Would never pay for PL until it supports Fuji RAF RAW files.
Can this ever be accomplished?? If so I would buy.
Only here because of Nik Collection.
Hello R1918
Unfortunately DXO have stated that they will not support x-trans raw images due to complexity to maintain different raw processing algorithms.
Only way is to use one of those developers who do support it or convert your raws into another image format and edit them in PL.
But then you lose out on PL strength and I would say that it’s not worth it.
1 Like
Iridient Developer to TIFF, then perspective correction, local adjustments and noise reduction in PhotoLab works very well. I didn’t like the workflow though, as Required suggests. So I made the decision to sell of my Fuji cameras rather than deprive myself of PhotoLab workflow and results. Or have to work in two different RAW developers for my Canon and Fuji systems. It’s better to work very well in a single RAW developer than only moderately well in two or three.
Since consolidating on Nikon (mirrorless, DSLR and video) and PhotoLab, I’ve enjoyed photography more. The shorter the barrier between imagination and image, the better. That means fewer tools understood more deeply. The Z6 is a lot like an X-H1 but with far better image quality at higher ISO (full frame). Particularly when shooting vintage lenses with aperture on the lens.
1 Like
Imagine being a company selling a product that processes RAW photo files and admitting it’s too difficult. Amazing capitulation.
Imagine put diesel fuel in a gasoline engine and the car breaks down.
Amazing capitulation!
Fuji (1% APN market) chose to play alone. That does not alter the quality of his work.
Personally I chose Olympus because of DxO.
Pascal
5 Likes
I made the decision to sell of my Fuji cameras rather than deprive myself of PhotoLab workflow and results. Or have to work in two different RAW developers for my Canon and Fuji systems. It’s better to work very well in a single RAW developer than only moderately well in two or three. KFC Experience
1 Like
I use Fuji film with my large format (5" x 4") film camera. I continue to use it only because I stocked a chest freezer with several hundred sheets of film, as soon as they announced they were stopping production.
Fuji used to make (IMO) the best colour transparency and B&W film but, they were always several orders of magnitude more expensive than everybody else.
Amongst some landscape photographers, one film was much loved - Velvia 50. Unfortunately, the day arrived when they were told it contained something nasty in its formulation, so Fuji announced it was halting production. Such was the outcry that folks went out and bought chest freezers and stocked them with as much Velvia 50 as they could get their hands on.
Fuji noticed this massive increase in demand and responded by reformulating the film and relaunching it. The trouble was, nobody wanted to buy it because they had just stocked up several years worth of the old version. So, they were lumbered with thousands of packets, which they ended up having to sell off cheap, as they reached their expiry date, finally stopping selling it as well.
Fuji Neopan Acros 100 was the most amazing B&W film, with virtually no reciprocity and a tonality to die for. Due to its high cost in relation other makes, I, amongst many, would wait until stocks expired and then buy them at a much reduced price. Obviously Fuji weren’t happy with the losses incurred but, instead of reducing the price to make it competitive, they stopped production.
It would seem the same madness continues with their digital RAW format. Rather than fall in line with the rest of the world, they have insisted on ploughing their own lonely furrow. Is their RAW format really any better than all the rest?
One wonders how much longer they can continue in the digital market with this attitude, or will their cameras go the same way as their films, which were, definitely, much better than the competition but, simply too expensive.
Did you find the same rendering with tge FilmPack simulation ?
Pascal
No, not really. They are a pale imitation of the real thing. Fortunately, knowing what the results should be, I can work with the colour wheel to get something better.
Well, once I found some better images to compare, maybe I was a bit harsh.
Here is a large format image, taken on Velvia 50 film by a great friend of mine. Note the magenta cast and the “muddy” cast to the greens ; this is typical of the “Velvia 50 look”
Here is an image I took with my Nikon D810 and processed in PL3
First with the Velvia 50 emulation. It certainly has a magenta cast and the greens are quite muddy
Now with the Velvia 100 emulation. This is a strongly, but more evenly saturated film
Finally with the Astia 100 emulation. This is intended for catalog photography with as neutral rendering as possible to ensure accurate colour matching
It’s very difficult to be truly objective because I don’t have the same image, taken in the same lighting conditions in both film and digital.
3 Likes