Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2 3

end

Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

freaklikeme wrote:
Okay, I agree with that, but if the process itself is causing clipping, then that would be obvious in the viewfinder. With modern sensors, I expose to get the shadows and darker tones where I want them, knowing that I'll have plenty of room to bring up the mid and high tones in post. The TIFFs are proving to be just as flexible as the RAF for that purpose.

Did I? I remember making a statement about how I'm using my camera and asking how others how they're using theirs. I have no problem with the criticism, but I had no...Show more →

But if you have to lift the shadows in PP, then why not just use the RAF instead of TIFF?

May 14, 2022 at 04:59 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Makten wrote:
But if you have to lift the shadows in PP, then why not just use the RAF instead of TIFF?

If you use Adobe tools, these days the best place to lift shadows in most cases is in ACR during conversion or (still working with a raw file) in Lightroom. (I think that's what you mean by using .RAF, which is Fujfilm's raw file format.)

As to the other party's comment above about people being "invested in how I use my camera," it is possible to have multiple takes on that and to have them simultaneously.

1. Indeed, one can use whatever technique they want. While others may disagree with the person's choice or even see that the choice might not make sense, it isn't even possible to force someone to choose differently in a photo forum.

2. If one makes a "statement" in a photography forum, particularly as the post that starts the thread, it should come as no surprise that others may have opinions about this. If a poster doesn't really care to hear the response or doesn't think that responses and discussion are appropriate... why even post it in a discussion forum?

3. Another factor that some regard as important — and I'm among those who do — is that sometimes strange and even wrong ideas take hold in photography forums. If you care about this — and I do — then the only way to try to steer things back on track is to say something.

Given that raw data is what comes off the sensor, I don't see that the file quality could possibly be better or more accurate if it is converted to TIFF in camera. In the best case, it would be the same as the raw file, but also larger. TIFF can be a very useful format for some things, but it is just about impossible to see any image quality advantage in converting from raw to TIFF in camera, aside from perhaps being able to open the TIFF file in some application that would otherwise require you to to through a raw converter.

Also, I can kind of see the value of the simulations for some folks who want a sort of generic "look" that aligns with one of them, and who also simply aren't interested in the post-processing stage, at least in terms of using it to its full capabilities. I think that is one reason why the simulations seem sort of popular with some users of the APS-C cameras, especially among those who want to just go with the straight out of camera jpg files.

But that seems like a less likely attraction for folks who feel that they need the larger sensors of the GFX series for the incremental improvements in image quality that might come from the larger sensor. To tap into that, at least beyond just the resolution, I would think folks would be invested in using raw files and using a serious post-processing workflow that gets the most out of the image data of these files.

Now, if you like both of those — the simulations and the quality of raw files — you have the option of checking out the simulations that are available in Adobe's raw conversion applications. Try them and see if they are as good as the camera-generated files. (If I'm not mistaken, Adobe is actually using Fujifilm's own simulation settings to create these conversions.)

Dan

May 14, 2022 at 06:11 PM

rdeloe
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

gdanmitchell wrote:
If you use Adobe tools, these days the best place to lift shadows in most cases is in ACR during conversion or (still working with a raw file) in Lightroom. (I think that's what you mean by using .RAF, which is Fujfilm's raw file format.)

As to the other party's comment above about people being "invested in how I use my camera," it is possible to have multiple takes on that and to have them simultaneously.

1. Indeed, one can use whatever technique they want. While others may disagree with the person's choice or even see that the choice might not make sense, it isn't even possible to force someone to choose differently in a photo forum.

2. If one makes a "statement" in a photography forum, particularly as the post that starts the thread, it should come as no surprise that others may have opinions about this. If a poster doesn't really care to hear the response or doesn't think that responses and discussion are appropriate... why even post it in a discussion forum?

3. Another factor that some regard as important — and I'm among those who do — is that sometimes strange and even wrong ideas take hold in photography forums. If you care about this — and I do — then the only way to try to steer things back on track is to say something.

Given that raw data is what comes off the sensor, I don't see that the file quality could possibly be better or more accurate if it is converted to TIFF in camera. In the best case, it would be the same as the raw file, but also larger. TIFF can be a very useful format for some things, but it is just about impossible to see any image quality advantage in converting from raw to TIFF in camera, aside from perhaps being able to open the TIFF file in some application that would otherwise require you to to through a raw converter.

Also, I can kind of see the value of the simulations for some folks who want a sort of generic "look" that aligns with one of them, and who also simply aren't interested in the post-processing stage, at least in terms of using it to its full capabilities. I think that is one reason why the simulations seem sort of popular with some users of the APS-C cameras, especially among those who want to just go with the straight out of camera jpg files.

