Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Fuji X Series > Fuji X-100 Series

Fuji X-100 Series This forum is for fans of the rangefinder retrostyled Fuji X Series of digital cameras.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

X100 RAW processed
Old 03-01-2011   #1
ebrandon
Registered User
 
ebrandon is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 14
X100 RAW processed

We've all been waiting to see what the X100 can do in RAW, but have been unable to open the samples in any programs.


In this thread, http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=37858823, a special patched version of a RAW converter was used to convert the RAWs to PNG.

I downloaded those PNGs, and converted them to TIFF in iPhoto. Then used Lightroom 3 and Photoshop CS4 to process the TIFF like any RAW file -- denoise, sharpening, adjusting exposure, color, contrast, etc.

For those worried that the X100 produces soft, flat images -- rest assured -- the RAWs can deliver the goods.

Here is a link to download the "before" (unprocessed TIFF) http://db.tt/uM3tnCm and the "after" (post-processed TIFF) http://db.tt/dvXlxHS

For those who don't want to download 60 MB of TIFFs, here's a SmugMug gallery with "before" and "after" post-processing JPGs and 100% crops. http://thebrandons.smugmug.com/Other...03198900_bYuCD
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #2
Terao
Kiloran
 
Terao is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southampton, UK
Age: 49
Posts: 963
So on the smugmug gallery, I assume that the first (lower contrast) shot is the camera JPG and the second is the RAW processed? i.e the ones labelled 1 of 2 are RAW processed?
__________________
Currently using:

Bodies:
Nikon D700
Lenses: Nikon 50mm f/1.2 AIS, Nikon 85mm f/1.4

My Flickr gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #3
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terao View Post
So on the smugmug gallery, I assume that the first (lower contrast) shot is the camera JPG and the second is the RAW processed? i.e the ones labelled 1 of 2 are RAW processed?
one is an unproccesed RAW converted to JPEG and the other is a sharpened RAW converted to JPEG.

Yes, there's HEAPS of detail coming out of this camera/lens.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #4
DFNDRMP
Registered User
 
DFNDRMP is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25
Boooo! ; )

"Error (509)
This account's public links are generating too much traffic and have been temporarily disabled!"

Thanks for the link's/files fdigital. Hopefully I can get to them soon to check them out!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #5
GSNfan
-
 
GSNfan is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Age: 40
Posts: 644
I'm left underwhelmed by all the images coming X100 thus far. I also feel the metering overexposes by at least .3 and even .7 stop.
  Reply With Quote

Please Educate Me
Old 03-02-2011   #6
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,373
Please Educate Me

Quote:
Originally Posted by GSNfan View Post
I'm left underwhelmed by all the images coming X100 thus far. I also feel the metering overexposes by at least .3 and even .7 stop.
I agree that the pre-release cameras clearly over expose.

I feel deficient because I find the full-sized X100 results to be excellent. I can't imagine wanting or needing more than the X100 delivers for a 16X20 print.

While it is obviously impossible for make any sort of comparison with these X100 pre-release images, I would be grateful if you would post a full-sized image from any camera/lens combination that you consider to be above average as well as one that overwhelms you..

I need to learn what I'm missing.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #7
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
While it is obviously impossible for make any sort of comparison with these X100 pre-release images, I would be grateful if you would post a full-sized image from any camera/lens combination that you consider to be above average as well as one that overwhelms you..
First: except at the outer limits of print size or ISO, all of the contemporary APS-C sensors have reasonably similar performance and that performance is remarkably good.

Second: Anybody who shoots significant amounts of film in 135 format (especially ISO400 film, and especially handheld)* is really not in a good position to criticize the sensor performance of any contemporary APS-C or even m4/3 camera. To a first approximation, in technical terms they all —all of them — are better than Tri-X or HP5+, if the output is to be a decent inkjet print.

*Why yes, I do resemble that remark. I shoot 85% B&W film because it's a kick in the pants and because I like some of the rendering properties of film. But I don't have illusions about the IQ being better than what I can get with my DSLR in purely technical terms.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/

Last edited by semilog : 03-02-2011 at 08:11.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #8
cjcm
Registered User
 
cjcm is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: France
Posts: 12
Thank you ebrandon !!! . Stunning results with raw.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #9
cgiff
Registered User
 
cgiff is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by semilog View Post
First: except at the outer limits of print size or ISO, all of the contemporary APS-C sensors have reasonably similar performance and that performance is remarkably good.

Second: Anybody who shoots significant amounts of film in 135 format (especially ISO400 film, and especially handheld)* is really not in a good position to criticize the sensor performance of any contemporary APS-C or even m4/3 camera. To a first approximation, in technical terms they all —all of them — are better than Tri-X or HP5+, if the output is to be a decent inkjet print.

*Why yes, I do resemble that remark. I shoot 85% B&W film because it's a kick in the pants and because I like some of the rendering properties of film. But I don't have illusions about the IQ being better than what I can get with my DSLR in purely technical terms.
Excellent post. We're really pretty spoiled in terms of the IQ we can get from so many types of different cameras.


