This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Stupid Question

Discussion in 'Post Processing Forum' started by Brian1940, Mar 14, 2018.

  1. Brian1940

    Brian1940 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Leeds, West Yorkshire

    -Return to Top-

    Although I was once advised there was no such thing. However.......

    Fuji Studio raw, I just don't see the point. Now you shoot a raw image, load it into Studio raw, it applies a few basic in camera selelected adjustments then sends the result back to the original folder as a JPEG. You then send it to LR, for any further adjustment and for printing.

    So the question. What is the point. Surely a JPEG out of Studio raw will only contain the same information as that produced by the camera, so why bother with the raw in the first instance. After all the camera does the processing in both cases.

    Or is there a way of converting to a tiff and exporting to another folder.

    Bet it's me being thick..............again. ;)
     
  2. DanGleabols

    DanGleabols Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    102
    Location:
    Halifax, UK

    -Return to Top-

    Nope, I think you've pretty much nailed it. I guess it offers in camera conversion with a bigger screen and better interface for people who love the SOOC JPGs but want a bit more control in post... But ultimately it's a bit for damp squib for me too. I really like SOOC jpg and have been known to do in camera conversions, but by the time I've connected a computer I might as well use something a bit more powerful (maybe my opinions will change when they release a compatible version for my camera X-T20 and I've actually used it). If it kicked out Tiffs then I'd be a lot more interested.
     
  3. jknights

    jknights Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    13,673
    Likes Received:
    3,209
    Location:
    Oliva, Valencia, Spain

    -Return to Top-

    The hard disk footprint of the Fuji software is tiny compared to Photoshop CC or Lightroom CC or other RAW processing software. Therefore there is value in having the software but what Brian says is factually correct.
     
  4. Brian1940

    Brian1940 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Leeds, West Yorkshire

    -Return to Top-

    The only thing is it loads in a flash, from there it's a bit downhill. Although I only "play " with raw files I find LR does a pretty good conversion.

    Quick example, hardly a masterpiece but.

    Straight from camera, no in camera adjustments,

    untitled (1 of 1)-5.jpg


    With a twiddle.

    untitled (1 of 1)-5-Edit.jpg
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
    Stephen_B, morhafren and Catz1973 like this.
  5. jknights

    jknights Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    13,673
    Likes Received:
    3,209
    Location:
    Oliva, Valencia, Spain

    -Return to Top-

    B&W is creatively more powerful for me. Nice one!
     
  6. FORUM USER

    FORUM USER Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    England

    -Return to Top-

    The software does exactly what the in-camera convertor does, no more, no less (edit: apart from batch processing) The benefits are simply that you get to see the changes live on your computer screen as you apply them, and you can use your keyboard and mouse, rather than the camera's fiddly buttons.

    If you are happy with JPGs either direct from the camera, or via a RAW using the existing built in the camera in-camera convertor it's a boon.

    If you prefer to edit RAW files to a greater degree it's not the software for you.

    From a single RAW you can generate many permutations of highlight, shadow, film sim, NR, sharpness, DR, exposure, grain - all after the event, so to speak.

    Incidentally there isn't anything wrong or bad about editing JPG files further in a separate package, they have quite a bit of latitude to edit.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
    Brian1940 likes this.
  7. pszilard

    pszilard RemektekMedia.com

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,670
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia

    -Return to Top-

    There are significant benefits!
    1. As far as I know, none of the computer film simulations are an exact match to the in-camera process. Most are reverse engineered by their creators. By using the camera to do the processing, you truly get the results from the Fuji colour science!
    2. The camera is designed to do the conversion extremely fast (probably coded in assembler), whereas the computers we use are usually effected by things like cpu, ram, gpu and the like. This way, anyone with a low power laptop or PC can get fast and accurate results
    This feature is absolutely brilliant, and I am not aware of any other manufacturer that offers this type of processing (correct me if I am wrong).
     
    darkslide, FORUM USER and dem like this.
  8. dem

    dem Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    424
    Location:
    UK

    -Return to Top-

    3. Batch conversion.
     
    FORUM USER likes this.
  9. mikegee

    mikegee Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    925
    Likes Received:
    826
    Location:
    Yonkers, NY

    -Return to Top-

    I just started to use the Fuji software to render JPG's and use Lightroom for other adjustment. Me likey the results! In sample image I used Lightroom to lighten 1/2 stop face of guy on right all other adjustments Fuji software.

