Fujifilm F600EXR ACR capability

I'm interested in the F500 as a compact, long zoom, with raw capability. It seems to operate in two modes, either 16mp normal or 8mp low noise/high dynamic range, ACR 6.5 includes support for this camera; however, I can't find information as to how the 16mp/8mp EXR functionality is handled in raw. Has anybody used ACR for this camera, and if so what is your experience?
Richard Southworth

Hi Richard,
I don't have that camera but I've used the HS10, HS20 and the X10. It is my understanding that if you shoot in RAW-only mode the camera defaults to a single full resolution RAW image, meaning you won't take advantage of the binning features of the EXR sensor. However, if you shoot in RAW+JPG mode and select M for the image size the camera will write a RAW file that is pre-binned as a single half resolution RAW file. There are some additional restrictions, I believe if you shoot at an ISO value that is less than the DR value it will still be a full size image, e.g. if you use DR400 and shoot ISO 200 it will be a full res image, but I'm not positive.
I've seen that ACR/LR can generally read both the 'full' size RAW images and the 'half' size RAW images that these cameras create.
If you google search there are some blogs with a bit more information that will be helpful.

Similar Messages

DNG and Mountain Lion Question

I just upgraded to a new computer, from a Mac Pro running Lion to an iMac running Mountain Lion. Using Lightroom 5 on both of them. Everything went fine with the migration of the photographs and catalog and all is well in the Lightroom world.
I've been converting images from my Fuji RAF to DNG on import for the past six months or so. For some reason, Finder on the Mountain Lion machine does't give me a preview of the DNG files. It just shows the DNG icon. However, the same image has a preview in the Finder in Lion.
Finder and Preview work fine with original RAF files on both machines.
Does anyone have an idea what the difference might be?

This may or may not be related to your problem but it is worth checking out.
In LR 4.4, ACR 7.4 Adobe had some major corrections to the profiles for Fuji cameras using the new X-Trans sensor. see the info below to info from Adobe.
Changes to Existing Camera Support:
Camera Raw 7.4 includes a correction to the demosaic algorithms for Fujifilm cameras with the X-Trans sensor. This specifically impacts the following cameras:
Fujifilm X-Pro1 (*)
Fujifilm X-E1 (*)
Fujifilm X100S
Fujifilm X20
(*) Based on user feedback, the default sharpening amount applied to Fujifilm X-Pro1 and Fujifilm X-E1 raw files has been increased between Camera Raw 7.4 Release Candidate and the final Camera Raw 7.4 release.
Camera Raw 7.4 includes a correction to the demosaic algorithms for Fujifilm cameras with the EXR sensor. This correction applies only to raw images captured using the “EXR HR” mode with the following cameras:
Fujifilm X10
Fujifilm XF1
Fujifilm X-S1
Fujifilm S200EXR
Fujifilm HS20EXR
Fujifilm HS30EXR
Fujifilm F550EXR
Fujifilm F600EXR
Fujifilm F770EXR
Fujifilm F800EXR
If your raw files were converted to DNG using a prior version to LR 4.4 ACR 7.4 they may have been affected in some way.

Camera Raw 7.0 for Photoshop CS5 to be compatible with Lightroom 4?

When I try to open an image from LR4 in Photoshop CS5 I get a message asking me to download Camera Raw 7.0. This is not on the Adobe web site. When will it be available?
Message title was edited by: Brett N

Out of curiosity, what difference does it make if you edit ACR functions in ACR or LR? What can you do in ACR that you can't do in LR?
I sometimes think of LR as an alternate front-end to CS5. YMMV.
No, they're different tools with vastly different and complementary capabilities, unless you use them only for minor tweaks. Why would you want the same ACR capability in CS5 as you have in LR? Check into "Open as smart object" -- I do this sometimes to bring in a fully editable RAW into CS5 so I can continue to operate on it at the RAW level. You can duplicate the layer, apply ACR to the duplicate (which also modifies the first layer), rasterize the duplicate when you're done. Then you go back to the background/first layer, set it back or change it some more with ACR, rasterize it, and with layer masks you can select which parts of each edit you want to show through on the final composite image.
I typically do this a lot for exposures that have too much dynamic range: one layer with negative EC, another with positive EC + fill (if needed), then composite the two to get a more balanced exposure. With the Adjustment brush's updates in LR4, you can do most of this now there (Shadow recovery in the Adjustment Brush is huge!), but that is using circular areas, which aren't always practical. Think of an irregular, jagged edge area that is in shadows: that's a lot of little and big brush circles to get the job done in LR4, where a mask in CS5 is far more practical and powerful.

