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!

GFX raw converters

Jeffg53

Member
I may have missed it but I haven't seen a lot about image conversion for GFX files. As a C1 user, and non-LR user, I don't want to go the Adobe route. So what are my choices and how do the files perform?
 

algrove

Well-known member
I may have missed it but I haven't seen a lot about image conversion for GFX files. As a C1 user, and non-LR user, I don't want to go the Adobe route. So what are my choices and how do the files perform?
I am no expert, but also in your situation, but it seems only hacks for C1. I say no thanks.
 

Oren Grad

Active member
I believe that Raw Therapee 5.0 already supports uncompressed GFX50S raw files. The latest RT development builds support compressed raws, and this feature is expected to be included in the forthcoming stable release 5.1.
 

Jeffg53

Member
My limited observation of converters has led me to conclude that I don't like the colour that Adobe produces, nor their interface. The two that I have used and like for the interface and output are Phocus and C1. Both produce excellent colour and detail with excellent recovery tools.

I read recently of Fuji files being mashed by some converters. I suppose that I am going to need to try myself before jumping in. Is there anyone out there willing to share a couple of raw files for me to try.
 

mark1958

Member
I am happy to send some raw files to you. To be honest, I have worked with LR and ON1 and not very happy with the RAW conversion. I am trying to develop a workflow but not happy with what i have experimented with yet.


My limited observation of converters has led me to conclude that I don't like the colour that Adobe produces, nor their interface. The two that I have used and like for the interface and output are Phocus and C1. Both produce excellent colour and detail with excellent recovery tools.

I read recently of Fuji files being mashed by some converters. I suppose that I am going to need to try myself before jumping in. Is there anyone out there willing to share a couple of raw files for me to try.
 

Jeffg53

Member
With the list of suggested converters, I have started trying a few. The first thing that I noticed is that the levels adjustment seems to have disappeared. With C1 or Phocus, the first thing that I did was set the end points and adjust contrast and take it from there. Now, the first thing that seems to pop up is WB which I rarely touch.

The next thing that I noticed is that RT, and Silkypix both look mushy in areas of high frequency like grasses, more on that later.

I have discounted On1 as it doesn't support dual monitors. Really, in 2017 someone is touting software that only works on a single monitor. I assume that their target market doesn't see that as necessary - bizarre.
 
Last edited:

Jeffg53

Member
I abandoned my investigation into the GFX a while back. I couldn't find a way of getting a file that had good detail, and tonal transitions, and a decent interface. I'm tempted again by a body and lens now on sale, and the fact that a number of my Leica R and Zeiss lenses have been given ticks of approval on the GFX.

So the question is has anything changed? Is there now a standout converter, or just the same old motley crew?
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
C1 works very well on the GFX files once converted to dng.

LR does well also until ISO reaches past 1600.

I use both C1 and LR and like the results.

Paul Caldwell
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
C1 does not and will not support the GFX. This means:
- No tethering
- Any hack/workaround to force the files to open in any given version may stop working at any future release
- If there are any bugs, crashes, limitations, issues related to such a workflow they won't be fixed
- No tweaked algorithms for demosaic, noise reduction, diffraction etc
- No lens profiles
- No bespoke color profile made by P1
- If you follow best practices for archiving you'll need to keep two versions worth of disk space for each raw you capture (the native and altered version)

This is not a statement of support for or against the policy, just a clarification of that policy so you can make an informed decision.
 

Jeffg53

Member
Thanks Doug. I wish that it wasn't so but I accept that it is. C1 support is a large consideration for me in any camera purchase.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
C1 does not and will not support the GFX. This means:
- No tethering
- Any hack/workaround to force the files to open in any given version may stop working at any future release
- If there are any bugs, crashes, limitations, issues related to such a workflow they won't be fixed
- No tweaked algorithms for demosaic, noise reduction, diffraction etc
- No lens profiles
- No bespoke color profile made by P1
- If you follow best practices for archiving you'll need to keep two versions worth of disk space for each raw you capture (the native and altered version)

This is not a statement of support for or against the policy, just a clarification of that policy so you can make an informed decision.
All this normal warning aside C1 works quite well on the GFX files. BTW it's not a HACK that allows to support the files. It's the fact that C1 decided to support a dng file.

P1 only offers tethering to certain brands anyway.
Profiling issues so far are moot to me but if you worked in a portrait studio they might. The sensor is the same across all companies using the 50MP Sony. Yes you don't get the Fuji film simulations.

The whole issue of lens profiles to me is over blown anyway and C1 could use some work on existing profiles for their own glass. And they should revisit their CA correction.

Gosh even without "tweaked" profiles the democasic work is very good maybe the best I have seen so far.

Yup you need to copies of the files. With disc storage as cheap as it is now really not a big deal.

As I have stated many times before Fuji should have addressed this whole issue with a better solution.

With C1 11 due out sometime soon if P1 adds a force out for this support I will gladly stay at C1 10.

Net, fact is the software works on the files and does a great job. The steps needed to convert the files are 2 and can be run in simple quick batch jobs. 5 minutes to process 300-400 files.

Paul Caldwell
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Good to know that Phase One holds Fuji GFX owners in such apparently low regard. I suspect they can see the writing on the wall.


C1 does not and will not support the GFX. This means:
- No tethering
- Any hack/workaround to force the files to open in any given version may stop working at any future release
- If there are any bugs, crashes, limitations, issues related to such a workflow they won't be fixed
- No tweaked algorithms for demosaic, noise reduction, diffraction etc
- No lens profiles
- No bespoke color profile made by P1
- If you follow best practices for archiving you'll need to keep two versions worth of disk space for each raw you capture (the native and altered version)

This is not a statement of support for or against the policy, just a clarification of that policy so you can make an informed decision.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Good to know that Phase One holds Fuji GFX owners in such apparently low regard. I suspect they can see the writing on the wall.
1) The policy to support other brands of small-format cameras but only Team Phase One medium format cameras has been In place for 12 years. It's not specific to the GFX.
2) Predictions of other less expensive cameras spelling doom for Phase One are at least as old as my first week on the job in. Phase One revenue has been up every year since 2008, and has been profitable in every one of those years; something very very few camera companies can say.
 
I've noticed no weaknesses in files converted in ACR (=LR). What might I be missing by not using C1 (I have only the Sony version now)? I understand that if I could use Phocus I'd have better highlight tonality, which is what I most seek in a converter. Any benefit from C1 in that direction?

Kirk
 
Last edited:

Mark C

Well-known member
Has anyone tried the Iridient X-Transformer 1.0? It's in beta 4.
Yes, I have. I quite like some of the results it generates but what I don't like (compared to Adobe or C1) is that, aside from a few adjustments possible before you import a RAW file (e.g. sharpening: choose from default, none, low medium or high), it's RAW file in one end and .dng file out the other. I prefer to be able to fine tune the stages of individual images as I go through my work flow so it's not for me.
 
Top