stupid effing RAW formats

Discussion in 'The Watering Hole' started by Luke, Aug 22, 2013.

  1. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    well I just spent 15 minutes updating my Photoshop Elements 10 since it won't read my .RAF RAW file.

    Installed and still useless. Well I'm just sick of it. I might just get rid of all my cameras. They haven't been bringing me any joy lately, anyways. Maybe I should check out that Instax thread again while I pout.
  2. Nordiquefan

    Nordiquefan New to SC

    Aug 17, 2013
    I don't care for RAW files either even though I have thousands plugging up various hard drives. I shoot RAW+jpeg just in case I decide someday to start experimenting with PP. How long has digital been around now? I haven't started yet but I guess you never know.

    I'd rather be shooting than sitting in front of a computer trying to get the image to look "right".
  3. aleksanderpolo

    aleksanderpolo SC Regular

    Apr 18, 2013
    Ricoh DNG is calling
  4. entropic remnants

    entropic remnants SC All-Pro

    Mar 3, 2013
    John Griggs
    Don't sell them all... just take a break. Life is like that sometimes. If you really do give up photography, you'll likely regret it -- but maybe I'm taking you too seriously. You've been selling almost everything lately it seems so I wasn't sure.
  5. Yeats

    Yeats SC All-Pro

    Jul 31, 2012
    New Jersey, USA
    Have you tried the Adobe DNG RAW Converter?
  6. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend Subscribing Member

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    Even that needs to be supported though - recall the funky reds and oranges with the GR until Adobe created a specific color profile for it?

  7. zapatista

    zapatista SC Regular

    Jul 28, 2012
    Denver, Colorado
    .dng is your friend. Guaranteed to double your file size and never become obsolete until adobe decides to decommit or charge a subscription fee to allow you to keep opening your own file.
  8. Yeats

    Yeats SC All-Pro

    Jul 31, 2012
    New Jersey, USA
    DNG is an open standard, and is likely to be an ISO standard within the next year.
  9. zapatista

    zapatista SC Regular

    Jul 28, 2012
    Denver, Colorado
    Adobe will find a way...
  10. aleksanderpolo

    aleksanderpolo SC Regular

    Apr 18, 2013
    Ya, I remember that. But it might get quicker support by Adobe as it is their heavily promoted container.

    I wonder if Luke is testing some super secret prototype camera that is not yet supported... :wink:

  11. Isoterica

    Isoterica SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 6, 2011
    My x100s is RAF, neither photoshop 10 nor lightroom 3 can read, so meanwhile I have been shooting jpeg + raw, I've only toyed with jpeg, and only if I need to. Still amazed by the camera though the filters [not the film sims] could use a little work.
  12. biglouis

    biglouis SC Veteran

    Aug 4, 2013
    I know it is more expensive but you thought about using Adobe Lightroom, especially the latest release, version 5?

    It appears to support a wide range of Fuji camera raw formats.

    And pay the ridiculously subsidised price for the NIK suite ad-ins from Google.

    A really powerful combination, imho. Since upgrading I have rarely used CS, I can do it all in LR and the NIK ad-ins.

    Alternatively, I came across this:

    Image Converter: convert JPG, GIF, BMP, PCX, PNG, TIFF, RAW file formats

    I share your frustration - if only camera makers could be persauded to consolidate on DNG!

  13. pdh

    pdh SC Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    Buy a nice tlr, Luke
  14. Duane Pandorf

    Duane Pandorf SC Top Veteran

    Apr 25, 2011
    Western NC
    I would never buy a camera with a file format that's not supported by the leading image processing software packages. Period.

    Its a major reason I never considered buying anything Fuji. I want full control of all the data the sensor can capture and if my preferred workflow software can't read the RAW file the camera is no use to me. Period.

    I wish the camera companies would just get a clue.
  15. bartjeej

    bartjeej SC Hall of Famer

    Nov 12, 2010
    Hang in there, Luke! As John suggested, there's no harm at all in taking a break sometimes if you're not getting any joy from your photography. I've been on a forced break for a couple of months now, and I'm quite fine with it.
    Regarding raw files: the Adobe DNG conversion program can help; free RawTherapee can read just about any Bayer sensor raw file. But with the X100, I find myself just using the internal raw converter to great satisfaction in about 95% of the cases...