Fujifilm raw in ACR 6.6 opening multiple images

I have a fujifilm hx20 16Mp camera that produces raw images in fuji's .raf format. The most recent version of Adobe's loader loads these images and they open correctly in Camera Raw at 4308 x 3456 pixels, 240 pp, 15.9 Mpix if I open just one image at a time. Problem is, when I want to open 3 images for HDR processing, two of the three have a different pixel size in ACR -- 4096 x 3072, 240,12.6 Mpix. HDR pro quits with a message saying that the images must all be the same size. If I go back to Bridge and open the images one at a time, they're all the same (correct) size.
The same results if I open just two at a time.
System is a Mac Pro, OS 10.7.3, Bridge 4.05.11, ACR 6.6, 10 GB main memory, 3.6 TB disk.
Seems like a software glitch to me.

thanks for the reply. However, my workflow requires me to open the Files in PhotoMechanic and then open in Photoshop. I currently am not going through Bridge first. This works fine in OS X. Any fix for Windows?

Fujifilm X-Pro1?

How come the Fujifilm X-Pro1 is not included in Camera raw 6.7? I need it! I need to be able to work on my raw files ASAP! Why?

Eli Baker wrote:
My issues are not with Adobe, or with Fuji exclusively. My issues are with them together. If Silkypix is able to handle the Fuji RAW format, then it is conceivable that Adobe would also be able to develop a process to deal with the format. Something must be going on behind the scenes between hardware and software manufacturers that prevents some 3rd party companies (IE Adobe) from having the capability to deal with RAW formats before the release of new hardware, while others (Silkypix) can. Fuji must have hand picked Silkypix to to "the one" to handle the camer's RAW format. This begs the question "Why isn't the industry leader in image production software picked to handle the RAW format work for the industry leader for point-and-click?"
But ACR and Lightroom DO support the RAF file format that Fuji produces. If you look at the list of supported cameras in the accompanying help file on the Adobe website you will see that there are a number of Fuji cameras that are supported. It isn't just the RAF format; it's the individual camera models. And the model we have been talking about in this thread is so new that there hasn't been enough time to profile that specific camera model. ACR and Lightroom need to know that information, and a profile needs to be created for that model or they cannot know what to provide. Again, support is provided on a MODEL basis, not just a file format.

Capture vs. Content Sharpening in Lightroom and ACR

Hi,
I have a question regarding sharpening in Lightroom and ACR. In the information I have read, many authors point out that Lightroom and ACR's detail panel is optimized to provide control over capture sharpening. In a post that I read recently by Jeff Schewe, he clarified that and said that we are really sharpening for both capture and content with the detail panel in Lightroom.
That is confusing to me because after reading Bruce Fraser's book on sharpening, capture and content sharpening were treated as two different processes. If I understood correctly capture sharpening for digital captures was based on the characteristics of the camera and the file size of the image, with larger megapixel files receiving a smaller radius. In addition, I read that the radius in content sharpening is dictated by the dominant characteristics of the subject matter being sharpened, with high frequency subject matter receiving a smaller radius and low frequency receiving a higher radius.
The reason I am confused is that it appears that capture and content sharpening for the same digital capture can at times be quite different. For example, I believe that the book suggests a radius for an 11 megapixel capture of .4. If the image content calls for a sharpening radius of 1.3, what do I do? In Lightroom/ACR I can only choose 1 radius.
In all the reading I have done regarding the proper use of Lightroom and ACR, it suggest that you should use a radius that is suited to the image content. So it appears that we are that we are being encouraged to perform content sharpening only with Lightroom and ACR. What happened to the "capture" sharpening portion of the process?
Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
Sharpening for both capture and content in one pass would seem to conflict with some of the basic concepts elaborated on in Bruce Fraser's book. I am assuming that since Lightroom is using Photokit Sharpener routines, that they have accounted for the capture portion of the sharpening, but I don't see that stated explicitly anywhere in anything that I have read. If they have, I say kudos to everyone involved as that would be great. I'm just looking for a clearer understanding of what's happening.
If anyone can shed some light on this topic I would be very appreciative.
Thanks,
John Arnold

>Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
The answer is that the detail section crosses over into creative territory and is not strictly "capture sharpening," although that is what is mostly meant to do.
Following the ultimate logic of the "sharpening workflow" might make you conclude that Capture sharpening and output sharpening are purely scientific steps where you should not make ANY creative decision at all and that creative decisions are only to be made in the creative sharpening step. In the real world, there are creative decisions and decisions determined by the content matter that enter into the capture step too just like in the output step. You might like extra-crunchy prints for example, but somebody else might prefer softer prints making you approach the output sharpening with a creative intent. The sharpening workflow was probably (Jeff will know more about the history) more of an attempt to arrive at a more rational way of approaching the process and to provide a guideline. It is probably not meant to rigidly separate the workflow up in defined steps where in the 1st step you're not allowed to think or look at the image, in the second step you can go completely wild, and in the last step you have to close your eyes again. The goal was probably to make the photographer realize that the different steps have a different purpose. Not to make you turn off your creative genius or to treat the process like a black box.
My approach to this, inspired in some part by Jeff's many posts on this, is to make the image look good at 1:1 using the detail tool in Lightroom/ACR. This is inherently driven by content of course as you use visual feedback. If your image is large swaths of plain color separated by sharp transitions with little structure, you probably do not want a high setting on the detail slider as you might induce halos and you probably want to use some masking. Conversely, if you shoot brick architecture, a high detail value might look good. If you shot at high ISO, you might need a different approach again to not blow up noise. Also, portraits might need a different approach. After the 1:1 optimization, I sometimes selectively sharpen (or blur!) parts of the image (rare but can be effective - example would be people's eyes). Then for the output step I use appropriate output sharpening for the medium according to my taste. You see that this is not rigidly following the workflow, but still is in the spirit.

How to open Fujifilm X-E2 Raw files with CS5? [was:fujifilm Raw]

I'm using ps cs5 ,mac 10.9.2 , camera fujifilm x-e2 , the raw files doesn't open , i need your help , Please

Each camera model’s raw files must be supported individually and Adobe only updates their currently shipping products for new cameras.
The X-E2, being a new camera, was first supported in ACR 8.3 which is only compatible with CS6 and CC, not CS5.
Upgrading your PS to CS6 or CC or buying Lightroom are probably the best choices to allow native support for your X-E2 raw files.
You can also use the free Adobe DNG Converter 8.3 to create DNGs from your X-E2 raw files, and those DNGs will open in older ACR plug-ins such as ACR 6.x that comes with PS-CS5 but be aware you’ll need to set your conversation options to old enough that your ACR plug-in is newer. The default conversion level is ACR 7.1 which is too new.
The DNG Converter 8.3 is available from:
http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates

Camera Raw Chroma Smearing with Fujifilm X Series

I'm using Adobe Photoshop CS6 with an up-to-date Camera Raw version 7.3 to process raw files from my Fujifilm X-E1. As widely reported, ACR introduces obvious chroma smearing into the images that other software (SilkyPix, in-camera processing, iOS PhotoRaw) have no problems with. The workflow for PS CS6 is great, but ACR's buggy demosaicing algorithm continues to be a real problem with the latest version of ACR. Aside from using SilkyPix or other, does anyone know of any near term fixes for this problem until Adobe gets their act together on demosaicing Fuji's X-Trans sensor?
Our eyeballs all have rods and cones that are irregularly spaced and sparse, and we all can see just fine without a Bayer array in our eyeballs, so there's no fundamental reason why Adobe won't be able to fix this issue with X-Trans demosaicing. I just hope they get on the case with a fix for the next version of ACR.
Here's an example that anyone can recreate: ACR's chroma smearing is especially a problem for any text that appears in the image. The numbers on the boats below show chroma smearing when processed using ACR, but not with SilkyPix or other software. It's also possible to see the same problem using dpreview's studio comparison tool. The lens is a 35 mm f1.4 so this smearing at the image center certainly isn't any chromatic abberation from the lens.
Original image (35 mm f1.4):
1:1 crops:
ACR (version 7.3) versus SilkyPix (version shipped with Fuji cameras):

As you say it’s been “widely reported” and Adobe knows about it.

