Fuji S5pro raw conversions turn dark

Hi all,
This is my first post here. I searched the forum but did not find anything about this topic.
I use Aperture as my main workflow for processing and organizing my photographs. I use Fuji S3pro and S5pro, the S3 exclusively jpg, but S5 largely Raw (RAF-files). As you might know, Fuji RAW files are quite different due the the s- and r-pixels of the SuperCCD. Many RAW converters had initial problems with those files. I started using aperture in May last year (Aperture 2.0).
Everything was fine, actually I was surprised. I found Aperture conversions not to be any worse than ACR. The only nag is that 2 of the sliders do not work, but I could live with that. At some stage end of last year I installed an Aperture software update (don't remember which number it was). After that, most imported Raws from the S5 turn medium to heavily underexposed. In the import window the pics look fine, just as on the camera screen. Once imported, during the thumbnail creation process, most of the pics turn underexposed. I can often correct it by shifting the exposure slider to max, but this always leads to increased noise levels. Opening the same file in ACR/CS3, no problem, the files are fine.
So I think something in that software update messed up the RAF file conversion. Interestingly, files imported before the update remained fine. My workaround has been to open the problematic files in CS3, convert them to TIFF (or JPG) and then re-import them to Aperture. This is however no solution on the long term. I use Aperture because I like the smoothness and speed of the workflow (I shoot wedddings and events and have to process large bulk of files in short time). The wedding season is now ahead, and I am a bit worried. I do not want to shift to Lightroom because of that.
There have been newer software updates for Aperture, but none of them was a remedy for that problem.
Has anybody who uses Fuji DSLRS (or any brand) experienced similar problems, or does anybody know any remedy for this issue?
Any input is highly appreciated
Cheers
Gilbert

Gilbert
Many thanks for bringing this matter up and apologies for not getting back to you sooner on your first post here.
Just out of interest I took some test images on my S5 to see if I could assist you.
I took RAW images (RAF) with the dynamic range set to 100% at 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 ASA.
I then repeated the above, but with the Dynamic Range set to 400%
I was able to reproduce your problem.
So - I did a further test to narrow it down and find that the moment you go over 1000 ASA (i.e. from 1250 ASA and above) AND as soon as you use anything other than a Dynamic Range of 100% - then the images will be underexposed in Aperture.
But - if you stay under 1250 ASA, irrespective of the Dynamic Range - all is OK
Or - use JPEG rather than RAF as the issue does not appear
Not a solution - more a workaround
Hope this helps
Brian

Similar Messages

Fuji X100 RAW conversion

Hello all,
I have noticed that the RAW files from the Fuji X100 when opened in Aperture (v. 3.5), compared to the in-camera processed JPEGS:
1) are significantly more saturated, especially in the BLUE channel (but also in the red one)
2) show a noticeable vignetting
3) show chromatic aberration (while the in-camera JPEG don't)
Did anybody else notice that? It seems clear that Aperture does not correct for vignetting and chromatic aberration (which is NOT good), but also tends to blow out the saturation for the blue....
thanks for any comment
giuseppe

What should be have been changed, Leonie?
The over saturated colors. I did not expect lens correction to be added by a simple raw compatibity update, but we have seen problems with oversaturated colors been caused by faulty raw updates, for example Camera Raw update (4.08) :
See My 2012 iMac is on acid NEF files stopped being displayed on iPhoto and Preview, and all pictures are turning red in my library for examples.
This problem was fixed with Camera Raw update (4.09), but it may have introduced a problem with oversaturated colors, as seen in the examples above, that is why I have been asking -hoping that a new raw compatibility update might solve any such problems.

CS4 won't open Fuji FinePix S5Pro RAW

I should have all the Adobe updates as I have it set to automatically get updates including the RAW editors. I don't know how to check what is currently installed.
CS4 won't recognize RAW files from the Fuji S5Pro. Other posters have recommended closing Adobe Bridge on similar discussion threads, but how do I see if Bridge is open? It isn't in my task bar or my task manager.
This is a Windows PC, not a Mac. I am running Windows 7.
Thank you for your assistance.

