Applying Fuji film simulations to Raw files

It is normal for any Raw converter to ignore camera effects although things like white balance are used as a starting point.
 
I thought the film simulations only appeared if you shot JPEG. If you shoot RAW you might see the effect on the screen but in your processing programme you will not see the effect. That's why RAW is called RAW!
 
At the bottom right of the Lightroom 'Develop' screen click on 'Adobe Standard' to change to your preferred Fuji simulation.
 
john.margetts said:
It is normal for any Raw converter to ignore camera effects although things like white balance are used as a starting point.
Click to expand...
I do realise that now but never having used camera effects before ever, didn't realise it before. :( Having all the great effects on my Fuji, I found this link to show me how to use them after importing into Lightroom.
 
Canon presets behave in a similar fashion, to be honest I wouldn't want an in camera simulation imported with the RAW file.
 
It's not actually the camera's film simulation.

It's Lightroom trying to emulate it as close as possible so the RAW is untouched really.
 
As above you've got the film emulations in Lightroom. They're not exact but pretty damn close most of the time.

I'm not sure whether Fuji's own software gets closer? I know Nikon Capture NX gets closer to Nikon profiles than Lightroom but the software is horrible and clunky.
 
The ACROS film simulation is very different though, Fuji have kept that to themselves, and the way it handles High ISO noise is very different in Camera than LR's equivalent.

X-T2 Firmware 3.0 Due late November adds FUJIFILM X RAW STUDIO, which will allow the camera processor to be used for processing RAW files via USB. How this will work and what features/adjustments will be available, we don't know yet. See here for details

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_t2/
 
Thanks for all the comments on this , very helpful. And for the Scott Kelly book idea from Dave70d
 
snerkler said:
As above you've got the film emulations in Lightroom. They're not exact but pretty damn close most of the time.

I'm not sure whether Fuji's own software gets closer? I know Nikon Capture NX gets closer to Nikon profiles than Lightroom but the software is horrible and clunky.
Click to expand...
My subjective impression in comparing X100T in-camera jpegs with Fuji Raw File Converter software output jpegs is that the film simulations are very close but not identical between the two methods. The X100T doesn't have the Acros simulation, though, so I don't know if that's any different.

I'd expect the Adobe versions of all the simulations to be different again - as far as I know, Adobe is reverse-engineering these, perhaps by comparing in-camera jpegs of colour calibration targets with the output of their own conversions of the corresponding raw files, and generating a profile to match them as closely as possible. I wasn't quite convinced by Adobe's versions of various Nikon camera profiles (compared to either in-camera jpegs or NX conversions) back in the CS6 era, but perhaps they are better now.
 
Mr Perceptive said:
The ACROS film simulation is very different though, Fuji have kept that to themselves, and the way it handles High ISO noise is very different in Camera than LR's equivalent.

X-T2 Firmware 3.0 Due late November adds FUJIFILM X RAW STUDIO, which will allow the camera processor to be used for processing RAW files via USB. How this will work and what features/adjustments will be available, we don't know yet. See here for details

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/x/fujifilm_x_t2/
Click to expand...
My XT1 didn't have the ACROS :(
 
Retune said:
My subjective impression in comparing X100T in-camera jpegs with Fuji Raw File Converter software output jpegs is that the film simulations are very close but not identical between the two methods. The X100T doesn't have the Acros simulation, though, so I don't know if that's any different.

I'd expect the Adobe versions of all the simulations to be different again - as far as I know, Adobe is reverse-engineering these, perhaps by comparing in-camera jpegs of colour calibration targets with the output of their own conversions of the corresponding raw files, and generating a profile to match them as closely as possible. I wasn't quite convinced by Adobe's versions of various Nikon camera profiles (compared to either in-camera jpegs or NX conversions) back in the CS6 era, but perhaps they are better now.
Click to expand...
I've tweaked adobe' profiles to create my own which are 99% similar to the jpegs to my eyes.
 
Can't say I have noticed much difference between a Jpeg with say, Velvia, and a RAW file with the Velvia sim added in LR. You can set up LR to add your chosen profile to all imported Fuji RAW files if you like, but you are restricted to one at a time
 
Cagey75 said:
Can't say I have noticed much difference between a Jpeg with say, Velvia, and a RAW file with the Velvia sim added in LR. You can set up LR to add your chosen profile to all imported Fuji RAW files if you like, but you are restricted to one at a time
Click to expand...

Personally I only had a few brief plays with a mate's X-T1 and X-T2. I was not convinced that the Velvia was really as good as the real deal Velvia. Do I need to play more or did I maybe miss something? I had a fairly standard set-up and applied the film simulations in ACR 2017 CC.
 
antonroland said:
Personally I only had a few brief plays with a mate's X-T1 and X-T2. I was not convinced that the Velvia was really as good as the real deal Velvia. Do I need to play more or did I maybe miss something? I had a fairly standard set-up and applied the film simulations in ACR 2017 CC.
Click to expand...

I do have some pre-settings in LR so that would make a little difference. Just basics, like sharpening, clarity and contrast adjusted to what i always start off with. So mine wouldn't be precisely Velvia either way, but I found it to be close enough for my taste. Maybe choose Velvia in the software and tweak it to your liking and save that as a new preset called Velvia 2 or so?
 
antonroland said:
Personally I only had a few brief plays with a mate's X-T1 and X-T2. I was not convinced that the Velvia was really as good as the real deal Velvia. Do I need to play more or did I maybe miss something? I had a fairly standard set-up and applied the film simulations in ACR 2017 CC.
Click to expand...
You can get it closer by tweaking the contrast, colours, plus the shadows and red and green primary in the camera calibration section and then using this as a preset. I can't remember exactly now as I don't have Fuji anymore.
 
snerkler said:
You can get it closer by tweaking the contrast, colours, plus the shadows and red and green primary in the camera calibration section and then using this as a preset. I can't remember exactly now as I don't have Fuji anymore.
Click to expand...

Will make a note of that thanks!

First to do that for my Canon bodies, especially the 5D1 about to land soon...

A Fuji system is a long term pipe dream for me...for now...
 
Cagey75 said:
I do have some pre-settings in LR so that would make a little difference. Just basics, like sharpening, clarity and contrast adjusted to what i always start off with. So mine wouldn't be precisely Velvia either way, but I found it to be close enough for my taste. Maybe choose Velvia in the software and tweak it to your liking and save that as a new preset called Velvia 2 or so?
Click to expand...

I use Photoshop only...looks like at some stage I will go the LR way...but not just yet...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top