In-Camera RAW Processing

This morning I came upon a willing street subject and I thought that he
would be worth an experiment in processing the RAW (in this case RAF)
file in-camera without resorting to ACR/LR or PS.
So here is the JPEG product, untouched by Adobe, or any post processing
other than that available in my X-E2.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCF3298.JPG

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/28/2016 3:41 AM, Savageduck wrote:
This morning I came upon a willing street subject and I thought that he
would be worth an experiment in processing the RAW (in this case RAF)
file in-camera without resorting to ACR/LR or PS.
So here is the JPEG product, untouched by Adobe, or any post processing
other than that available in my X-E2.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCF3298.JPG



Didn't paws to get a signed waiver, then....

:-)

On May 28, 2016, newshound wrote
(in articlepOmdnZdYGsuxGdTKnZ2dnUU78LudnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk):

On 5/28/2016 3:41 AM, Savageduck wrote:
This morning I came upon a willing street subject and I thought that he
would be worth an experiment in processing the RAW (in this case RAF)
file in-camera without resorting to ACR/LR or PS.
So here is the JPEG product, untouched by Adobe, or any post processing
other than that available in my X-E2.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCF3298.JPG


Didn't paws to get a signed waiver, then....

-)

Not one moment of hesitation. ;-)

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 5/27/2016 10:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
This morning I came upon a willing street subject and I thought that he
would be worth an experiment in processing the RAW (in this case RAF)
file in-camera without resorting to ACR/LR or PS.
So here is the JPEG product, untouched by Adobe, or any post processing
other than that available in my X-E2.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCF3298.JPG


The white areas look blown out, but it's hard to tell from a JPEG
whether they would be retrievable.


--
PeterN

On May 28, 2016, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 5/27/2016 10:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
This morning I came upon a willing street subject and I thought that he
would be worth an experiment in processing the RAW (in this case RAF)
file in-camera without resorting to ACR/LR or PS.
So here is the JPEG product, untouched by Adobe, or any post processing
other than that available in my X-E2.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCF3298.JPG

The white areas look blown out, but it's hard to tell from a JPEG
whether they would be retrievable.

Well it was just an exercise for in-camera RAW processing, I could probably
do a bit better with some practice, but it was something to do, and the dog
was there posing.

If you would like to play, here is the RAF.
https://db.tt/4PdOroDh

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 5/28/2016 11:43 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 28, 2016, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 5/27/2016 10:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
This morning I came upon a willing street subject and I thought that he
would be worth an experiment in processing the RAW (in this case RAF)
file in-camera without resorting to ACR/LR or PS.
So here is the JPEG product, untouched by Adobe, or any post processing
other than that available in my X-E2.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCF3298.JPG

The white areas look blown out, but it's hard to tell from a JPEG
whether they would be retrievable.

Well it was just an exercise for in-camera RAW processing, I could probably
do a bit better with some practice, but it was something to do, and the dog
was there posing.

If you would like to play, here is the RAF.
https://db.tt/4PdOroDh


I couldn't recover all of the white on the dawg.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/duck_DSF3293.jpg



--
PeterN

On Sat, 28 May 2016 08:43:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On May 28, 2016, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 5/27/2016 10:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
This morning I came upon a willing street subject and I thought that he
would be worth an experiment in processing the RAW (in this case RAF)
file in-camera without resorting to ACR/LR or PS.
So here is the JPEG product, untouched by Adobe, or any post processing
other than that available in my X-E2.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCF3298.JPG

The white areas look blown out, but it's hard to tell from a JPEG
whether they would be retrievable.

Well it was just an exercise for in-camera RAW processing, I could probably
do a bit better with some practice, but it was something to do, and the dog
was there posing.

If you would like to play, here is the RAF.
https://db.tt/4PdOroDh

Here's my attempt:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/1c5T4R

The highlights all seemed to be recoverable in LR, and I used a radial
filter to highlight the dog. I made some other adjustments, but the
end result looks lifeless to me. I do okay with the technical stuff,
but from an artistic context, I suck.