But that seems like a less likely attraction for folks who feel that they need the larger sensors of the GFX series for the incremental improvements in image quality that might come from the larger sensor. To tap into that, at least beyond just the resolution, I would think folks would be invested in using raw files and using a serious post-processing workflow that gets the most out of the image data of these files.

Now, if you like both of those — the simulations and the quality of raw files — you have the option of checking out the simulations that are available in Adobe's raw conversion applications. Try them and see if they are as good as the camera-generated files. (If I'm not mistaken, Adobe is actually using Fujifilm's own simulation settings to create these conversions.)

Dan...Show more →

My understanding around the Fujifilm camera simulations is that Capture One developers worked with Fuji, while Adobe didn't have as close a relationship. That's forum chatter so take it for what it's worth.

I did some comparisons of JPEG with Fujifilm camera simulations and RAF using Adobe's. Admittedly I didn't test all, but for the ones I did compare, I concluded that if Adobe did go it alone, they did an amazing job. I didn't see photographically significant differences.

It does seem odd to me that someone would invest in a GFX system and not use RAW, but I'm working on being open minded about these things.

Having said that, the only technical argument for using JPEG or TIFF that I can get behind is the one I made earlier in the thread, i.e., Fuji's in-camera RAW development handles aliasing in ways that neither Lightroom nor Capture One 12 can. This a tool in my toolbox (but I've never actually needed it).

May 14, 2022 at 06:38 PM

Peter Figen
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Personally, I can't imagine locking yourself into a predetermined look straight out of the camera. As someone who shot every version of Fuji film (and Kodak) over the decades, even though you chose the emulsion to get as close to what your final vision was, as good as the results were, they could ALWAYS be improved on. This became so apparent when I started drum scanning back in 1998 and continue to this day. You could scan the film exactly how it was, or you could make it better. It was that challenge of having been a black and white printer for 45 years and always wanting your prints to be better that made you want the same thing for your scans, and just like in processing raw digital files, there are some things done at the scanning stage that are either easier, faster or more effective than doing it later in Ps. Sometimes the opposite is true.

I approach raw digital images in much the same way, and it's probably the best analogy as well - to treat them as if you're the scanner operator and put your own spin on the image at the time of processing, because no matter how much you think you like those presets, you can ALWAYS do better - always. And the more adept you get at interpreting the raw process, the better you'll be at discovering the limits and direction of your own personal vision. So, for me, it's always shoot raw and the develop in Capture One, and the latest version of C1 has just been exemplary for processing Fuji raw files. Better even than they do with Canon. And the few times I need to do something in raw, it might actually be in anticipation of a black and white conversion, using the powerful selective color tools are missing from ACR and outputting, wait for it -- a freaking tiff file for processing in Ps.

The reality is that it always goes from raw to tiff and then in most cases immediately to the other white meat, Adobe's Large Document Format or .psb, because most of my files are going to be larger than 4 gigabytes. And there's so much that simply cannot be done in either ACR or Lr in terms of file processing, layering, blending modes, that it makes no sense for me to spend any time going there. Set a record for myself yesterday on a retouching gig for Garrett Turbos where the final delivered CMYK tiff was just under 4 gb, but the layered .psb working file was kissing 20 gb in size. Even when you turn off the .psb compression that takes a while to save.

The bottom line is that there are many different ways to work but only a couple of them give you the highest quality and greatest versatility. Tiffs are great but you have to know where and when they're great. Not unlike the dude in another recent thread who wanted to know the best brand of UV (protective) filter with no understanding of why or when they're actually needed but he was so locked into his initial premise that he wasn't able to understand why he thought he needed one despite being advised that they were only really needed in rare situations. This whole thread feels the same. In the end, none of this shit matters one whit. People are going to do what they want. Only a few are going to spend any time actually learning from the experience.

May 14, 2022 at 06:42 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Peter Figen wrote:
Personally, I can't imagine locking yourself into a predetermined look straight out of the camera.

Amen.

(Note the term "locking yourself" in to such a look. Use one if you like, but at least reserve the option to modify it when that can make it better.)

May 14, 2022 at 11:25 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Also, I can kind of see the value of the simulations for some folks who want a sort of generic "look" that aligns with one of them, and who also simply aren't interested in the post-processing stage, at least in terms of using it to its full capabilities. I think that is one reason why the simulations seem sort of popular with some users of the APS-C cameras, especially among those who want to just go with the straight out of camera jpg files.

