As a new convert to the Fuji universe, I am still working through how to best take RAF image files from camera to print. I ran across this video, and would appreciate the input of those who have found a good workflow!
Editing Software Fuji and RAW/RAF Processing
- Thread starter Papa Tango
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 7
- Views 911
-
- Tags
- fujifilm post process raf raw
I've been shooting with Fuji X cameras since 2013 (not exclusively) and I use Lightroom. I was drawn into worrying about Lightrooms problems with X trans files and the problems with worms!, as I couldn't see the worms I stopped worrying. There are so many other ways I can ****up a potential photo, the software issue is for me not an issue. I no longer do any printing so that's one less thing to concern me.
Yes, the infamous worms!
I have never been a true pixel peeper, but an image has to look as sharp (or not so sharp) as I see it in my head--and be able to print accordingly. I did not find noise and artifacts to be a significant issue with my Nikon D7100 unless shooting at higher ISO numbers--yet I wanted more detail and printable size, but not with bugs...
It was a real voyage to the land of Fuji. Loved the images I saw, how the camera body was configured--and best of all with a Fringer adapter could use the entire stable of Nikkor DX lenses I already owned. My own folly for not researching what was necessary in post to achieve those great photos I saw...
The trouble I soon discovered is the proprietary method that Fuji uses with the X-Trans sensor and the creation of RAF files. It is surprising that in an Adobe workflow (RAW converter + Photoshop) versus image import, simple JPG's appeared crisper and with better contrast and saturation than processed RAF's as a PSD. From that format, I have always created JPG/PNG files for digital display and the PSD for printing. I have never liked Lightroom due to the XMP sidecar files. God help you if that file is lost, or one decides to move both files to another folder.
I have the worms and pixelation appearing at about 200% on every image taken in directly through the RAW filter to PS. Adding sharpening simply introduces harsh 'grain globs' and highlights the worms. Not what I spent $2500 to achieve...
My first experiment here is going to be with the AI-driven 'denoise' function of the PS RAW filter, and conversion into a DNG format. The images I have tinkered with so far are a giant leap forward from where I started and exceed what I had before with the Nikon NEF files. Then, I will try Capture One, which I seem to be having a bit of trouble getting my head around! Results will be posted.
Then I just downloaded a new bobby-dazzler, Fujifilm X Raw Studio. This is seeming a bit like conventional darkroom practice, in choosing what to develop one's film in!
I have never been a true pixel peeper, but an image has to look as sharp (or not so sharp) as I see it in my head--and be able to print accordingly. I did not find noise and artifacts to be a significant issue with my Nikon D7100 unless shooting at higher ISO numbers--yet I wanted more detail and printable size, but not with bugs...
It was a real voyage to the land of Fuji. Loved the images I saw, how the camera body was configured--and best of all with a Fringer adapter could use the entire stable of Nikkor DX lenses I already owned. My own folly for not researching what was necessary in post to achieve those great photos I saw...
The trouble I soon discovered is the proprietary method that Fuji uses with the X-Trans sensor and the creation of RAF files. It is surprising that in an Adobe workflow (RAW converter + Photoshop) versus image import, simple JPG's appeared crisper and with better contrast and saturation than processed RAF's as a PSD. From that format, I have always created JPG/PNG files for digital display and the PSD for printing. I have never liked Lightroom due to the XMP sidecar files. God help you if that file is lost, or one decides to move both files to another folder.
I have the worms and pixelation appearing at about 200% on every image taken in directly through the RAW filter to PS. Adding sharpening simply introduces harsh 'grain globs' and highlights the worms. Not what I spent $2500 to achieve...
My first experiment here is going to be with the AI-driven 'denoise' function of the PS RAW filter, and conversion into a DNG format. The images I have tinkered with so far are a giant leap forward from where I started and exceed what I had before with the Nikon NEF files. Then, I will try Capture One, which I seem to be having a bit of trouble getting my head around! Results will be posted.
Then I just downloaded a new bobby-dazzler, Fujifilm X Raw Studio. This is seeming a bit like conventional darkroom practice, in choosing what to develop one's film in!
I still stand my opinion that I haven't got worms (just keep taking the tablets).
But on the subject of Lightroom Denoise I find it a revelation. I take quite a lot of interiors and let the ISO go to 6400 if needed and have found them usable with my fuji cameras, but now has an issue it's gone away.
I'm also finding that it can tidy-up low ISO images that have been pushed in postprocessing, removing artifacts especially in sky's.
But on the subject of Lightroom Denoise I find it a revelation. I take quite a lot of interiors and let the ISO go to 6400 if needed and have found them usable with my fuji cameras, but now has an issue it's gone away.
I'm also finding that it can tidy-up low ISO images that have been pushed in postprocessing, removing artifacts especially in sky's.
Errr, say what?