Regarding the OP, I'm a bit confused. Once the RAW has been converted to PNG, hasn't all the RAW data been lost? So what's the point of converting to a TIFF? Sure, the shots clean up nicely, but they clean up like any JPEG would.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #10
ebrandon
Registered User
 
ebrandon is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgiff View Post
Regarding the OP, I'm a bit confused. Once the RAW has been converted to PNG, hasn't all the RAW data been lost? So what's the point of converting to a TIFF? Sure, the shots clean up nicely, but they clean up like any JPEG would.
You may be right about that. My only access to the RAW file was as a PNG. I've never used PNG in any workflow before, and since it was a big (30MB) file, and I knew that PNGs are "uncompressed" I assumed it retained all the raw data the same way a TIFF, DNG, or PSD does.

Please educate me about PNGs if I'm wrong, because I don't know much about them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #11
Arjay
Time Traveller
 
Arjay's Avatar
 
Arjay is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 70
Posts: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebrandon View Post
Please educate me about PNGs if I'm wrong, because I don't know much about them.
PNG isn't a raw file format, and does not retain the camera's native color resolution. So, image files in PNG do not reflect all the data which could be contained in a raw file. PNG files have a resolution of 24 (3 x 8) bits, which corresponds to that of a JPG file.

DNG on the other hand is an open raw image file format proposed by Adobe that has not found widespread support among makers of digital cameras (except for Leica and some smaller brands).

It's very unfortunate that both these highly dissimilar image formats have names that can be mixed up to easily ...

The raw files of virtually all raw-capable cameras have a color resolution of at least 36 (3 x 12) bits. Some cameras even feature 42 (3 x 14) bits, and their raw files (though all organized in manufacturer-specific schemes) are based on 48 (3 x 16) bit TIFF image files. The higher color resolutions of the RAW and '16-bit' (actually 48 bit) TIFF files offer more flexibility for image editing, as their higher-resolution data model is less prone to rounding mistakes after histogram corrections, thus suffering less from posterization problems after extensive image manipulation.
__________________
FujiFilm X100, Fuji X-Pro 1, Konica Hexar RF, Hexanon & CV glass & Nikon Coolscan V ... plus a big, bad DSLR

My RFF Gallery, My Flickr, My Ipernity, all presenting different bodies of work

Last edited by Arjay : 03-02-2011 at 09:47. Reason: typos
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #12
Elektrojänis
Registered User
 
Elektrojänis's Avatar
 
Elektrojänis is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arjay View Post
PNG files have a resolution of 24 (3 x 8) bits, which corresponds to that of a JPG file.
Actually, PNG file can have 16 bits per channel (48 bits total): http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/#11CcGen
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #13
gekopaca
French photographer
 
gekopaca's Avatar
 
gekopaca is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arles, France
Posts: 732
The best would be to obtain DNG files coming staight from the specific X-100 raw format.
Is it possible to obtain that?
Then, we might test personaly the files with our own apps/process chains
__________________
Gekopaca
French photographer
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gekopaca/sets/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #14
Soothsayerman
Registered User
 
Soothsayerman is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Age: 57
Posts: 120
All modern digital sensors "overexpose". They do this to get more detail out of the shadows. Thats just the convention nowadays. If you study the evolution of what is conventionally a "proper" exposure, it has evolved and changed over time as the image making process has changed.

Years ago, negatives would have been hoplessly underexposed by todays standards. Things just change.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #15
Mister E
-
 
Mister E is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: I <3 NCPS
Posts: 1,575
OP you have far to much time on your hands! I really wish people understood what a TIFF was. Converting a png to tiff in iPhoto is comical.

Last edited by Mister E : 04-28-2011 at 21:49.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #16
shashinka-ichiban
写真家 一番
 
shashinka-ichiban is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soothsayerman View Post
All modern digital sensors "overexpose". They do this to get more detail out of the shadows. Thats just the convention nowadays. If you study the evolution of what is conventionally a "proper" exposure, it has evolved and changed over time as the image making process has changed.

Years ago, negatives would have been hoplessly underexposed by todays standards. Things just change.
That would explain why three of my Nikon dSLR's appear to overexpose. I had to manually calibrate my D2Hs and my D3s to underexpose a third stop. I always thoguht I was and because no one else seem to believe me. So, this leads me to wonder if the menus will allow for metering compensation in-camera like my Nikons let me do. I liek the fact that in the menus I can go in to the Nikon and calibrate my meter +/- (not exposure compensation)
__________________
Bessa R, Yashica GSN, X100
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-02-2011   #17
ChrisN
Striving
 
ChrisN's Avatar
 
ChrisN is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 4,439
And the exposure calibration will vary with different lenses (for interchangable-lens cameras). Then there's the impact of changing the metering mode. One person's perception of over-exposure is another man's perfection. And besides, that's what the exposure compensation dial is for. Shoot, look at the histogram, compensate, keep shooting. That's digital!
__________________
Chris

