In-Camera RAW Processing

On 2016-05-29 17:59:43 +0000, PeterN said:

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 important 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.

I would like to see much more participation when it comes to actual
photography, and photography related stuff, but folks would much rather
get into OS rants. All I am trying, is just to make another feeble
attempt to have at least one photography thread active, but I only seem
to have two takers. Everybody else is embroiled in their various flame
wars.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 05/28/2016 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


Just for my own edification:
I clicked on the link to the .RAF file, and Firefox couldn't display it.
It suggested opening it with Leafpad, a no-formatting text editor
similar to Win Notepad.
It's not a big deal, but I'm just curious. Is the .RAF extension fairly
common? Or only among British Military? (That's a joke for the humor
impaired!)

I appreciate the efforts that the rest of you have put forth in this and
other "Betcha Can't Improve This Photo" posts. It's an interesting
education. Even so, I'm still going to shoot film and print it optically!

--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

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


Just for my own edification:
I clicked on the link to the .RAF file, and Firefox couldn't display it.
It suggested opening it with Leafpad, a no-formatting text editor
similar to Win Notepad.
It's not a big deal, but I'm just curious. Is the .RAF extension fairly
common? Or only among British Military? (That's a joke for the humor
impaired!)

..raf is a fuji raw file.

download it and open in photoshop/lightroom/etc. and make whatever
adjustments you want. that's why he said if you would like to play...

On May 29, 2016, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 05/28/2016 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

Just for my own edification:
I clicked on the link to the .RAF file, and Firefox couldn't display it.
It suggested opening it with Leafpad, a no-formatting text editor
similar to Win Notepad.

Clicking on that DB link should have downloaded the .RAF file to wherever
your downloaded files go so that you could open it in the RAW editor of your
choice.

It isn’t going to open in software such as Firefox that doesn’t support
RAW files. To get some idea of the image in question the link to the
in-camera JPEG above will show you the subject of the thread.

It's not a big deal, but I'm just curious. Is the .RAF extension fairly
common? Or only among British Military? (That's a joke for the humor
impaired!)

The .RAF file type is the Fujifilm RAW file, just as NEF is Nikon RAW, and
CR2 is Canon RAW.

I appreciate the efforts that the rest of you have put forth in this and
other "Betcha Can't Improve This Photo" posts. It's an interesting
education. Even so, I'm still going to shoot film and print it optically!

....er, OK!
So there is no need to ask what RAW processing and photo editing software you
use,or even if you shoot with a digital camera?




--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 5/29/2016 4:42 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 05/28/2016 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


Just for my own edification:
I clicked on the link to the .RAF file, and Firefox couldn't display it.
It suggested opening it with Leafpad, a no-formatting text editor
similar to Win Notepad.
It's not a big deal, but I'm just curious. Is the .RAF extension fairly
common? Or only among British Military? (That's a joke for the humor
impaired!)

When referring to RAF you should have spelled that: "humour impaired."


I appreciate the efforts that the rest of you have put forth in this and
other "Betcha Can't Improve This Photo" posts. It's an interesting
education. Even so, I'm still going to shoot film and print it optically!



--
PeterN

On 05/29/2016 05:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 05/28/2016 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

Just for my own edification:
I clicked on the link to the .RAF file, and Firefox couldn't display it.
It suggested opening it with Leafpad, a no-formatting text editor
similar to Win Notepad.

Clicking on that DB link should have downloaded the .RAF file to wherever
your downloaded files go so that you could open it in the RAW editor of your
choice.

It isn’t going to open in software such as Firefox that doesn’t support
RAW files. To get some idea of the image in question the link to the
in-camera JPEG above will show you the subject of the thread.

I did look at the before/after images- very nice job!
Pardon me for disparaging someone's efforts, but that comparison view
just looked like it was made darker and with less contrast. What am I
missing?

It's not a big deal, but I'm just curious. Is the .RAF extension fairly
common? Or only among British Military? (That's a joke for the humor
impaired!)

The .RAF file type is the Fujifilm RAW file, just as NEF is Nikon RAW, and
CR2 is Canon RAW.

Thank you! Just for grins and giggles, I opening GIMP (2.8), and looked
at the filespec's available for opening a file, and for exporting a
file. The list was long, but .RAF, .NEF, .CR2 filespec's were not part
of the list.

I appreciate the efforts that the rest of you have put forth in this and
other "Betcha Can't Improve This Photo" posts. It's an interesting
education. Even so, I'm still going to shoot film and print it optically!

...er, OK!
So there is no need to ask what RAW processing and photo editing software you
use,or even if you shoot with a digital camera?


I have a crappy little Vivitar (7Mp, IIRC) for eBay images.

I scan my negs for online sharing on Facebook, along with the disclaimer
that the original is on film and if the viewer wants to see the quality,
he/she should come visit me and look at the 20x24 print on the wall!

Usually, I shoot with a Canon FX (1964-69) or sometimes, a Mamiya 645.
"Raw Image processing" is with Trebla chemicals, and editing/printing is
with an Eseco AF45 enlarger.

I have one album on FB titled "Medium Format Scenics". These were either
6x6 or 645 and scanned at the highest rez my Epson flatbed would
provide. I wouldn't mind hearing comments about these. Of course, if
comments regarding quality are bad, I'll simply blame it on my scanner
or Facebook! I am "kenhart1" on FB.

(If you do look at my FB albums, please ignore the quality of the 35mm
images- those were crap scanned. I changed scanners since then and I
expect my vacation shots next month will look better scanned than last
year's shots!)



