Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Guess the lens ...
#51
Jens, I don't have direct experience with the Fuji stuff. Still, reading here and there, I've got the suspicion that the treatment of Fuji RAW by ACR could be not optimal - the problem being in the peculiar characteristics of the array of the Fuji sensor, which is very different from others.

 

When you say that a ACR-processed raw is not different than the corresponding JPEG I'm very puzzled (I mean: it could also be that Fuji JPEG are outstanding, maybe the sample file doesn't represent a critical scenario in function of sharpness or dynamic, but in the end the first conclusion I think of is that the RAW processing hasn't been optimal.

 

I suppose Fuji has its own specific software to process its RAW, right? If so, you should try to have a run with it and see whether it produces better results.

 

 

PS If things are like that, it's a bit of a problem. I've recently evaluated Fuji, and among other criteria, I had this suspicion about raw processing (which for me is important, since I only use Adobe). I'd be very curious to see whether it was just a suspicion or if there is some fact.

stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#52
Quote:Jens, I don't have direct experience with the Fuji stuff. Still, reading here and there, I've got the suspicion that the treatment of Fuji RAW by ACR could be not optimal - the problem being in the peculiar characteristics of the array of the Fuji sensor, which is very different from others.

 

When you say that a ACR-processed raw is not different than the corresponding JPEG I'm very puzzled (I mean: it could also be that Fuji JPEG are outstanding, maybe the sample file doesn't represent a critical scenario in function of sharpness or dynamic, but in the end the first conclusion I think of is that the RAW processing hasn't been optimal.

 

I suppose Fuji has its own specific software to process its RAW, right? If so, you should try to have a run with it and see whether it produces better results.

 

 

PS If things are like that, it's a bit of a problem. I've recently evaluated Fuji, and among other criteria, I had this suspicion about raw processing (which for me is important, since I only use Adobe). I'd be very curious to see whether it was just a suspicion or if there is some fact.
 

 To clarify: I find the Fuji jpgs to be alot  better then the jpgs from any other manufacturer (sharpness, resolution, colour). However Fuji's jpgs (and raws) they are certinly worse than the results i can obtain from other cameras' raw files. Thus, I find not much use in the fact that fuji jpgs are as good as the fuji raws.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)