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.

Similar Messages

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.

When will camera raw support for Fuji Xpro 1 will be available?

Today Apple has just updated camera raw for new camera models but I can't find update for Xpro 1 ? Why does it take so long to have such update? Appple please makes update for Fuji Xpro 1. Thank you.

You're not addressing Apple here, and no one knows any more than you do about what Apple will do.

Aperture 3 RAW conversion and hot pixel problem

I've used every version of Aperture since release, but I'm not very happy with the RAW conversion in Aperture3.
My images from earlier versions have no hot pixel problems but if I update to the new processing I can see them.
Single red or green pixel in the 100% crop image, that didn't show up before and also don't show up in LR.
The images I'm importing are NEF files from a Nikon D2x.
Is this a bug in the new RAW conversion for this camera?
It makes all of my images now unusable through Aperture if I reprocess them?

I haven't noticed the pixel issues that you mention, but I wasn't looking for that yet. Instead, my images from my Nikon D300 have been stressing A3 out as follows....
I have been having new issues with A3 now. I bought A3 when it was 1st available and had all of the same issues that plagued some users, I worked through it and until recently have loved A3.
While editing I noticed that A3 had a large number of my photos, about 30% of 34,000 images, labeled as being processed under an earlier version (A2). I decided to go ahead and re-reprocess the images, even though this step took a couple of weeks and countless crashes when I first purchased A3. Again, just over a week later, the images are now re-reprocessed within A3. And a new problem cropped up.
My Macbook is...
[img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470326_QzaME-M.png[/img]
and when I open A3 and begin looking at my images, the program is slow to respond and when it opens an image I get a very unprocessed version of lines for up to 5 seconds before the image finally loads. The image and all edits do load, but the workflow is significantly effected and I would like to know why this is happening now, and how to fix it. Below is an example of what happens with each image.
[img]http://jasonksepka.smugmug.com/photos/942470341_Q2WUZ-M.png[/img]

Aperture 2 Raw Conversion and Canon EOS 350D? Getting slightly worse?

Hi,
I have compared a few images I shot with my Canon EOS 350d using the RAW converter in version 1.1 and version 2.0. These pictures showed flowers with special lighting conditions (high contrast, with selective sunlight). Then I've looked at some other pictures.
* 1.1 shows better distribution of light. In 2.0 a wall was more evenly lighted, where 1.1 showed that there are different different levels of light.
* in 2.0 one often has to apply 'recover hightlights', where this was not necessary in 1.1. Bright areas on flowers are much brighter in 2.0.
* in 2.0 dark areas are quite a bit brighter
* in 2.0 some pixel-size artifacts were introduced. For example on some leaf, darker green pixels appeared that were not there in 1.1
For the images I was looking at (especially when 'played' with light), the new raw converter of Aperture 2.0 seems to be a step backwards.
What are others' experiences?
Regards,
Rainer Joswig

I wonder if the slowness is related to the rendering of the canon raw files.
As an experiment, you might try exporting the raw photos and creating a new separate library with them to see if aperture runs just as slow.
Even if you find the nonraw library runs more smoothly, I am not really suggesting you adopt this as part of your workflow. It just might be good to know if the format is a factor or if something else is causing the laggardly performance.

Raw conversion for fuji x pro 1

Hi All,
just a couple of quick questions; Does anybody know if Adobe is hard at work making a raw converter for the fuji x pro 1. I understand that the sensor array is totally different so I'm not looking for miracles.
The other question I have is; If I shoot in raw and jpg w/ a Fuji x-pro-1 will Lightroom accept both files even thought it will not (at this time) convert the raw file?
Thanks for the help
Mike

hehe.. yesterday before i went to bed i thought i have to ask this today.
im also very interested to hear if adobe is working on a "trans-x" sensor demosaicing process.
i think it is more difficult to reverse engineer then a normal bayer sensor?
i wonder if you need to know the exact pixel layout of the sensor.
as i understand it they use random 6x6 pixel arrangements?

HT4757 when apple will release digital camera RAW formats for Fuji Xpro 1 ?

I'be been waiting for the update for long? The currently release dng also not supported by aperture?
Apple , please take care of this issue.. Thank you.

You're not addressing Apple here, and no one knows any more than you do about what Apple will do.

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...

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).

