I just downloaded...looks like no lens profiles

Bummer I chose Aperture! let's wait&see...

Looks we Aperture users are gonna have to wait :-( Well Adobe for leading the way and showing Apple how to do it ;-)

Once again, I wouldn't blame Apple, its up to Fuji to help.
Adobe get there quicker as they clearly have a larger dedicated team for this stuff.

I don't use Aperture myself, but I'm certainly rooting for Apple to support X-Pro1 RAW files as soon as possible. It will be nice to have thumbnails and file details shown in Finder. Unfortunately I don't believe Apple has nearly as many staff dedicated to RAW support, their updates are usually less frequent.

@jseltzer because its up to Fuji to divulge the sensor details to Apple and Adobe - which they dont do

@mattmaber Yep, I don't think there is any incentive for the manufacturers to switch over and support DNG. Us users of hardware and software would get a better deal, but I guess we're not top of their priority list and there are many other things to spend their investment dollars on.

@

mattmaber said:

@jseltzer because its up to Fuji to divulge the sensor details to Apple and Adobe - which they dont do

Sorry, disagree. Fuji is not responsible for helping Adobe make Lightroom as useful as possible. Again, it's in their best interest, but it's not their responsibility. Fuji created a camera, allows you to shoot in JPG and RAW, and they supplied a RAW conversion tool. Adobe is a an independent software company, and frankly, they should operate independently.

What if Adobe decided simply not to support the X-Pro1, would that also be Fuji's fault?

I can confirm the observations in the article above. There is severe chroma smearing in green foliage in particular :(

@jseltzer Do you not wonder how one small piece of software DOES have X-Pro1 RAW support from the off, yet the massive Adobe and smaller but popular Apple have to take time to come out with support?
Fuji choose who they share the details with, other companies are on their own, why Fuji choose who they do I couldnt say.
And Im not suggesting Fuji need a software house, clearly not, they just need to speak to Adobe and Apple.
Im just saying its incorrect to put the blame in Apple & Adobes hands.

Here's the RAW: RAW Download

And here are my pathetic efforts to develop it in-camera, in Lightroom and in Silkypix.







Have fun doing a much better job with LR/ACR, Silkypix or JPEGs, and don't forget to post how you did it!

Why would we stop? :) I would say once Adobe came out and said "we are aware of the XP1 and are working on it..." that was enough for me. Almost by definition, everyone that purchased the XP1 before Adobe support are impatient by nature (we all are early adopters, no?), and therefore bugging both Adobe and Fuji seems consistent with our personality types.

Btw, here's the RPP 64 version:

Just makes me laugh - you have no evidence Fuji failed to share anything with Adobe. All cameras ship with a RAW conversion tool, and Fuji shipped with Silkypix. So what? For all we know, Fuji gave Silkypix the same info, and Silkypix jumped at the opportunity to be the first, whereas Adobe had other priorities.

Well, I'll defer to you all as you clearly have insider insight into the relationship between Fuji and Adobe. Makes total sense that Fuji would refuse to give any info to Adobe, then just sit and laugh as they struggle to provide support while people bitch and complain on forums about poor quality and no RAW support.

jseltzer said:

Well, I'll defer to you all as you clearly have insider insight into the relationship between Fuji and Adobe. Makes total sense that Fuji would refuse to give any info to Adobe, then just sit and laugh as they struggle to provide support while people bitch and complain on forums about poor quality and no RAW support.

Thom Hogan tears Fujifilm a new one.....


"An aside: Fujifilm is to be reprimanded for introducing a new sensor pattern into the market and not working closely with software developers prior to the launch (I'm not sure they're working all that closely after the launch, either). This is blatant disregard and disrespect for the serious photographers Fujifilm targets, in my opinion. We have an existing workflow. We don't want to be forced to change that workflow and our software mix to get good results from our raw files. So we're forced to change both camera and workflow to use an X-Pro1. Bad call, Fujifilm. But they're not the only Japanese company that keeps making this mistake. I keep hoping that some Japanese camera company will finally get over the software NIH (not invented here) syndrome and realize that there's a huge advantage to integrating new equipment into existing workflows. Huge. "

Haha. Do you REALLY need LR4? Why not just use the DNG converter

FinePixCamera said:

jseltzer said:

Well, I'll defer to you all as you clearly have insider insight into the relationship between Fuji and Adobe. Makes total sense that Fuji would refuse to give any info to Adobe, then just sit and laugh as they struggle to provide support while people bitch and complain on forums about poor quality and no RAW support.

