Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Greetings.

I bought a used XT-1 last month and am still in the process of learning everything so this problem may be something very simple that I just couldn't find online and that maybe everyone knows...?

The pictures which I've uploaded as examples were taken using the RAW + FINE mode so they are the same picture, except one was compressed based on the RAW data to form a jpeg.

Now, the problem I have is that the RAW file (RAF, actually) on my PC does occupy more space (32MB compared to 5MB from the jpeg) but has a lower resolution as you can see. How is this possible? Aren't RAW files the absolute best a camera can produce? Or does the compression to jpeg enhance the details? I'm very confused as you can probably tell.

To upload the pics I zoomed in and cropped the rest out. The thing is: for the jpeg, since it has better resolution I didn't need to zoom is as much to get the same result. So the raw had to be zoomed to the max while the jpeg maintained its sharpness and could be furhter zoomed (I guess that's what resolution probably means...).

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thank you. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What software are you using? Based on the photos it looks like you are comparing the fine jpg with the jpg preview embedded in the RAW file.

The RAW files has all the RAW data, so they have the potential to look better than the jpg, but the jpg files have things like sharpening, lens corrections, noise reduction and color adjusted, while the RAW files are RAW. They are for editing and getting the most out of the sensor, and since they have all the data the jpg conversion threw out there's much more that can be done, such as more exposure correction, shadow lifting, highlight recovery, white balance adjustments, and all the color corrections you want.

Edited by ErikN
Link to post
Share on other sites

RAW files need indeed further processing. Until then, they tend to be less sharp and with less contrast than processed jpegs. You can set the RAW file to be compressed. That way it uses less diskspace. Since it is lossless compression, the image quality isn't affected.

Fujifilm has a really good jpeg engine, so for many it is a struggle to get better image quality from their RAW file, compared to the out-of-camera jpeg. Regardless of which RAW processor you use: Lightroom, Capture One, Silky Pics...

Thomas Fitzgerald published very good quick guides for processing Fuji RAF files in either Lightroom or Capture One. You can find them in his webstore: THOMAS FITZGERALD PHOTOGRAPHY. They cost a few $ but give excellent guidance and sample settings to get the best out of your RAF file for each specific sensor. The 16MP sensor in the X-T1 needs a few different basic settings compared to the 24 and the 26MP sensors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Olaf W. said:

How did you develop the raw files? Maybe you are seeing just the embedded low resolution JPGs.

That was the case! I was opening the photos with the basic Windows program and once I opened them in Rawttherapee the RAW looked so much better! Thank you so much.

 

15 hours ago, ErikN said:

What software are you using? Based on the photos it looks like you are comparing the fine jpg with the jpg preview embedded in the RAW file.

The RAW files has all the RAW data, so they have the potential to look better than the jpg, but the jpg files have things like sharpening, lens corrections, noise reduction and color adjusted, while the RAW files are RAW. They are for editing and getting the most out of the sensor, and since they have all the data the jpg conversion threw out there's much more that can be done, such as more exposure correction, shadow lifting, highlight recovery, white balance adjustments, and all the color corrections you want.

I was using the basic photo program that came with Windows and turns out that was a bad idea. I understand that the RAW photos are mainly used for further processing but I thought they should appear better to begin with and that's what happens when I open them with Rawtherapee. Thanks to your comment I found that program and can now make some adjustments to the RAW to make it look a bit better! Thanks a lot.

 

2 hours ago, Herco said:

RAW files need indeed further processing. Until then, they tend to be less sharp and with less contrast than processed jpegs. You can set the RAW file to be compressed. That way it uses less diskspace. Since it is lossless compression, the image quality isn't affected.

Fujifilm has a really good jpeg engine, so for many it is a struggle to get better image quality from their RAW file, compared to the out-of-camera jpeg. Regardless of which RAW processor you use: Lightroom, Capture One, Silky Pics...

Thomas Fitzgerald published very good quick guides for processing Fuji RAF files in either Lightroom or Capture One. You can find them in his webstore: THOMAS FITZGERALD PHOTOGRAPHY. They cost a few $ but give excellent guidance and sample settings to get the best out of your RAF file for each specific sensor. The 16MP sensor in the X-T1 needs a few different basic settings compared to the 24 and the 26MP sensors.

I will indeed look into taking more pictures in JPEG and use RAW only for images that I feel like I will process later. For now I'm using Rawtherapee since I'm just starting out but thanks a lot for the info! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • A fungus in the forest.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

      (p.s. Open Topic.)  
    • The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C film simulation LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 film simulation LUTS because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then you are not getting the correct results.
    • I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
×
×
  • Create New...