On May 28, 2016, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 5/28/2016 11:43 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 28, 2016, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 5/27/2016 10:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
This morning I came upon a willing street subject and I thought that he
would be worth an experiment in processing the RAW (in this case RAF)
file in-camera without resorting to ACR/LR or PS.
So here is the JPEG product, untouched by Adobe, or any post processing
other than that available in my X-E2.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCF3298.JPG

The white areas look blown out, but it's hard to tell from a JPEG
whether they would be retrievable.

Well it was just an exercise for in-camera RAW processing, I could probably
do a bit better with some practice, but it was something to do, and the dog
was there posing.

If you would like to play, here is the RAF.
https://db.tt/4PdOroDh

I couldn't recover all of the white on the dawg.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/duck_DSF3293.jpg

Here is what I did in Lightroom.
https://db.tt/6W9Kbm03

....and a side-by-side comparison with the RAF:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_125.jpg

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On May 28, 2016, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 28 May 2016 08:43:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On May 28, 2016, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 5/27/2016 10:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
This morning I came upon a willing street subject and I thought that he
would be worth an experiment in processing the RAW (in this case RAF)
file in-camera without resorting to ACR/LR or PS.
So here is the JPEG product, untouched by Adobe, or any post processing
other than that available in my X-E2.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCF3298.JPG

The white areas look blown out, but it's hard to tell from a JPEG
whether they would be retrievable.

Well it was just an exercise for in-camera RAW processing, I could probably
do a bit better with some practice, but it was something to do, and the dog
was there posing.

If you would like to play, here is the RAF.
https://db.tt/4PdOroDh

Here's my attempt:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/1c5T4R

The highlights all seemed to be recoverable in LR, and I used a radial
filter to highlight the dog. I made some other adjustments, but the
end result looks lifeless to me. I do okay with the technical stuff,
but from an artistic context, I suck.

The important highlights are recoverable in LR. However, if you use the
Radial Filter It is imortant to use a gentle hand, and activate the mask so
you can see where the effect intrudes into the designated area. You should be
able to clean that up with the brush tool.

The point of this thread was to show that it is possible to get acceptable
(not necessarily perfect) JPEGs processed from RAW in the Fuji X-Series
cameras. I offered up the original RAF after Peter’s comment, to see what
he, or others might be able to do.

I have also worked on the RAW in LR and came up with something reasonable.
https://db.tt/6W9Kbm03
That said, I would not be totally against using the in-camera RAW processing
Fuji provides if needed.

I find that any of these little exercises and/or experiments can only lead to
improvement in our individual image processing workflows.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 5/28/2016 4:35 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 28, 2016, Bill W wrote
(in ):

On Sat, 28 May 2016 08:43:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On May 28, 2016, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 5/27/2016 10:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
This morning I came upon a willing street subject and I thought that he
would be worth an experiment in processing the RAW (in this case RAF)
file in-camera without resorting to ACR/LR or PS.
So here is the JPEG product, untouched by Adobe, or any post processing
other than that available in my X-E2.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCF3298.JPG

The white areas look blown out, but it's hard to tell from a JPEG
whether they would be retrievable.

Well it was just an exercise for in-camera RAW processing, I could probably
do a bit better with some practice, but it was something to do, and the dog
was there posing.

If you would like to play, here is the RAF.
https://db.tt/4PdOroDh

Here's my attempt:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/1c5T4R

The highlights all seemed to be recoverable in LR, and I used a radial
filter to highlight the dog. I made some other adjustments, but the
end result looks lifeless to me. I do okay with the technical stuff,
but from an artistic context, I suck.

The important highlights are recoverable in LR. However, if you use the
Radial Filter It is imortant to use a gentle hand, and activate the mask so
you can see where the effect intrudes into the designated area. You should be
able to clean that up with the brush tool.

The point of this thread was to show that it is possible to get acceptable
(not necessarily perfect) JPEGs processed from RAW in the Fuji X-Series
cameras. I offered up the original RAF after Peter’s comment, to see what
he, or others might be able to do.

I have also worked on the RAW in LR and came up with something reasonable.
https://db.tt/6W9Kbm03
That said, I would not be totally against using the in-camera RAW processing
Fuji provides if needed.

I find that any of these little exercises and/or experiments can only lead to
improvement in our individual image processing workflows.


thank you for that. I, and I am sure you, would like to see more
participation.


--
PeterN