After updating to ACR 6.4.1 i've got no new lens profiles

Hi,
i've installes LR3.4.1 and CS5 x64/x86.
Now i've bought a new Fujifilm HS20.
I read that within ACR 6.4(.1) a lens profile for the Fuji HS20 is included.
So i start the update out of CS5.
The update to ACR 6.4.1 runs without errors and completed successfully.
After a restart of my system i tryed to open an HS20 RAW within CS5
and i saw that no new lens profiles were available.
Same within LR3.4.1.
But booth (LR & CS) are knowing ACR 6.4.1.....
CS5 -- Help -- System info
Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance, Rainer

Ok, i think this was my mistake.
I thougt that with the RAW support also a lens profile would come.
But as i've read http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2011/04/lightroom-3-4-and-camera-raw-6-4-now-avail able.html
i understood that RAW support and lens profiles do not come togehter.

ACR 5 - Support for Custom Camera Profiles

ACR 4 allows users to select from a list of four device-independent colour spaces (Adobe RGB 1998, ColorMatch RGB, ProPhoto RGB and sRGB). Unlike other RAW processors, it does not allow selection of a custom camera profile. This capability is very useful when colour accuracy is of considerable importance (e.g. reproduction of art works). Does ACR 5 allow for selection of custom profiles?

When this question had been asked in the past the answer has always been, "No, because these choices are all that you need." This may seem to be a rather close minded answer. But in reality the Prophoto color space encompasses everything else that is available. So the solution has been to do all of your work in ACR in Prophoto and send the image on to Photoshop in that color space. Then convert to the desired color space in Photoshop.

Fujifilm RAF conversion to Adobe DNG images become "square pixel"? Any Idea?

I'am using Adobe DNG 8.3.0 on MacOS 10.6.8 to convert fujifilm XE2 RAF file to DNG, thus i can keep my RAW file and edit in LR, but the converted images show very obvious "square pixel"? what wrong? or the Adobe DNG not fully support Fujifilm latest RAF file yet?
Here is the sample of what i mean "square netted pixel":

Somewhere in the LR 4 series Adobe changed/improved how RAFs are converted. I think you’re using a really old LR without having set your DNG Compatibility options to old enough—something older than the default of ACR 7.1.
The pattern you’re seeing is from the old LR that expects the DNG Converter to have filled in all the extra pixels whereas the DNG Converter is using a new compatibility mode that tells it that LR can handle filling in the pixels itself.

Running ACR from Bridge

I've made a habit out of running ACR from Bridge. The workflow was quicker and it could handle large batches better. Ctrl-R is almost a subconcious reflex now.
Since going 64-bit, it now seems that Ctrl-O is the way to go (it almost sounds like a slogan). You get to use the 64-bit plug-in in Photoshop. But this defeats the advantage of using ACR in Bridge, which is quickly applying settings to batches of images while you sort through them, without having to change applications.
I know this is the wrong forum, but it is linked, and this one is actually monitored by people in the know ... are there any plans to release a 64-bit version of Bridge?

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Jeff Schewe wrote:
so, what's the point
The point is Adobe concentrates on bolting on new gee whiz marketing features, clearly to the exclusion of making their base system better. Some might say this is good, because it stays more familiar from release to release, but really, there are still a lot of filters and things still stuck in 8 bit land because everyone's working on the "next big visible feature" instead of making time to evolve the existing platform. And then you have people asking why doesn't the second major release with 64 bit functionality still has components that only run on 32 bits. Windows has had 64 bit capability for 6 years now!
The cash cow needs to get more funding, that's all I'm saying.
-Noel

Lightroom not showing edits made in ACR

I edited photos in Adobe Camera Raw from Bridge, but when I look at the same files in Lightroom, they do not appear to include the edits. I did verify that xmp files were created when I edited the files in ACR. Why is Lightroom not reading the xmp file and showing the edits?

I appreciate the detailed response. I have been told by a photography instructor that it makes sense to use both Lightroom and Photoshop together and that Lightroom is for end-to-end workflow (which Photoshop is not capable of). I was not aware that Lightroom is only designed for front-end workflow. Is there any formal documentation on this that I can read to understand the purpose of Lightroom?
The Adobe website has some good introductory videos. I think this is a great place to start:
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/george-jardine-on-lightroom/the-lightroom-catalog/
but the other videos can be found behind the Products and Channels links toward the top of that video's webpage.
The recommendation to use Lightroom with Photoshop, rather than LR on its own, is somewhat akin to recommending Bridge + ACR + PS, except it makes less sense to even think of using Bridge+ ACR on thier own without Photoshop. You can do a lot with LR on its own but not quite everything. On the other hand, those specific tasks which you cannot do in LR may be done using some other editing software than PS, including many cheap and even free alternatives, or using older versions of PS even if they are not ACR-compatible with your camera.
When you use Bridge, the Raw conversion and similar types of parametric editing are assigned to ACR and the rest is passed to Photoshop. Bridge cannot directly print or export without calling on another program or utility to do that. It can only view preview thumbnails and manage metadata and issue instructions to other software. ACR cannot paint, warp, use layers, etc - because it belongs to the same basic class of software, as Lightroom's Develop module capabilities.. in fact there is a very close functional correspondence between these two, and deliberately so; so that the image adjustment parameters involved can be inter-compatible.
When you use Lightroom, the Raw conversion and parametric editing can be very efficiently taken care of internally by LR so ACR does not need to be involved. This works especially well for dynamically applying edits across batches of images on the fly, previewing the effect of processing presets (recipes), making use of a full history of the changes applied to each image, and so on, You can print or export directly without leaving the parametric realm, a little as if you were able to do so from inside ACR.
But when an image editing task is required that is not of this parametric kind (such as compositing, detailed retouching other than a little dustspotting, etc) then just as Bridge can pass an image into PS that will be saved as a new file version, Lightroom can also do the same using its own workflow that does not involve Bridge.
The method is very simple: a new LR image version is created based on a brand new working file saved to disk. Ctrl+E or right-click and select "Edit in... Photoshop". and your image as it currently appears in LR, is automatically opened inside PS. Save when you are finished, and the PS-edited changes appear inside LR transparently. Then you carry on working with that, in the same way as for any other image inside LR,
RP

CS3 Bridge opening some Jpegs in ACR

I recently downloaded some files shot in Jpeg from a FujiFilm S5 Pro. When trying to open them from Bridge to the editing space in CS3, many of them opened into the ACR even when the metadata on the file stated that it was a jpeg. I did convert these in CS3 from a 16 bit to 8 bit which changed them to a jpeg, but why did the files open up in ACR when they were shot as jpegs? ANY HELP APPRECIATED!!! Thank you!

If they're straight from the camera that is certainly strange!
Even stranger that some open in ACR and others don't.
There must be something different about them. Maybe the guys from the ACR team can cast some light. Ask in that forum too.
http://forums.adobe.com/community/cameraraw

Most recent ACR for Photoshop CS?

What is the most recent Adobe Camera Raw plug-in that is compatible with Photoshop CS?
My CS does not recognize CR2 files from a Rebel XT. My loaded version of ACR is 2.0. Is there a ACR update that is workable with CS? If so, where is it? I can't find it on the Adobe support site.
Thanks for any help!!
Richard

This is one reason I don't use ACR for RAW development. You're forced to upgrade Photoshop to keep up with ACR. Photoshop CS is still my favorite version in terms of its feature set, relatively small footprint, and integrated file browser (rather than the bloated Bridge). I've spent about $100 on plugins and actions that give me the features from CS2 and CS3 that I'm interested in, and about $130 on Bibble (and some Bibble plugins) for RAW development, so I'm several hundred dollars ahead of the game compared to 2 Photoshop upgrades, and I have a good workflow.
In fact, with Bibble and its plugins, I don't need to use Photoshop as often. Since I plan to migrate away from Windows and into Linux in the foreseeable future (I'm finding that PCLinuxOS is very transition-friendly), this is increasingly important.
It would be cool if Adobe made a "legacy" version of Photoshop (like CS, because of its full 16-bit capability) available for Linux, for a small fee. But I don't see it happening. On the Linux side of the world, Krita looks promising in the absence of Photoshop.

Fujifilm F600EXR ACR capability

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for