Hi, what I meant is using high ISO is longer an issue now that I can run Lightroom Denoise.
I have trouble talking proper English so writing it is a challenge, maybe I should have listened when a school.
I have trouble talking proper English so writing it is a challenge, maybe I should have listened when a school.
OK, got it. These days I am having trouble defining just what 'proper' English means--and what form it takes. I find also that we are dealing with a world that understands little about the mechanics and the propensity to write in logical fallacies. Even those are misunderstood, as my academic hair stands on end every time I hear someone say, "It begs the question." Wrong, wrong, wrong... 
One of the great selling points to the Fuji X-T5 is just as you said, the ability to push up to ISO6400 and get a nice image. I could not do that rightly with the D7100. Hell, we learned this lesson by trying to push-process Tri-X classic to ISO800 back in the day...
There was always chromium intensifier to help.
I have found that my Fuji handles available light well--and have set ISO3200 as the upper limit of one of my custom setting ranges. Several images have been posted here of 'after dark' things that were shot at ISO6400. But as I began, my old post routine as with Nikon NEF is not working that well for anything above an 11x14 print. Going to 13x19 (the limit of my Canon Pro-10) I have been very unhappy.
Soon I will add my findings, and maybe even set up an article!
One of the great selling points to the Fuji X-T5 is just as you said, the ability to push up to ISO6400 and get a nice image. I could not do that rightly with the D7100. Hell, we learned this lesson by trying to push-process Tri-X classic to ISO800 back in the day...
There was always chromium intensifier to help.I have found that my Fuji handles available light well--and have set ISO3200 as the upper limit of one of my custom setting ranges. Several images have been posted here of 'after dark' things that were shot at ISO6400. But as I began, my old post routine as with Nikon NEF is not working that well for anything above an 11x14 print. Going to 13x19 (the limit of my Canon Pro-10) I have been very unhappy.
Soon I will add my findings, and maybe even set up an article!
Here is my experience to date in dealing with Fuji RAF files.
My 'traditional' workflow (coming primarily as NEF from Nikon D7100) has been to use the Adobe Camera RAW module as an entry to Photoshop. I have only had occasional complaints about how it handles those images, with the expected limitations of shooting the Nikon at higher ISO numbers. As noted in the earlier post, I have not really been satisfied with Camera RAW and Fuji RAF. Below is an example of a RAF image of ISO 6400 with Adobe RAW:
This is really terrible. Not only 'worms' but clumping of colors and lack of sharpness for anything much except the clumps. Adobe offers me the ability to go AI in denoising, which does deliver a passable, but subdued and flat image as a DNG file. As a PDF or TIFF it carries over to that image with all the rubbish.
Opening the same image in Capture One (with no adjustments) delivers this image:
No equivalency. I should mention that this issue becomes significantly milder at lower ISO ranges.
As this works best for me, I have shifted my workflow to importing the image into Capture One, and then saving as a PSD if printing is anticipated. Otherwise, I am batching into JPG for average photo archiving.
I will likely post an article on the differences between the two software packages soon...
My 'traditional' workflow (coming primarily as NEF from Nikon D7100) has been to use the Adobe Camera RAW module as an entry to Photoshop. I have only had occasional complaints about how it handles those images, with the expected limitations of shooting the Nikon at higher ISO numbers. As noted in the earlier post, I have not really been satisfied with Camera RAW and Fuji RAF. Below is an example of a RAF image of ISO 6400 with Adobe RAW:
This is really terrible. Not only 'worms' but clumping of colors and lack of sharpness for anything much except the clumps. Adobe offers me the ability to go AI in denoising, which does deliver a passable, but subdued and flat image as a DNG file. As a PDF or TIFF it carries over to that image with all the rubbish.
Opening the same image in Capture One (with no adjustments) delivers this image:
No equivalency. I should mention that this issue becomes significantly milder at lower ISO ranges.
As this works best for me, I have shifted my workflow to importing the image into Capture One, and then saving as a PSD if printing is anticipated. Otherwise, I am batching into JPG for average photo archiving.
I will likely post an article on the differences between the two software packages soon...
QUICK NAV>Click Arrow to Expand
Latest Posts
-
That's Odd...The Fairey Swordfish was clearly outdated for the second world war but you use what you've got. The Kriegsmarine...- Latest: Gerald Cafferty
-
-
Cafe Thursday November 14, 2024For the Finish Minolta Dimage 7 @William Michael yes, talking about the theme and how we get it is the whole purpose of...
- Latest: Papa Tango
-
Almost AliveBrooding Bantams Fujifilm X-T5; TAMRON 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD Every county fair has a 4H and or FFA...
- Latest: Papa Tango
-
Contest Image of the Month Contest for November 2024Nope. Any subject, any image, any format, any time... It's just that each month a new contest will launch!
- Latest: Papa Tango