This content has been marked as final. Show 40 replies
Well, ACR 3.7 has just been released. Three to four orderly releases of ACR per year have been predicted. Just hope it's in one of the next releases.
Other than that, Adobe has a long-standing policy of not commenting on unreleased software.
Thanks Ramón, I'll just keep checking the site I guess.
S5 Pro is unofficially supported in ACR 3.7 and the 3.7 DNG Converter.
Thanks a lot Barry, you've just made me an extremely happy chap.
The Finepix converter was giving me pains in the head.
When I open a S5PRO file with ACR3.7, unless the S5PRO is shot with D-Range set to 100%, otherwise, the images turn out to be really dark. Is this the 'normal' unofficial status of ACR3.7 on S5PRO's RAW?
I am using the Beta of CS3 and ACR 4.0.
My Fuji S5 RAWs can be seen in Bridge as thumbnails, but the images in the preview window never get any larger than small thumbnail size. If I try to view them in slideshow mode, the screen is just black. If I try to open them in ACR I get an error saying that Photoshop cannot open it because it is the wrong type of file.
So it appears that in the Beta version of the ACR at least, S5 RAWs are not fully supported. I can convert RAWs OK in ACR 3.7, but appears as though Bridge (both CS2 and CS3 Bridge) does not support previewing or using the Loupe etc for S5 RAW yet. In CS2 Bridge, the previews also appear as tiny thumbnails and cannot be viewed any larger.
Here's hoping this changes soon, as I am excited by the dramatic improvement the new Bridge will make to our workflow...
An option is to convert the S5 RAFs to DNG using the 3.7 DNG Converter, then open those in ACR 4.0.
To be honest I'm using the Fuji software as Camera RAW just doesn't give nearly the same quality of image.
Even the latest version which fully supports the S5 isn't nearly as good although workflow speed is a lot greater.
Is there any loss of quality in converting the Finepix S5 RAF files with the DNG 3.7 convertor?
> "Is there any loss of quality in converting the Finepix S5 RAF files with the DNG 3.7 convertor?"
The following give pixel-identical results in Photoshop:
S5.RAF > ACR 3.7 > Photoshop
S5.RAF > 3.7 DNG Converter > DNG > ACR 3.7 > Photoshop
That's not been my experience unless you shoot in standard all the time and even then there is a loss of colour balance. I've noticed a huge difference in noise values at high ISO with the finepix software way out on top.
Camera RAW which I've always used in the past doesn't seem to be able to handle the film simulation and high dynamic range settings nearly as well plus the really fine detail is a little fuzzier in Adobe.
Best test is shoot a landscape in RAW using film simulation 2 which equates to Fujifilm Velvia. (Fantastic colour depth)
Now process the file with both pieces of software and tell me what you think.
Well I am still wondering if I should get the S5 or not. Since the file size is exactly that of the S3 I suppose the pixel (not colour or colour depth) quality is quite similar as the S3 so is the S5 really worth the expense? I am happy with my Adobe workflow and I have always hated the Finepix software which came with the S2 and the S3. Not user friendly and so so sloooow!!!
Daniel, it most certainly IS worth the expense. We have an S2 and an S3 (having used each for approximately 2 years before moving on to the upgraded model) and recently bought an S5. We did a run of test photos (with our existing cameras and the new S5) and were so impressed we bought another S5 immediately and will sell the others. We were blown away with the difference in quality. In fact we had the buffer upgraded on our S3 and while it was much faster as expected, we also noticed an improvement in the image quality for some reason. The S5 is an improvement on this again.
Whatever Fuji have done with the S5 (no one knows precisely what), it is special! There is a vast improvement in the quality of the images, and especially the additional detail it seems to be getting in the highlight areas...
Many professionals have been waiting for this camera - a Fuji sensor in a Nikon body.
I love my Adobe workflow too and the clunkiness of the Finepix software is well known, however it really does do a much better job. Just use ACR for your day to day RAW conversions and use the Fuji for your important large prints or significant shots.
A friend of mine just bought the S5 sight unseen. It is an impressive
cameras with a lot of possibilities. Myself I wouldn't touch it because it
is considerable more complex to use than most other dSLR's. However, if you
are willing to take the time to master the film flavors and the balance of
highlights and shadows before you shoot it is capable of some impressive
things. For me regular RAW files provide me with nearly as much but with a
lot less time and shooting the same things several times with different
settings to make sure you got what you wanted.