But that seems like a less likely attraction for folks who feel that they need the larger...Show more →

What is a "serious post-processing workflow"? Am I automatically "not serious" if I like the look I get straight from the camera and see no need to process the image?
Are you aware that even if you choose not to use Fujifilms "simulations", you are still using a profile for the camera, made by Adobe? How is that any different as a starting point? They just look different.

Let's take an example. Here's an image that I liked the way it was, shot with "pro neg high". How and why would I try to "improve" it by processing it, if I don't see anything that I would like to change? I tried lowering the partially blown highlights during raw conversion (as I always shoot raw + JPG), but it didn't look better. The image just looked more flat and boring. So I settled on the JPG SOOC. Strange, huh?

May 15, 2022 at 03:15 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Makten wrote:
Not sure why you are quoting me. I don't use Adobe and I have nothing against raw. On the contrary, I've stated that you are much better off with using raw if you are gonna lift shadows et cetera.

What is a "serious post-processing workflow"? Am I automatically "not serious" if I like the look I get straight from the camera and see no need to process the image?
Are you aware that even if you choose not to use Fujifilms "simulations", you are still using a profile for the camera, made by Adobe? How is that any different as...Show more →

Oh, come on.

I started with a brief quote from your earlier post because... I agree with your point about using raw instead of tiff in this context.

The words "serious" isn't meant to offend anyone — it was just a quick word choice to indicate the difference between an approach that relies a lot of post and an approach that doesn't. The only good/bad implications are those that you imagine. (Personally, I use a lot of post when it is useful, but I may use almost none when it isn't useful.)

As to quoting you, your post was just my starting point for a reply, so it seemed appropriate to acknowledge that. Note that I didn't write "you" in my text, but "one." And, again, my basic point was to agree with your post.

Even though I thought your perspective was valid and worth amplifying, I hesitated to respond at all, since I've seen this kind of hostile response from you in the past. Apparently my original instincts were correct.

Bye.

May 15, 2022 at 09:42 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

gdanmitchell wrote:
Oh, come on.

I started with a brief quote from your earlier post because... I agree with your point about using raw instead of tiff in this context.

The words "serious" isn't meant to offend anyone — it was just a quick word choice to indicate the difference between an approach that relies a lot of post and an approach that doesn't. The only good/bad implications are those that you imagine. (Personally, I use a lot of post when it is useful, but I may use almost none when it isn't useful.)

As to quoting you, your post was just my starting point...Show more →

Quoting someone usually means you are writing to that person, which didn't make any sense.

Questioning you isn't "being hostile"; we simply don't have the same view of what photography is about. It would be more interesting if you answered my questions.

May 15, 2022 at 11:15 AM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Peter Figen wrote:
Personally, I can't imagine locking yourself into a predetermined look straight out of the camera. As someone who shot every version of Fuji film (and Kodak) over the decades, even though you chose the emulsion to get as close to what your final vision was, as good as the results were, they could ALWAYS be improved on. This became so apparent when I started drum scanning back in 1998 and continue to this day. You could scan the film exactly how it was, or you could make it better. It was that challenge of having been a black and white printer for 45 years and always wanting your prints to be better that made you want the same thing for your scans, and just like in processing raw digital files, there are some things done at the scanning stage that are either easier, faster or more effective than doing it later in Ps. Sometimes the opposite is true.

I approach raw digital images in much the same way, and it's probably the best analogy as well - to treat them as if you're the scanner operator and put your own spin on the image at the time of processing, because no matter how much you think you like those presets, you can ALWAYS do better - always. And the more adept you get at interpreting the raw process, the better you'll be at discovering the limits and direction of your own personal vision. So, for me, it's always shoot raw and the develop in Capture One, and the latest version of C1 has just been exemplary for processing Fuji raw files. Better even than they do with Canon. And the few times I need to do something in raw, it might actually be in anticipation of a black and white conversion, using the powerful selective color tools are missing from ACR and outputting, wait for it -- a freaking tiff file for processing in Ps.

The reality is that it always goes from raw to tiff and then in most cases immediately to the other white meat, Adobe's Large Document Format or .psb, because most of my files are going to be larger than 4 gigabytes. And there's so much that simply cannot be done in either ACR or Lr in terms of file processing, layering, blending modes, that it makes no sense for me to spend any time going there. Set a record for myself yesterday on a retouching gig for Garrett Turbos where the final delivered CMYK tiff was just under 4 gb, but the layered .psb working file was kissing 20 gb in size. Even when you turn off the .psb compression that takes a while to save.

