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 support coming to C1 Pro soon

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
David, that is simply the new reality. New camera support in C1 (and most others) is provided for free with few exceptions until the next version is released, at which point all new support is only added to the next version.

The "few exceptions" are times where supporting the new camera requires a lot of new work (e.g. tethered support for a new generation of cameras) and the previous version of C1 is coming to the end of it's cycle. The Fuji is one example of this since it's unique sensor requires a lot of extra work to support.

You need to factor this into the cost of buying a new camera, just the same as buying a new camera may mean switching types of storage card (SD > CF or vice versa) or other nuances of the modern life.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I'll certainly try the free trial when it is available Doug. I'm just a bit eggy from constantly buying darkroom software that doesn't support the latest camera without a paid upgrade. (Not just C1). What I actually want is Aperture to support the camera though.
HI David
My Place. Aperture is wonderful for the DAM, the organisation, the keywording, the printing, the cloning tool, etc. etc. It isn't class leader in any of these categories, but I'm with Godfrey - the workflow is more important than the camera. I have a library with external files, so it's easy to change . . . except that I have 50,000 images in this library - changing to something else is a HUGE decision.

I've also bought all the versions of C1, and for me, the trouble is that it still hinges around the old 'conversion' model - it's focused on output as .TIF or whatever, and you make your changes and then run the batch to create the output file. Lightroom and Aperture just hold the changes in a database - so you only output for a particular task (from facebook to a 4ft print). I really don't want to go back to that old model where I had 4 copies of each image for different purposes (thumbnail,web,screen,print). These days I just keep the RAW file - and the various versions within Aperture (b&w, HDR, whatever).
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
Yes, the workflow is very important. So LR is my main organizer and final retouching tool. But using a different RC like C1 is not big deal for me because I just use it as a kind of preprocessor for Lightroom. I don't think I would use it for the E-M5 but for the GH3 C1 looks less grainy.
 

Braeside

New member
David, that is simply the new reality. New camera support in C1 (and most others) is provided for free with few exceptions until the next version is released, at which point all new support is only added to the next version.

The "few exceptions" are times where supporting the new camera requires a lot of new work (e.g. tethered support for a new generation of cameras) and the previous version of C1 is coming to the end of it's cycle. The Fuji is one example of this since it's unique sensor requires a lot of extra work to support.

You need to factor this into the cost of buying a new camera, just the same as buying a new camera may mean switching types of storage card (SD > CF or vice versa) or other nuances of the modern life.
Thanks Doug, all understood. Do you want any CF cards? :p

I just realised why I'm not getting rich writing and selling my own shareware software. :eek: I have never charged for an upgrade in version to my main Software MoonSked and never charge for new rotator control drivers that are required from time to time. Perhaps I need to review that, though I can hear the complaints rolling in from folks who bought their MoonSked licence 10 years ago. This is getting way off topic sorry!:OT:

@Jono Agree about Aperture, best DAM out there, never took to LR though I have it as well. Its a bit like camera bags, always trying something new but come back to old one that my dad bought in the 70's in the end.:D
 
Last edited:

corposant

New member
Sources say the next version of C1 will have support for the Fuji X Pro 1 and will include a (finally released by Canon) SDK that supports all the latest Canons in 10.7.5 and 10.8.x.

Who is excited to process some Fuji X Pro 1 files with a fully featured raw processor, and have those files look great?

Follow us on Facebook and you'll be the first to know when it's been released:
Phase One Partner - Digital Transitions | Facebook
I suppose it's safe to assume the X-E1 would be covered in the same update...?
 

etermes

New member
I am now beta testing C1 7.02 version for X-E1 RAF files,
I only can say it´s much better than Lightroom 4.3 and ACR 7.3
 

etermes

New member
Please post examples if that is permitted.

