Adobe Lightroom and Fuji X-Pro2's DR photos

[ruicarv79]

Hi guys,

Sorry if this is a duplicated post but could not find a similar post.

Well, I recently bought a Fuji X-Pro2 and I'm using (as always) Adobe Lightroom to edit the raw files. I use Windows 10 and have the latest Lightroom version. The raw files are read by Lightroom, no major problems. But there is a minor problem. Whenever I shoot with Dynamic Range (DR) 200% or 400% (I put DR in Auto Mode and let the camera decide according the shooting situation) I notice that the raw file that Lightroom shows is underexposed by quite a bit (I would say at least 1 EV) compared with Fuji's Jpeg. Clearly, Lightroom does not take into consideration the DR in these situations. If the shot was done using DR at 100% this problem doesn't exist.

I also own a Fuji X100s and this problem never happened.

Do you know this problem? Do you know if Adobe is trying to fix it with Fuji (maybe?)?

Best regards,

Rui

[JP Hess]

The dynamic range setting is one of those in-camera adjustments that Lightroom cannot read correctly. The JPEG is affected because the camera "Burns" that setting into the JPEG image. But Lightroom and camera raw only read the standard settings in the raw images, and that excludes just about all of the in-camera settings. You would probably be wiser to create some presets that accomplish what the dynamic range  settings do to the JPEG's, and then use the presets rather than the camera settings. This is not something that Adobe can fix. The only real solution to this type of problem would be for all of the camera makers  to agree on a common raw file format. If Fuji provided software that correctly reads that setting in your raw images, you could use it to do your initial editing of the raw file and then export a tiff image that could be imported into Lightroom.

[ruicarv79]

Are you guys talking with Fuji about this?

[JP Hess]

This is a user to user forum. We are all just users like yourself and have no connection to Adobe as far as employment is concerned. But it wouldn't do any good for Adobe to talk to Fuji. Fuji has created their file format and have probably provided software to enable you to edit those raw images and read all of those settings. They aren't concerned about compatibility with Adobe software. This isn't a problem unique to Fuji cameras. This is a general problem with all raw files from all camera makers. This is why Lightroom has to be updated to support every new camera that takes raw images. Adobe has developed the DNG file format to standardize raw file storage. A couple of camera makers have  adopted it as an alternative file format. But, generally speaking, it just isn't going to happen until camera users are somehow able to apply enough pressure to the manufacturers to convince them to adopt a standard file format. Until then, it's business as usual as I have explained in my other answer.

There are a lot of users who share your same frustration. I use Nikon cameras. Their term for dynamic range is Active D-lighting. Since I use Lightroom I have not used that feature in my camera. Canon users have the same issue but I don't know what they call the feature.

[ruicarv79]

Sorry, I was guided to this forum after trying to get in touch with Fuji. I thought that this was run by Fuji...

Ok, I understand that this is something that Adobe cannot do alone but I think that it is of Adobe interest to talk with camera vendors, since that is of Adobe customer's interest.

[JP Hess]

Of course it is of interest to Adobe customers. But Adobe has gone through close to 100 revisions of camera raw to support new cameras because the camera manufacturers are not concerned about Adobe. They create their own raw format and provide their own software that will convert that raw file. It's of no concern to them whether or not Adobe supports their cameras. This has been an ongoing and frustrating issue ever since Photoshop 7. Adobe is only one voice in the big picture. What you are expecting Adobe to is to get Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, Sony, Pentax, and who knows how many different camera makers to agree on a common raw format. Adobe developed the DNG format and has made it openly available to any camera maker. But there are very few who have adopted it. What is it that you would recommend that Adobe does to resolve this problem that has been ongoing now for more than a decade?

[ruicarv79]

As Adobe customer I expect from Adobe no less than talk to the camera manufacturers and find the best way (either in a case by case fashion or by making them agree on a common manner) to handle the raw files.

[John Waller]

Adobe have done exactly that.

The camera manufacturers are not interested. They keep releasing cameras with proprietary Raw file formats leaving Adobe with no choice but to continually update Camera Raw. Thus, Adobe customers must also continually update their software.

ruicarv79 wrote:

find the best way (either in a case by case fashion or by making them agree on a common manner) to handle the raw files.

Adobe tried. That's why the DNG file format exists.

Digital Negative (DNG), Adobe DNG Converter | Adobe Photoshop CC

Most camera manufacturers are not interested In DNG or agreeing on a common way to handle Raw files. Canon do their own thing. So do Nikon, Fujifilm, Sony and others. Adobe is caught in the middle having to support every camera model individually.