    [edit] I see now that you're using an XPro1, so RawTherapee won't be much help.
  16. monk3y

    monk3y SC Regular

    Aug 12, 2013
    As far as I know Capture 1, Aperture and LR5 can read .RAF files already.
  17. Irish Murph

    Irish Murph SC Regular

    Aug 21, 2013
    Rovaniemi, Finland
    Luke, I'll take some of your gear off your hands for you. I'll start with the Rx you have FS. Send it to:
    Karu MC

    They know who I am here, small town and all that.

    Thanks in advance.

    Oh, btw, don't forget to include the paperwork too.


    What about Lightroom?. That doesn't read raf raw?.
  18. Duane Pandorf

    Duane Pandorf SC Top Veteran

    Apr 25, 2011
    Western NC
    And it took quite a long time for that to even happen. It's why everyone kept saying they were satisfied with the JPG output as the existing versions of these programs at the time could not convert the files when the camera came out.
  19. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend Subscribing Member

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    Actually, quite a lot of us actually were and are satisfied with the Fuji jpegs. I shot jpegs with the X100 (Bayer sensor - no raw issues) because I just liked the jpegs so much. Fuji's were the only cameras I've ever felt that way about.

  20. Lightmancer

    Lightmancer Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 13, 2011
    Sunny Frimley
    Bill Palmer
    There are two cameras in my experience that produce eminently usable jpegs straight out of the camera. The Leica Digilux 2/LC-1 and the X10. My X-E1 and GR both have the useful facility to develop raw in camera; I shoot them both as raw+jpeg in order to either save the odd shot where I have really screwed up exposure, or to apply a filter in post processing. I also shoot the X-E1 in mono most of the time because a) I work in mono most of the time(!) and b) it makes it easier to manual focus with the focus peaking.

    Luke, I truly feel your pain on the processing of raw. Consider this. When using film you had the choice of print (low control, everything done for you), slide (less links in the image chain, get it right in camera or else) and the sub-sets of self-processing (time consuming and fiddly, high control) and processing by someone else (quicker but low control).

    Thus, taking your roll of film with a Christmas tree at either end to Boots was low control, low effort, low input and where the mass market was. Shooting slide and either processing it yourself or getting it done properly and professionally was high control (at the input stage and potentially at processing) but more expensive per frame and the domain of the experienced amateur or professional.

    Today we have jpeg and raw. jpeg straddles both the old print and slide domains - it can be quick and easy, cheap as chips, but it can also encourage the get-it-right-in-camera behaviours of the dedicated amateur and the time-poor pro. Raw has become the format of choice of those who want to squeeze the best possible results out of the captured file and who have the time and the inclination to do so. What we don't see today is a lot of professional raw processors offering their services - "upload your files to us and have fantastic prints in no time" sort of thing. that is because raw is a fiddler's dream - a veritable smorgasbord of choice for the indecisive - and that is best done in the privacy of one's own "man-cave".

    Others have compared jpeg and raw to fast food and fine dining. That analogy holds to an extent, since fast food can satisfy your hunger but find dining is not just a meal but an experience. However, I think a closer metaphor is the behaviour of the diner themselves. In a rush, starving right now? Grab yourself a takeaway jpeg - it requires no thought. Hungry, but can't be bothered to cook? It's the jpeg ready meal for you. Delicious, often well-made, but with no more effort to prepare than is taken standing in front of the microwave shouting "hurry!". Your "input" is in the supermarket, choosing what flavours to enjoy but once your choice is made you are stuck with it. Confident in your culinary skills? Understand flavours and their interaction? Have the time to prep and cook? Then your ingredients should be raw... You can lovingly prepare your signature dish, tasting at each stage, of course - and produce something tasty - or something overdone and indigestible (hello HDR...)

    There we have it. Let me leave you with this thought - next time you are in a restaurant, be it McDonald's finest or Le Manoir aux quat'saisons - see how long it takes you to choose from the menu and how much you visualise the meal you are to eat. A couple of seconds? jpeg for you, sir - would you like to go large Why not have a Big Mb and fries? Asking the waiter detailed questions about the origins of the wagu beef in the Wellington? Hello Mr Raw, your usual table...?
Similar Threads Forum Date
Camera raw The Watering Hole Nov 25, 2015
effing blown highlights The Watering Hole May 20, 2015
Raw File Comparisons.. Question?? The Watering Hole Jan 28, 2015
really stupid things I read in a camera instruction manual The Watering Hole Mar 20, 2014
Stupid thought: english vs. metric measures The Watering Hole Dec 2, 2013