Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Adobe Camera Raw vs Fuji Converter EX

Reply
Thread Tools

Adobe Camera Raw vs Fuji Converter EX

 
 
dperez@juno_nospam.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2003
OK, I'm new to both these things so I've got some questions that don't seem to
be answered in either the manuals or Adobe tutorials... Lemme know if I should
take this to the alt.photoshop.graphics group (although they don't seem nearly
as much fun as y'all over here!)

Oh, FWIW, my work is rarely for web pages. I'm trying to keep the images as
high quality as possible and downscan when I need to put them on the screen.
Mostly I want to print the better ones on my Epson 1200, and I frequently go
11X14, 12X16 or 18 or even 13X19 so maintaining resolution is important...

I have a RAW image from the Fuji S2. As RAW in the Finepix viewer it says the
image is 4256 X 2848 pixels.

When I bring up the converter and tell it to convert to a 16-bit TIFF file I can
specify that it REMAIN 4256 X 2848. When I open the TIFF file (which is now a
whopping 71 MB) in Photoshop the image is 4256 X 2848 and it looks very much
like I expect it to look. Colors and sharpness seem to be very well preserved.
BUT, is this how I should be doing these conversions? My two choices appear to
be 16-bit with Adobe1998 RGB and gamma 2.2 OR Exif RGB in 8-bit using sRGB. I'm
not a Photoshop expert (yet) but having the wider gamut and greater depth seems
to be a better starting point. I figure I can always get rid of information but
I can never get it back once its gone... So what are people doing for the
conversion?

BUT, after reading lots of glowing comments in here about the Adobe camera RAW
plugin I figured it would be great if I could avoid the intermediate step of
going through the conversion to TIFF. So, I bought it. And have questions:

1. I select a RAW image at 4256 X 2848 and bring up the plugin. What I noticed
is that there appears to be no way to maintain the same resolution. I can go
DOWN to 3024 X 2016 which seems like a really bad idea when I've gone to the
effort of shooting RAW, or UP to 4277 X 2851 which doesn't seem like much of an
increase but I'm concerned that the software is doing some kind of interpolation
to increase the resolution... What's up with this?

2. I have the choice of color space including Adobe RGB 1998 and sRGB, and also
8 or 16 bit. Which are people selecting for their RAW images when using the
plugin? And why?

3. So far, I've been leaving the settings along - white balance as shot, and
not trying to modify sharspness or other controls in the plugin. I figured I
should get the image into Photoshop and do everything there. What are other
people doing about this?

4. When I get one of these raw images into Photoshop at 4277 X 2851 in 16-bit
and save it as a psd file, the size is STILL 71 MB. I presume I'm doing
something during the plugin action thats causing the huge increase in size but
even saving it as 8-bit instead of 16 STILL causes the file to be 23 MB, a 2X
increase in size over the RAW. Am I doing something wrong here or is this just
the way this works?

Thanks for any thoughts...

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Spadaro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2003
Forget sRGB. Forget Tiffs if you're using Photoshop - Native PSD format is
faster and takes up less disk space. Start with a 16 bit file, do any colour
correction you need than reduce it to 8 bits (save either the RAW file or
the 16 bit PSD for archive) The converted file will be about half the 71 mb
size and will be easier to work on.
There are some articles on using Photoshop here:
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/mani/digi/mdigital.html
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
<dperez@juno_nospam.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> OK, I'm new to both these things so I've got some questions that don't

seem to
> be answered in either the manuals or Adobe tutorials... Lemme know if I

should
> take this to the alt.photoshop.graphics group (although they don't seem

nearly
> as much fun as y'all over here!)
>
> Oh, FWIW, my work is rarely for web pages. I'm trying to keep the images

as
> high quality as possible and downscan when I need to put them on the

screen.
> Mostly I want to print the better ones on my Epson 1200, and I frequently

go
> 11X14, 12X16 or 18 or even 13X19 so maintaining resolution is important...
>
> I have a RAW image from the Fuji S2. As RAW in the Finepix viewer it says

the
> image is 4256 X 2848 pixels.
>
> When I bring up the converter and tell it to convert to a 16-bit TIFF file

I can
> specify that it REMAIN 4256 X 2848. When I open the TIFF file (which is

now a
> whopping 71 MB) in Photoshop the image is 4256 X 2848 and it looks very

much
> like I expect it to look. Colors and sharpness seem to be very well

preserved.
> BUT, is this how I should be doing these conversions? My two choices

appear to
> be 16-bit with Adobe1998 RGB and gamma 2.2 OR Exif RGB in 8-bit using

sRGB. I'm
> not a Photoshop expert (yet) but having the wider gamut and greater depth

seems
> to be a better starting point. I figure I can always get rid of

information but
> I can never get it back once its gone... So what are people doing for the
> conversion?
>
> BUT, after reading lots of glowing comments in here about the Adobe camera