You should be able to open those files, even with the camera raw plugin that shipped with photoshop cs4.
(camera raw 5.7 is the newest camera raw plugin for photoshop cs4)
If in photoshop cs4, you go to Help>About Plug-ins and click on the words Camera Raw, what version does it say?
Is your windows 7 an 32 or 64 bit system?

Fuji X-trans raw conversion

I have both the Fuji X-E1 and the X100s. The conversions of the raw files in ligtroom, while much better than they were, still have a way to go to match raw conversion from programs like Photo ninja and Iridient. I'm wondering if Adobe is working on improving the raw conversion of X-Trans files in lightroom. Love lightroom, but the raw conversion of fuji files is still problematic in areas of fine detail, like tree branches and leaves. The effect is something like an halo around these features, and is worse once the files is sharpened.

I'm very interested in this topic, too. Actually, I'm sure there are tenth of thousands of photographers interested, including professionals. I just purchased Lightroom, but this is a great chance for Adobe's competitors to get clients. Let's see if Adobe answers to this thread, and if they will do something to fix the poor X-Trans (but also micro 4/3 like Olympus OM-D E-M1) support. They have the experience to do something in very short times, let's see...

Fuji Raw Conversion Software as External Editor in Lightroom

Anyone know whether Fuji's Hyper Utility RAW conversion software (if I remember the name correctly) will work as an External Editor in Lightroom. (Just read an article by a Nikon photographer who uses Capture NX this way in Lightroom and wonder whether the same is possible for Fuji.)

Thanks; I guess my question (which I did not state clearly) is whether if, at the end of processing in HV-S3 and "Save" the saved file (likely a TIFF) will automatically appear in the Lightroom Library associated with the original RAW file; this would be the chief advantage over just opening the folder with the file in HV-S3 to begin with, but it occurs to me that this may be a dumb question (as I've just downloaded and begun to use Lightroom and can't experiment with HV-S3 yet as it has not yet been released, but will be shortly). Thanks again.

Lightroom 3 raw conversion and fuji xpro 1

have just bought a fuji xpro 1 and found that lightroom 3 doesnt support raw conversion. i realize that lightroom4 has, but i dont want to spend x amount of dollars when lightroom 3 meets most of mr requirements. does anyone know if or when lightroom will provide the raw conversion

platen wrote:
have just bought a fuji xpro 1 and found that lightroom 3 doesnt support raw conversion. i realize that lightroom4 has, but i dont want to spend x amount of dollars when lightroom 3 meets most of mr requirements. does anyone know if or when lightroom will provide the raw conversion
Perhaps never. The last version in series 3 was: 3.6 and if you have got it then it will be the last one. If it is just one off thing then you can use the trial version of LR 4.1 otherwise you will have to buy an upgrade.
I take it you have done the upgrade by going to:
Help >> check for updates
Good luck and let us hope you can do something about this.

Fuji raw conversion

Does anyone have any idea when Apple will add Fuji RAF file conversions to Aperture? I love my new E-X1 but their software is TERRIBLE. Any tips on getting around it? Seems like tiff export into Aperture will be my best worst choice.

