X100 RAW processed

[ebrandon]

We've all been waiting to see what the X100 can do in RAW, but have been unable to open the samples in any programs.


In this thread, http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&thread=37858823, a special patched version of a RAW converter was used to convert the RAWs to PNG.

I downloaded those PNGs, and converted them to TIFF in iPhoto. Then used Lightroom 3 and Photoshop CS4 to process the TIFF like any RAW file -- denoise, sharpening, adjusting exposure, color, contrast, etc.

For those worried that the X100 produces soft, flat images -- rest assured -- the RAWs can deliver the goods.

Here is a link to download the "before" (unprocessed TIFF) http://db.tt/uM3tnCm and the "after" (post-processed TIFF) http://db.tt/dvXlxHS

For those who don't want to download 60 MB of TIFFs, here's a SmugMug gallery with "before" and "after" post-processing JPGs and 100% crops. http://thebrandons.smugmug.com/Other/Samples-for-forums/16033956_UayYD#1203198900_bYuCD

 

[Terao]

So on the smugmug gallery, I assume that the first (lower contrast) shot is the camera JPG and the second is the RAW processed? i.e the ones labelled 1 of 2 are RAW processed?

 

[gavinlg]

So on the smugmug gallery, I assume that the first (lower contrast) shot is the camera JPG and the second is the RAW processed? i.e the ones labelled 1 of 2 are RAW processed?

one is an unproccesed RAW converted to JPEG and the other is a sharpened RAW converted to JPEG.

Yes, there's HEAPS of detail coming out of this camera/lens.

 

[DFNDRMP]

Boooo! ; )

"Error (509)
This account's public links are generating too much traffic and have been temporarily disabled!"

Thanks for the link's/files fdigital. Hopefully I can get to them soon to check them out!

 

[GSNfan]

I'm left underwhelmed by all the images coming X100 thus far. I also feel the metering overexposes by at least .3 and even .7 stop.

 

[willie_901]

Please Educate Me

Please Educate Me

I'm left underwhelmed by all the images coming X100 thus far. I also feel the metering overexposes by at least .3 and even .7 stop.

I agree that the pre-release cameras clearly over expose.

I feel deficient because I find the full-sized X100 results to be excellent. I can't imagine wanting or needing more than the X100 delivers for a 16X20 print.

While it is obviously impossible for make any sort of comparison with these X100 pre-release images, I would be grateful if you would post a full-sized image from any camera/lens combination that you consider to be above average as well as one that overwhelms you..

I need to learn what I'm missing.

 

[semilog]

While it is obviously impossible for make any sort of comparison with these X100 pre-release images, I would be grateful if you would post a full-sized image from any camera/lens combination that you consider to be above average as well as one that overwhelms you..

First: except at the outer limits of print size or ISO, all of the contemporary APS-C sensors have reasonably similar performance and that performance is remarkably good.

Second: Anybody who shoots significant amounts of film in 135 format (especially ISO400 film, and especially handheld)* is really not in a good position to criticize the sensor performance of any contemporary APS-C or even m4/3 camera. To a first approximation, in technical terms they all —all of them — are better than Tri-X or HP5+, if the output is to be a decent inkjet print.

*Why yes, I do resemble that remark. I shoot 85% B&W film because it's a kick in the pants and because I like some of the rendering properties of film. But I don't have illusions about the IQ being better than what I can get with my DSLR in purely technical terms.

 

[cjcm]

Thank you ebrandon !!! . Stunning results with raw.

 

[cgiff]

First: except at the outer limits of print size or ISO, all of the contemporary APS-C sensors have reasonably similar performance and that performance is remarkably good.

Second: Anybody who shoots significant amounts of film in 135 format (especially ISO400 film, and especially handheld)* is really not in a good position to criticize the sensor performance of any contemporary APS-C or even m4/3 camera. To a first approximation, in technical terms they all —all of them — are better than Tri-X or HP5+, if the output is to be a decent inkjet print.

*Why yes, I do resemble that remark. I shoot 85% B&W film because it's a kick in the pants and because I like some of the rendering properties of film. But I don't have illusions about the IQ being better than what I can get with my DSLR in purely technical terms.

Excellent post. We're really pretty spoiled in terms of the IQ we can get from so many types of different cameras.


Regarding the OP, I'm a bit confused. Once the RAW has been converted to PNG, hasn't all the RAW data been lost? So what's the point of converting to a TIFF? Sure, the shots clean up nicely, but they clean up like any JPEG would.

 

[ebrandon]

Regarding the OP, I'm a bit confused. Once the RAW has been converted to PNG, hasn't all the RAW data been lost? So what's the point of converting to a TIFF? Sure, the shots clean up nicely, but they clean up like any JPEG would.

