26 Replies Latest reply on Feb 27, 2013 11:11 PM by Vit Novak

    Fuji X10 & Camera Raw

    DougArmand

      I know every time a new camera comes out someone asks the same question but anyway:

       

      When will Camera Raw support the newly released Fuji X10?

       

      As we really need saving from having to use Silkypix

        • 1. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
          Noel Carboni Level 7

          Same answer as always:  When the next revision of Camera Raw releases, or maybe the one after that depending on where they are in the development cycle.  Adobe doesn't say ahead of time, though they do come out with revisions about every 3 months.

           

          You'll get the update automatically, unless a new major version of Photoshop is released first.  Once Adobe makes a major Photoshop release, they stop adding new camera support for previous Photoshop versions.

           

          If you're really chompin' at the bit, there's often a beta version of Camera Raw available (though there isn't one as of this writing, since 6.5 was just released and they're early in the development cycle).

           

          -Noel

          • 2. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
            DougArmand Level 1

            Thats what I thought but thought I'd register the question - thanks

            • 3. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
              Jeff Schewe Level 5

              DougArmand wrote:

               

              Thats what I thought but thought I'd register the question - thanks

               

              Just to be clear, this is ONLY an issue because the industry has not adopted any sort of raw standard. If Fuji did adopt a standard raw file format (such as DNG) this would not be an issue. Amd it doesn't need to be DNG specifically...as long as some sort of standard was respected then users would not suffer the time shift between camera release and 3rd part raw support.

              1 person found this helpful
              • 4. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                DougArmand Level 1

                Oh yes I completely agree - in fact atm I convert all RAW's to DNG so by not having a standard format like DNG means an extra layer of processing for me - or should I say my computer

                • 5. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                  Noel Carboni Level 7

                  Jeff Schewe wrote:

                  Just to be clear, this is ONLY an issue because the industry has not adopted any sort of raw standard.

                   

                  That's a tiny bit simplistic...  Even with a standard format coming out of a new camera, what would the situation with the color profile be?  Would the sharpness characteristics necessarily be the same?  All it would take is a new design for an IR-block / anti-aliasing filter to throw existing converter software off into the weeds.

                   

                  Sure, a new camera profile could be released very quickly vs. requiring a 3 month cycle for reverse-engineering each new raw format, and I suppose users could get by for a while with using one from a similar camera and tweaking the sliders, assuming it wasn't too far off, though that's a bit rinkydink.  The reality has been that new cameras are often related to their predecessors, sometimes closely, simply because the industry often does do evolutionary work, but let's not forget that we're talking about cameras that are new for a reason - they're different than anything that came before.  The bottom line is that Adobe would still have to release updates to provide good, solid support for each new camera.  It's just a fact of life.

                   

                  It seems the camera makers view the fact that their files are proprietary as a competitive advantage.  They perceive that anything that helps lock a shooter into their brand - even for a short time - is better for them.  Though Adobe's software ends up working with all their raw files anyway fairly quickly even without their support, not everyone else's does.

                   

                  However, overall I agree that the use of a standard, open format would be better in general.  It's a case where the manufacturers just don't (or won't) see the bigger picture (sorry for the pun ).

                   

                  -Noel

                  • 6. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                    Vit Novak Level 3

                    Dng format is providing various exif tags for describing the sensor, like type of bayer filter, baseline noise, baseline sharpness etc and of course color matrices ... As another fact, since lookup table in every Adobe standard profile is the same (ok, there is older and newer version), I actually don't see why external adobe standard profiles are needed in the first place - I think they could be built in the ACR and dng itself would be enough for Adobe standard profile users

                     

                    However, there is a question how to determine the right value for some of tags, as they are non-dimensional. Also, if I compare color matrices from Adobe and from DxO for the same camera, they are considerably different ... So which matrices are 'better' ? etc ... and another fact, many freeware raw developers are using color matrices from dcraw which are taken from Adobe, but with slightly different workflow (regarding how whitebalancing is performed) and nobody even noticed ...

                    • 7. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                      Noel Carboni Level 7

                      Vit Novak wrote:

                       


                      nobody even noticed ...

                       

                        Just proving that you and only a handful of others on the planet understand these things at this level.

                       

                      -Noel

                      • 8. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                        Jeff Schewe Level 5

                        Noel Carboni wrote:

                         

                        That's a tiny bit simplistic...

                         

                        Nope...that's what DNG is for. As Vit indicates, everything ACR/LR needs to know to process a file can be contained in the DNG. The camera makers who DO use DNG get immediate support for their cameras because of their adoption of DNG. And while the companies who are using DNG is still a small subet of all cameras, those camera makers are indeed getting the advantage of a documented raw file format standard.

                        • 9. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                          Noel Carboni Level 7

                          I stand corrected.  Thank you for the additional information, Vit and Jeff.

                           

                          -Noel

                          • 10. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                            areohbee Level 5

                            I think Adobe needs to do some new profile work if its a new sensor. Just because ACR can read the photos, does not mean they'll look right. For example, I can import a raw Canon S5 image thats been stored in DNG but it looks like hell without a matching profile.