"The mission of photography is to explain man to man and each to himself. And that is the most complicated thing on earth."
Edward Steichen

RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2011   #18
special.foto
see twice, shoot once
 
special.foto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Romania, Constanta
Age: 35
Posts: 65
Will Fuji provide raw procesing software like Nikon? In nikon's view nx you can change on a raw file the picture control from standard (left in camera) to neutral/vivid/portrait/landscape/etc. I was wondering if you could change the film emulation from velvia to provia and so on when postprocesing, so you can shoot raw and leave that emulation alone so you don't fondle to much with it when shooting in the street.
__________________
Best regards!
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2011   #19
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by special.foto View Post
Will Fuji provide raw procesing software like Nikon? In nikon's view nx you can change on a raw file the picture control from standard (left in camera) to neutral/vivid/portrait/landscape/etc. I was wondering if you could change the film emulation from velvia to provia and so on when postprocesing, so you can shoot raw and leave that emulation alone so you don't fondle to much with it when shooting in the street.
x100 ships with silkypix:

http://silkypix.shortcutinc.com/
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2011   #20
Arjay
Time Traveller
 
Arjay's Avatar
 
Arjay is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Munich, Germany
Age: 70
Posts: 797
I'm fairly sure that all the film emulations will only take effect when converting raw data to jpg files (at least that's how most of these conversions work).

The raw file concept was developed for non-destructive image editing, i.e the original image date are never destroyed. Additional processing steps are recorded as parameters, and any of the modifications made by the user will be displayed in real time on the computer screen. If you save such a file, you will always be able to restore the image to its original state!

So you might configure your camera to deliver raw & jpg files, where the jpg files will represent e.g. a simulated velvia output, whereas the raw file will retain the original unmodified data, with added conversion parameters (that's how raw generally works in all the digital cameras I know).

That is, you can load your RAF file into Silkypix, and the software will initially display the image in conformance with the settings you chose in the camera. If, however, you change these settings in Silkypix, you will very likely be able to display the original image either without any emulation or with any other emulation you chose in the Silkypix work session on your computer.
__________________
FujiFilm X100, Fuji X-Pro 1, Konica Hexar RF, Hexanon & CV glass & Nikon Coolscan V ... plus a big, bad DSLR

My RFF Gallery, My Flickr, My Ipernity, all presenting different bodies of work
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-04-2011   #21
dazedgonebye
Registered User
 
dazedgonebye's Avatar
 
dazedgonebye is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Age: 58
Posts: 3,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSNfan View Post
I'm left underwhelmed by all the images coming X100 thus far. I also feel the metering overexposes by at least .3 and even .7 stop.
That's awesome. I've been taking pictures longer than you've been alive and I still can only manage "eh, a bit over exposed."

Where do you get your eyeballs calibrated. Maybe it's not too late for me.
__________________
Steve

"And I know now that the cure for my childhood was not to be looked after, as I once believed; it was to look after someone else." ~Philip Norman

Photography Blog
Flickr
Twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-27-2011   #22
jto555
Registered User
 
jto555 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15
Adobe has updated ACR and the update now includes support for the X100. : D
  Reply With Quote

Unimpressed?
Old 04-28-2011   #23
LincolnLogs
Registered User
 
LincolnLogs is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Las Cruces, NM USA
Posts: 1
Unimpressed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebrandon View Post
We've all been waiting to see what the X100 can do in RAW, but have been unable to open the samples in any programs.


In this thread, http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=37858823, a special patched version of a RAW converter was used to convert the RAWs to PNG.

I downloaded those PNGs, and converted them to TIFF in iPhoto. Then used Lightroom 3 and Photoshop CS4 to process the TIFF like any RAW file -- denoise, sharpening, adjusting exposure, color, contrast, etc.

For those worried that the X100 produces soft, flat images -- rest assured -- the RAWs can deliver the goods.

Here is a link to download the "before" (unprocessed TIFF) http://db.tt/uM3tnCm and the "after" (post-processed TIFF) http://db.tt/dvXlxHS

For those who don't want to download 60 MB of TIFFs, here's a SmugMug gallery with "before" and "after" post-processing JPGs and 100% crops. http://thebrandons.smugmug.com/Other...03198900_bYuCD

I guess I need glasses. I downloaded both the 'before' and 'after' versions and was completely blown away by the resolution, color and naturalness of the image. A drum scan of my best Contax G2 images, cannot come close to this. This could be the digital G2 I have been looking for. i was also impressed at ebrandon's careful post processing. Gosh, if this ain't good, I better put my camera in the closet and find some other things to do with my life. From what I see, the x100 delivers the goods and can't wait until B&H has them for stateside folks. Unfortunately, there are a lot of excited folks plastering the net with 'snaps' from their new 'toy', but I can see that it is a worthy tool in the right hands. Thanks for posting the large tiff's, large files are very revealing.

Lincoln
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:15.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.