RAF vs DNG / Adobe organization issues

[Keithpictures]

I'm curious everyone's perspective on this.

I'm shooting with the Fuji X100V, and I'm a bit annoyed with my workflow and file organization.

Firstly, real quick: I'm not sure if I should just stick with RAF, or convert to DNG. I like converting usually because it keeps my RAW files consistent with my other library files across the years/camera types. The files become larger (from around 25MB to 30MB); not sure what is added here; if nothing, then I might prefer to save the space. I also don't love sidecar XMP files, which Lightroom takes a while to process (this might be a current quirk with my personal system). They only appear in Mac Finder, but I'd love to just delete them.

(I would post comparisons of a RAW DNG vs RAF here, but DPReview doesn't let me... Instead, a processed JPG:



Secondly, my main issue: I really wish Adobe would recognize the X100 lens. The info is in the metadata, of course, but when I try to sort using that data, Adobe doesn't see it. Attached are screenshots to demonstrate this:


Basic info is clear here (same with X100V). The focal length is understood.


Here the lens is not recognized.


But using jF Data Plot (EXIF Tool), it's recognized again. So that's nice - but only for X100F, not X100V


Here's the message for the X100V.

I actually did write jfriedl, and this was his response:


Kind of annoying...

In Bridge, it's more of the same. The EXIF data appears for the 23mm Fuji lens, but it doesn't fully compute it.

[ATTACH alt=""No lens" for the Fuji X100"]2670852[/ATTACH]
"No lens" for the Fuji X100


Shows up at its technical focal length


"No Focal Length 35mm". Why not?? This should read as 35.0 mm if I'm not mistaken. Why can't Adobe do that?

Notice how it recognizes every single zoom value from my iPhone. That's very cool.

I wish it recognized the digital teleconverter values from the X100V series as well!

I published this issue to the Adobe support site, and am continually frustrated with their inability to address the problem. Am I crazy?

https://feedback.photoshop.com/phot...c-reply-list[settings][page]=1#reply_20594142

Anyways, I'm curious if you guys can shed any light on these topics.

Keith

--
https://www.instagram.com/keithpictures/

 

[casey1823]

I stopped converting raw to dmg a long time ago. In the beginning Adobe thought the dmg format would become the industry’s standard. It was not embraced by other companies it’s really just become Adobes standard. It really slows down the importing process, so much I don’t even consider it.

The rest of your post has way to many questions to try and figure out all of your complaints. Adobe beats to their own tune, and I stopped worry about all the profile stuff a long time ago. As a long time Adobe user they have made me mad many times to, just don’t know where to get any answers.

 

[Foxjet]

Kieth,

I agree that Adobe is problematic. My solution is to use Capture One and Affinity Photo instead. There is a learning curve for sure but it's totally worth it!

--
Richard
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ritchbledsoe

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

I always keep the RAFs as there is no real upside to converting them all. Converting to DNG is not a lossless process, if you’ are using the Adobe DNG converter you are forever burning in Adobe’s less than stellar demosaicing, which without the original RAF, is irreversible. Important metadata will also be lost forever in the process (while creating a file that is larger than you started with).

Even if you are converting with Iridient X-Transformer (significantly better for X-Trans), there will almost certainly be more advanced processing options in the future that will be far superior to what we have now. Without the original RAFs you may be limiting your ability to take advantage of them.
I convert my RAFs selectively from within Lightroom using Iridient X-Transformer as needed (as a plug-in), and could always delete those DNGs after exporting my edited jpegs to save space (I typically don’t though).

 

[Keithpictures]

I always keep the RAFs as there is no real upside to converting them all. Converting to DNG is not a lossless process, if you’ are using the Adobe DNG converter you are forever burning in Adobe’s less than stellar demosaicing, which without the original RAF, is irreversible. Important metadata will also be lost forever in the process (while creating a file that is larger than you started with).

Thanks Erik. You've convinced me.

Even if you are converting with Iridient X-Transformer (significantly better for X-Trans), there will almost certainly be more advanced processing options in the future that will be far superior to what we have now. Without the original RAFs you may be limiting your ability to take advantage of them.
I convert my RAFs selectively from within Lightroom using Iridient X-Transformer as needed (as a plug-in), and could always delete those DNGs after exporting my edited jpegs to save space (I typically don’t though).

How does Iridient X-Transformer work as a plug-in, and is it necessary? LR reads the RAF, so why not just export as JPG from there? Does Iridient help in a major way, and does it cost money?

Also, do what do you do with the XMP files? Are they safe to delete?