                             

                            Summary: DNG *can* include everything it needs, but that does not mean it *does*.

                             

                            Rob

                            • 11. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                              Jeff Schewe Level 5

                              Rob Cole wrote:

                               

                              Summary: DNG *can* include everything it needs, but that does not mean it *does*.

                               

                              Correct...but Leica has done an excellent job of using DNG (as well as suppling lens profiles). Pentax also does a decent job with DNGs. Although you can often get slightly better color rendering by doing a custom DNG Profile for your own camera–course that applies in any case. But the bottom line is that a DNG meeting spec can be opened in ACR/LR even if the camera itself isn't directly supported.

                              • 12. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                areohbee Level 5

                                Perhaps ACR should issue a warning when opening DNGs for cameras that have not yet been given Adobe's stamp of approval.

                                 

                                That would allow people to open whatever, and create their own profiles and what have you if need be, but would not give the illusion that a camera has proper support when it doesn't.

                                • 13. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                  Jeff Schewe Level 5

                                  Rob Cole wrote:

                                   

                                  Perhaps ACR should issue a warning when opening DNGs for cameras that have not yet been given Adobe's stamp of approval.

                                   

                                  Not likely and not really needed. I was talking about individual camera specific DNG Profiles being useful. The camera companies that ARE using the DNG format seem to do a pretty good job of properly supporting the DNG format. Do you have specific experience to the contrary regarding proper DNG format support from cameras that write DNG files? If so that would be useful...

                                  • 14. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                    areohbee Level 5

                                    If complete profile support has not been developed for the camera, I think the user should be notified. I don't think the camera manufacturers pack the complete set of ACR compatible profiles into every DNG, do they?

                                    • 15. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                      Jeff Schewe Level 5

                                      Rob Cole wrote:

                                       

                                      I don't think the camera manufacturers pack the complete set of ACR compatible profiles into every DNG, do they?

                                       

                                      The cameras that suppor thet DNG file format in camera develop their own DNG Profiles (as part of the DNG spec). It works well (do you have evidence to the contrary?). But doing a custom DNG profile for a user's secific camera often profived better results.

                                       

                                      In the case of camera company supplied profiles, there are no "vender matching" DNG Profiles because, well, those cameras don't have wildly different camera based settings...why would they?

                                      • 16. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                        areohbee Level 5

                                        Are you saying a camera that supports the DNG format is not likely to have both a portrait and landscape profile, or that both will be in the DNG? Or is there some other mechanism for getting the manufacturer created profiles into Lightroom/ACR.

                                        • 17. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                          Jeff Schewe Level 5

                                          Rob Cole wrote:

                                           

                                          Are you saying a camera that supports the DNG format is not likely to have both a portrait and landscape profile, or that both will be in the DNG? Or is there some other mechanism for getting the manufacturer created profiles into Lightroom/ACR.

                                           

                                          Correct...as far as I know, the "vender matching" DNG profiles are only Adobe produced. When a camera maker makes a DNG Profile, the aim is to produce an accurate (not pleasing) DNG Profile rendering inside of the DNG file format. "Portrait and Landscape" DNG Profiles are strictly an Adobe produced profile...it's not something that any of the cameras that support DNG would do (as far as I know). The 'vendor matching DNG Profiles" are Adobe's attempt at trying to provide alternative DNG Profiles that match primarily Nikon and Canon camera settings. If the cameras don't have in camera settings adjustments, why would the camera makers provide alternative DNG profiles?

                                           

                                          Do you have a camera that supports the DNG sec? If not, then what you are asking/talking about is academic at best...

                                          • 18. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                            areohbee Level 5

                                            Adobe does the camera matching profiles for Pentax & Leica as well as Nikon and Canon.

                                             

                                            And, Adobe does the Adobe Standard profile for every camera they support, regardless of file format.

                                             

                                            Until that's done, the only profile available to the user will be the one the camera manufacturer embedded in the DNG.

                                             

                                            After its done, the user can choose Embedded, Adobe Standard, and any others Adobe may have done.

                                             

                                            So there *is* a difference between a camera having official support, and one that does not.

                                             

                                            I'd venture to guess many camera/ACR users don't know all that and so a simple prompt to let the user know that they may need to update their software to gain full support, would be a welcome courtesy, in my opinion.

                                            • 19. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                              Vit Novak Level 3

                                              Jeff Schewe wrote:

                                               

                                              When a camera maker makes a DNG Profile, the aim is to produce an accurate (not pleasing) DNG Profile rendering inside of the DNG file format.

                                               

                                               

                                              However, I see a problem defining what is accurate profile

                                               

                                              For instance, Adobe claims that Adobe standard profile is accurate / colorimetric. However, we have older version of those profiles (for instance my Canon 400D) and newer version of those profiles. Lookup table in first and second version is considerably different. So they can't both be accurate, can they? And to complicate it more, Canon has Faithful profile, which is also said to be colorimetric by Canon. That one has tone curve considerably more flat than tone curve in adobe standard. So what is accurate and what isn't ?