    _DSF9698-2-2.jpg
     
    MA128 and Akeanon like this.
  10. EAB

    EAB Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2013
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    USA

    -Return to Top-


    Agreed. I'll generally shoot RAW+Fine and select a sim which I *think* will be best - a priori - as it were. Sometimes I'll come back from a shoot and wonder if indeed I had made the best choice - for example when dragging a shutter while shooting flash under mixed lighting conditions skin tones might not be quite to my taste (or representative of the individual). While this can be corrected in either RAW or Jpg there are times when it is convenient to simply re-convert the whole shoot from say Provia to Classic Chrome or Neg S to Neg H. A posteriori then.
     
  11. leoda1945

    leoda1945 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,444
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Location:
    People's Rep. of Mass.

    -Return to Top-

    Has anyone connected (USB) their Fuji directly into their computer monitor and do the in-camera RAF-JPG conversion?
    I tried that and it looked pretty bad on my 23" monitor (maybe the camera video export can't drive a monitor nicely ?).
     
  12. GregWard

    GregWard Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2014
    Messages:
    4,656
    Likes Received:
    1,858
    Location:
    London

    -Return to Top-

    +1

    I don't use this software (never even tried it) because a. I actually like playing around in full-featured post-processing software with RAW files and b. Fuji X is only one of the systems I use on a regular basis (and it makes no sense for me to have a workflow that only works with one system).

    However, I had always assumed that the software was for exactly the use case that you describe. Specifically those people who don't want to use a "full" post-processing package, who prefer JPEG files, but occasionally want to back-track and try alternatives renders.
     
    FORUM USER likes this.
  13. FORUM USER

    FORUM USER Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    England

    -Return to Top-

    I've done it that way onto a TV, don't remember it looking too bad. It's done via the HDMI out rather than the USB though. It's just a straight port out of the info, not sure if a driver is involved, but I'm no expert :)
     
  14. leoda1945

    leoda1945 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,444
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Location:
    People's Rep. of Mass.

    -Return to Top-

    Sorry. I did do an HDMI connection (not USB) . I'll try it again later. It looked very poor compared to putting the SD card into the computer.
     
  15. EAB

    EAB Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2013
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    61
    Location:
    USA

    -Return to Top-


    There are times when one simply doesn't have the luxury of time to PP RAW files irrespective of the tools at hand, and of course one of Fuji's charms are the marvelous jpgs that are simply - to my eye at least - superior to what I can get out of LR, ACR etc.
     
  16. FORUM USER

    FORUM USER Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    England

    -Return to Top-

    It's a long time since I did it, it was with an X100 I used to have.
     
  17. Brian1940

    Brian1940 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2017
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Location:
    Leeds, West Yorkshire

    -Return to Top-

    I connected my X Pro2 via USB to my 27" K5000 Mac no problem except is always opens in small format.
     
  18. FORUM USER

    FORUM USER Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    England

    -Return to Top-

    There's connecting it by USB using the X RAW STUDIO software. And then there's connecting by HDMI as mentioned above, which just simply shows the output of the camera's screen directly on the TV or Monitor. The second way you can use the in-camera convertor, using the camera's fiddly controls and see the output on the monitor.

    It certainly isn't as good as using the STUDIO software.
     
  19. leoda1945

    leoda1945 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2013
    Messages:
    1,444
    Likes Received:
    1,393
    Location:
    People's Rep. of Mass.

    -Return to Top-

    Do you actually mean that the monitor image IQ (via HDMI connection fro the camera) will not be as good as the image viewed through the new software. Or are you referring to the improved physical usability of the software via keyboard?
    Have you actually done this?
     
  20. FORUM USER

    FORUM USER Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    England

    -Return to Top-

    I mean the usability aspect. I've used the software and find it to my liking.

    I've also done the HDMI way but as I say it was a few years ago. I don't remember it looking that bad, but would bow to your more recent experience. I haven't the necessary lead anymore so can't do a practical experiment at present.

    I would recommend the new way using the studio software over the passing just the image through HDMI.
     
    leoda1945 likes this.

Share This Page

  1. fujix-forum.com uses cookies to help personalize content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice