Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
p.1 #1Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
Didn't see a specific thread on it, so thought it was worth discussing.
My main question is anybody actually using it happily?
I experimented with it and my takeaways are:
1) It does give notably more push-around room than a jpeg and at similar stored file size, +2
2) The work required to get it into a jpeg so it can be posted is literally the same as if I start with a raw, -2
3) It does not have the push room or latitude of a raw, -1
4) It isn't widely accepted (yet?) except in a few raw processors like LRc or ACR. -2
My conclusion is it simply isn't worth it, at least yet. If and when it is ever directly editable and upload-able to most websites, I will take another look. For me for now, I stick to raw...
My main question is anybody actually using it happily?
I experimented with it and my takeaways are:
1) It does give notably more push-around room than a jpeg and at similar stored file size, +2
2) The work required to get it into a jpeg so it can be posted is literally the same as if I start with a raw, -2
3) It does not have the push room or latitude of a raw, -1
4) It isn't widely accepted (yet?) except in a few raw processors like LRc or ACR. -2
My conclusion is it simply isn't worth it, at least yet. If and when it is ever directly editable and upload-able to most websites, I will take another look. For me for now, I stick to raw...
Dec 10, 2025 at 11:57 AM
p.1 #2Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
I use darktable which doesn't (generally) provide a starting point that is based on whatever film simulation was used. For that reason I've experimented with HEIF, but only in situations where I get it as close to as I want it in camera. But then like you say that means it's still extra work to get the final JPEG, so is it really worth it? Probably not. Besides, I tend to always edit my photos anyway (unless I'm shooting in Acros in which case I'm usually happy with the SOOC results and can just use JPEG in the first place).
Dec 10, 2025 at 12:03 PM
p.1 #3Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
Jack Flesher wrote:
Didn't see a specific thread on it, so thought it was worth discussing.
As a Mac user:
1) It does give notably more push-around room than a jpeg and at similar stored file size, +2
OK
2) The work required to get it into a jpeg so it can be posted is literally the same as if I start with a raw, -2
HIF files are directly supported by Apple products and the Preview app will easily convert to JPG if necessary.
They aren't raw and don't need the raw conversion step or processing by a raw converter.
Apple doesn't natively support compressed raw and uncompressed raw files are many times larger than HIF files.
3) It does not have the push room or latitude of a raw, -1
OK
4) It isn't widely accepted (yet?) except in a few raw processors like LRc or ACR. -2
I haven't found any application using a Mac or iPad that doesn't support HIF files.
Didn't see a specific thread on it, so thought it was worth discussing.
As a Mac user:
1) It does give notably more push-around room than a jpeg and at similar stored file size, +2
OK
2) The work required to get it into a jpeg so it can be posted is literally the same as if I start with a raw, -2
HIF files are directly supported by Apple products and the Preview app will easily convert to JPG if necessary.
They aren't raw and don't need the raw conversion step or processing by a raw converter.
Apple doesn't natively support compressed raw and uncompressed raw files are many times larger than HIF files.
3) It does not have the push room or latitude of a raw, -1
OK
4) It isn't widely accepted (yet?) except in a few raw processors like LRc or ACR. -2
I haven't found any application using a Mac or iPad that doesn't support HIF files.
Dec 11, 2025 at 03:29 AM
p.1 #4Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
Since I rarely (essentially never) need to upload image directly from the camera, but instead run them though my ACR/Photoshop workflow in post, I don’t see the advantage in it for me at this point.
That could change in the future if it reliably replaces jpg on the web, but I don’t think we’re there yet.
That could change in the future if it reliably replaces jpg on the web, but I don’t think we’re there yet.
Dec 11, 2025 at 10:12 AM
p.1 #5Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
AZ Photo wrote:
HIF files are directly supported by Apple products and the Preview app will easily convert to JPG if necessary.
I haven't found any application using a Mac or iPad that doesn't support HIF files.
Sure, they work fine on the mac platform since Apple has adopted it. My issue is website upload -- not widely accepted/supported.
HIF files are directly supported by Apple products and the Preview app will easily convert to JPG if necessary.
I haven't found any application using a Mac or iPad that doesn't support HIF files.
Sure, they work fine on the mac platform since Apple has adopted it. My issue is website upload -- not widely accepted/supported.
Dec 11, 2025 at 11:00 AM
p.1 #6Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
Jack Flesher wrote:
I haven't found any application using a Mac or iPad that doesn't support HIF files.Sure, they work fine on the mac platform since Apple has adopted it. My issue is website upload -- not widely accepted/supported.
OK its not something I much do - but a quick conversion from Preview to jpg format would seem to satisfy the requirement.
Perhaps if you upload all your images to websites then avoiding HIF files makes more sense.
AZ Photo wrote
HIF files are directly supported by Apple products and the Preview app will easily convert to JPG if necessary.I haven't found any application using a Mac or iPad that doesn't support HIF files.
OK its not something I much do - but a quick conversion from Preview to jpg format would seem to satisfy the requirement.
Perhaps if you upload all your images to websites then avoiding HIF files makes more sense.
Dec 11, 2025 at 11:58 AM
|
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #7Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
Jack Flesher wrote:
Didn't see a specific thread on it, so thought it was worth discussing.
My main question is anybody actually using it happily?
I experimented with it and my takeaways are:
1) It does give notably more push-around room than a jpeg and at similar stored file size, +2
2) The work required to get it into a jpeg so it can be posted is literally the same as if I start with a raw, -2
3) It does not have the push room or latitude of a raw, -1
4) It isn't widely accepted (yet?) except in a few raw processors like...Show more →
In a discussion on a different board jpeg2000 got mentioned. Literally 25 years people corrected issues with jpegs!!
I think a platform like Fuji, having film sims, could be excellent. The major software doesn't hold on to the in camera film sims afaik. It takes less space and If people decided to edit later heif is better
Probably not that hard to convert heif -> jpeg and most of my internet posts (on here anyway) I did a proper sharpen & resize. Granted doing that on raw may not be much different. It's time to move up from jpeg though
Dec 12, 2025 at 11:11 AM
p.1 #8Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
JPEG XL is hopefully the future. It's an open standard and not encumbered by patents. Side note: Interestingly DNG files can use JPEG XL compression.
Dec 12, 2025 at 11:59 AM
p.1 #9Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
I suspect jpeg XL may succumb to HEIF. My reasoning is simply Apple having adopted and integrated it very well into their i devices.
Dec 12, 2025 at 12:44 PM
p.1 #10Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
Believe it or not, not everyone uses Apple products. There has actually been some recent forward momentum with JPEG XL: it's now the preferred image format for PDF files. Likely because of this decision, Google appears to be reversing their removal of JPEG XL support from Chromium/Chrome.
Open standards don't always win, but I'm hoping this one will.
Open standards don't always win, but I'm hoping this one will.
Dec 12, 2025 at 03:21 PM
p.1 #11Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
mivadep wrote:
Believe it or not, not everyone uses Apple products. There has actually been some recent forward momentum with JPEG XL: it's now the preferred image format for PDF files. Likely because of this decision, Google appears to be reversing their removal of JPEG XL support from Chromium/Chrome.
Open standards don't always win, but I'm hoping this one will.
Ah, interesting. If Google is truly re-igniting, then JPEG-XL is the likely winner.
Believe it or not, not everyone uses Apple products. There has actually been some recent forward momentum with JPEG XL: it's now the preferred image format for PDF files. Likely because of this decision, Google appears to be reversing their removal of JPEG XL support from Chromium/Chrome.
Open standards don't always win, but I'm hoping this one will.
Ah, interesting. If Google is truly re-igniting, then JPEG-XL is the likely winner.
Dec 12, 2025 at 03:33 PM
p.1 #12Fuji HEIF -- too soon?
Jack Flesher wrote:
Didn't see a specific thread on it, so thought it was worth discussing.
My main question is anybody actually using it happily?
I experimented with it and my takeaways are:
1) It does give notably more push-around room than a jpeg and at similar stored file size, +2
2) The work required to get it into a jpeg so it can be posted is literally the same as if I start with a raw, -2
3) It does not have the push room or latitude of a raw, -1
4) It isn't widely accepted (yet?) except in a few raw processors like...Show more →
If you used LR or ACR, would it register a 0, or a +2...?
Didn't see a specific thread on it, so thought it was worth discussing.
My main question is anybody actually using it happily?
I experimented with it and my takeaways are:
1) It does give notably more push-around room than a jpeg and at similar stored file size, +2
2) The work required to get it into a jpeg so it can be posted is literally the same as if I start with a raw, -2
3) It does not have the push room or latitude of a raw, -1
4) It isn't widely accepted (yet?) except in a few raw processors like...Show more →
If you used LR or ACR, would it register a 0, or a +2...?
Dec 12, 2025 at 08:21 PM