                                               

                                              If I observe color matrices of various cameras, all of them have position of virtual blue primary even outside Photo Pro gamut (and far outside visible gamut of visible colors), situated under x axis on CIE xy diagram. So saturated blue colors are not accurate  with matrix profiles for instance. And you can't correct it with lookup table if it's digitally blown in Photo Pro after matrix conversion (saturation = 1), which happens even with medium saturated blue for cameras with small sensors and hence less effective RGB filter on the sensor. So sky never looks right or correct to me with Adobe standard for instance

                                               

                                              So I would say this accuracy has some serious limitations, at least while Adobe standard profiles are still of v1 type

                                               

                                              Sorry about getting off-topic, but Jeff claimed this accuracy of Adobe standard and inaccuracy of profiles built in cameras (and hence camera dng profiles) several times ...

                                              • 20. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                                Jeff Schewe Level 5

                                                Vit Novak wrote:

                                                 

                                                Sorry about getting off-topic, but Jeff claimed this accuracy of Adobe standard and inaccuracy of profiles built in cameras (and hence camera dng profiles) several times ...

                                                 

                                                You misunderstood what I wrote (or at least meant)...I was saying the aim is accuracy and that making your own profile for your own camera can be more accurate. Do you disagree with this?

                                                • 21. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                                  Jeff Schewe Level 5

                                                  Rob Cole wrote:

                                                   

                                                  Adobe does the camera matching profiles for Pentax & Leica as well as Nikon and Canon.

                                                   

                                                   

                                                  Adobe did camera matching for the Leica M8...but not not M9 or S2. As for Pentax, there's a single "Camera Standard".

                                                  • 22. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                                    Noel Carboni Level 7

                                                    <My Opinion>

                                                     

                                                    I feel photography is more akin to art than science, or at least has a foot firmly planted on both sides of that fence.

                                                     

                                                    Since displays and prints can hardly be imagined to emulate the light and color dynamics of true reality, I feel the use of the word "accurate" as describes color is often misleading.  I might be willing to support "consistent", but my experience says that accurate color is in practice a red herring, and even consistent color is elusive.

                                                     

                                                    In short, those who try for accurate color often achieve lousy looking color instead.  Kind of an "operation was a success but the patient died" kind of thing.  It may make them feel good somehow inside to think the RGB numbers are right, but the reality is that the image actually suffers.  Then, as Vit points out, sometimes we even find out those golden numbers weren't actually "right" (by today's definition) either.  To me it just seems silly.

                                                     

                                                    I'll go so far as to say it seems to me it's virtually a necessity to develop a non-Adobe profile with an artistic eye to get good color and even consistent color.  It has been that way for me, in my experience with Camera Raw and the equipment I've used.

                                                     

                                                    In that vein, if a DNG can contain data provided by a camera maker that produces color that's consistent with the color they produce in the camera or in their own converter software (which is what sold us on that particular brand/model), then it would likely be a Good Thing not to have an Adobe-developed profile involved.  Perhaps this is the missing link I've been needing.  If that's the case, more power to Adobe's efforts to get manufacturers to use DNG!

                                                     

                                                    I really don't wish to step on the toes of folks who feel Adobe's profiles are good.  More power to you if you do!  I just haven't found much joy in them myself.

                                                     

                                                    </My Opinion>

                                                     

                                                    -Noel

                                                    • 23. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                                      Vit Novak Level 3

                                                      Jeff Schewe wrote:


                                                      You misunderstood what I wrote (or at least meant)...I was saying the aim is accuracy and that making your own profile for your own camera can be more accurate. Do you disagree with this?

                                                       

                                                      Well, partially. I'm not an expert in this area while some people in Adobe surely are, but I think that if this is done using color checker with 3x6 color patches (or even more) and matrix profile, best you can get is matrix which returns result where color error for these patches is minimal. Which can be acceptable or not ...

                                                      • 24. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                                        w0912313

                                                        Well, Adobe has offered the "capability" for some time now, but the processing results are horrible. It's not just a matter of a little color cast or the wrong contrast, the images output from ACR are clearly failing to demosaic Fuji EXR images properly.

                                                         

                                                        If your using an Fuji X-series camera, you will get better results by using the in-camera Raw processing than with Adobe.

                                                         

                                                        I wish Adobe and Fuji would work more closely on this.

                                                        • 25. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                                          Noel Carboni Level 7

                                                          W0912313, at the risk of repeating what you've seen or said elsewhere, can you put up some examples?

                                                           

                                                          I'm sure the Camera Raw team would like the best possible results from all digital camera images.  If you can show a clear example of the problem (ideally with a raw file link and example of poor results that can easily be reproduced) maybe they'll take notice.

                                                           

                                                          -Noel

                                                          • 26. Re: Fuji X10 & Camera Raw
                                                            Vit Novak Level 3

                                                            There are samples on dpreview site

                                                             

                                                            It's visible that 7.3 indeed didn't perform well. Algorithm seems to be significantly improved in 7.4 rc. However, now there is some occurence of moire (on the banknote in studio sample) that wasn't present with 7.3