Fujifilm x pro 1 raw conversion

Dear Apple Aperture,
In the Fujifilm X Pro 1, you have one of the most exciting and in-demand cameras of 2012, and in my view, since the Nikon D90. But still we have no plugin for working with it's disruptive raw format within Aperture 3.x. While this capablity delays, I am forced to edit raws outside of Aperture making for a clumsy workflow, as I first have to edit and convert images in Silkypix. I know you are busy, but is this because of Fuji, or are iPxxx's the only important products these days...
I love you Apple, but please get us x pro 1 raw conversion soon!
g2

Apple is officially not here. We are a user-to-user forum, hosted on Apple's servers.
The Apple-approved method for making suggestions and feature requests for Aperture is via the feedback form: "Aperture→Provide Aperture Feedback".

Similar Messages

Fujifilm S5 Pro RAW-Files: Aperture unable to recover the R-Pixel values ?

I have some overexposed S5 Pro RAW files. With Adobe ACR it is easily possible to recover the hightlight areas - ACR also takes the R-Pixel into account and recovers a photo with a huge dynamic range.
Prior buying i am currently using Apple Aperture. Aperture seems unable to take the R-Pixel into account and seems using only the S-Pixel. I am unable to revover the whole dynamic range in the same photos with Aperture. Sky areas are mostly clipped and clouds can not be recovered. But with Adobe ACR its easy and not a problem.
Maybe Aperture uses only the basic S-Pixel and not the R-Pixel, maybe Apple has forgotten this important feature of the Fujifilm S5 Pro.
Its also possible that i am overlooking some small checkerboxes to invoke this extra feature ?
Does someone has any ideas ?
Thanks in advance
Barny

I have the same problem using the RAW-Files of the S5 pro with Aperture. I really would use this greate Apple-Software but I switched to Adobe Lightroom. In Lightroom my Camera is fully supported.
Daniel

Any plan to support Fujifilm IS PRO RAW(.RAF) file?

Hi,
Fujifilm FinePix IS PRO is UV/IR capable camera with S5 PRO system (Nikon D200 body).
It's RAW structure is 99% identical if not 100%.
Unfortunately, all Apple products is not support its RAW image because it's not on its supporting list although the file structure is (almost) same.
Please let me know is there any chance to support this camera in future.
I can supply sample RAW files if you require.
Adobe is currently supporting FinePix IS PRO in Camera Raw.
Regards
Message was edited by: KiwiRider

I have the same problem using the RAW-Files of the S5 pro with Aperture. I really would use this greate Apple-Software but I switched to Adobe Lightroom. In Lightroom my Camera is fully supported.
Daniel

Aperture 3 on a MacBook Pro RAW conversion (5d mark II) to JPEG

I work as a professional wedding photographer and just upgraded to Aperture 3. The very first wedding I just exported to JPEG took over 47 hours to convert 820 images. I read somewhere that there is a "glitch" with the 5d Mark II and RAW files and I've done all the memory/safe mode reboots. Is there a fix because I have another wedding to work on and I don't want to upload it to version 3 if it is going to take forever to export the files. Please help.

I've found the fastest way to export to jpg is to select the pix you want in AP3, then just drag them to a folder on the desktop. Its extremely fast.
This uses the Previews that Aperture creates. The size of these Previews can be changed in the Preferences pane.

Poor raw conversion from Fujifilm X100 .raf format in Lightroom 3 and 4

I'm seeing very poor results when doing raw conversion from Fujifilm X100 .raf format. Who can I contact about this? Is there anything I can do?
See below for what is supposed to be a white curtain, lit by stage lighting. It results in a blown out blue channel, serious loss of detail, and very ugly gradient.
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on LEFT --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on RIGHT)
And for more detail:
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on TOP --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on BOTTOM)
(Lightroom 4.2, Camera Raw 7.2 on LEFT --- Fujifilm X100 in-camera jpg on RIGHT)