RAW
> plugin I figured it would be great if I could avoid the intermediate step

of
> going through the conversion to TIFF. So, I bought it. And have

questions:
>
> 1. I select a RAW image at 4256 X 2848 and bring up the plugin. What I

noticed
> is that there appears to be no way to maintain the same resolution. I can

go
> DOWN to 3024 X 2016 which seems like a really bad idea when I've gone to

the
> effort of shooting RAW, or UP to 4277 X 2851 which doesn't seem like much

of an
> increase but I'm concerned that the software is doing some kind of

interpolation
> to increase the resolution... What's up with this?
>
> 2. I have the choice of color space including Adobe RGB 1998 and sRGB,

and also
> 8 or 16 bit. Which are people selecting for their RAW images when using

the
> plugin? And why?
>
> 3. So far, I've been leaving the settings along - white balance as shot,

and
> not trying to modify sharspness or other controls in the plugin. I

figured I
> should get the image into Photoshop and do everything there. What are

other
> people doing about this?
>
> 4. When I get one of these raw images into Photoshop at 4277 X 2851 in

16-bit
> and save it as a psd file, the size is STILL 71 MB. I presume I'm doing
> something during the plugin action thats causing the huge increase in size

but
> even saving it as 8-bit instead of 16 STILL causes the file to be 23 MB, a

2X
> increase in size over the RAW. Am I doing something wrong here or is this

just
> the way this works?
>
> Thanks for any thoughts...
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
max
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2003
> OK, I'm new to both these things so I've got some questions that don't seem to
> be answered in either the manuals or Adobe tutorials... Lemme know if I should
> take this to the alt.photoshop.graphics group (although they don't seem nearly
> as much fun as y'all over here!)
>
> Oh, FWIW, my work is rarely for web pages. I'm trying to keep the images as
> high quality as possible and downscan when I need to put them on the screen.
> Mostly I want to print the better ones on my Epson 1200, and I frequently go
> 11X14, 12X16 or 18 or even 13X19 so maintaining resolution is important...
>
> I have a RAW image from the Fuji S2. As RAW in the Finepix viewer it says the
> image is 4256 X 2848 pixels.


That size is interpolated by the software, but from what I've read it does
give some quality enhancement in the moire department.

> When I bring up the converter and tell it to convert to a 16-bit TIFF file I can
> specify that it REMAIN 4256 X 2848. When I open the TIFF file (which is now a
> whopping 71 MB) in Photoshop the image is 4256 X 2848 and it looks very much
> like I expect it to look. Colors and sharpness seem to be very well preserved.
> BUT, is this how I should be doing these conversions? My two choices appear to
> be 16-bit with Adobe1998 RGB and gamma 2.2 OR Exif RGB in 8-bit using sRGB. I'm
> not a Photoshop expert (yet) but having the wider gamut and greater depth seems
> to be a better starting point. I figure I can always get rid of information but
> I can never get it back once its gone... So what are people doing for the
> conversion?


My system is not that finely calibrated, but I use adobe rgb 16 bit when I have to
pass it in to a state of the art prepress facility, where they match up all the images
in a project. For printing at home it makes no difference and probably does'nt for the
prepress guys either..

> BUT, after reading lots of glowing comments in here about the Adobe camera RAW
> plugin I figured it would be great if I could avoid the intermediate step of
> going through the conversion to TIFF. So, I bought it. And have questions:
>
> 1. I select a RAW image at 4256 X 2848 and bring up the plugin. What I noticed
> is that there appears to be no way to maintain the same resolution. I can go
> DOWN to 3024 X 2016 which seems like a really bad idea when I've gone to the
> effort of shooting RAW, or UP to 4277 X 2851 which doesn't seem like much of an
> increase but I'm concerned that the software is doing some kind of interpolation
> to increase the resolution... What's up with this?


The Fuji ex does a better job at converting, but it works slower and the difference is
negligable, so use the adobe raw converter if you like it. PS 8 is coming out with a
better converter I hope, the interface and workflow is hopeless in the present version.

> 2. I have the choice of color space including Adobe RGB 1998 and sRGB, and also
> 8 or 16 bit. Which are people selecting for their RAW images when using the
> plugin? And why?