--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

The .RAF file type is the Fujifilm RAW file, just as NEF is Nikon RAW, and
CR2 is Canon RAW.

Thank you! Just for grins and giggles, I opening GIMP (2.8), and looked
at the filespec's available for opening a file, and for exporting a
file. The list was long, but .RAF, .NEF, .CR2 filespec's were not part
of the list.

use ufraw, or upgrade to photoshop/lightroom.

On May 29, 2016, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 05/29/2016 05:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 05/28/2016 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

Just for my own edification:
I clicked on the link to the .RAF file, and Firefox couldn't display it.
It suggested opening it with Leafpad, a no-formatting text editor
similar to Win Notepad.

Clicking on that DB link should have downloaded the .RAF file to wherever
your downloaded files go so that you could open it in the RAW editor of
your
choice.

It isn’t going to open in software such as Firefox that doesn’t support
RAW files. To get some idea of the image in question the link to the
in-camera JPEG above will show you the subject of the thread.

I did look at the before/after images- very nice job!
Pardon me for disparaging someone's efforts, but that comparison view
just looked like it was made darker and with less contrast. What am I
missing?

If you are talking about the side-by-side comparison, the unadjusted RAF is
on the left, the Lightroom adjusted version on the right.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_125.jpg

It's not a big deal, but I'm just curious. Is the .RAF extension fairly
common? Or only among British Military? (That's a joke for the humor
impaired!)

The .RAF file type is the Fujifilm RAW file, just as NEF is Nikon RAW, and
CR2 is Canon RAW.

Thank you! Just for grins and giggles, I opening GIMP (2.8), and looked
at the filespec's available for opening a file, and for exporting a
file. The list was long, but .RAF, .NEF, .CR2 filespec's were not part
of the list.

GIMP is not a RAW editor. Since you are using some variety of Linux you will
propbably need Ufraw, Darktable, or RawTherapee to open and process any of
those file types.
http://ufraw.sourceforge.net
http://www.darktable.org
http://rawtherapee.com

Needless to say I am running a Mac and Lightroom and Photoshop CC and
currently have little use for things Linux.

I appreciate the efforts that the rest of you have put forth in this and
other "Betcha Can't Improve This Photo" posts. It's an interesting
education. Even so, I'm still going to shoot film and print it optically!

...er, OK!
So there is no need to ask what RAW processing and photo editing software
you use,or even if you shoot with a digital camera?

I have a crappy little Vivitar (7Mp, IIRC) for eBay images.

Good enough for that task.

I scan my negs for online sharing on Facebook, along with the disclaimer
that the original is on film and if the viewer wants to see the quality,
he/she should come visit me and look at the 20x24 print on the wall!

Usually, I shoot with a Canon FX (1964-69) or sometimes, a Mamiya 645.
"Raw Image processing" is with Trebla chemicals, and editing/printing is
with an Eseco AF45 enlarger.

I haven’t used a wet darkroom in 40+ years.

I have one album on FB titled "Medium Format Scenics". These were either
6x6 or 645 and scanned at the highest rez my Epson flatbed would
provide. I wouldn't mind hearing comments about these. Of course, if
comments regarding quality are bad, I'll simply blame it on my scanner
or Facebook! I am "kenhart1" on FB.

I don’t use Facebook, or Instagram, Twitter, Linkedin, etc.

(If you do look at my FB albums, please ignore the quality of the 35mm
images- those were crap scanned. I changed scanners since then and I
expect my vacation shots next month will look better scanned than last
year's shots!)

I won’t say a word.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 05/29/2016 06:06 PM, PeterN wrote:
snip

When referring to RAF you should have spelled that: "humour impaired."

snip

My computer operating system is a variation of Ubuntu, from the British
company Canonical. For some reason, the built-in spell checker uses
British spellings. For some other reason, my mail program (Mozilla
Thunderbird) uses American spellings. Had I written "humor" in my WP
program, it would have been flagged until I changed it to "humour",
which gets flagged in Thunderbird.

I could research this and figure out which configuration files need to
be changed, but that doesn't sound like fun.

I just have to be careful when using words like color/colour. Or the
hood of my truck is the bonnet of my lorry; to get to the fourth floor I
take the lift not the elevator; and I don't live in the USA but rather,
the Colonies!

--
Ken Hart

On 5/29/2016 7:51 PM, Ken Hart wrote:
On 05/29/2016 06:06 PM, PeterN wrote:
snip

When referring to RAF you should have spelled that: "humour impaired."

snip

My computer operating system is a variation of Ubuntu, from the British
company Canonical. For some reason, the built-in spell checker uses
British spellings. For some other reason, my mail program (Mozilla
Thunderbird) uses American spellings. Had I written "humor" in my WP
program, it would have been flagged until I changed it to "humour",
which gets flagged in Thunderbird.

I could research this and figure out which configuration files need to
be changed, but that doesn't sound like fun.

I just have to be careful when using words like color/colour. Or the
hood of my truck is the bonnet of my lorry; to get to the fourth floor I
take the lift not the elevator; and I don't live in the USA but rather,
the Colonies!


A while ago I was shooting in Central Park with some friends. Someone
asked where we were from. I told him the Isle of Long. He asked if that
was somewhere off the West Coast of the UK. I said yes, but it was a lot
closer to the East Coast of the Isle of Manhattan. His face actually
turned red.


--
PeterN