The blue light is so intense that it is, or almost is, saturating the sensor.
The camera’s built-in raw conversion handles this by shifting the color to cyan—clipping the blue and allowing the green to contribute more. I doubt there was cyan lighting in the scene, only blue.
Adobe does not shift the hue, but this makes the blue seem over saturated. Adobe’s conversion may be more colorimetrically correct, but less pleasing in this case of intense lighting that the sensor cannot accurately record.
It is a difference in camera profile used between the camera and Adobe. Since Adobe does not supply camera-match profiles for much more than Nikon and Canon cameras, you’re not going to be able to fix things other than managing the over-saturation using HSL or WB or other things like lower-vibrance, higher saturation.
You could try making your own camera profile using an X-Rite Color-Checker Passport or the color-checker and the Adobe DNG Profile Editor:
http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1257

Improve Raw Format for Fujifilm S5 Pro

Hello Adobe Staff,
I love Lightroom and the new Photoshop CS3. I have several Nikon bodies and I am very happy with them. I just bought the Fujifilm S5 Pro and would love to use my most favorite Adobe products with the images that I take with the Fujifilm camera. I shoot mostly in RAW format. I know in the past you have accommodated the raw requirements of other cameras because you are interested in providing the best service possible for your consumers.
I do not prefer to process my images in several different types of software... I prefer Adobe and that is just the way it is for me.
I appreciate you having a forum to bring matters of this nature to your attention. I am writing you to support "improve RAW format requests" of any other Fujifilm S5 Pro owners as well as myself.
Thank you in advance for any support you provide Fujifilm S5 Pro Owners
Yvonne

I have the same problem using the RAW-Files of the S5 pro with Aperture. I really would use this greate Apple-Software but I switched to Adobe Lightroom. In Lightroom my Camera is fully supported.
Daniel

HT4757 The Fujifilm X-Pro 1 RAW format is not supported by iPhoto 11

I have brought the Fujifilm X-Pro 1 withch has a new CMOS sensor with excellent image quality. But unfortunately the iPhoto does not support the new RAW format of this camera.

As RAW is not supported for the time being, I am taking photos with RAW+JPEG now and hope the RAW files can be used in future. But there is still a problem for me. The RAW files in the SD card cannot be imported into my computer but keep in the SD card. iPhoto and Finder refused to import the RAW files as they are in "Unknown format". The SD card will be full after sometime and become unusable.
The "RAW FILE CONVERTER update (ver.3.2.9.1) for X-Pro1" is capable to view or convert the files into JPEG but cannot help importing the files from the SD card. Since the JPEG file is already done in camera, the RAW FILE CONVERTER seems almost useless.
At least Apple or someone should make a tool to help importing the RAW files from the camera to the computer. Or such tool is just unaware to me?

"Unable to save the raw conversion settings. There was a write permission error."

I just built a new workstation for processing photos using PS CS5. I use external drives to store my images as I find it easier for backing up as well as for when I want use my laptop for sorting, etc.. I copied over all my old "Collection" files, and of course, had to "fix" them once on the new machine. Once pointed in the right direction, the collections all fill out correctly.
When I go to process a collection though, I encounter an odd problem I can't seem to sort out. I can delete files, rename files, copy/paste to the external drives, etc.. What I can't seem to do is add Labels, Ratings, or modify RAW settings. I mean, I can use ACR to make adjustments, I just can't seem to save them.
The system just ignores label, rating commands completely. When I try to save an ACR adjustment I get this error. "Unable to save the raw conversion settings. There was a write permission error."
The files are NOT write protected. I'm set up as the owner of my workstation, with complete control of the system. I can't seem to find any useful information about this error because the "write permission error" seems to only be happening on installs, so that's all I can find help for.
My system:
Intel Core i7 970@ 3.20GHZ
24.0 GB RAM
64-bit OS - Windows 7 Pro
DX58S02 Motherboard
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580

Thanks for replying. I've been going crazy trying to fix this.
To answer your first question; I use sidecar XMP files. If everything from my archive was shot in RAW I'd try converting to DNG and see if embedding the changes directly in a file worked. Unfortunately, a lot of my old stuff was shot in JPG, so sidecars seems to be the best choice.
When I add labels, ratings, as well as change RAW settings on files I place on my workstations HD everything works. It's only when I try to do these things with the same files on removable drives that I run into trouble. The drives I use are Transcend 640GB StoreJet 25ms connected via USB.
I don't think it's a UAC problem. At least, to my understanding, doesn't that control how your machine alerts you to program changes? I looked into how to change ownership, and did so, but that didn't work. Here's a link to what I mean: http://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/windows-7-access-denied-permission-ownership/
I'm stumped. I also hate the idea that I'll have to go through various folders to find images from already created collections, copy them to a new folder on my HD and then work on them. Then I'll have to put them all back... ugghhhh