Thanks Melody that was quite convincing yet since my job is doing photography for books all images I shoot are important. I guess if I use the Fuji software for now and keep all the original RAF files I can always on a later day convert them to DNG (I store everything in DNG format) once ACR/DNG convertor is updated to support the S5 RAF files (as it eventually did with the S3 RAF files)?
Besides detail in the highlights (I get those with the S3 since I use HDR quite a lot) in regards of the actual pixel quality, are the images sharper and more detailed?
Yes, they are noticeably sharper and more detailed.
I got the camera yesterday yet not the Fuji Hyper Utility HS-V3 so I still cannot really see that much difference. Also DNG convertor 3.7 converts the RAF files to DNG yet Photoshop CS3 (Beta) Camera Raw 4 does not. Is this normal?
> "Also DNG convertor 3.7 converts the RAF files to DNG yet Photoshop CS3 (Beta) Camera Raw 4 does not. Is this normal?"
It is not normal to have a public Beta of a new series of ACR (eg. there wasn't a public Beta of ACR 3.0 while ACR 2.x was still current). So little about ACR 4.0 Beta is really "normal"!
ACR 4.0 Beta was released earlier than ACR 3.7 (and the 3.7 DNG Converter), and presumably was based on earlier camera profiles. Its camera list appears to be more like ACR 3.6.
I am using a S5 pro, but I am very unsatisfied of the Hyper utility provided with the camera
any hope to get tha RAW support for Photoshop CS2 ?
You can use Lightroom instead. It manages to open and edit the S5 Pro's RAF files and then export them to Photoshop CS2. Another way is using Adobe's DNG convertor. Convert the RAF files to .dng files which can be then opened with PS CS2.
I am running Camera Raw Version 3.7 with CS2 and it opens my S5 files just fine. 3.7 DNG converter also works. So what gives? Is the camera supported or not? Are the files somehow being opened using S3 values. Is CamRaw being fooled. Are they not being processed properly? It says S5 in the metadata. Adobe does not list the camera as one that is supported however.
I think it was "unofficially supported" in 3.7. That has happened on several occasions with other models as well.
The jpegs out of the S5 are the best I have ever seen (including the pro. end Canons, Nikons, and even the DMR). The supplied processing software, OTOH, is dreadful.
My current solution is to shoot FINE jpegs with a particular film setting and RAF together, as Daniel does. I shoot for books too, so although this approach is slow (writing time), it provides the safety I need for when after-market processors can do as good as job as the factory conversion software.
So far, I have to say that the FINE jpegs have all the 'depth' that I have needed, so far, but it definitely is good to have the Raw files as backups.
Since Photoshop CS3 beta has just expired on me (and I guess on everyone) I had to return to CS2 until my Adobe CS3 box arrives sometime next week. I have realised that PSCS2 opens the Fuji RAF files with camera raw with no problem. With PS CS3 beta I had to first go through Lightroom or convert them with the DNG convertor since PS CS3 beta could not open the files directly. Is this the same situation with actual (non beta) PS CS3 or does CS3 open the RAF files directly?
I have tried the 3.7 DNG and 4.0 Raw Plug and it did not work. I went back to the 3.7 RAW plug-in and the 3.7 DNG and now it works fine. So, I am guessing PS CS3 will not work with Fuji S5 files since PS CS3 has the 4.0 versions of Camera Raw and DNG. Of course, there could be newer modifications I am not aware of.
I would guess that with the next quartly update of ACR 4.0 the S5 will be
supported. The real question is will it do a good job. I have read posts on
other message boards that indicate that Adobe's S5 support produces
extremely noisy images where the Fuji software will not very good produces
much better results and is able to use all of the dynamic range in the
rather unique S5 images.
Now we can't blame Adobe for this, we must blame Fuji and every other camera
company that refuses to document and allow open use of their raw formats.
Adobe does very good considering they have to reverse engineer the raw
Though the whole Adobe thing would be much less of an issue too if the
camera companies that want to keep their raw files hidden and propritary
included desent raw processing software with their cameras. So far I have
not seen any company do this. They all pretty much suck. Nikon comes the
closist however, you have to spend more than $100 to get the good software.
Companies also need to realize that people want to use the industry standard
in image editing software and that means Adobe Photoshop.
Power PC G5, and I am now using CS3 and ACR 4.0. That combination opens my S5 files just fine. The files are as clean as you could wish for, so without comparing to what Hyper Utility might be able to add to these images, I am not sure where the problems folks mention above are coming from.
I do agree with the general urging for companies to make the crucial info. available, though. I can only use CS3/ACR or Capture 1 for any professional work, for many reasons. Every camera company's raw processors have serious workflow problems, for sure.
I have the exact same set-up as Kit, but my PS version 9.0.2 and ACR 4.0 will not open Fungi S5 files, so I guessing CS3 must have some additional tweeks to do this. I don't like the idea of having to buy other programs to make this all work. It's not the cost, but the principle and extra steps it takes. The Fuji Hyper Utility works, but it's slow and when I'm working out of town, my Mac G4 laptop is too slow to work with Hyper Utility.
PS: Thanks for posting the reasons why Adobe does not always work well with Fungi S5. I'm glad to know it's not their fault.
Yes, ACR 4.0 only works with CS3... Adobe did the same thing in the transition fom CS to CS2. :(
We are all Beta-testing, all the time, these days. cheers, kl
I am only repeating (like a deranged parrot) what I have seen others talk
about on other forums like dpReview and Steve's DigiCams. I am considering
this camera myself. It seems after looking at many of the posts that the
noise issue is with Lightroom most. But, then it could be that people just
don't know what they are doing.
However, since Adobe has to reverse engineer the RAW formats it wouldn't
surprise me if they aren't dealing at all or very well with the unique
sensor and image data that the S5 has because of its unique nature. If they
are treating like any other CCD or CMOS sensor then the extra dynamic range,
etc. wouldn't come in to play. In that case the Fuji software sucky or not
in workflow would do a better job as it would make use of the unique
capabilities of this camera.
You can use ACR 4.0 with Photoshp Elements 5.0. So that may be a more cost
effective way to deal with this. However, I do feel that CS3 is one of the
best upgrades Adobe has done since Photoshop 4. If you do go the Elements
route keep in mind that not all of the ACR 4 controls are available. Light
Photoshop means light ACR. :)
Has anyone tried converting S5 Pro raw files to DNG using DxO Optics Pro software? According to the manufacturer's website (www.dxo.com), the most recent version (4.0) now supports Fuji S5 Pro and S3 Pro for both Mac and PC platforms. Just curious to learn how well (if?) this process works for creating files that can be edited in PS CS3. -- Sue
Barnett, <br /> <br />Your feelings about the upgrade to CS3 seem unsubstantiated in light of the many reported problems... <br /> <br />Photoshop CS3 is plagued with a slew of FATAL usage and printing bugs. <br />Here's just a sampling. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Let's start with freezing up. <br /> <br /> <a br="" /></a>href="/note_redirect.php?note_id=2503875357&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobeforums.co m%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwebx%3F128%40%40.3bc3e082&h=e81ac6ab6bc5fce74718ceb99b3481cb" <br />target="_blank" <br />title="http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bc3e082">PS CS3 <br />freezes when attempting to copy a selection <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />We have a series of new reasons to use <a br="" /></a>href="/note_redirect.php?note_id=2503875357&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ddisoftware.co m%2Fqimage%2F&h=dcff6e3f28a065e1c4e824dfe1132363" <br />target="_blank" title="http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/">QImage <br />for printing instead. Of course. Adobe calls some of them <i>new <br />features</i> and <i>new paradigms</i>! <b>xD</b> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <a br="" /></a>href="/note_redirect.php?note_id=2503875357&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobeforums.co m%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwebx%3F50%40%40.3bc3c10c&h=ef9592da3645b9a22788e9bd39cbf472" <br />target="_blank" <br />title="http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?50@@.3bc3c10c">"CS3 <br />Print Feature? - Forgetting settings!" <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <a br="" /></a>href="/note_redirect.php?note_id=2503875357&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobeforums.co m%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwebx%3F14%40%40.3bc3e74b&h=60c7cc80e302c888944d84b099a211a6" <br />target="_blank" <br />title="http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bc3e74b">"Adobe, <br />what happened to a wonderful company/product?!" <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <a br="" /></a>href="/note_redirect.php?note_id=2503875357&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobeforums.co