Fuji x10 with EXR sensor - Is there RAW support in Lightroom 5

Hello,
I am about to purchase the Fuji x10 because now you can get them at a very reasonable price. I prefer shooting in RAW and I found out that there is a problem with the new Fuji EXR sensor. When I do an online research about this fine camera I read a lot about problems that RAW converters have with this special Fuji EXR sensor and the poor results you get when developing the Fuji RAW files. I can read in the Adobe list that Lightroom supports the Fuji x10 but does this mean that Adobe solved the problems with the EXR sensor in Lightroom 5?
Is there anybody who developes Fuji x10 RAW files with the latest Lightroom 5 version and can tell me what results she or he gets?
Shooting JPGs only wouldn't be a solution for me, so I really hope Adobe found a way to deal with this EXR sensor.
Thanks for every help and good advice.
Conroy

Those are new profiles created by Adobe to emulate the conversion that is done by the Fujifilm Camera firmware that processes the raw data in the camera. They are profiles for processing the RAW data. Adobe also provides a standard Profile specific to the x10 for the processing of the raw data, it is labeled "Adobe Standard".
The only way you will be know if you will be happy with the processing of Fujifilm RAW files by Lightroom is by doing what ssprengel advises, get some raw files from the x10 and test for yourself.
Looking at the camera "Review" of the x10 done in 2012 almost 2 years ago by DPReview I would say the ACR/LR processing or raw files from the x10 got a sub-standard review. Since that time ACR/LR have created new profiles and the only way to satisfy your self is to do some testing. The profile referred to above have been produced after the 2012 review so should provide improved results.
If you need some more info from Fujifilm users you can think about posting in the forum for Fujifilm Camera in the DPReview forum see the link below.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1020?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_med ium=text&ref=mainmenu

Similar Messages

  • Is there Camera RAW support for Lightroom 4.4 and Canon 7D Mark ii?

    I need Camera RAW support for Lightroom 4.4 and Canon 7D Mark ii.  Is there a Camera RAW version for me? 

    Thanks for your help.  I checked out DNG on YouTube and understand more
    about it.  I downloaded the DNG converter and transferred in files from my
    camera.  Then I imported into Lightroom.  It works!   Thanks again.
    On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Jeff Schewe <[email protected]>

  • Does anyone know when there will be Camera Raw Support in Lightroom 3 for the Olympus E-PL2?

    Just bought the Olympus E-PL2, shot some test shots and came home to open my RAW files to view them and discovered that they won't open in lightroom because the .ORF files for the E-PL@ are not supported. I figured since the E-PL1 was supported this would be too.There are some minor differences between the two like base ISO, etc. I am new to RAW and notices that E-PL1 users experienced the same thing when it first came out. How long does it usually take for Adobe to get new cameras compatible with Camera Raw? The camera is very popular and I imagine people will want to use the program to process their files. Will that speed up Adobe's process? And in the mean time, does anyone have any suggestions on what program I can use to open my .ORF raw files?
    Thank you in advance,
    Anthony

    It isn't a plug in. It is a tool that allows you to read and write to the Exif data. See the web site for how to use
    Keep a copy of your original files. It doesn't cause any problems changing the camera maker name.Usually this is the only thing that has actually changed between each version of the same camera in the RAW file. However until this has been checked by ADobe and they have created a specific colour calibration it Adobe don't support the format. This does not prevent you hacking the format as long as you understand what you are doing and that you keep original copies to import once Adobe support it
    If manufacturers used DNG there would be no problems, but until they do you may have to wait for up to three months for Adobe support. However Adobe do usually issue a RC of the next version of LR and ACR before the full update, that may be any time now. Certainly there is a beta version that includes support for this camera as it has been used by reviewers

  • Canon 6d raw support in Lightroom 3.6

    Is there a way to update lightroom 3.6 with a newer version of camera raw that will support a Canon 6d raw file?

    No.
    You can update to LR 4.3 or you can use the free DNG converter to convert your raw files to DNG for 3.6.

  • Why no RAW support for the Fuji FinePix HS10?

    This camera is well over a year old.  Why is there no support for the RAW file?

    It is definitely not only Fuji. I used a Panasonic Lumix FX-150 before that has been supported by Adobe Camera Raw for quite some time now. I replaced that camera by a Lumix LX5, but I see that the FX-150 is still not supported by Apple Camera Raw and probably never will.
    If you want wide range RAW support, use Lightroom. (Not to say that Aperture doesn't have its strengths, e.g. support for geocoding.)