You may be right about that. My only access to the RAW file was as a PNG. I've never used PNG in any workflow before, and since it was a big (30MB) file, and I knew that PNGs are "uncompressed" I assumed it retained all the raw data the same way a TIFF, DNG, or PSD does.

Please educate me about PNGs if I'm wrong, because I don't know much about them.

 

[Arjay]

Please educate me about PNGs if I'm wrong, because I don't know much about them.

PNG isn't a raw file format, and does not retain the camera's native color resolution. So, image files in PNG do not reflect all the data which could be contained in a raw file. PNG files have a resolution of 24 (3 x 8) bits, which corresponds to that of a JPG file.

DNG on the other hand is an open raw image file format proposed by Adobe that has not found widespread support among makers of digital cameras (except for Leica and some smaller brands).

It's very unfortunate that both these highly dissimilar image formats have names that can be mixed up to easily ...

The raw files of virtually all raw-capable cameras have a color resolution of at least 36 (3 x 12) bits. Some cameras even feature 42 (3 x 14) bits, and their raw files (though all organized in manufacturer-specific schemes) are based on 48 (3 x 16) bit TIFF image files. The higher color resolutions of the RAW and '16-bit' (actually 48 bit) TIFF files offer more flexibility for image editing, as their higher-resolution data model is less prone to rounding mistakes after histogram corrections, thus suffering less from posterization problems after extensive image manipulation.

 

[Elektrojänis]

PNG files have a resolution of 24 (3 x 8) bits, which corresponds to that of a JPG file.

Actually, PNG file can have 16 bits per channel (48 bits total): http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/#11CcGen

 

[gekopaca]

The best would be to obtain DNG files coming staight from the specific X-100 raw format.
Is it possible to obtain that?
Then, we might test personaly the files with our own apps/process chains

 

[Soothsayerman]

All modern digital sensors "overexpose". They do this to get more detail out of the shadows. Thats just the convention nowadays. If you study the evolution of what is conventionally a "proper" exposure, it has evolved and changed over time as the image making process has changed.

Years ago, negatives would have been hoplessly underexposed by todays standards. Things just change.

 

[Mister E]

OP you have far to much time on your hands! I really wish people understood what a TIFF was. Converting a png to tiff in iPhoto is comical.

 

[shashinka-ichiban]

All modern digital sensors "overexpose". They do this to get more detail out of the shadows. Thats just the convention nowadays. If you study the evolution of what is conventionally a "proper" exposure, it has evolved and changed over time as the image making process has changed.

Years ago, negatives would have been hoplessly underexposed by todays standards. Things just change.

That would explain why three of my Nikon dSLR's appear to overexpose. I had to manually calibrate my D2Hs and my D3s to underexpose a third stop. I always thoguht I was and because no one else seem to believe me. So, this leads me to wonder if the menus will allow for metering compensation in-camera like my Nikons let me do. I liek the fact that in the menus I can go in to the Nikon and calibrate my meter +/- (not exposure compensation)

 

[ChrisN]

And the exposure calibration will vary with different lenses (for interchangable-lens cameras). Then there's the impact of changing the metering mode. One person's perception of over-exposure is another man's perfection. And besides, that's what the exposure compensation dial is for. Shoot, look at the histogram, compensate, keep shooting. That's digital!

 

[special.foto]

Will Fuji provide raw procesing software like Nikon? In nikon's view nx you can change on a raw file the picture control from standard (left in camera) to neutral/vivid/portrait/landscape/etc. I was wondering if you could change the film emulation from velvia to provia and so on when postprocesing, so you can shoot raw and leave that emulation alone so you don't fondle to much with it when shooting in the street.

 

[gavinlg]

Will Fuji provide raw procesing software like Nikon? In nikon's view nx you can change on a raw file the picture control from standard (left in camera) to neutral/vivid/portrait/landscape/etc. I was wondering if you could change the film emulation from velvia to provia and so on when postprocesing, so you can shoot raw and leave that emulation alone so you don't fondle to much with it when shooting in the street.

x100 ships with silkypix:

http://silkypix.shortcutinc.com/

 

[Arjay]

I'm fairly sure that all the film emulations will only take effect when converting raw data to jpg files (at least that's how most of these conversions work).

The raw file concept was developed for non-destructive image editing, i.e the original image date are never destroyed. Additional processing steps are recorded as parameters, and any of the modifications made by the user will be displayed in real time on the computer screen. If you save such a file, you will always be able to restore the image to its original state!

So you might configure your camera to deliver raw & jpg files, where the jpg files will represent e.g. a simulated velvia output, whereas the raw file will retain the original unmodified data, with added conversion parameters (that's how raw generally works in all the digital cameras I know).

That is, you can load your RAF file into Silkypix, and the software will initially display the image in conformance with the settings you chose in the camera. If, however, you change these settings in Silkypix, you will very likely be able to display the original image either without any emulation or with any other emulation you chose in the Silkypix work session on your computer.