The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Raw conversion for X-Pro1

Braeside

New member
I revisited Sandy M's PhotoRaw on the iPad today with some recent Fuji X-Pro 1 raw shots and I'm really impressed, it is much better than Lightroom. Of course incorporating it in to any sensible workflow is far from ideal. Sandy please a Mac App!
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I do not question the problem - however from my limited xpro1 experience with raw converted in LR4 the files dont look bad to me. But maybe I have to check out DPP to find out about the difference.
How do yo find the in camera jpg?
 

Braeside

New member
I do not question the problem - however from my limited xpro1 experience with raw converted in LR4 the files dont look bad to me. But maybe I have to check out DPP to find out about the difference.
How do yo find the in camera jpg?
The in camera JPGs are quite nice, but do not have the absolute detail available from the raw files. LR4 does OK on some subjects but has a problem with fine details in foliage for example, they end up like a water painting. Other raw converters show more detail but have odd colour artefacts at times. It depends on how big a print you may want to make, or how much you pixel peep.

My biggest request is for Apple Aperture support of Fuji raw files, as Aperture is my preferred workflow.
 
And of course the jpeg are much less robust if you need to make WB and/or exposure adjustment.

David, did you try to export directly from PhotoRaw to Photoshop (I have CS6)?
The colors in PhotoRaw as seen on the New Ipad are perfect but opened in PS I see a dramatic change, too bright and reddish.
I have not found any setting to change this.
 

Pelao

New member
I do not question the problem - however from my limited xpro1 experience with raw converted in LR4 the files dont look bad to me. But maybe I have to check out DPP to find out about the difference.
How do yo find the in camera jpg?
My experience is a bit more nuanced than Braeside's. I find that LR4 is more often than not able to do an excellent job.

What is your final output?

For some subjects, the jpegs are very very good, and may well be good enough for your final output.

In my experience LR4 does a very good job for most subjects with the RAW file. This camera and the Fuju lenses are capable of excellent detail, and easily match some of the FF gear I use, for some subjects. Large prints are impressive.

The issue with foliage etc. certainly does exist, but in my experience it is not always present.
 

Braeside

New member
And of course the jpeg are much less robust if you need to make WB and/or exposure adjustment.

David, did you try to export directly from PhotoRaw to Photoshop (I have CS6)?
The colors in PhotoRaw as seen on the New Ipad are perfect but opened in PS I see a dramatic change, too bright and reddish.
I have not found any setting to change this.
No Ario, I don't have a version of CS that runs on my Mac any more, so cannot try that experiment. I was intrigued by how that export to Photoshop worked myself, what format of file does it use? I do like the colours on the new iPad, the Photoraw output looks really great.
 

Braeside

New member
My experience is a bit more nuanced than Braeside's. I find that LR4 is more often than not able to do an excellent job.

What is your final output?

For some subjects, the jpegs are very very good, and may well be good enough for your final output.

In my experience LR4 does a very good job for most subjects with the RAW file. This camera and the Fuju lenses are capable of excellent detail, and easily match some of the FF gear I use, for some subjects. Large prints are impressive.

The issue with foliage etc. certainly does exist, but in my experience it is not always present.
My final output often as not is my Mac screen. I rarely print, though I do have a 24" printer, I just don't have gallery space to hang large prints.

My reference for detail in raw is the Ricoh GXR A12M which despite being only 12M pixels, has more detail than the 16M of the Fuji, though can have moire problems. This is pixel peeping as I said, but never the less is a bit of a disappointment.

I seem to have a knack for finding subjects that do show the water colour effects with the Fuji and moire with the Ricoh ( and on my previous Leica M8). :mad:

If all I ever did was view Fuji photos at normal fullscreen size on my 27" screen or iPad I would be perfectly happy even with the OOC JPG.
 
No Ario, I don't have a version of CS that runs on my Mac any more, so cannot try that experiment. I was intrigued by how that export to Photoshop worked myself, what format of file does it use? I do like the colours on the new iPad, the Photoraw output looks really great.
Sorry David,
it was my fault, I had messed up the soft proof last time I used CS6. Now everything is fine and the colors are as good as they should be.
The export to PS works perfectly even if it is a bit slow, the export format is a full size (or reduced size if you wish) jpeg, sRGB.
 

Braeside

New member
Thanks for clarifying that Ario. I have just been using Dropbox or Photostream to export the JPGs from the iPad back to my iMac here.
 

Pelao

New member
My final output often as not is my Mac screen. I rarely print, though I do have a 24" printer, I just don't have gallery space to hang large prints.

My reference for detail in raw is the Ricoh GXR A12M which despite being only 12M pixels, has more detail than the 16M of the Fuji, though can have moire problems. This is pixel peeping as I said, but never the less is a bit of a disappointment.

I seem to have a knack for finding subjects that do show the water colour effects with the Fuji and moire with the Ricoh ( and on my previous Leica M8). :mad:

If all I ever did was view Fuji photos at normal fullscreen size on my 27" screen or iPad I would be perfectly happy even with the OOC JPG.
Pixel peeping can be a blessing and a curse. It helps me see stuff that really does need work, but also means I waste time on stuff that will make difference in the final print.

I print virtually all the photographs that make my A list, which isn't many. I don't post much online; I just don't feel screens do the photographs justice. But that's just me.
 

Braeside

New member
Completely agree Pelao, the final output is the thing that matters. I have always been a slides or screen viewing person, and for various reasons do very little printing of my stuff. I'd just like to get back to my normal workflow which is Apple's Aperture from raw.
 

bmacw

New member
I don't know the best place to ask this question.(it's also very hard to do a search on this topic) Since many people here will be on the same boat, let me give a shot.