  • Camera Raw Support for Canon 7D MkII

    Just trying to get some idea if I should spend the $99.00 to buy Aperture from the Apple Store.  This might sound a little over the top, but the work flow I miss by not having RAW support in Lightroom is worth the expense of buying Aperture.
    I do find it very disappointing that Adobe have not as yet provided support for the new Canon 7D MkII.  This will be a VERY popular camera.
    More importantly I find this tardiness on Adobe's part very disappointing because they market CC buy saying "You will always have up to date software".  When you consider Apple and Google Picasa have both already supported the Canon 7D MkII.  I might add they both had support for the camera within days of it's release on 31 of Oct.
    So after my little rant.
    Can anybody from Adobe advise when we will see Camera Raw support the new Canon 7DMkII?
    Even if it is in Beta form I would be very happy to be a Beta tester.  I have very extensive experience in testing software and would be prepared to do structured Beta testing.  I would be very happy if someone from Adobe Labs would contact me for the purpose of Beta testing Camera Raw support for the 7D MkII.
    Kind Regards
    Tom Croll

    Thanks ssprengel, you have clearly put into words what is currently reality at Adobe, and confirmed my suspicion of Aperture being a dead product.  Although Google's Picasa is not dead.
    I do realize Adobe Products are very well developed and software does take time to perfect before it gets released.  I have been in the software development game for 35 years
    But Camera RAW is an adjunct to Lightroom, Photoshop, Premier Pro etc.  As such the support for new camera models should be a relatively simple exercise and should not be held up by other R&D on the products that Camera Raw plugs into.  I believe they have in the past released updates to Camera Raw that essentially was just for new camera models.  I do realize I could be wrong on this point, but I fail to see why they can't achieve this outcome.
    Also, as I said Adobe Market Creative Cloud membership saying you will always be up to date. Or words to that effect.
    To have an Adobe support person get upset because he has a large number of people pestering Adobe, and not him personally, trying to get ans answer as to the timing of the release of support for a new camera model, quite frankly is totally unacceptable.  Not acceptable to the customers and not acceptable to the poor support person who has to handle disgruntled customers due to poor planning on Adobe's part.
    In my original post I made a very serious offer to do Beta Testing on support for the Canon 7DMkII Raw files.  But when i last checked with Adobe Labs the current Beta does not include support for this camera.
    There maybe extenuating circumstances around the timely supply of this support.  Like when did Canon provide the Specs for the 7D MkII and are those specs so different from other currently supported models.   Even some feedback as to what the problem is, would help us understand.
    I hope I have expressed my thoughts objectively and hope this discussion stream will get to management at Adobe.  In fact I am very inclined to ensure it does get to senior management.  I don't want to start writing a personal letter to the Chairman of Adobe's Board, but sometimes things do need a shake up.
    Kind Regards
    Tom Croll

  • Camera RAW support 2.2 update and Nikon .NEF unsupported image format

    Hi,
    I Use a Nikon D2x and only take raw images (.NEF file)
    After I update from RAW support 2.1.1 update to RAW support 2.2 update, all my raw image file (.NEF file) taken before 13th September 2006 ! would not display - In the Aperture program, if i navigate to a project / folder and clicked on a thumb nail in the browser, I get a magenta / cyan screen showing in the main viewer panel with unsupported image format. ?
    This is my worst-case scenario ! - I have entrusted Aperture with all my digital images (all raw .NEF) images taken before 13th September 2006 are un accessible with camera RAW support 2.2 update installed !
    I have deleted (the 2.2 update) “from” System/Library/CoreServices/RawCamera.bundle and reinstall the RAW support 2.1.1 update.
    * NOW I can now see all my raw Nikon .NEF images and they are now all fully functional again *.
    Their is a problem with the Apple digital camera RAW support 2.2 update, it rendered the Aperture program useless to me for my older .NEF image/files (as above).
    This requires a fix ASAP
    Martin

    Thankfully, I wasn't affected by the issue given I'm currently with Canon. There have been Canon woes in the past though.
    On a side note, I never update anything until it has been out for a few weeks just to be sure. Because Aperture is such an integral component of my studio and business, I make sure everything always works before making any updates or changes - including upgrading cameras.
    I'm sure the next update will fix the magenta issues.
    Best,
    CD

  • Nikon D300S Raw Support

    Please, Apple.....
    Why so slow when it comes to RAW support for new professional camera models? Nearly a month ago, Nikon has updated one of their best selling pro DX-cameras - the D300, with the D300S model.
    Adobe promptly released RAW-support for this camera..... while Aperture still greet images from the Nikon D300S as "Unsupported File Format"?
    I am aware of the work-around with the use of Adobe´s converter (or Nikon Transfer) but it is still an inconvenience and bug in our workflow.
    So, (pretty) please, Apple – why don´t you keep an eye on the camera market and follow up with timely updates of Aperture RAW support!
    M. B.

    Ahh the omni-present "when will Aperture support" thread....
    I just thought of a great way to make some money here...I would be willing to bet just about anything that Aperture would support ALL Nikon DSLRs that Nikon continues to build...WHY?
    Simply because when it comes to Nikon they have done so consistently. Those new to the forum can search D300 support or D3 support and see identical messages from a couple of years ago.
    I would say Apple's average to respond to a new build is about 90 days, and then they typically release for a few cameras at once in an update.
    Oh and finally, Nikon's top-of-the-line is my D3x, NOT the new D3s, and yes, Aperture supports it. I am 100% sure the D3s will be there soon as well.
    Of course you can find this same thread from a while back if you search D3x. Less so though, because due to limited availability I was not able to get one for a while after announcement since I did not pre-order, so I think for me it was about a week or so after I had it that Aperture supported it. Lesson here would be pre-ordering a camera is not very useful if your workflow solution won't be supporting it immediately.
    On a sad note...I am still waiting for the Leica D-LUX 4 support, and that has been more than a year...but it looks like Leica/Panasonic chose to include lens distortion data in their RAW file, and I am assuming Aperture is not equipped to handle that. Many of the programs who "support" the RAW file DO NOT have any lens correction applied, and the jpg vs. RAW looks different. I don't consider that support, and I bet Aperture did not want to open themselves up to complaints by only partially converting the RAW data. Fortunately the D-LUX 4 has the best jpgs I have ever seen from any camera, and are typically quite usable without major tweaking.

  • Fuji (X10) EXR support bugged

    Lightroom supports Fuji X10 EXR RAF files since version 4 Beta (and v3.6), but unfortunately it is not working properly. There are two different EXR modes and Lightroom seems to support both, but the outcome is not right.
    1) Loading 6 MP EXR DR (200/400) mode where images of the two sensor halves are saved in the RAF file leads to wrong colors. Specifically the attenuated highlights of the longer exposed half are turned to purple while they should at least be neutral grey (attenuated clipped white). There also are color artifacts on the edges between the two blended halves when clipped highlights are present.
    Generally I would like to be able to have more control over the whole blending process and especially be able to get more information out of clipped highlights. Both Lightroom and the in-camera JPGs just ungracefully attenuate clipped whites from the longer exposed half to gray, but do *not* use the unclipped information of the shorter exposed half to get more information out of them.
    Even though Capture One also doesn't give any control over the blending process I was able to pull out detail/information from those highlights while in Lightroom I can only turn bright purple into dark purple regardless of whatever exposure relevant slider I use.
    2) Loading 12 MP full resolution RAF files generally works, but there is _less_ detail in them than in out-of-camera JPG, regardless of what filter/sharpness settings I tried. Lightrooms lens correction for the X10 works better than the in-camera one in that it does not compress the middle of the image (by cutting more off the sides), so in the middle there might be slightly mode detail out of Lightroom. But the rest of the image only gets detail on a level somewhere in between 6 MP ooc JPG and MP ooc JPG (meaning more detail than 6 MP, but less than 12 MP).
    I can imagine that the demosaicing process could be optimized, but another culprit might be Lightroom's sharpening method, especially where the "Detail" slider is concerned. The Detail slider seems to have a hard time with EXR pattern in general and especially EXR noise pattern. Increasing Detail on Lightroom's Sharpening filter mostly increases noise and quite considerably so. Especially on 12 MP full resolution files the labyrinth like noise pattern of the EXR images gets sharpened a lot by the Detail slider.
    LR's luminance filter seems to suffer from EXR specific noise patterns, too. Again it has a hard time finding the right balance of eliminating noise while keeping detail, at least compared to the in-camera noise filter (and some other RAW software I tried).
    One more thing that I am not sure about whether it is a problem of RAW software (aka LR) or the camera: While reds in JPG may either be somewhat oversaturated while at other times clip the red channel into turning reds to pink I noticed that in LR they may appear more orange. Pushing orange towards red via sliders helps with that, but I wonder if this is a form of misinterpretation by Lightroom or if the raw file really contains more orange than red information?
    Thanks for any answers in advance!

