Tips for Raw Processing with the Fuji X-T1

[jonoslack]

Hi There -
The greens thread has been useful, but I thought it would be a good idea to start a new thread with suggestions - whilst RAW support is sketchy, it's nice to share ways of processing these files.

I'll get started:

Using X-T1 RAW files in Aperture
First of all - many thanks to Ario who got me started down this root. I've had some good results like this (and some surprising ones - see below).

First you need to get EXIFTOOL by Phil Harvey - then download and install.

I've taken to doing the conversion on my SD card before importing to Aperture - this will also make it easier for any of you who are not comfortable using terminal.

1. Load Terminal Applications / Utililities / Terminal

2. Stick your Fuji SD card into your computer

3. in terminal type the following:
exiftool -ext RAF -Model='X100s' /Volumes/Untitled/DCIM/101_FUJI/
- better still, cut and paste it - the spaces are all important. . . . after a bit it should say something like:
1 directories scanned
24 image files updated.
What you are doing here is changing the Model name in the RAF file to X100s, which has the same sensor, but which IS supported by Aperture

4. switch to your SD card in finder - delete the 'original' files (or move them somewhere safe if you like). As Chuck so wisely points out, back up any important files properly before starting.

5. Import normally - I choose Both (use RAW as original) (assuming you're shooting jpg and raw).

Job Done.

The only disadvantage is that the exif information in your files will say X100s rather than X-T1 . . . except that most of the time it won't

I really really don't understand this (perhaps Aperture is collecting the exif from the jpg file rather than the RAW file?) - but Aperture is using the RAW file to process as you can see, and it's reporting the camera correctly as the X-T1 - despite having changed the Model Name . . . . and it is changed - if you don't do the exiftool step Aperture won't read the file.

I hope this is useful to people - I'm pleased with the Aperture support,

to prove the point - here is the Garlic shot again with the exif intact.

Garlic Balls​

Here you'll note that the exif Does say X100s - you can't win every time!

However, my feeling about this is that when Aperture finally does support the X-T1 it will be easy to use exiftool to change the Camera Model back again, and then just reprocess the RAW files

All the best
Jono

 

[scho]

Exif Editor is an alternative app with a nice GUI (uses exiftool) if you don't like using terminal.

 

[Chuck Jones]

This may or may not be a great workaround, but frankly I would manually COPY the files to a very safe place first. Then, and only then, would I ever consider rewriting the header information on my RAW files of any kind. And ONLY ON A COPY, NOT MY ORIGINAL FILES. THIS IS A DESTRUCTIVE PROCESS! Destructive processes can NOT be reversed if something screws up.

Always copy off files first, archive the originals, then work or manipulate copies to your hearts desire. This way, you never loose an image. Screw up a card rewrite, and your images on it are toast.

 

[archiM44]

jono
Thank you for this information.
I'll see if it works for Capture One.
Chuck, thanks for the heads up. Probably saves me from much misery.

 

[Ario Arioldi]

It works for Capture One as well, and exiftool by default is saving a copy of the original file. No harm IMHO

 

[scho]

It works for Capture One as well, and exiftool by default is saving a copy of the original file. No harm IMHO

Agree. I've also been using exif editor to insert lens name, exposure data, and location into some of my Sony A7R raw files.

 

[raist3d]

While this is a nice trick I expect the image quality of both raw converters to improve once they officially support the cameras. The XT1 apparently has a notch less noise, so the curves for noise reduction can be tweaked a little.

- Ricardo

 

[archiM44]

I get very good results using the Fuji X-E2 as camera model.
It usually takes a while for Capture One to support a new camera, so I am very
pleased with this alternative and grateful for the tip

 

[Charles2]

Fuji Raw File Converter is a fine start

Fuji Raw File Converter does a fine job at the basic task of demosaicing the raw data. Adjust exposure and contrast to avoid clipping, and perhaps a rough adjustment of color temp and tint. (If you shot at high ISO, you might want a good dose of noise reduction.) Don't worry how the image looks at this point. Export a TIF to your favorite post-processing software.

In PP Fuji files need more sharpening than some other cameras. A good amount at radius 0.3-0.4 and perhaps a second round of a very small amount at radius 1.-2.

 

[Paul2660]

Charles, one question I hope you can clear up for me. Will the Fuji raw file converter work for the X-E2 or T1? I thought you had to use the silkypix software for these cameras and I never found that software that good or easy to use. I like the idea of just doing a basic conversion and save as a tif or dng then opening up in LR.

Thanks
Paul C.

 

[Charles2]

Will the Fuji raw file converter work for the X-E2 or T1?