I have loads of shots from XE-1 in my LR4. Because the raw support is horrendous, I have just given up processing most of them and decided to just wait for better support. Please do not suggest me to use SilkyPix or C1, I don't feel like changing my workflow.

Anyways, the question, if I already made changes in the development module, will those files get reprocessed when the new raw support comes out? Do I have to manually reprocess all of them? If it has to be reprocessed, does that mean it's more like a reset, and I will lose all my adjustments?

I'd like to get definitive answers, so please don't tell me what you 'think' will happen.
Thanks
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>I'd like to get definitive answers

How can anybody give a definite answer? Nobody has seen an improved LR.

But because the main change would be an improved de-mosaicing all settings should stay close or the same.
 

bmacw

New member
>I'd like to get definitive answers

How can anybody give a definite answer? Nobody has seen an improved LR.

But because the main change would be an improved de-mosaicing all settings should stay close or the same.
I'm asking how does algorithm/raw support update affects adjustments already made to raw files.

So this is NOT unique to Fuji files. Say if I have a file from Sony RX1 and I made adjustment to it, and later Adobe updated the RAW support (update, not added). Do I need to reprocess the file and lose my adjustments to have the the benefits of the new raw support applied?

Hopefully this made my question clearer.

I just want to know if I can start working on my files, and have those adjustments hold. Then I only need to make minor adjustments like NR and sharpening when the raw support is updated. Surprisingly this information is very hard to search via google.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>Hopefully this made my question clearer.

I had no problem to understand your question. Without knowing the change in the raw converter this cannot be answered.

An example: updated RC can mean the the color profiles could change. This would mean additional changes to your settings. On the other hand changes could be minimal. You insisted that the answer should not be a speculation. But without knowing it only can be speculation.

Would I personally be worried? No.
 

bmacw

New member
>Hopefully this made my question clearer.

I had no problem to understand your question. Without knowing the change in the raw converter this cannot be answered.

An example: updated RC can mean the the color profiles could change. This would mean additional changes to your settings. On the other hand changes could be minimal. You insisted that the answer should not be a speculation. But without knowing it only can be speculation.

Would I personally be worried? No.
Thanks I see what you mean now. Fingers crossed...:banghead:
 

corposant

New member
I'm asking how does algorithm/raw support update affects adjustments already made to raw files.

So this is NOT unique to Fuji files. Say if I have a file from Sony RX1 and I made adjustment to it, and later Adobe updated the RAW support (update, not added). Do I need to reprocess the file and lose my adjustments to have the the benefits of the new raw support applied?

Hopefully this made my question clearer.

I just want to know if I can start working on my files, and have those adjustments hold. Then I only need to make minor adjustments like NR and sharpening when the raw support is updated. Surprisingly this information is very hard to search via google.
Go back to files you processed in LR3, switch to the develop module, and click the little exclamation point in the bottom right corner of the image window. All your prior adjustments are saved and implemented, but in a somewhat different method than before.

This all assumes that this is how Adobe would update the RAW conversion for the X-Trans files, which, frankly, I doubt they will do before they release LR5. New features sell software updates, and since in Adobe's eyes they already offer functional support for the X series, Adobe will likely try to convert the R&D dollars spent on demosaicing improvements into profit from updates next year.

Regarding unwillingness to change workflow - I never understood this. If a wedding photographer is cranking through thousands of images a month, a workflow change can be pretty detrimental to delivering proofs to clients in a timely fashion. For the hobbyist... is it that big of a deal? I thought it would be a pain to have to work with SPP for the Merrill series of cameras, but since I catalog everything in Bridge/Lightroom no matter how files are converted, it's just another step. I remember when a new filter or enlarging lens made me want to experiment in the darkroom in school. How is downloading C1 any different?
 

bmacw

New member
Go back to files you processed in LR3, switch to the develop module, and click the little exclamation point in the bottom right corner of the image window. All your prior adjustments are saved and implemented, but in a somewhat different method than before.

This all assumes that this is how Adobe would update the RAW conversion for the X-Trans files, which, frankly, I doubt they will do before they release LR5. New features sell software updates, and since in Adobe's eyes they already offer functional support for the X series, Adobe will likely try to convert the R&D dollars spent on demosaicing improvements into profit from updates next year.

Regarding unwillingness to change workflow - I never understood this. If a wedding photographer is cranking through thousands of images a month, a workflow change can be pretty detrimental to delivering proofs to clients in a timely fashion. For the hobbyist... is it that big of a deal? I thought it would be a pain to have to work with SPP for the Merrill series of cameras, but since I catalog everything in Bridge/Lightroom no matter how files are converted, it's just another step. I remember when a new filter or enlarging lens made me want to experiment in the darkroom in school. How is downloading C1 any different?
I wasn't sure if raw updates are applied the same way as ACR process version updates (not automatic).

As for why I'd like to stick with LR, you just gave a very good example. I can have all my adjustments saved and enjoyed the better raw processing when LR updates from 3 to 4 and many future versions to come. I don't think I can do that in silky pix. And there is no point for me to pay for 2 raw softwares especially when one of them supports most of my other cameras already.

If I have a DP2 I won't mind using SPP. But we all know LR will be supporting it SOON.

I used to convert everything to DNG from LR and than import them in Aperture... for similar reason with lack of raw support for some cameras. Than it's just a pain, plus, the conversion from native to DNG can always be improved, and I wouldn't benefit from that. Anyways I guess I'm just a lazy amateur.

Thanks for your input
 
Top