    "High Resolution" DR (ISO equal or higher than DR) in M size should be usable. L size is usable, too, but the detail is lacking (more than 6 mp, but less than 12 mp ooc JPGs). EXR DR RAW files are a special case. It's not easy to even create them with the camera, because you have to use RAW + JPG and ISO below DR and then shoot a situation where ISO below 400 is enough (broad daylight).
    And these files are usable, but colors are somewhat off in LR, which can at least partly be managed via HSL. It's not perfect, because highlights of the longer exposed sensor half are handled wrong (from my point of view), but I send some example images now. We need to give Chan some time, because I only sent the files a few days ago.
    One thing that doesn't work well between LR is EXR kind of noise and LR's sharpening. Some people called that "reticulation pattern" on the DPreview forum. What happens is that LR's sharpening tends to sharpen noise more distinct than anything else, so you need to keep that "Detail" slider down and overally watch sharpening. Also LR's luminance noise-reduction tends to remove more detail than the in-camera one and the color noise slider has to be used with caution in order to keep saturation (default value is too high).
    It's all workable, but not exactly in love with each other.

  • New RAW support for Fuji X10 camera

    I really appreciate all the work that must be done at Adobe in order to keep up with new cameras and their un-ending parade of new RAW file formats. Case in point, the new Fuji X10. RAW support was added for this model in the most recent Lightroom/Photoshop update and I was very glad for that since I acquired a new X10 just a couple of weeks ago. However, I am not able to get a handle on the noise reduction and sharpening aspects of the RAW files from the X10. Is it possible that since Fuji uses a non-typical array on their EXR sensor inside the camera that the usual sharpening and noise reduction controls are not adequate? They produce some very strange and inpleasant results. It's really puzzling since I have been a ACR user for many years with other camera makes and models and have always been able to optimize the RAW files in such a way as to better the camera's JPEG output. Not so with the X10. I should note that all the other adjustable parameters seem to work as would be expected when processing RAW files from the X10. It's just the Noise and Sharpaning parameters which do not seem to work very well. At least not as well as the camera's own internal noise and sharpening processing does. Suggestions? Maybe I'm misssing something, but I think I have tried every combination of adjustment possible from within Lightroom to try and improve the noise and sharpening from X10 files, but with very little success. It actually seems to work better to re-process out of camera JPEGs or "in camera processed" RAW files. At least the results from these files act more like one would expect, but this does give up much of the flexibility of working directly on a RAW file especially in areas such as recovering highlight detail, etc.
    Hope someone can provide some answers!
    Tom

    Exactly my experience, plus blue/cyan difficult to get right, on 2 (Apple) computers/monitors...OOC jpegs are good, more easily processed, what gives?

  • Fuji X10 Raw Files

    Is it posible to find out if Apple intend issuing an update to Aperture 3 to process Raw files from a Fuji X10 camera.

    Yes, you will lose a lot of resolution by using Adobe DNG or any other third party Raw Converter.
    For best results, use the in-camera Raw Converter.
    I suggest that you read and digest the following:
    The dpreview Fuji X10 Review
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x10/
    Extract;
    We appreciate in-camera Raw conversion in any camera, but with the X10, this control is absolutely crucial. Why? Because third party support for the X10's raw files is far from universal among the more popular raw converters on the market. And even worse, among the raw converters that do support the EXR sensor, the results are disappointing.
    The inevitable downside to a non-standard sensor design is that it requires a different set of demosaicing algorithms for optimum results. In the raw converters we've used - including the SilkyPix version that ships with the camera - image resolution and fine detail are significantly worse than the X10's in-camera JPEGs. The converted Raw files appear very soft and are clearly not displaying the best image quality the sensor can produce. You can see this for yourself on both the Raw mode and studio comparison pages of this review. As it stands, you get significantly better image quality in terms of sharpness and resolution from processing Raw files in-camera than you do with external software.
    Try using the X10 settings recommended in this article:
    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9060476058/fuji-x10-exr-camera-suggestions-for- optimum-performance.
    Regards,
    iPentax

  • Fuji X10 RAW demosaic / sharpening quality

    The Fuji X10 still has in Lightroom 4 this original poor sharpening with lots of reticulation.
    We have been promised that this poor aspects which may result from an incomplete
    demosaicing, would be scrutinized a little more carefully in upcoming releases.
    It seems like this has not happened yet in LR 4.1 RC2 and knowing that the development team
    has other priorities in complex demosaicing (Fuji X-Pro1), it may be good that the team also have a look
    at this with Fuji to get this fixed.
    Can someone in the development team can provide us some info/status on that?

    The 4.1 update did not resolve the issue.
    The DPReview in depth review has been published and, for the first time ever, I read that the camera generated JPG outperforms the developed Raw file by a large margin, mostly due the radically different non-Bayer sensor design.
    I'm going on vacation in less than a week. I'll be shooting Raw+JPG knowing that, for the most of the shoots, I'll be going for the JPG version.
    This is a serious issue for general workflow, where JPG version is meant to be treated as ready made preview while waiting for the Raw file to be demosaicized. Now the Raw and the JPG shouldnt be treated as a whole, because of the difference in size and quality. They become effectively two different shots. I can't rely on proper camera calibration for the Raw alone, so the look&feel of the photos I'll take with th X10 won't be as homogeneous as expected.
    To tell the truth the X10 is just a walk around camera I bought for casual occasions and for my best half. My D300 will do the heavy lifting. I naively thought that I could have treated my X10 Raw files as any other NEF. Just normalize and add a bit of spice. I was wrong.
    Let me state that I admire so much the work of Eric and his collegues. Lightroom is a piece of art. X10 support, however, is mediocre at best.

  • Why is no support for raw file of fuji x10 from Apple ?

    I have waiting for sometime for the update to support fuji x10 raw file from Apple. Please make it happen .

    We can't.  This is a user to user forum.   You can sign up for a free online developer account on http://developer.apple.com/ and submit a bug report on http://bugreporter.apple.com/
    You can request Fuji to do the same.
    You can check the complete listing of RAW updates on:
    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4757
    If you look there the x100 is supported, but no x10 for Lion.   So the chances of x10 on Snow Leopard support is that much more remote, since Apple typically builds on their support with each new operating system.

  • Why no RAW support for Fuji X10?

    The Fuji X10 has been on the market for almost a year now and there still is no RAW support for it in Aperture. Why?

    Only Apple can asnwer the "Why?" questions, I'm afriad.
    Aperture menu -> Provide Aperture Feedback and let them know you want it.

  • Fuji X10 raw image distorted

    Adobe raw for the fuji X10 outputs a distorted image, the image is also cropped horizontally.
    When opening a X10 raw file (.RAF) in adobe raw, the following unexpected results:
    about 3% is cropped from horizontal field of view (symmetrical, both sides)
    the image is then "stretched" to fit the horizontal resolution
    the status indicates a dimension of 6144 x 4608 pixels (the open dialog showed 4000 x 3000)
    the image is stored as 6144 x 4608 pixels
    Attached are 2 images, 1 converted by the camera, the other by adobe raw.
    Converted by camera:
    Converted by adobe raw (version 6.6.0.261):
    I find this quite annoying. Does anyone know how to fix this?
    Thanks.

    You are right!
    Somewhere in the raw process with both silky and ACR converters pixels at each side are discarded. The pixels of about 1 cm of the yardstick (see picture) are not used. The camera's converter does utilise these pixels, BUT squeezes the image to a 0.96 : 1 ratio. This ratio is 1:1 longer focal lengths, the "pixel loss" is then nearly 0.
    The pixels might not be output to the raw file or are discarded by the convertors. Perhaps this is done because of quality degradation of corner pixels / coverage at short focal lengths. I'll test to see if it is also related to aperture. NOT an adobe raw issue I should say.
    Lower half of image: more pixels at the sides with jpg from camera
    Image is squeezed when processed by camera
    Original image, 28mm, F2.0

Maybe you are looking for