m%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwebx%3F50%40%40.3bc3db82%2F2&h=78a741c94967b5b3b4fcfce0a863cbe5" <br />target="_blank" <br />title="http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?50@@.3bc3db82/2">"PRINTING: <br />The infamous TechNote ID: kb400878 is a major screw-up!" <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <a br="" /></a>href="/note_redirect.php?note_id=2503875357&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adobeforums.co m%2Fcgi-bin%2Fwebx%3F128%40%40.3bc3c894&h=3dfa99fc1ee7901ec16ef300d7d10b76" <br />target="_blank" <br />title="http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bc3c894">"CS3 <br />Printing has a major bug or programming Issue." <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />and other comments on this last one are here: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Message #86 <br /> <br /> <a br="" /></a>href="http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16391&st=80" <br />target="_blank"> <span>http://luminous-landscape.</span> <wbr /> <span>com/forum/index.php?showto</span> <wbr />pic=16391&st=80 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />AND <br /> <br /> <a href="/cgi-bin/webx?50@@.3bc3fcc7">Buko, "Adobe this is sad...so sad it's funny. B)" #, 23 May 2007 7:52 pm</a> <br /> <br />AND <br /> <br /> <a href="/cgi-bin/webx?50@@.3bc3f93f/16">ID. Awe, "CS3 print is awesome" #17, 23 May 2007 4:11 am</a> <br /> <br />Photoshop CS3 is now being called by some Adobe Forum regulars (the <br />same people who freely help Adobe users worldwide) <i> <b>"the worst <br />Photoshop version release ever."</b> </i> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />What a DISASTER! <br />
BTW. Fuji has told me that they have given Adobe the algorithms for the S5.
You have to remember that there are literally thousands of Photoshop users don't even know that these forums exist. They use Photoshop on a daily basis in their careers. There have been some complaints about Photoshop CS3, which indicates that some people have had some compatibility problems, or perhaps some installation problems. And a few of those people end up coming here looking for solutions.
However, I have to agree that the CS3 version is definitely an improvement and well worth getting. I have an older computer (1.6 GHz processor, 1 GB RAM) that cannot be upgraded any more than it already has been. Photoshop CS3 and camera raw 4.0 are both running extremely well on my computer. I had a couple of problems with Bridge for a little while until I finally got it configured properly, but it too runs now without any problems whatsoever. There were quite a few changes in CS3, and I wonder how many of these people who are having so many problems really took the time to configure the program for their computer. In my opinion, Photoshop CS3 is not a disaster, but is a very welcomed upgrade. It's unfortunate that some people have such a low opinion of the new version.
> Photoshop CS3 is now being called by some Adobe Forum regulars (the
same people who freely help Adobe users worldwide) "the worst
Photoshop version release ever."
It must be the Windows version. The Mac forums are full of praise for CS3.
You have to keep in mind that there will always be a large number of idiots with screwed up systems, and those are more likely to come to a forum than those who do not experience the issue.
In my opinion, this is the best Photoshop upgrade ever.
Would someone kindly direct me to an explanation of the differences/new functions of CS3 Camera Raw and CS2? I know it must be somewhere, and the FAQ section was helpful, but I could not find anything like this in the Help files installed with the CS3 Photoshop upgrade.
CS3 (only Bridge and PS) seem like a significant improvement over CS2 for a working photographer, IMHO.
You've buried your question in a totally unrelated thread, so it may well remain unread by those who can answer it.
Look at the video tutorials on Russell Brown's site, lynda.com, the NAPP site, etc.
I'm not aware of a specific document like what you request. ACR 4 and ACR 3.x are two entirely different animals. Anyone attempting a side-by-side comparison would have a tough road to hoe.
> "Would someone kindly direct me to an explanation of the differences/new functions of CS3 Camera Raw and CS2?"
In effect, the Lightroom team took the core code of ACR 3.x and greatly enhanced it to meet Lightroom's needs. Then these features were fed back into ACR 4.0, at least as capability, although not always with the same UI.
I'm sure I'll miss a few things, but here is a flavour:
- Support for JPEGs and TIFFs as well as raw files.
- Better screen layout, including better handling of the workflow options and a full-screen mode.
- Clone / Heal / Red-eye.
- Fill / Recover / Vibrance controls.
- Parametric tone curve control (additional option).
- HSL. (Separate Hue, Saturation, Luminance controls for each of 8 colours).
- Split toning.
- Presets as an easy way of storing and re-using settings.
- It also shares a new feature with ACR 3.7: the ability to have defaults according to camera serial number and/or ISO value.