Hi David,

I can´t comment about the issues on this beta or share the beta software,
if you are interested about the beta program you can contact Lionel from PhaseOne:

Phase One and Leaf - Mamiya Official User to User Forum • View topic - Support for Fujifilm x-pro 1


I think I can share my own RAW file:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1oq6q1qh7ie1bww/_DSF0005.RAF

and four jpg versions (OOC jpg, Silkipix DSP 5, Lightroom 4.3 and C1 7.02):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0iti0gxe5titlru/RAF files.rar
 

archiM44

Member
These are looking better than all the programs I have tried, including RPP. Very clean.
It will certinly simplify things for me to be able to process RAF files in a mixed shoot with the Leica M9.
thanks for posting
 

Braeside

New member
Thanks very much for the JPG examples. The C1 version certainly does not have the bleeding of the red that is visible in the Lightroom version (in the writing Pruebe nuestros on the carton bottom left).

It would be interesting to try with some troublesome landscape photo with distant foliage, which is where the water-colouring generally is seen. Also some architectural shots where other processors often have bad artefacts on edges of diagonal lines.

Maybe I could send you an RAF file to try?
 

Braeside

New member
Thanks very much Alberto,

Have sent you a PM with a link to one RAF file to try. If you want the OOC JPG for comparison I can send that too.

Looking at the previous JPG again in detail at 400% (super pixel peeing), I do notice colour artefacts present in the C1 version in the oriental characters. Also the very top left of the frame has a purple line and odd blocks, that are not in the other conversions. It seems to be a difficult problem to get detail without colour artefacts in places.
 
Last edited:

etermes

New member
Thanks very much Alberto,

Have sent you a PM with a link to one RAF file to try. If you want the OOC JPG for comparison I can send that too.

Looking at the previous JPG again in detail at 400% (super pixel peeing), I do notice colour artefacts present in the C1 version in the oriental characters. Also the very top left of the frame has a purple line and odd blocks, that are not in the other conversions. It seems to be a difficult problem to get detail without colour artefacts in places.
Yes,
not a perfect result,
but the best from all the RAW developers

anyway with a Nikon D800 you get color aliasing on the bottle label
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Did the files move or get deleted?

Hi David,

I can´t comment about the issues on this beta or share the beta software,
if you are interested about the beta program you can contact Lionel from PhaseOne:

Phase One and Leaf - Mamiya Official User to User Forum • View topic - Support for Fujifilm x-pro 1


I think I can share my own RAW file:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1oq6q1qh7ie1bww/_DSF0005.RAF

and four jpg versions (OOC jpg, Silkipix DSP 5, Lightroom 4.3 and C1 7.02):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0iti0gxe5titlru/RAF files.rar
 

Pelao

New member
Thanks very much Alberto,

Have sent you a PM with a link to one RAF file to try. If you want the OOC JPG for comparison I can send that too.

Looking at the previous JPG again in detail at 400% (super pixel peeing), I do notice colour artefacts present in the C1 version in the oriental characters. Also the very top left of the frame has a purple line and odd blocks, that are not in the other conversions. It seems to be a difficult problem to get detail without colour artefacts in places.
I wonder is it likely to be noticeable on a print? ;)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Yes,
not a perfect result,
but the best from all the RAW developers
I am confused. Are there no RAW developers capable of converting Fuji files? Why did they bother bundling SilkyPix with the camera?
 

Maggie O

Active member
HI David
My Place. Aperture is wonderful for the DAM, the organisation, the keywording, the printing, the cloning tool, etc. etc. It isn't class leader in any of these categories, but I'm with Godfrey - the workflow is more important than the camera. I have a library with external files, so it's easy to change . . . except that I have 50,000 images in this library - changing to something else is a HUGE decision.

I've also bought all the versions of C1, and for me, the trouble is that it still hinges around the old 'conversion' model - it's focused on output as .TIF or whatever, and you make your changes and then run the batch to create the output file. Lightroom and Aperture just hold the changes in a database - so you only output for a particular task (from facebook to a 4ft print). I really don't want to go back to that old model where I had 4 copies of each image for different purposes (thumbnail,web,screen,print). These days I just keep the RAW file - and the various versions within Aperture (b&w, HDR, whatever).
Allow me to amplify and concur with Jono. He wrote what I've been thinking.
 
Allow me to amplify and concur with Jono. He wrote what I've been thinking.
In C1 you can create and store in the db as many variants as you whish of the same image without any need to create and save a rendered jpeg, or Tiff. Same as in LR and Aperture. There are other limitations but not this one.
 
Top