Thom Hogan tears Fujifilm a new one.....


"An aside: Fujifilm is to be reprimanded for introducing a new sensor pattern into the market and not working closely with software developers prior to the launch (I'm not sure they're working all that closely after the launch, either). This is blatant disregard and disrespect for the serious photographers Fujifilm targets, in my opinion. We have an existing workflow. We don't want to be forced to change that workflow and our software mix to get good results from our raw files. So we're forced to change both camera and workflow to use an X-Pro1. Bad call, Fujifilm. But they're not the only Japanese company that keeps making this mistake. I keep hoping that some Japanese camera company will finally get over the software NIH (not invented here) syndrome and realize that there's a huge advantage to integrating new equipment into existing workflows. Huge. "

People just love to complain. The camera is brand new to the market. The fact there was no LR support was well known. It's a simple solution: if that's a big problem for you, do NOT buy the camera. Personally, I would rather have the camera sooner, deal with Silkypix (or shoot JPG only) and wait for LR, versus wait around for Fuji and Adobe to collaborate on the perfect RAW algorithm before releasing the camera.

mattmaber said:

@flysurfer i only asked because it seemed odd to go from LR4 to Aperture

I like Aperture. It serves me well. I'm not a working pro (anymore), my shooting skills are limited, I pretty much used iPhoto until the XP1 came to market. I usually like to keep things simple, but of course, that's hard to do once you plunge into the world of high-end system cameras and start to write a book about that topic. So I ended up using pretty much everything – I think I tested about 10 different RAW converters for the X100 alone. Not too bad, as it broadens both mind and perspective.

I never automate, I treat each single picture differently. In a series of similar or near-identical pics, I may of course copy settings from a "master pic" to the rest.

For most pics, the internal RAW converter will suffice to deliver nice material that I can polish up in Aperture. I typically reserve a 16 bit workflow for "special occasions".

For example, this sample shows the default conversion of a pic in Silypix and the OOC JPEG of the same pic on the left. Both look bad in their own way. On the right you see the finished pics, above from the RAW on the left and below from the JPEG on the left.

Hello,
New to this site / forum. Recently acquired a Fuji X Pro 1. And of course trying to gleam as much info as possible. Thought I might share something with you all about RAW support.

When I got around to buying my Nikon D2X back in 2005, the camera had been out for sometime. At least twice as long as the Fuji X Pro 1 has been out. Even I had to wait around a month for RAW support from Adobe (really the only game in town back then). So to me it seems they have come out rather quick, possibly too quick. Can't really say as I am still using CS5 and Aperture as my main workflow.

Have tried SilkyPix using it only to create a 16bit TIFF file and taking it to CS5 and ACR for further development, seems to work fine for me. But then I am not really what one would call a pixel peeper. Have tried to download Raw-Photo-Processor (as I am on a Mac), but only am able to get #1514, which does not support the Fuji. Tried the links provided in other sites, but only get a "404 error" message. Anyone tried RPP? Anyone have a link to it?

Took this photo, as I thought it would show up with the smearing problem that ACR seems to create. SilkyPix-16bit Tiff-Photoshop CS5-to jpeg

/Users/jimgamblin/Desktop/DSCF0355.jpg

Sorry about that. How do I upload to this site?

Hello again,

Sorry for the delay, dad duty came first. The 35mm f/4 iso 500

As I said before I made this photo to see how it handeled the green leaves.


At 100%:



Later I tried going into the red channel: The 35mm again f/5.6 iso 1600




Given the softness of the fabric and the contrast between red and white, I feel it handeled it fairly well. My procedure was exposure in RAW, opened in SilkyPix, converted to a 16bit Tiff file and opened in Photoshop CS5 (ACR). Some sharpening, some contrast boost.

Would the RPP work better?