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 comments

I respect a photographers personal opinions regarding their perceptions of differing quality levels in RAW conversions but in the commercial world these perceived differences between Aperture and say ACR are so minimal they certainly do not qualify as a deal breaker.
In the real world of commercial photography, design and printing, photo images are ultimately used as 8 bit CMYK files or when used for Giclee printing as 8 bit RGB files. These files go through so much retouching and manipulation after the RAW conversion that the esoteric quality differences talked about in these posts are irrelevant.
The proper use of any Camera RAW converter is to balance the image before outputting it as a 16 bit TIFF or PSD for refined manipulation in Photoshop. This would include refined levels adjustments sometimes with layer masks and appropriate sharpening at the final output size.
We typically use the RAW converter to:
1- Pull back highlights that appeared to be blown
2- Open shadow detail that appeared to be plugged
3- Correct color casts and saturation
4- In some cases add special effects such as conversion to rich B&W
Very few serious professionals in either the commercial or fine arts world are going to use the RAW conversion as their final image.
We can argue forever about the pros and cons of this or that RAW conversion quality, but in the real world Aperture's solution, while not absolutely perfect, does an excellent job within a program that enhances real world productivity.
Dual 2ghz G5 Mac OS X (10.4.3)

Tom...
With respect, your logic is hard to accept. You state that in the commercial world, images are typically so heavily manipulated that initially quality of RAW conversion is non-issue.
I am surprised that no one has bothered to challenge this idea. So I'll step up.
If my RAW conversion out of ANY program is going to introduce banding artifacts, 'parquet flooring' patterns, or other noisy type data into solidly colored areas, that will need to be fixed in this manipulation of which you speak. Who could justify having to do this sort of thing when there are perfectly good RAW converters out there that don't add this particular headache to the workflow?
Your message states that "Apertures solution, while not absolutely perfect, does an excellent job within a program that enhances real world productivity."
That statement stands as a contradiction when you consider that extra 'fixing' may need to be done to some images coming straight out of Apertures RAW conversion.
I suspect that you (and others) are not seeing problems because evidence is mounting to support the idea that Apertures RAW conversion works better for some flavors of RAW than others. So, perhaps some people are seeing consisten image trashing, and some not. If this is the case, one could easily understand why some are 'satisfied' and some are positively livid.
However, I digress. I still don't agree at all with the idea that in the commercial world a substandard RAW conversion would make an acceptable starting point for any commercial image, regardless of how much manipulation down the track its going to go through. I can't see any art director being satisfied knowing this was going on in their shop.
"Aperture - sure it mangles your images, but it does a heck of a job keeping track of them!"
Jim