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

Aperture 2 vs Aperture 3 RAW conversion

I am new to Aperture and have been reading up on it. One point I thought was interesting was that v3 RAW conversion was considered improved over v2. I could understand that there could be a variance during the initial release of v3, but at some point v2 conversion would have been updated.
Is there a difference between v2 and v3 RAW conversion?
If so, how big of a difference? Would it be better to use Canon RAW converter instead?
Thanks,
Kenn

You need to eyeball the various conversions using your own typical photos. Each different camera model is a different RAW conversion, and each individual's brain/eyes see them differently. With the Nikon D2x I prefer Nikon's conversion over Aperture's and Aperture's over Adobe's - but Aperture's workflow is superior by a lot so I use Aperture.
If I was selling a thousand dollar large landscape print (I wish) shot on a D2x I would do the RAW conversion using Nikon Capture NX 2 rather than using Aperture, but that is just my personal preference with that particular camera model. And I see the difference as tiny, small enough that for most photography the workflow is more important.
HTH
-Allen

Raw conversion color differences

Yes, I know that Adobe had to guess at how raw files are encoded (I shoot Nikon)a and that perfect color conversion should not be expected but...
I started with Capture NX2 and while I loved the quality of pictures I could get from it, it was very slow and cumbersome, and publishing photos was not possible.
I switched to LR3 and found the photo management (publishing, collections, etc) to be marvelous (maybe other products have it as well, but I found my happy place. However, I noticed that even with a calibrated monitor the colors were not right. Below are two pictures labeled cnx2 and LR3. The CNX2 version was processed to include "bluing" the sky. Not much else was done. The LR3 version (done as a training aid until this was found) is unprocessed except for an X-rite color checker profile applied (more on this later). Notice how the CNX2 red has turned pink or magenta in the LR3 version. To try and fix the pink, I bought an X-Rite color checker and installed their plugin for creating profiles. Made no significant difference. This is really bothering me. Sure with some skills I haven't yet acquired I may be able to target the red and fix it, but to do it correctly I'd need to know what It's supposed to look like, and I had hoped to no longer require the use of CNX2 so that wouldn't be the case. I'm considering going back to CNX2 for raw conversions and maybe capture sharpening (I'm more comfortable with CNX2 capture sharpening numbers than I am with LR3).
CNX2
LR3/ACR 6.x
Thoughts? Suggestions?

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Jeff Schewe wrote:
Really, people tend to give Nikon and Canon far too much credit...in fact, they just barely got this stuff to work. I will say the cameras and sensors are pretty darn impressive...their image processing knowledge, not so much.
Canon does seem to know how to make pleasing images and get the most out of their data.
Some examples: Canon does a better job, in some ways, at rescuing partial overexposure (compare sunset images). And they know how to put a raw converter in a piece of silicon that runs in a tiny fraction of a second.
But these things aren't really important... The real issue is even simpler:
If all you did was make the default profile for each camera produce the same colors the cameras themselves produce, while still providing all the same configurability and features, you'd cease to get complaints about colors being "off".
Whether you think the cameras produce "good" color or the camera company engineers know anything about color is irrelevant.
No one would be harmed by this, but you'd stop confusing customers who expect one thing and see another.
-Noel

RAW CONVERSION FOR NIKON D3200 ON XP??

I have done the download that I was told to do on the forum for the latest version of RAW conversion and now the RAW info on the Plug Ins in help has completely gone and I still cannot open RAW files.
I am becoming very frustrated!

This is the forum for Adobe Add-ons and so is not really placed to answer your question.I did a quick google search and there is this which may or may not help you:
Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Windows : Adobe DNG Converter 7.1
However Camera RAW has been updated many time since then but if you are running Windows XP I assume you are not running a very recent release of Photoshop as Win XP is no longer supported. You may have beeter luck posing your question on this forum:
Photoshop General Discussion
Hope that helps.
Jonathan

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's poor conversion of Fuji RAW files

I am on the verge of switching to Capture One due to Lightroom's poor RAW conversion capabilities of Fuji RAW files. Before I do jump boat, I thought I'd ask whether anyone had actually heard as to whether Adobe were going to do something about this. i am not impressed by Adobe lack of performance & communication.

Mark Alan Thomas,
You see only half of the story. The Problem with JPGs is that this file format applies a "lossy" compression, and with each <save> "unnecessary" pixel information is deleted and lost irretrievably. And this happens each time the JPG is re-saved. So after a few saves the JPG is of very poor quality.
Even with LR that saves edits in the catalog and not in the pixels, you cannot avoid multiple <saves> of a JPG., for instance by exporting.
Also, how many quality settings for JPGs do you have in your camera? I have three: fine - normal - basic. And I have no way of knowing if "fine" corresponds to 100%, 80%, or 75%, or even less. I have practically no control over the quality of your JPG but maybe your camera gives you more control?
IMHO JPGs should only be used for
- e-mail;
- web-use;
- delivery of Lo-res for layout purposes.
The only scenario where I can see a pro shooting JPG is this: You cover a sports event for a sports magazine. The game is on a Sunday and starts at 3 PM and ends at 5 PM. The deadline for the magazine is at 5:30 PM. There is no time to edit Raw images. The photographer has to shoot JPGs and send them off to the magazine right after the game has ended. Maybe there are a few other scenarios that would justify shooting JPGs.
But if you value quality - forget JPPGs.
I use JPGs for the above stated three purposes. But I create them in Lr only when I need them. And I delete them regularly after a while.

Lightroom 3 raw conversion and fuji xpro 1

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for