This is such a common question. The answer is always the same: We're just users here so nobody knows when this may arrive.
Look at the 'related threads' over to the right ==>
If you want to see other people have asked the same question :-P

Aperture RAW conversion and noise

I've been using Aperture for many years and have recently learned something useful about how to tweak the RAW conversion settings. Until recently I just left them at the default settings for my camera, a Panasonic GH2.
Anyhow I've not been entirely happy with shadow noise (otherwise I reckon it's a great camera). Many web sites say that a degree of shadow noise is normal for this camera, so I didn't figure mine was any different. I tried a variety of noise reduction approaches but none really made a worthwhile improvement.
Until a few days ago when I tried tweaking the 'Raw Fine Tuning' settings - and I found a way to make things *much* better.
Please note that the following comments may only be relevant to Panasonic RAW files, and maybe only for the GH2. I don't know if they apply to other cameras (though I think they may.
It turns out that for the GH2, the default 'Raw Fine Tuning' setting includes 'Sharpening' of 0.78 and 'Edges' of 0.79. This is fairly aggressive sharpening, but I didn't really realise what it was doing to noise until I discovered that was significantly increasing shadow noise -even at base ISO!
If I set these both the sharpening sliders in the Raw Fine Tuning section to '0', the 'grain' in the shadows is much smoother - a massive improvement.
But, of course, the image is a bit less 'sharp'. Well, this isn't much of a problem with 16+ megapixel cameras. Unless you are making huge enlargements from originals, and really look closely at the finest details at 100%, it makes very little difference if you give up this 'sharpness'. But the reduction in noise is actually very obvious indeed. It's much better!
Most of the sharpness I need on these less noisy images can easily be added by including the 'Edge Sharpen' adjustment, either at the defailt settings, or marginally toned down a bit. I'm currently using Intensity 0.7, Edges 0.3 and Falloff 0.4. This leaves most smooth areas untouched, so the 'noise' or 'grain' in smooth areas is as it comes from the sensor. By toggling the Edge Sharpen on and off, I can easily confirm no change in 100% or 200% loupe views.
That level of edge sharpening is a bit subtle, but actually achieves most of what I got from the Raw Fine Tuning sharpening sliders. It will be applied only to in-focus contrasty things like eyelashes or hairs or other defined edges, and very nicely.
So I'm sharing this in case other people also find it helpful. I strongly suggest removing the default sharpening entirely, and only using the Edge Sharpening slider in a cautious manner if you want to enhance sharpness.
Some related web pages:
http://www.jonroemer.com/blog/2011/01/aperture-3-too-sharp-tweak-the-default/
http://www.twin-pixels.com/raw-processors-review-aperture-bibble-capture-one-dxo -lightroom/
PS - there is a different issue with the default Raw Fine Tuning 'Boost' and 'Hue Boost' sliders, both of which are set to 1' by default. It turns out that these introduce a very large amount of contrast and exposure gain - turn them down to zero and the image goes quite dark and flat! The Aperture user guide says something about Hue Boost changing colours when Boost is set to '1' and this is the case. So I've experimented with turning them both to zero, and instead using a custom curves adjustment to achieve a similar level of exposure and contrast to the default conversion and the camera's default JPG image. By fine-tweaking the curves one can get better control of blown highlights and the overall contrast. I'm not sure if the colours are 'better', but I think so. I am fairly sure that I get smoother transitions in the mid-tonal ranges with this approach rather than just using Apple's default settings. Maybe they are a but strong for my liking. Certainly I can make curves that rarely require the 'Recovery' slider to fix over-boosted highlights. Anyhow, you may also find that this tweak helps a bit. Interestingly on a Canon RAW file the effect is not nearly as great in exposure terms, but there is also a definite colour change.
PSS - the end result is that I have set my camera preset for RAW fine tuning to zero settings for boost, hue boost, sharpening and edges. I then add contrast as needed using curves, and sharpen only with a little edge sharpening. I've then saved a few Presets with slightly different contrast curves and all with a little edge sharpening. I can very quickly select the level of contrast needed, and I am very confident that my results are quite a bit better, with better tonal gradations and much less noise.
Hope this helps
Chris.

Nice observations, Chris. I think the RAW Fine Tuning is often overlooked, even though it's a vital first step in RAW processing, and really the whole point of shooting RAW in the first place. Too much boost yields horrible skin tones in my experience. I have a default of .50 Boost and Hue Boost, Sharpening and Edges at .25, Moire .50, Radius 12.0 and Denoise .25. I've found these are "mid range" settings for the Canon 5Dii, and first make small adjustments to the Fine Tuning brick before moving on to exposure adjustments.

Lightroom vs. Photoshop Raw conversion

I have noticed that the Lightroom RAW conversion looks about 1/3 to 1/2 stop brighter compared to Photoshop on the same image with the same settings (I'm using LR 2.4 and Photoshop CS4). Anybody else notice this or have any thoughts? I'm assuming they use the same RAW conversion engine.

Thanks for the response. Well, when I export from LR to a JPEG and do the same from Photoshop (viewing them in photoshop), I get two slightly different toned images (I mistakenly said the LR images are brighter...they're actually darker). Viewing them this way should remove any monitor discrepencies (I'm working on a calibrated Lacie 724 monitor with 120% Adobe 1998 gamut so that should not be an issue).

PSE7/ACR 5.6 issue with Canon 7D raw images too dark - solution?

Whenever shooting both jpeg and raw images with my Canon 7D and uploading to PSE7 (where I use ACR 5.6 to convert raw) the raw thumbnails are a stop darker than the jpegs. When converting a raw 7D image, the exposure needs to be increased by a stop (this needs to be done whether or not jpegs are also shot). This phenomena does not occur with my Canon 50D using the same raw converter - the jpeg and raw image display the same exposure and raw images do not need the exposure increased.
I have noticed in the raw converter on the Camera Calibration tab that - for the 50D - the Camera Profile contains ACR 4.6, Adobe Standard, and the Canon camera profiles, whereas for the 7D the Camera Profile only has the Adobe Standard and the camera profiles. The converter does say 7D at the top of the screen, however, so the converter recognizes the 7D. Is there a 7D Camera Profile that needs to somehow be configured/uploaded, etc.? ( I did run CameraProfiles.exe)
The 50D and 7D are set up the same, so this is not an ALO or some other camera setup issue - I have done extensive testing in this area. Also, Canon DPP displays the thumbnails (raw & jpeg) and the raw conversion exposure correctly, which tells me that this issue has something to do with ACR 5.6.
Is this a setup issue in 5.6? Or, do I need to upgrade to PSE8 and ACR 5.7 or 6.1 to get around this?
Thanks for your assistance.
Ed

Update:
I installed PSE9, which comes with ACR 6.1, and the issue was not resolved. So, I downloaded ACR 6.2 - same problem: EOS 7D raw images (thumbnails and when opened in raw converter) are 1 stop under-exposed. As stated above, Canon's DPP doesn't exhibit this problem, nor does FastStone Image Viewer, only ACR. Anyone else having this issue? Thanks for any help.
Ed

Raw Conversion: Colors not accurate. Correction with profile?

Hi,
When I create JPGs from my Raw files, the results don't look natural. Some colors have more saturation, some less. For example, the colors of the KoMi A series look somehow dirty; the reds of the Maxxum 5D seem to be oversaturated (dark reds are to bright, brown faces look rather pinkish).
This is in comparison to the orignal objects, to the JPGs generated from the KoMi Raw converter and to the in-camera JPGs.
Since Lightroom has tremendous color tuning options (under HSL and Color), I wonder whether a camera-specific profile can make the colors more natural. Has anybody tried for the KoMi cameras? Can anybody share a profile?
I don't have a color checker, so this would be a tough one for me. I tried a bit, but whenever one color seemed right, another color had become worse.
Here is my equipment:
Cameras: Konica Minolta A2, Minolta A1, Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D.
Other: My room has fluorescent tubes of type 950 (5000K, highest quality, Philips Graphica Pro) or of course daylight from outside. My screen is calibrated using ColorPlus hardware. I used a grey card for most of my photos. JPGs viewed with IMatch (color-profile aware).
Regards,
Martin