Contact Sheets / Proofing and useful Aperture RAW Conversion

All,
I wanted to appeal to all of you pro photographers out there to share about how you handle the proofing stage (contact sheets) with your clients. I'm curious about how you all make this process as efficient as possible.
Ok, say you have taken 1000 pictures for a wedding or some other event (forget the accuracy of that number, its just a round number for discussion sake). You need to present your photos to your client, but you need to present a subset of the 1000 photos for a few reasons:
1) Not all photos you are going to take are going to be great. I've heard a general quote by some pro photographers that their "keeper ratios" (the percentage of pics that are really good from a shoot) run around 10%-20%. Fair enough, I don't want to debate this percentage, but it gives us a target number of 100 photos to present to a client from a 1000 picture shoot.
2) Your client is probably not going to be happy if they have to sift through 1000 photos. I recently had a friend who paid several thousand dollars for a wedding photographer who sent them 1000 photos to choose from. They weren't particularly happy with this, and told the guy there was just too many to choose from. Personally, I felt that this was putting part of the photographer's responsibility on the client, but whatever.
Ok...so for the sake of the example here, we have to get 1000 photos down to 100 photos, so the client can choose what 50 (for example) they want to purchase and have printed, put in their photo book, slide presentation, etc.
Sorry for the long intro, but here is the issue at hand: we want to work quickly for the client, and get them their 100 photos as soon as possible. We also want to put our best foot forward, and give them high-quality photos. But at the same time, we want to work efficiently, and if possible not spend time doing final retouching on photos that the customer doesn't want, but rather focus this time directly on the photos the customer does want.
I have two questions from this which pertain to Aperture's RAW conversion and workflow:
1) Do you do any significant adjustments on photos for the contact sheets you present to clients (the 100 photos now)? Is it just a quick exposure adjustment, or are you retouching all 100?
2) Despite Aperture's RAW conversion problems and other adjustment glitches, is it sufficient quality in your opinion for a contact sheet?
My purpose in asking these questions is that perhaps the Aperture RAW conversion issue can be mitigated if we can get to the point of customer contact and review using Aperture-only conversion and adjustment tools, and then isolate photoshop use for only the final, significant edits. The problems with Aperture's RAW conversion are well-documented, but the question is, could it still be sufficient for small-scale proofs, understanding that for large-scale, high-res images, it won't be suffcient.
Your opinons are valued!
Brad
Powerbook G4-1.33GHz-17" / Powermac G4-1.4GHz Mac OS X (10.4.2) PB: 1GB RAM, Radeon 9600-64MB / PM: 1.25GB RAM, Radeon 9000Pro-128MB

">-DELETE project from Aperture because I can't use the app for the delivery
of finals:
Forgive me if I've forgotten the detail you may have posted elsewhere about this. I have seen you mention this several times, but I am really interested in the specifics behind the problems you have encountered. I have some needs in finishing that are beyond just regurgitating a photo. I'll be basically augmenting my photo with text, borders, special effects, etc. for more professional presentation, and the ability to market a photo in different ways. This is one reason I cannot discard Photoshop from my workflow. Anyway, let's assume for a moment I'm able to do all my editing in Photoshop, and those PSD files are sitting within Aperture. From there, what problems am I going to encounter? I'm tapping your brain here, as the time I have spent in Aperture has been primarily oriented toward everything prior to the finishing stage. "
Hi Brad,
If I've imported images into Aperture that have previously been worked over in Photoshop, none of the layers I may have created in those files will be available to me from within Aperture. This does not break but severely sprains the functionality of Photoshop. I'm keeping the images around because I think I or my clients will need them later, so what might I do with them?:
1) If I'd like to do more work on them I either have to abandon access to the previously created layers and their magic, or export the file from Aperture, work on it outside, import it back into Aperture. Every time I want to work with those layers I have to do the same dance.
2) If I'd like to send jpg or tif versions of those files anywhere I can choose to use the tools within Aperture or Photoshop to do so. Aperture's tools for these conversions are simply not of professional utility: no compressed tifs, no layered tif support, no quality choices for jpgs and no jpg previews. And in either case, using Aperture or Photoshop, the conversions are created OUTSIDE of Aperture and not managed by it.
3) When I decide to archive my older projects I'm faced with the incredible limitation that Aperture will not allow me any remote search of any archive that is not "live" within Aperture. Not even Spotlight will search Aperture libraries!!!!!
So moving already created projects into Aperture has absolutely no advantages and a number of problems, any one of which might be a deal-killer by itself.
If I'd like to use Aperture to manage work that I create going forward I've got those limitations already listed above, but I CAN access layers in PSD that are created from within Aperture. I cannot make layered duplicates of those files in order to work on versions of those images so once again the Photoshop workflow is hobbled.
All of this makes it a bad idea for my projects to make anything but a brief trip in and out of Aperture for sorting/proofing.
Regards,
fp

HT4757 When will Aperture support Fujifilm X-Pro1 raw files?

When will Aperture support Fujifilm X-Pro1 raw files?