Opitmize your system to adobe rgb 1998, this way you wont get into trouple
when sharing your work with pro labs and printers. The S2 uses srgb for it's
jpeg convert them if they are not intended for the web.

> 3. So far, I've been leaving the settings along - white balance as shot, and
> not trying to modify sharspness or other controls in the plugin. I figured I
> should get the image into Photoshop and do everything there. What are other
> people doing about this?


I often get the color balance wrong, so I correct that in the converter, sharpening
is the last thing I do before printout because it is dependent on the printer.

> 4. When I get one of these raw images into Photoshop at 4277 X 2851 in 16-bit
> and save it as a psd file, the size is STILL 71 MB. I presume I'm doing
> something during the plugin action thats causing the huge increase in size but
> even saving it as 8-bit instead of 16 STILL causes the file to be 23 MB, a 2X
> increase in size over the RAW. Am I doing something wrong here or is this just
> the way this works?


That is the way it works. Raw is like having all the ingredients to make a chicken curry
Tiff/psd is the final dish.. You do not have to use the 16bit setting, you will never see
any difference. The most importaint thing is to have a perfectly calibrated system for
all your different output sources and materials. If you change ink or paper, you need
to re calibrate.. ;o)-max-

> Thanks for any thoughts...
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Savidge4
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-27-2003

>2. I have the choice of color space including Adobe RGB 1998 and sRGB, and
>also
>8 or 16 bit. Which are people selecting for their RAW images when using the
>plugin? And why?


I personally save in Adobe RGB at 16 bit. the reason for this being Adobe RGB
is a broader color gamat, and 16 bit gives you a better color, not to mention
you are not throwing out data, IE converting 12 bit to 8 bit.

>
>3. So far, I've been leaving the settings along - white balance as shot, and
>not trying to modify sharspness or other controls in the plugin. I figured I
>should get the image into Photoshop and do everything there. What are other
>people doing about this?


If you search the net for RAW workflow you will find the method you are using
is the most common. However i personally do not understand it. The concept of
having the control of correcting white balance and sharpness and all of these
things directly from the RAW file to just save it to a TFF and then make those
corrections makes no sense to me. The fewer file type changes and saves you
can get in your workflow the better.

>
>4. When I get one of these raw images into Photoshop at 4277 X 2851 in
>16-bit
>and save it as a psd file, the size is STILL 71 MB. I presume I'm doing
>something during the plugin action thats causing the huge increase in size
>but
>even saving it as 8-bit instead of 16 STILL causes the file to be 23 MB, a 2X
>increase in size over the RAW. Am I doing something wrong here or is this
>just
>the way this works?


instead of saving to TIF, as already suggested you can straight from RAW
convert to 16bit Adobe file. less space and far more flexible later for
differnt file conversions.

Another plug-in you may want to look at is from Fred Miranda's site. He has a
neat little color correction plug-in that is truly amazing! and for what it
does its damn cheap!


hope that helps!



 
Reply With Quote
 
dperez@juno_nospam.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2003
Thanks for the responses guys... I'm going to apologize in advance 'cause I
think I'm having a particularly stupid day (or week or something)...
Thanks for the responses guys... I'm going to apologize in advance 'cause I
think I'm having a particularly stupid day (or week or something)... So lemme
try again and see if I can ask better questions.

First, Tony, I went over and read the stuff at chapellhillnoir. So I'm now
confident about scanning resolution and all that. I also believe everybody was
in agreement that I should calibrate everything to Adobe RGB 1998, which I THINK
I've gotten done. Scans look like scans when they get to Photoshop, and they
print pretty close to how they look...

And the chapellhill stuff gave me a better understanding of the importance of
having as many bits of info as possible, so I'll be keeping as much as I can
whichever way I don the conversion. So, I'll have 16-bit TIFFs or RAWs or
whatever.

Now, please correct me where I"m wrong below:

In the Fuji EX converter. I will be converting to 16-bit TIFF, and doing
POSSIBLY minor correction to white balance and such in the conversion. I WON'T
be doing sharpening in the conversion. The TIFF is just to be the INCOMING file
for Photoshop, after which I'll save everything as a psd file. Right?

But, I"m kind of bummed about the statement

>The Fuji ex does a better job at converting, but it works slower and the difference is
>negligable, so use the adobe raw converter if you like it. PS 8 is coming out with a
>better converter I hope, the interface and workflow is hopeless in the present version.


I wish I'd known this before I gave the bloodsuckers at Adobe $100 for this
thing! BUT, given the state of the current Adobe converter, I've still got some
questions about how to use it to best advantage...

