Fuji Corporate Response on LightRoom Raw Conversion - Bummer

R

rasterdogs

Member
Local time
11:37 AM
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
36
View My Gallery
After initially being directed to call North America Tech support about this issue the good folks there suggested I contact FujiFilm Corporate through the FJ www site.

Here is what I got back when I expressed my concern about the state of Raw converters, especially Adobe's:


Dear Mr./Ms. xxxx


Thank you very much for your kind suggestion on Fujifilm products.



Currently we cannot comment on these question, because the software has been developed by Adobe.



We will try to refer your suggestions for the future products.



But, please allow us that we cannot confirm whether your opinion will be fully available or not.


Thank you for your cooperation in advance.




Electronic Imaging Products Div.
FUJIFILM Corporation

----- 転送者: Ｗｅｂｍａｓｔｅｒ/富士フイルム 転送日: 2012/11/28 17:26 -----


I'm not encouraged by this.

The response clarifies my thinking - no X-e1 as a second body for me. I'll think hard before adding to my X-pro1 kit.

Perhaps the Tweet for the Fujiguy's "jpeg is the new raw" has more significance than they claimed.

:bang:
 
Why would fuji respond any other way? They produce camera's not raw conversion software. Kind of like complaining to leica about film choice.
 
I'm curious to see just how much of Fuji's image quality amazingness is due to their JPEG engine, their processing within the body to produce images that are really nice.

When I owned an XP1 (jpg) I compared directly to an M9 with Summilux 50 (raw) and was astonished to find the XP1 50/1.4 blew the doors off, or on par with.

Could it be that the RAW files that Fuji produces require a "special" engine to achieve the optimum results for the image? or are the Fuji bodies just "processing imperfections out" as you shoot so you don't even notice..

Just my theory, probably technically wrong in assumptions but I do love Fuji's rendition for JPG's.
 
it'sawhat? said:
Why would fuji respond any other way? They produce camera's not raw conversion software. Kind of like complaining to leica about film choice.
Click to expand...

True, if Leica film cameras required the use of a particular film for which there was no adequate developer.
 
I understand that my point being that i would assume that Adobe or whoever is more of the problem by not getting their end done in a timely manner.Again fuji may be to blame but why would they make it hard for software companies to incorporate their cams; that seems like a money loser for them. I have to admit I am not a fan of adobe anyway given their history with Flash the software not a strobe .😉
 
I've used an X-Pro1 for a few months now and find that I'm no longer missing post processing of RAW files. The jpegs are great and I can adjust the jpeg files enough to take care of any goofs I made at exposure.

Here's a thought: When we all were using film cameras, we were pretty happy using a few film types and maybe (assuming we did our own processing and printing) had a few things we could adjust after exposure. That's what I have now with the X-Pro1... and that's what I've been looking for in a digital camera for a long, long time.
 
I find little real benefit to the Fuji sensors, even with their own software. The cameras produce nice JPEGs, and if that's sufficient for your needs ... and you like the cameras and lenses ... that's good enough.

For me, the more standard sensors in the Ricoh GXR, Sony NEX, and Micro-FoutThirds work as well or better, never mind the superb Kodak sensor in the M9.
 
Godfrey said:
I find little real benefit to the Fuji sensors, even with their own software. The cameras produce nice JPEGs, and if that's sufficient for your needs ... and you like the cameras and lenses ... that's good enough.

For me, the more standard sensors in the Ricoh GXR, Sony NEX, and Micro-FoutThirds work as well or better, never mind the superb Kodak sensor in the M9.
Click to expand...

Each of these manufacturers have come up with sensor/software that produces unique 'looks' to their camera outputs. All of them are gorgeous in their own ways. The one plus-side feature that the X-Pro1 and X-E1 cameras offer is the lack of an anti-aliasing filter. This is not a minor issue in my mind. Being able to produce large prints that are still very sharp, with no image softening caused by an anti-aliasing filter is very useful.
 
The X100's RAW files and Aperture are a gorgeous combination. Same goes for the M9's with Aperture.

Add Silver Efex Pro 2 and Photoshop as plug-ins and I'm all "Lightwhat?"
 
Godfrey said:
I find little real benefit to the Fuji sensors, even with their own software. The cameras produce nice JPEGs, and if that's sufficient for your needs ... and you like the cameras and lenses ... that's good enough.

For me, the more standard sensors in the Ricoh GXR, Sony NEX, and Micro-FoutThirds work as well or better, never mind the superb Kodak sensor in the M9.
Click to expand...

Have you shot much with the X-Pro1 or X-E1?
 
The X100 and Xpro/Xe1 have very different sensors. The Xpro1 sensor is the troublesome one. The files don't even work in aperture yet as far as I heard. In lightroom they "work", but are often ugly, worse than the JPEG.

Besides the crappy RAW, I like where Fuji is going with their JPEG and in camera processing. If I was them I would try to find a niche there. No more RAW or post processing needed after the file comes out of the camera. Not for everybody, but that's why it's a niche, and I think it can be a pretty big niche. I think we'd be surprised to find out how many people have cameras, even dslrs, but do no post processing.

I wish Fuji would improve that Jpeg output even more. Maybe even a different format between JPEG and RAW, less compressed then JPEG, but still compatible. Maybe PNG? A file could be 10MB per 16MP picture.

Then improve in-camera raw editing features, get more instant feedback, and batch export for example. So even when you shoot RAW, you can edit and output on the way home. All these features are already available, they just need to make them more slick and enjoyable to use.