I firmly disencourage people to purchase Aperture these days.
To everyone asking me for advise as a Pro photographer.
Apple attitude on this issue is of abandonement and ignorance of users needs.
Unfortunately, the feeling is that this is going to be the permanent standard.
They are not providing translations, not providing support to models such as X-Pro1 that has received inmediate reaction from major developers, neither do care for users that openly claim for RAW support for an extended model as X-10.
This is somehow another sign of apple arrogance in term of market predominant coompany.
If Apple do not begin to lose sales and an importan market share this is going to be worse and worse.
Best way: Ignore Aperture.
Adobe is nowadays the ONLY option for photographers.
I don't like Lightroom so I must select my shots with Photo Mechanic, or Xnview and then go to photoshop.
Sick of Apple.

Moved from 30D to 7D but still magenta problem in RAW conversion / decoding

Hi,
I had a lot of problems with the RAW conversion in A3 with my 30D: high iso shots made red became magenta. Now I own a 7D but the problem remains. I can not believe this ! A good performing RAW decoding is essential for a 'almost' pro application like A3, isn't it?

Hey, thanks !
Please follow this link, I just shared an example on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/drongo92/5316989245/in/set-72157625731242448/
Her dress is really red, just like the first pic.
I've noticed on this forum and another forum some other people also suffer this problem. There might be a temporary 'solution': putting vignetting on and then set both sliders to zero ...and the red becomes red in preview (instead of magenta)... very strange ... but I really don't like it this way
greetings
Wouter

Poor Nikon D70s RAW conversion

Hi,
Some RAW conversions from a Nikon D70s are very poor. A shot of pine trees and bare deciduous trees against blue sky shows 'green squares' artifacts at the tips of pine-needle clusters and in various places on the twigs of the bare trees. Also, there is a white halo around those twigs that are outlined against the sky.
It's the conversion, not the hardware, because Adobe Camera Raw doesn't show any of these artifacts.
Apple MUST get this part right if they want Aperture to succeed. I'm not even a pro photographer, but it's enough to make me hold off from using the software, at least for RAW.
(Of course, these artifacts also appear in all Apple RAW-handling products such as iPhoto and Preview.)
Gareth

Hi All,
Out of curiosity, I browsed Apple's example Tibet images to find one with nearground foliage, looked at it closely, and what do you know: same problems!
Look here and tell me you don't see it...
http://web.njit.edu/~russell/D70s.html
Apple's images are from a Nikon D2X, so perhaps it's a problem specific to Nikons/NEF, rather than the D70s (or MY D70s) in particular.
I haven't noticed any issues with other colors, so most of the images look ok -- it seems to be problem with how certain types of green highlights are being scaled. But I take a lot of landscapes, so it's definitely a problem for me.
Gareth

Will updates fix RAW conversion?

Can anyone tell me if updates for Aperture will fix some of what is so obviously lacking? In particlar the RAW conversions. I also hear somefolks suggesting to wait for later versions. Does that mean that Version 2 will be a whole different Disc that I would have to buy AGAIN or are they reffering to the Updates? Thanks to anyone for your time and response. Cheers to the Holidays!

WHY would Apple bury RAW conversion tools in the OS?
A really, really good reason is that it makes applications easier to write for OS X.
If I want to write software that works with RAW files, on other systems I'd probably have to find some library to help me process them and then do all the other work.
With OS X I can just use the built in conversion and probably get a higher level of conversion quality than anything I could do myself.
Sure right now some of the conversions are not as good as what ACR and C1 offer. But think of the amount of use and review C1 and ACR have had by now! Do you honestly think ACR conversions are no better now than they were at v1.0?
Aperture if nothing else is a great way to get pros looking at the quality of the OS X conversions and forcing improvement. In the end we will see really good conversions for most cameras and at that point every app will be able to make use of them, not just Aperture.
I am currently using the latest ACR beta, would it be
possible to use a beta raw converter from Apple?
Nooooo!
Actually yes, they could simply provide an installer to give you newer RAW adjustments you could try out. Nothing about being in the OS prevents betas, or even releases off-cycle as they have said (and I said earlier) they can package conversion improvements both with OS updates and with Aperture updates. They could include them with iPhoto updates or all by themselves if they wished!

Fujifilm x pro 1 raw conversion

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for