BTW: A NEW question: When I look at a TIFF file converted using the Fuji EX
converter, and the same image in the Adobe camera RAW plugin is there any reason
why they should NOT look the same? It seems to me ahat a converted TIFF brought
into PS and a RAW in PS should NOT be drastically different assuming I haven't
done any manipulation in the converter... Right?

If I WANT to use the Adobe camer raw plugin (this fits the "fewer file
conversions idea") I have a RAW image at 4256 X 2848. There is NO equivalent in
the plugin. I can go DOWN to 3024 X 2016 which seems like a really bad idea
when I've gone to the effort of shooting RAW, or UP to 4277 X 2851 which doesn't
seem like much of an increase but I'm concerned that the software is doing some
kind of interpolation to increase the resolution... So given that I WANT to
use the plugin, is there ANY reason why I wouldn't go UP to 4277 X 2851?


Lastly, you guys indicated that

>instead of saving to TIF, as already suggested you can straight from RAW
>convert to 16bit Adobe file. less space and far more flexible later for
>differnt file conversions.


Except that I'm NOT seeing smaller files. A 12 MB RAW file sent thru the Adobe
plugin and saved from photoshop as a psd is 71 MB. Saving it as a RAW file from
PS, which also triggers warnings and such about losing encoded info, ALSO is
71MB. How come EVERYBODY is so BIG?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Howard McCollister
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2003

<dperez@juno_nospam.com> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> BUT, after reading lots of glowing comments in here about the Adobe camera

RAW
> plugin I figured it would be great if I could avoid the intermediate step

of
> going through the conversion to TIFF. So, I bought it. And have

questions:
>


The Fuji RAW EX software included with the US version of the camera in the
"HyperUtility Bundle" is generally considered to be superior to the
Photoshop RAW plugin for the S2 Pro. In fact, most S2 users consider it to
be superior to any of the RAW converters. I understand it works fine with
other cameras, but not so much with the Fuji S2 Pro. RAW EX has a pretty
clunky interface, but does a good job of converting Fuji's RAW files.

Fuji's .RAF format is proprietary and they have elected not to share with
anyone. That means that the PS RAW plugin had to be reverse engineered by
Adobe to get it to work at all with Fuji .RAF format for RAW files and many
feel that it doesn't work very well. There is speculation that Photoshop 8,
due out in a month or three, will have a better RAW plugin included without
having to buy it separately. http://tinyurl.com/p01e

HMc



 
Reply With Quote
 
Howard McCollister
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-29-2003

"Howard McCollister" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3f77a7e6$0$32776$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> <dperez@juno_nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > BUT, after reading lots of glowing comments in here about the Adobe

camera
> RAW
> > plugin I figured it would be great if I could avoid the intermediate

step
> of
> > going through the conversion to TIFF. So, I bought it. And have

> questions:
> >

>
> The Fuji RAW EX software included with the US version of the camera in the
> "HyperUtility Bundle" is generally considered to be superior to the
> Photoshop RAW plugin for the S2 Pro. In fact, most S2 users consider it to
> be superior to any of the RAW converters. I understand it works fine with
> other cameras, but not so much with the Fuji S2 Pro. RAW EX has a pretty
> clunky interface, but does a good job of converting Fuji's RAW files.
>
> Fuji's .RAF format is proprietary and they have elected not to share with
> anyone. That means that the PS RAW plugin had to be reverse engineered by
> Adobe to get it to work at all with Fuji .RAF format for RAW files and

many
> feel that it doesn't work very well. There is speculation that Photoshop

8,
> due out in a month or three, will have a better RAW plugin included

without
> having to buy it separately. http://tinyurl.com/p01e
>


Adobe has announced the new version of Photoshop. Instead of calling it
Phtoshop 8 ( http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/ ), they call it
PhotoShop CS, and it does include a RAW plugin that reportedly supports the
S2 Pro. How WELL it supports it isn't clear, but it is there, and it's part
of the program. See

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html

HMc


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
canon ps sx1 raw -> adobe camera raw sobriquet Digital Photography 6 05-10-2009 03:58 AM
Fuji S2 raw EX converter - which profile? Jan Werbiński Digital Photography 1 05-17-2004 01:05 PM
Adobe Photoshop RAW converter Plug-in J Digital Photography 7 11-10-2003 12:48 AM
Adobe Camera Raw Filter for Fuji S2 Pro ? Holger Horn Digital Photography 2 07-12-2003 11:08 PM



Advertisments