I shoot so much, and I like to share my images, but many of them are just waiting on my harddrive to be edited and exported from raw.
 
zwarte_kat said:
Besides the crappy RAW, I like where Fuji is going with their JPEG and in camera processing. If I was them I would try to find a niche there. No more RAW or post processing needed after the file comes out of the camera. Not for everybody, but that's why it's a niche, and I think it can be a pretty big niche. I think we'd be surprised to find out how many people have cameras, even dslrs, but do no post processing.

I wish Fuji would improve that Jpeg output even more. Maybe even a different format between JPEG and RAW, less compressed then JPEG, but still compatible. Maybe PNG? A file could be 10MB per 16MP picture.

Then improve in-camera raw editing features, get more instant feedback, and batch export for example. So even when you shoot RAW, you can edit and output on the way home. All these features are already available, they just need to make them more slick and enjoyable to use.
Click to expand...

Forty plus years ago, when I started to think of myself as a photographer, I did my own processing. It was a lot of trouble, turning the bathroom into a darkroom, so a few years later, by which time colour film and processing cost no more than black&white, I stopped. But ever since there has remained the idea that one day, when I could afford a place with the space for a dedicated darkroom I would once again do the whole process myself. Well, I still don't have the space, but I don't need it for digital, so all thats lacking is the desire to spend even more of my time sitting looking at a computer screen.
So I agree, the jpegs are almost always good enough, especially as most often the only post processing is to crop and scale things down for screen rather than print.

As to Fujis jpeg quality setting, it seems to be set to at least 95%, which is very close to lossless compression.
 
DtheG said:
........

As to Fujis jpeg quality setting, it seems to be set to at least 95%, which is very close to lossless compression.
Click to expand...

A 100% quality jpeg compression doesn't even begin to approach the accepted definition of lossless.

If it were lossless you could edit, crop and modify a jpeg over and over again with no loss of quality.

Jpeg compression is very effective and when used once the resulting image is not inferior to the raw rendering (assuming the pre-acquisition exposure and color balance are perfect). But I am unaware of any software that generates a lossless jpeg as defined by the Joint Photographic Experts Group standard.
 
Please stop spreading mis-information. There is no lossless JPEG. If the camera can give you a great JPEG then you can get the same (at the least) or better in post with RAW. The diference between a 8 bit and higer bit count (12/14 or 16) is huge. If your a amateur and took the time to take the picture then take the extra time to produce the finished product.
 
Perhaps people should read the posted words. No one stated 'lossless JPEG.' The quote was 'it *seems*' to be '*very close*' to lossless.

There is no question that Fuji's JPEG engine is superb...if only the software engineers would be loaned to Adobe for a few weeks. 🙂
 
digitalintrigue said:
Perhaps people should read the posted words. No one stated 'lossless JPEG.' The quote was 'it *seems*' to be '*very close*' to lossless.

There is no question that Fuji's JPEG engine is superb...if only the software engineers would be loaned to Adobe for a few weeks. 🙂
Click to expand...

The diference between a jpeg and a raw capture is 65280 values. Is that very close?? Maybe the wording should have been "good enough for me".
 
If you want to discuss whether 'very close' is an appropriate phrase, sure. 🙂 That's valid, but claiming that the post stated that JPEG = lossless is not accurate.
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126520

Those of you interested in Fuji raw support should really check out this thread. There is info as to why providing RAW support for these sensors is so difficult.

Personally, I'd love to buy one of these cameras (XE1) for the real shutter speed dial and aperture ring but with no RAW support, I just can't do it.

p.s. That zoom lens doesn't seem like a throwaway to me! (f2.8 at the wide end...)
 
The demosiacing for Fuji sensors should be totally different from Bayer Array sensors- Adobe would need Fuji's involvement to produce an acceptable raw converter. It can not hurt their business to give Adobe access. Not being able to use raw files in LR is reason enough form to stay away from Fuji.
 
stompyq said:
Please stop spreading mis-information. There is no lossless JPEG. If the camera can give you a great JPEG then you can get the same (at the least) or better in post with RAW. The diference between a 8 bit and higer bit count (12/14 or 16) is huge. If your a amateur and took the time to take the picture then take the extra time to produce the finished product.
Click to expand...

Agreed about the difference, and exactly because the JPEG and RAW are still far away from each other, it seems like a good reason to create an intermediate format. Though many pros will be right not to see this camera for pro work, I do know many event shooters use JPEG, because the client needs the files right after the shoot. There is no time for post processing.

In video work Raw files are actually quite rare except for the very highest levels of production (TV series like "Lost", feature films). This is the reason the Black Magic Cinema camera started a bit of an uproar, RAW video for "only" $3000 (excluding SSD and power solution). Everything else under $10.000 used to be different levels of compressed. I don't see why for photos we couldn't have higher quality compressed files.

Anyway it is not even for the pros, the amateur that you speak of can do whatever he wants. And if he doesn't want to do much or any processing, then there could be a niche for that. I am a pro, but I am in the market for such a camera as well. I am not saying to remove RAW, keep it for when you want it. If I only shot 5 photos a week and would print them all large, then I would use RAW, or better yet, medium format film, but most of our works ends on the internet anyway, so a nice compressed format is good enough IMO.

I have printed A3 from JPEGs from the XE1 BTW, was good enough for me. The X100 JPEGs can still struggle there, so at least they are moving forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom