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

Fuji RAW Files (RAF)

Discussion in 'Fujifilm Cameras' started by Craig20264, Sep 3, 2020.

  1. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

    Ok, my initial exuberance with my new camera is slowly waning. Yes, the Fuji is a lovely camera to shoot with, and produces wonderful Jpegs. For street work and travel it's unbeatable. So good I had all but made up my mind to source a used XT-3 for my landscape images, as the X100F is limited with it's fixed focal length.
    I took the X100F on a landscape/woodland shoot to see what I could do with the RAW files. It has the same sensor as the XT-3 so would be a good test of what it could do. What could possibly go wrong? WORMS, that's what could go wrong. The RAW files are awful, at least in Lightroom. The artefacts are almost impossible to get rid of. The RAW files from my old D5100 are much cleaner. Now some will say this is pixel peeping, and they won't show in print, but they are there, and I want to start processing with the cleanest image possible. I'm led to believe that 'Capture One' makes a better job of rendering the RAF files than Lightroom, but I'm invested in Lightroom and Photoshop so don't want to change, and shouldn't have to. I've tried the 'Enhance Detail' option in Lightroom, which is slightly better. I've tried 'Iridient X Transformer' (Yes, there is a dedicated RAW converter just for Fuji files as it's a known issue!), no better.
    To say I'm disappointed is an understatement, but at least I found out before investing any further. I will keep the X100F as it's a great camera to always have with me, but those RAW files! Come on Fuji/Adobe, get your heads together on this one.
  2. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    I have not noticed anything wrong with the RAF files from mine, using camera RAW on Photoshop 2020. The only annoying thing with RAF is an Apple issue. They are still not supported for a preview image when opening the SD card. Not an issue as can use Bridge, but I'd like to be able to see them.
  3. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I think the X100F has the same 24 MP sensor as I have in the X-H1. I've not had any problems with "worms" processing in LR Classic though I think I am overdue a version update, the auto-updater keeps stopping. Currently running 9.3 CR 12.3. There were a lot of complaints that earlier versions of LR didn't handle RAF well but that was a while ago, way before the current set of sensors.
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I'm glad you said that. I'm still deciding whether or not to buy the X100V. Money is in the bank but I'm not going into shops yet.
  5. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

  6. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    As mine is the X100V it has a different sensor and processor. Perhaps that is why I haven't noticed anything. The other reason could be in fact that I haven't noticed anything but they are still there!
    Craig20264 likes this.
  7. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

    I am a terrible pixel peeper, but I've got cleaner RAW files that are 7 years old off a 16Mp Nikon APSC sensor, and that shouldn't be happening. The RAF files don't take well to virtually any sharpening. It could be that the issue is now ironed out on the newest sensor.
  8. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Some people see these WORMS more than others. It took me a while to discover what they were and I had to really zoom in. I thought Adobe had fixed the issue, perhaps not.

    Some solutions suggest not using the LR default sharpening setting.

    Capture One Express for Fujifilm is free. No idea how it fits in to the workflow.
  9. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    After the first few days shooting and processing Fuji raws with adobe raw processor I have never had worms again.
    If you do your sharpening during your your raw processing, in lightroom or photoshop. you will be able to bring out worms if you over do it.
    Best to not do it at all at that stage. the default sharpening that the processor gives is just is fine.

    If you want to sharpen more at the output stage in lightroom or photoshop it will not result in worms.
    I process my raws to tiffs which I keep, and use to make my output adjustments as to size and sharpness when needed.
    I never get worms.
    If you reprocess a raw file it can produce worms if you over sharpen. if you reprocess the tiff it will not, however much you do it.
    Brian likes this.
  10. Mark101

    Mark101 Well-Known Member

    Thomas Heaton had the same issue and his solutions are here ...
  11. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    To summarise: if he looks at his raw file at 300% magnification in LR it looks bitty but if he develops and prints it A3 and looks at it though a loupe he can't really decide and it looks the same as if he had done it in Capture One. Motto - don't look at Raw files at 300% magnification. I can't imagine why anyone would want to view a raw-file at 300% magnification anyway. Otherwise peace-at-heart lies in using Capture One.
    Phiggys likes this.
  12. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    Slightly(?) off topic, but is there much (if any) difference between most Fuji (X-Trans) RAW files and the RAW files from Fuji models like my X-T100 (Bayer)?
  13. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

  14. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    That is the heart of the matter. When the non-Bayer arrays first appeared then only the Fuji supplied software (Silky-Pix) really dealt well with the demosaicing and Adobe did very badly. Since then it has improved so I was a bit surprised to see this come up again as an issue. Early recommendations for using LR were to use high amounts of detail in the sharpening (set detail slider to 80% + ) as this switched to a different internal algorithm for doing something or other which had a specific effect on RAF files. In fact I now, for all files, set as starting point detail to 80% and amount to 40%.
  15. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Yes it is almost verbatim. Easier to read than listen to the video of #10. I used Capture One (lite version) for a while but got fed up because it kept all the editing options but put a splash screen up saying "buy the full version if you want to use this" which was infinitely annoying compared with greying out the option.

    I can't say that I have been aware of Fuji files looking awful. I've got the 16 MP and 24 MP sensors.

    Latest (10th Sept) bunf from Silkypix is that Fujifilm or Panasonic specific versions are now available for 3980 JPY. Full price Silkypix Developer Studio Pro10 is 22000 JPY though they regularly discount it. I assume this ought to do the "best" job of processing the raw files. According to Google I thought it did a good job 2 years ago but it was very slow.
  16. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    3980¥ ?:eek: Oh, £29. Fair enough, carry on. ;)
  17. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I just compared LR RAF conversion with LR enhanced detail DNG conversion of a 16 MP RAF from an X-E2 (latest firmware) and a 24 MP RAF from an X-H1.

    With the 16 MP file I can see absolutely no difference using the LR compare frame tool even when I take the magnification up to 3:1 (which was cited in the video).

    With the 24 MP file I could see one difference - the face of someone in the very far distance was redder in the enhanced file than in the RAF but it needed 3:1 magnification to see that the figure had a face.

    I couldn't see any difference in noise in the uniform areas at 3:1 and at 1:1 noise is not apparent.

    My 2012 iMac - coped with the calculation in a couple of minutes - though it wasn't happy with me trying to use Safari while it was busy.
    Phiggys likes this.
  18. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Tried it also with a 16 MP CR2 from 1Div and a 50 MP CR2 from 5Ds and couldn't see any difference at all at up to 400 % magnification. Poor iMac a bit slow for this on 50 MP files.

    Still don't know why the 300 % view is relevant to the video. The only reason I can think of for going more than 100% is if painting in individual pixels as part of a really fancy edit.
    Gezza likes this.
  19. Phiggys

    Phiggys Member

    Try capture one express for fuji its free :)
    miked likes this.
  20. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Did you ever find a solution?

    I downloaded the free Capture One Express yesterday, still playing but it works for me.

Share This Page