Hallo Uli,
there are two aspects of the color deviation:
1. Displaying colors in LR
This is what you are addressing in the other thread. I can confirm this behavior, but let's not touch this matter here.
2. Raw conversion
This is what I am talking about in this post. The effect is actually larger than the display deviation.
Regards,
Martin

RAW conversion in 2 then update to 3 and its RAW conversion

I noticed that when I upgraded from 2 to 3 then 3.1, Aperture notified me that the RAW conversion it did in 2 is not the same as 3 and, would I like the 3 conversion done? When I said yes to one test image, it came out considerably darker.
What have people been doing with that change and, is it happening generally to all RAW conversions to 3 with most camera brands and models?
My preference is to leave them as version 2 as I always like the way Aperture handled RAW. There was a test comparison of RAW converters a year or so ago (I think it was a French site) and Aperture 2 held its own and was my preference.
So now I am wondering, how will new previews be when I import them into version 3? (Have not shot anything lately.) Since I prefer the Aperture 2 RAW to JPEG converter, can I set Aperture 3 to convert more like that?

I don't really want to reimport.
By processor do you mean RAW processor?
It's not that the new RAW in v.3 is bad, it is just darker.
I read up more in Aperture Help. Apple seems to indicate that one might like to keep the earlier RAW processed images and you can. Although, from the sounds of it, they make the v.3 RAW converter sound much better than v.2.
So, still, I just don't know how to "process" this issue myself.
How have others upgrading from 2 to 3 dealt with it and, did you notice the darker image after the conversion? Did anyone keep the v.2 processed images?

Nikon D3 Raw Conversion difference between ACR4.4 and CaptureNX

Digital Photography Review has just published an in depth review of the D3. In it they compare raw conversions by ACR 4.4, ViewNX 1.0.3 (Capture NX), and Capture One 4.0.1. The ViewNX conversion mirrors the camera's jpg standard; but there are significant differences - to my eye at least - between that and the colours in the GretagMacbeth chart of the ACR result.
Is this sort of thing common knowledge among the LR community?
I would have thought this a rather fundamental issue; but would welcome any thoughts from those more familiar with this level of colour expertise.
Anyone interested can see the dpr result on page 17 of the review at
www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD3/page17.asp

It's not unique to a D3. Check out http://www.damianharty.com/Purple.html for my take on it all - including a step-by-step guide to the calibration process Michael mentions.
Others get very uptight about the fact that this isn't a "proper" calibration and I'm sure that technically they're right, but life is short and this route works well for me. It also ends up as an LR preset and is super-fast to apply.
If "accuracy" was the only consideration, the camera wouldn't have "vivid" and "portrait" and all those other settings in it. We also wouldn't have had, in days gone by, the choice between Fuji Velvia and Kodak Portra - see http://www.damianharty.com/Film.html for my take on all that, too.
Both my articles are typically short-attention span things that appear on the net. Try "Real World Color Management" for a genuine guide through it all.
Or else don't worry about it.
Damian
PS I'm sure I used to be able to format links more nicely than that. Where did that go?

Proper support for Fuji EXR Raw Files

There is still no proper support for Fuji EXR Raw files. On any Fuji X-series camera, the in-camera raw processing, including specifying options always outputs a far superior image that Adobe Camera Raw 6. I've been using an X100 for some time now, and have really gathered some great images with it. But Adobe Camera Raw fails miserably to understand how to process these files.
This is more of a complaint and feature request than a question, because I already know the answer. Adobe has not worked close enough, or at all, with Fuji to develop a Raw processor for the EXR pixel layout.
The EXR pixel arrangement offers new possibilities, especially the ability to take an HDR image of a moving subject, and without a tripod. The elimination of the low-pass filter allows for more sharpness, and finally the noise pattern is much more "film-like".
I've been using Adobe Photoshop for processing images for years, but have no compelling reason to upgrade without a proper conversion for Fuji RAW files.
Adobe: Please work with Fuji to bring world-class support for EXR Raw images.
Thank you,
William

