Adobe Camera Raw vs Fuji Converter EX

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by dperez@juno_nospam.com, Sep 27, 2003.

  1. 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...
     
    dperez@juno_nospam.com, Sep 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dperez@juno_nospam.com

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    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:...
    > 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...
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Sep 27, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dperez@juno_nospam.com

    max Guest

    > 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...
    >
     
    max, Sep 27, 2003
    #3
  4. dperez@juno_nospam.com

    Savidge4 Guest


    >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!
     
    Savidge4, Sep 27, 2003
    #4
  5. 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?
     
    dperez@juno_nospam.com, Sep 29, 2003
    #5
  6. <dperez@juno_nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:...

    > 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
     
    Howard McCollister, Sep 29, 2003
    #6
  7. "Howard McCollister" <> wrote in message
    news:3f77a7e6$0$32776$...
    >
    > <dperez@juno_nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > > 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
     
    Howard McCollister, Sep 29, 2003
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Holger Horn

    Adobe Camera Raw Filter for Fuji S2 Pro ?

    Holger Horn, Jul 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    402
  2. J

    Adobe Photoshop RAW converter Plug-in

    J, Nov 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,025
    Mustafa Krap
    Nov 10, 2003
  3. Jan Werbiñski

    Fuji S2 raw EX converter - which profile?

    Jan Werbiñski, May 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    509
    Bill Hilton
    May 17, 2004
  4. Vlad Gunko

    Adobe PS RAW convertor vs Nikon RAW convertor

    Vlad Gunko, Jan 25, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    511
    Brian C. Baird
    Jan 25, 2005
  5. sobriquet

    canon ps sx1 raw -> adobe camera raw

    sobriquet, Apr 25, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,213
    jimbok
    May 10, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page