The bottom line is that there are many different ways to work but only a couple of them give you the highest quality and greatest versatility. Tiffs are great but you have to know where and when they're great. Not unlike the dude in another recent thread who wanted to know the best brand of UV (protective) filter with no understanding of why or when they're actually needed but he was so locked into his initial premise that he wasn't able to understand why he thought he needed one despite being advised that they were only really needed in rare situations. This whole thread feels the same. In the end, none of this shit matters one whit. People are going to do what they want. Only a few are going to spend any time actually learning from the experience. ...Show more →

I can certainly understand not wanting to get stuck with a predetermined look out of the camera. It's a limitation. Not much of one, since the RAF's still there, but it can be one if you're a hardliner about it. I like the limitation. I've learned more about photography and myself with self-imposed limitations, and they've made me more attentive, patient, creative, and decisive. I rely a lot more on that experience than I do on what anyone else tells me is "best."

May 15, 2022 at 04:34 PM

Peter Figen
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Well, you're always free to do whatever you want. It was not apparent at the beginning of the thread that you had any understanding of why the in camera tiff might not be the best idea. At least now you've had good explanations and you should always do what's best for you. As you progress in your photography and post production you may indeed come to understand why some of us feel the way we do. It comes from real world experience and how to set your image up for the most effective post production processing you can give it.

May 15, 2022 at 10:10 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Makten wrote:
Quoting someone usually means you are writing to that person, which didn't make any sense.

Questioning you isn't "being hostile"; we simply don't have the same view of what photography is about. It would be more interesting if you answered my questions.

Again, my reply was AGREEING with your point of view.

Sheesh.

May 15, 2022 at 11:04 PM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Peter Figen wrote:
Well, you're always free to do whatever you want. It was not apparent at the beginning of the thread that you had any understanding of why the in camera tiff might not be the best idea. At least now you've had good explanations and you should always do what's best for you. As you progress in your photography and post production you may indeed come to understand why some of us feel the way we do. It comes from real world experience and how to set your image up for the most effective post production processing you can give...Show more →

Peter, I've shot RAW for nearly twenty years now on Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Hassy, Leaf, and Phase (when possible, obviously, since, for the original 1D and 1Ds and earlier digital backs, TIFF was RAW). I understand why you feel the way you do. So you do you, but you can button up the condescending attitude.

I'm beginning to understand why this is the second least active gear forum on the site.

May 15, 2022 at 11:45 PM

bobby350z
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Photography is a hobby. I am lazy, that's why I didn't learn PS much. Used to use Lr. Then during covid switched to C1 and like it so far. I rarely go into PS for my edits. I prefer less edits as I don't want to spend any more time in front of computer as my day job already requires 10+ hrs. I haven't tried Tiff. For jpegs from Fuji I did that when I got my XT-1 but soon after started using Raw. For simulations, C1 does fine for me. Shooting Raw+jpeg allows me to apply picture styles while shooting. Having a raw file, I can pick any simulation later on. I don't play with any Fuji jpegs settings but I know a lot of people do that.

In the end what and how you shoot/edit, it doesn't matter, do whatever makes you happy.

May 16, 2022 at 08:46 AM

Sauseschritt
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

freaklikeme wrote:
I'm beginning to understand why this is the second least active gear forum on the site.

How exactly do you get such a statistics ?

But my explanation would be that Fujifilms are a joy to shoot and you dont really have to discuss much about them.

May 16, 2022 at 09:51 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Correct me if I'm wrong but if anyone is actually saying that since they figured out , logically, that, duh, raw is more malleable in pp, and think that gives them the right to look down on others: wow. That's pretty obvious and photography isn't a particularly logical pursuit. If I wanted to do math and science, more logical pursuits, I'd do math and science (and I do quite a bit of those, actually.) This is more art.

I don't enjoy shooting raw thinking about the pp. I hate it. Sure I do it some but mostly shoot jpegs lately.

May 16, 2022 at 01:09 PM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Sauseschritt wrote:
How exactly do you get such a statistics ?

But my explanation would be that Fujifilms are a joy to shoot and you dont really have to discuss much about them.

Daily observation.

I don't disagree about them being a joy to shoot. I've never loved a camera as much as I do the 50sII. The only two things I'd change about it, if I could, would be to give it a higher resolution EVF (but I'd want that for most mirrorless cameras) and to expand the digital color filters in mono. I'd love to have a spectrum slider to adjust the temperature of the filter and an additional slider to control the strength.

May 16, 2022 at 06:06 PM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Fuji Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end