Good day!
Adobe has not worked close enough, or at all, with Fuji to develop a Raw processor for the EXR pixel layout.
There seems to be a reason why Adobe has to reverse engineer RAW formats – the camera manufacturers don’t want their customers to use Adobe (and other) software to process their RAW files. (If their proprietary software gets better results then that’s understandable, but for how long are they going to support their own software?)
Now maybe Fuji is more cooperative than others, but do you know that for certain?
I've been using Adobe Photoshop for processing images for years, but have no compelling reason to upgrade without a proper conversion for Fuji RAW files.
If the new/improved features of Photoshop CS6 have no significance for the way you process, manage, edit and touch-up photographs feel free to stick with whatever version of Photoshop you use currently, but be aware that hardware/OS changes on your side may some day make that version inoperable on your set-up.
Also the upgrade path has been cut down to one version, if I understand correctly.
Anyway, this is a beginners Forum, feature requests might be better posted over at
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family
Regards,
Pfaffenbichler

Bad D3 RAW Conversion - Clipped color in shadows...

...and other issues.
Well. My thread was deleted last time and I didn't get any reasons as to why. What is up with this place? Good thing I always copy my message before posting. Never know when the internet is going to go kaboom... (or somebody is going to delete your thread.)
I just shelled out $200 for this product and the moderators are deleting my threads?!
I think I smell fish.
- Issue 1.
Aperture's raw conversion for the Nikon D3 is clipping the color from shadows.... generally. (About 99% of the time.) It is possible that the couple of images I haven't seen the problem occur in have color detail just above the clipping threshold.
This really makes for some ugly images.
Aperture team: How about we get an update to fix this?
I just spent 5 hours importing and organizing ~3k images into my existing library now that Aperture finally supports the D3 but now I can't use it. Unfortunately I have been forced to use Bridge for the last couple of months due to no D3 support. Through this, I have become accustomed to its (Bridge's) speed and ACR's RAW conversion. Now Aperture flies and it is MUCH appreciated but the raw conversions are a little noisy and the colorless shadows is a BIG problem.
In the samples below, watch the shadow on the brown wall behind her as well as the shadow areas on the neck in the close up. Note that the red strap in the file with the color clipped has almost no red left.
I have another image I took that I was playing with to see how far I could pull the file and still retain shadow detail. The image is in color and looks alright when opened with ACR but when I open it in Aperture, there is almost no color at all in the image. This leads me to believe that Aperture's D3 raw conversion is throwing away color information at a specific level.
I have a couple of sample images side by side here:
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipfull.png
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipcrop.png
- FYI, I don't have any of these issues with D200 NEF's.
- Issue 2.
The RAW sharpening has absolutely no affect on any of my D3 images. I bring up the camera model because it could be a specific camera issue. I haven't heard of anybody else having this problem.
- Issue 3.
Where are the CA removal tools?
I don't mean this in any sort of rude way. My intention was to bring up some issues that I have come across and see if I could get some feedback.
-Josh

The email I received was strictly regarding my post being deleted. I have not heard anything in reference to the RAW 2.0 problem.
Here is a comparison of the same image. One exported from Aperture and the other opened in ACR and saved as a JPG.
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipAP-ACR.jpg
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclip_AP-ACRzoom.jpg
Another thing I noticed is that Aperture preview generator does not clip the color data like the raw converter does. Previews created after image adjustments retain their color in the shadows while the full composite view displays in monochrome. This is an image I took in the studio where the PW died and the flash didn't pop so it was very dark. The original image was nearly all black with no discernible details until I pulled the exposure back up. The ACR conversion looks nearly identical (discarding small differences in brand interpretation) to the "Preview" in AP2.0.
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclipraw.jpg
http://www.uberfoto.com/images/misc/temp/colorclippreview.jpg

Fuji S5pro raw conversions turn dark

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for