[ssprengel]

Adobe does try to simulate the Fuji DR modes on some cameras, but only if you set it to one DR mode in particular, rather than Auto which can change with each photo.  So setting DR200 or DR400 might work if Adobe has attempted to do DR for your particular camera, just not DR-Auto.

[ruicarv79]

Hi ssprengel,

I'm aware of that. I use DR Auto because I never know when I'm going to need DR 100, 200 or 400%... (DR over 100% come at expense of higher ISO)

[ssprengel]

Yes, Auto is more convenient but Adobe doesn't handle it.  But my point is that all the discussion, above, about Adobe and Camera manufacturers doing something mutually compatible isn't the point in this situation, since Adobe can handle Fuji DR numbered modes.

I've never heard an explanation about why Auto-DR isn't handled.  Maybe the DR200 and DR400 that are recorded as the on-the-fly-selected DR mode when Auto is in effect aren't actually 100, 200 or 400, but something partially in between, like a DR250 or DR375 which Adobe can't guess the precise parameters of Fuji's conversion so doesn't try.

[ychen18]

Why do all threads about this issue claim that Adobe doesn't support this feature, when its still works prefectly with older Fuji cameras such as the X-T1?

[sydneylow]

ychen18  wrote

Why do all threads about this issue claim that Adobe doesn't support this feature, when its still works prefectly with older Fuji cameras such as the X-T1?

It doesn't work with the XT2 in my testing.

Fuji XT-2 v2 firmware and Lightroom RAW profiles

[ychen18]

ychen18,

I'm very aware it doesn't work with X-T2, but since it does work on the older Fuji's then its a bug and not an "Unsupported" feature.

All i'm saying is that the numerous threads claiming its an unsupported feature are misleading.

[Joe Foe Toe]

From the thread here: Dynamic Range (DR400) and Lightroom: Fujifilm X System / SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

“Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw are also smart enough to recognize RAWs with extended DR settings, and they automatically push the RAWs up 1 or 2 EVs when the images are opened with the software. However, recovering the highlights isn’t an automated process; it’s the user’s job. Sadly, this can become pretty tedious because Lightroom’s exposure-related sliders work in a different way than Fuji’s tone-mapping. Even worse, DR200% isn’t recognized if the shot was taken in DR-Auto mode. This means that the image will look underexposed by 1 EV after importing it. To see the image with its correct brightness, you have to move the exposure slider one stop to the right. Hopefully this bug—which equally affects the X-Pro2—will have been fixed by the time you read this.”

Excerpt From: Pfirstinger, Rico. “The Fujifilm X-T2.” Rocky Nook, 2016-12-08. iBooks.

[ychen18]

Well, some get it right eventually

But just look at this thread's beginning, and you'll be left with the knowledge that this is how Adobe Lightroom 'works'.

And yet, i'd still put the higher priority in solving their X-Trans processing mess.

[Joe Foe Toe]

Ychen, At the extreme risk of going down the X-trans/Adobe RAW rabbit hole: Adobe´s got the best RAW converter for Fuji X-Trans now, or what ? Part 1 — hendriximages  and Adobe´s got the best RAW converter for Fuji X-Trans, Part 2 & Conclusion — hendriximages

tldr: Adobe's implementation seems to have vastly improved over a few years, arguably rivaling competitors that used to be miles superior. I've had good luck (on my XE-1) with Peter Bridgewood's suggestion SHARPENING X-TRANS FILES IN ADOBE LIGHTROOM  to go full-tilt to detail 100, and it seems to be as true now as a few years ago, but I've also become a bit less of a peeper in the intervening time 😉

[ychen18]

joefry99,

That's definitely going the rabbit hole

But in short, yes, it did improve a lot, but in areas of grass, leaves and small patterns, the result is still more plastic than organic.

In many cases, its not an issue, but if you shoot mostly landscape scenery, its pretty obvious.

[john beardsworth]

Are you aware of my new X-LR plugin? Apart from automatically applying the correct Lightroom profile to match the camera’s film simulation settings, a bonus feature allows you to hook up DR and other settings to slider values and presets.

John

[ychen18]

Yes, i saw it and probably get it.

But as for DR, after lots of testing i resorted to using DR100 mostly.

Its just the way that i work. I usually shoot flat to get the most data to work with, but Fuji's way of recovering heights and shadows causes some lost of "Punch", especially in high contrast outdoor scenes. I notices that i spend more time with DR200 images to recover deep blacks and high whites, compared to properly exposed images, so now, i work mostly with DR100 and pay more attention to exposure.

[john beardsworth]

It would certainly allow you to set different slider values for DR200 or DR100, if you wanted, though I don't do so myself.