Fuji RFC is a custom version that Silkypix provides to Fuji. If the XE-2 and XT-1 manuals refer to the software, presumably it works.

You are right, the software is clumsy -- if you develop the image to the final product. But for a start on an image, it's easy: a stack of rows at the top left has the exposure, white balance, contrast, and some other controls. Just use those. Ignore the menu bar and toolbar across the top, except of course for File | Open. Ctrl-S will bring up the export dialog.

 

[aragdog]

We still need Adobe to get raw working for Lightroom and also Capture One and others. If this camera is as popular as we hear, what is taking so long???

 

[greypilgrim]

I wouldn't say they are dragging their heels as it has only just been released, but on the other hand, it is the same sensor as the X-E2, and since just changing the exif info allows you to process the RAW, I would imagine they are combining these changes with other changes (other cameras that have new sensors or...)

Doug

 

[ptomsu]

All this workarounds are nice and while I appreciate all these efforts - this camera is useless without proper RAW support in at least Aperture, LR and C1Pro!

 

[greypilgrim]

Sounds like a good reason to wait .

I'm just planning to shoot Raw and JPEG until LR supports it, and I will play with the exif stuff on a file or two just to make sure the pictures are coming out. I figure I will do fine, and I am betting they will have support by the end of this month when I need it.

Doug

 

[doc4x5]

Adobe has a Camera Raw 8.4 release candidate for both CS6 and CC available on the Adobe labs website. Nothing yet for LR.

 

[jonoslack]

Adobe has a Camera Raw 8.4 release candidate for both CS6 and CC available on the Adobe labs website. Nothing yet for LR.

The fix above will also work with Lightroom and Capture 1 version 7. if you would rather you can use the Adobe DNG converter release candidate 8.4 to convert the RAF files to DNG and Lightroom will read those too. . . . . so you can do it two ways with LR

 

[jonoslack]

So - Which RAW converter is best?

Capture One
Although I have it, I don't have the experience with Capture One 7 to make the most of the files - so I wouldn't like to comment. . . . . someone else please?
You can use the renaming technique above ( I guess it would work using X-E2 instead of X100s)

Lightroom
Two methods here -
1. EITHER changing the exif model (as in the first post)
2. OR using Adobe DNG converter release candidate 8.4 to convert to DNG, and then import to Lightroom.

I have to say that I'm disappointed with the smudgy artefacts either way - they are only really a problem on foliage etc. but I get a slight waxy feeling on skin tones as well - not horrid, but not the best (IMVHO of course)

Aperture
Currently the only way I can get them to work is changing the Model to X100s (as in the top post. I do this on the SD card before importing, it only takes a few seconds and is very little hassle).
I really like the files in Aperture - they seem to have fewer artefacts and less 'waxiness' than they do in Lightroom. Not quite as sharp as Iridient, but less colour artefacts too.

Iridient
Thanks for the heads up on this Ricardo
Iridient has full support for the X-T1
This seems to give you the sharpest results, but with some coloured dots with specular highlights (this is something which sometimes happens with the Leica M - reflections in water etc). I like the program, but of course it is only a developer - no DAM - it's cheap and good - excellent to have in the background for 'occasionally'. Here are the detail settings I liked:

I have tried Photo Ninja, but I didn't like either it, or the results, but that was probably my fault. I've stopped - but please, if you've tried anything else (or you disagree with me) put your results in too.

 

[douglasf13]

Hi, Jono. I thought I liked Aperture enough that I moved my whole workflow over from LR last year, but then I started noticing all of these little speckle-y dots in X-Trans problem areas, and then these pretty obvious purple/green artifacts were showing up on some situations. See here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1267416/40#12139909

 

[jonoslack]

Hi, Jono. I thought I liked Aperture enough that I moved my whole workflow over from LR last year, but then I started noticing all of these little speckle-y dots in X-Trans problem areas, and then these pretty obvious purple/green artifacts were showing up on some situations. See here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1267416/40#12139909

HI Douglas
Interesting you should say that Thanks for the heads up - I'd noticed similar artefacts in Iridient - I've processed over 1000 files in Aperture now, and I haven't seen it (I'm sure I will). It does the same with Leica files on occasion. I think that as you increase the detail they start to appear.

I think the trouble here is that there isn't a right answer - but perhaps there are some wrong ones (LR for instance).

Aperture is certainly much worse than LR for noise reduction generally, but I like the results better - they seem to me to have a more 'analogue' feel about them than most other RAW programs.

One thing I have decided is not to change my whole workflow on the basis of a camera, so for me it's more a way of making it work (or choosing the E-M1 or A7 or whatever).