straight lines at the edges appear to be straight, which if that is the case implies its an adobe problem rather than fuji

 

[marc aurel]

Not quite what you asked for, but on C1 mobile and desktop on both jpeg and raf straight lines at the edges appear to be straight, which if that is the case implies its an adobe problem rather than fuji

Hi Andy,

thanks for checking. Are the images identical in C1 when you switch between jpg and raw?
Distortion was off in C1 too when I tested. It's not a huge amount, but still clearly visible in the corners.

Here are the images from my original post.

Direct comparison of the top right part:





Full image, in camera JPG:



View: original size

Raw-file converted in Lightroom:



View: original size

 

[AndyGordon]

In C1 Desktop, only change was a an auto keystone as I was leaning back a little, and it's an old building, so who knows just how straight things really are, but I can't see a difference between the images

 

[marc aurel]

In C1 Desktop, only change was a an auto keystone as I was leaning back a little, and it's an old building, so who knows just how straight things really are, but I can't see a difference between the images

Well, I can see differences. When I switch between both full images you provide I can see differences in geometry and in falloff correction.

Applying auto keystone somehow blurrs differences probably. So the better check would be to compare both images without auto keystone.

Maybe some people will not care. But if I buy a 5.500€ camera that relys on profiles rather than on a lens perfectly corrected for distortion – I want my raw developer to give me the same precision as an in camera jpg.

 

[AndyGordon]

SOOC jpeg vs import into C1 RAF on the left

Not sure it makes any difference to you, but there it is. And if you want no digital corrections, looks like any modern camera isn't going to stop using digital corrections - that's just part of the design philosophy it would appear so £4.6k might buy me an optically corrected lens, but I still need a body to put it on and probably a gym membership to go with it

Or I live with what there is, along with all the compromises that come with it. Much like life really

 

[marc aurel]

SOOC jpeg vs import into C1 RAF on the left

Not sure it makes any difference to you, but there it is. And if you want no digital corrections, looks like any modern camera isn't going to stop using digital corrections - that's just part of the design philosophy it would appear so £4.6k might buy me an optically corrected lens, but I still need a body to put it on and probably a gym membership to go with it

Or I live with what there is, along with all the compromises that come with it. Much like life really

Hi Andy,
thank you. That confirms for me that there is a difference with Capture One too - and that I did not make a mistake. There are differences when others use the same programs too.


I can live with a camera that relys on digital corrections. I just want them to be precise ;-)
That is why I started this thread. To check if I made a mistake. And to let Fuji and Adobe know that there is a bug. Wouldn't it be the better tool if raw and jpg were the same - and both as accurate as possible?

 

[AndyGordon]

Last option is using Fuji XRaw Studio





Raw on the left

So, maybe that's the answer, in this instance use the manufacturers software?

 

[The Hat]

Last option is using Fuji XRaw Studio



Raw on the left

So, maybe that's the answer, in this instance use the manufacturers software?

quite weird that the image rendered by Xraw Studio it's so different compared to the JPEG

 

[marc aurel]

Last option is using Fuji XRaw Studio



Raw on the left

So, maybe that's the answer, in this instance use the manufacturers software?

That is very helpful. I did not try this one. Thank you. So even with Fujis native raw converter there is a difference between out of camera jpg and converted raws. The problem is not on adobes side or C1s side. It is the embedded profile.

I guess using the manufacturer software is nothing that a lot of people will embrace. Especially when It has the same problem - it renders the image differently than the in cam jpg.

For me the answer is: Fuji should just provide a firmware update that corrects the embedded profile.

 

[AndyGordon]

Last option is a 3 way with C1 conversion SOOC jpeg and a tif from X Raw Studio





and one showing the initial crop that C1 is applying, which is different from both the jpeg and tiff, both of which match each other





Not sure if that helps, but its a bit more information for you to consider