1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

RAW Processing

Discussion in 'Help Team' started by sagamore, Oct 13, 2017.

  1. sagamore

    sagamore Well-Known Member

    I have a Fujifilm Finepix S200EXR camera. It can take RAW+Jpeg, but I have never tried RAW processing, and thought that I might have a go! I downloaded GIMP OK, and then tried to download UFRAW to work in conjunction with it. But UFRAW would not download, because my PC is 64 bit! Is there any free software about that will allow me to experiment with RAW processing? Initially, I wouldn't want to pay out for it, as I may not like it, or it may be too time-consuming for me to want to bother with.

    Bob
     
  2. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    RawTherapee

    S
     
  3. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    This PC is 64 bit Ubuntu and I already have UFRAW but just thought I'd check nothing had changed so I downloaded it again from Source Forge - no problem.
     
  4. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Last time I looked, UFRAW didn't support Windows 64 bit.
     
  5. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    I expect that's Bob's problem then. Don't have Windows so couldn't check but it's fine on Linux 64.
     
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    it is exceedingly painful to use but Fuji provide a raw processor based on SilkyPix. http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/software/myfinepix_studio/rfc/ (virus check everything you download) I have it on my Win 10 laptop. RawTherapee opens my RAF files. Again not so straightforward to use as LR on my mac.
     
  7. sagamore

    sagamore Well-Known Member

    Thanks for replies. Rawtherapee did not work. I tried to download it from several places but just got 404 error
     
  8. sagamore

    sagamore Well-Known Member

    Rog,
    Thanks for that. I went along to Source Forge and downloaded it. It came in smoothly and quickly, and , with a mind unclouded by knowledge or fact, I opened up my first RAW file without any problem. Whether I will be able to work it is another matter, but at least I am moving in the right direction.:)
    Bob
     
    EightBitTony likes this.
  9. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    Excellent! I hope we shall see some of your results.:)
     
  10. sagamore

    sagamore Well-Known Member

    I have tried it out, and I can do all sorts of things with the image, but I am not really sure if anything actually improved it, but it was not a very good one to start with, as it is dark and raining today.
    Bob
     
  11. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    So a RAW file will (usually), need some level of sharpening, and then need exposure, contrast and other levels / histogram changes to achieve similar output to a JPG from the camera.

    If you're using RAW just to learn how to process an image, then it's not usually very inspiring, because you can get as good as, or better, images straight from the camera JPG.

    The advantage of RAW is when you want to achieve something the camera doesn't do by default or well, either by dealing with highlights or shadows the camera JPG doesn't handle well, or make other artistic choices.
     
  12. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member


    The reason I started using raw files is because it let me run through the camera options to see what suited the scene best. So for fuji that means you can compare the effect of the film options (provia, astia, velvia, classic chrome, pro neg hi&low). I generally prefer Astia so I apply [ the LR version of] that as a preset when I work on a RAF file. I also preset sharpening as I pretty much always use the same settings.
     
  13. sagamore

    sagamore Well-Known Member

    Generally, I am perfectly happy with the jpeg from the camera, I just got curious about RAW. I have done some more fiddling about, but so far have been unable to convert the doctored image into a jpeg or something useable. I do a lot of writing and need to insert images into Apache Open Office documents.
    Bob
     
  14. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    If the camera jpg is what you want then indeed there is no point in adding overhead. Out of the box the camera will produce a standard jpg but usually you have options to change its look. Maybe not on your camera but on my Fuji they are called film emulations, on my Canon they are called styles. So if you choose a different set of options you will get a different looking jpg for the same scene and lighting.

    With raw processing you take that (and other things you can do) outside the camera. So from one image you can get many different interpretations. This isn't the same as editing the jpg and making changes - it is producing a fresh jpg just as if you had taken another picture.

    Raw software editing produces a set of instructions for converting the raw image. Once decided you can apply them and export the results in an image file format. The command save usually just saves the "development" instructions.

    The export usually also has options to allow you to change the image size - for example - because I do my own printing I only save jpgs so I have a quick index in Flickr that I can look up on my ipad. So I downsize so the longest side is 800 pixels - I don't need more to help me remember the picture. It sometimes looks rubbish - the other week I made a rare (for me) panorama and reducing 10,000 pixels to 800 did it no favours!
     
  15. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    As Pete says ... File/Export as/give it a name with .jpg extension.
     
  16. sagamore

    sagamore Well-Known Member

    Thanks, I can now save as jpeg. Really, I was being taken in by the Pixabay forum who were essentially telling me my images are poor, and not up to their required standard, and that if my camera could take RAW, and I stuck to jpeg, it was the equivalent of driving my car in only 1st or 2nd gear! I was just curious as to why they always considered my images as poor, although I stopped trying to upload images to them some time ago now. Eventually, it dawned on me that as my images are very popular in articles and books that I sell, it was a bit foolish to try and give them away, only to be told they are not good enough!:rolleyes: I can manipulate the images in RAW now, but so far, any enhacement is really not enough to justify the effort, but I will continue to play with it. I did turn a pretty dark image into something a lot better, but am not sure that I could improve on an already excellent image shot as jpeg.
    Bob
     
  17. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I am glad you are sorted! I don't think anyone on the forum could believe a) the rejections or the b) gifting :)

    Get away from the idea that raw processing makes it "better". It just means you do the processing, not the camera, and indeed you may well end up at the same place. Using the manufacturer's own raw converter you may well get exactly the same result without touching anything if the raw file contains camera settings. At least this is the case with Canon and the reason I stopped saving jpgs. There is no real overhead for me in using only raw.
     
  18. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Almost any image can be improved upon, one way or another. What ever format it is taken in.
    Raw just gives you greater scope.
    Even the best cameras are programmed mechanical monsters if left to their own devices.
    They can neither think nor read your mind.
    So if you want your own input or interpretation in a scene. It is down to you to do it.
    Raw only increases the extent to which that is possible.
     
  19. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    I've found that it's usually possible to get out more fine detail when using raw that even the best jpeg can give. Of course this sometimes means accepting more "grain".
     
  20. sagamore

    sagamore Well-Known Member

    I have given up on RAW. I can't get them to look any better than a jpeg enhanced by photoshop!
    Bob
     

Share This Page