PDA

View Full Version : Fuji RAW and OS X 10.4.9 RAW support



Zoolook
04-14-2007, 05:22 PM
Well this is odd. For the 1st time since switching to Mac, I decided to shoot RAW on my Fuji S9000. I copied across all the RAW images to the Mac and in finder, the preview actually shows a thumbnail of the images. Double clicking on them though gets an error message saying no application can open the image. iPhoto refuses to import them.

I am downloading CS3 Beta and the Aperture Trial to see if either of these can open them - I need to decide on which Photo editing software I'll use in future.

Anyway, can anyoe help? The FinePix software that came with the camera is appaling and VERY slow, so I'd rather avoid using it.

Alexis
04-14-2007, 06:14 PM
iPhoto probably can't handle RAW format.

Since you're getting into a professional format, you need professional software. Photoshop will be able to open your pics.

MacHeadCase
04-14-2007, 06:53 PM
iPhoto does support RAW file formats. iPhoto 5 (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=300876) did, so it's a safe bet to think that iPhoto 6 has it too.

I am looking at the moment at the built-in camera RAW file format support (http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/cameras.html) and can't see your Fuji listed in there Zoolook.

Did you check Fuji's website to see if there wouldn't be some kind of driver for it?

MacHeadCase
04-14-2007, 07:04 PM
This intrigued me a lot so I kept on looking. Fuji does have a downloadable software update for Mac OS X, Hyper-Utility Software HS-V2 Ver.3.1H Updater for Mac OS X (http://www.fujifilm.us/JSP/fuji/epartners/ServiceSupportSoftwareContent.jsp?dbid=829255&prodcat=836805&sscucatid=664260).

I own a Canon and have no clue what that app is for. I do know that Canon has software for converting their RAW file formats to .tif so I'm hoping here this is a .RAF converter?

I did come across an app called RAW Developer (http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/) whih will convert your files but it's bloody expensive for my tastes ($99US).

Zoolook
04-14-2007, 08:11 PM
This intrigued me a lot so I kept on looking. Fuji does have a downloadable software update for Mac OS X, Hyper-Utility Software HS-V2 Ver.3.1H Updater for Mac OS X (http://www.fujifilm.us/JSP/fuji/epartners/ServiceSupportSoftwareContent.jsp?dbid=829255&prodcat=836805&sscucatid=664260).

I own a Canon and have no clue what that app is for. I do know that Canon has software for converting their RAW file formats to .tif so I'm hoping here this is a .RAF converter?

I did come across an app called RAW Developer (http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/) whih will convert your files but it's bloody expensive for my tastes ($99US).

OK, well the hyper utility is just an update of the Fuji software I already have, does't really do the trick. It is only useful for converting RAW to TIFF, which is obviously handy if you have no other way of doing it, but not what I was after.

Aperture previews the image for a split second then closes it saying unrecognised format. CS3 opens them beautifully, I have the preview Beta version... looks amazing, but is quite slow. I might consider investing in it - I have been taking pictures for years, but never used a computer to change them, other than simple cropping. Could be start of something new.

MacHeadCase
04-14-2007, 08:19 PM
Since Aperture runs on the built-in camera RAW file formats off of OS X, I'm really not surprised Aperture can't handle your RAW files.

I read a few snippets here and there on Photoshop CS3 and the new Camera RAW plug-in sounds much better than the one in CS2. You'll have to post an in-depth review of your experience!

The Camera RAW plug-in 3.7 is a real pain. Every time you import a RAW file it tries to estimate what would look best with horrendous results sometimes. I looked high and wide to disable the guessing work it does on each import so I can tweak it myself first but it isn't built into it. I heard that the Camera RAW plug-in 4.x in CS3 has that capability of being disabled instead of assuming your photos are caca to begin with upon opening them.

Zoolook
04-14-2007, 08:29 PM
The Camera RAW plug-in 3.7 is a real pain. Every time you import a RAW file it tries to estimate what would look best with horrendous results sometimes. I looked high and wide to disable the guessing work it does on each import so I can tweak it myself first but it isn't built into it. I heard that the Camera RAW plug-in 4.x in CS3 has that capability of being disabled instead of assuming your photos are caca to begin with upon opening them.

Yes it does - when you open up a RAW image you get a few options. It usually makes some observation about the image colours not being up to scratch and asks if it can fiddle with it - you just select leave it alone.

I am not sure if I can justify the expense of CS3, but I am going to use it for the 30 days it allows. If I get any amazing results, I'll stick with it.

MacHeadCase
04-14-2007, 08:37 PM
Excellent. I haven't checked but does Elements open RAW files as well?

Zoolook
04-14-2007, 08:51 PM
Excellent. I haven't checked but does Elements open RAW files as well?

I don't know, I cannot think of any reason why they'd leave it out, other than using RAW is generally the preserve of the high end hobbiest or professional.

MacHeadCase
04-14-2007, 09:33 PM
Yep, true enough.

gilesjuk
04-16-2007, 05:36 AM
Worth mentioning that Ufraw is available in Darwin Ports.

It tends to handle most RAW formats.

mraya
04-16-2007, 06:22 AM
I don't know, I cannot think of any reason why they'd leave it out, other than using RAW is generally the preserve of the high end hobbiest or professional.

Fuji's RAW format is not the only one left behind by Apple. You should try Adobe Lightroom, in my opinion is better than Aperture (mostly because Aperture doesn't run in my iBook :confused: ), it handles more RAW formats than Photoshop, Aperture or iPhoto.

Zoolook
04-16-2007, 08:16 AM
Fuji's RAW format is not the only one left behind by Apple. You should try Adobe Lightroom, in my opinion is better than Aperture (mostly because Aperture doesn't run in my iBook :confused: ), it handles more RAW formats than Photoshop, Aperture or iPhoto.

That was a great tip thanks, I downloaded it and will try the 30 days free trial. It's very laggy on my MacBook though looking at RAW images, so I guess it's time for a memeory upgrade?

mraya
04-16-2007, 11:00 AM
I have 768mb of RAM but most of my images are 6mp and JPEG. By default some extra details are active, for example, in the grid view it gives you a lot of information, from EXIF to rotation, changing those options (command+J) will improve the speed. Also, it works by adding the canges to an XML card, it doesn't change the photo, so when you load the image all the changes are applied to the original, but nothing is saved besides the XML information.
The first time you see a photo at 100% it will be a little slow, but that will improve the next time.
Usually i open Ligthroom, iTunes and Safari without much problem, but again, my images are 6mp.

Zoolook
04-16-2007, 11:03 AM
I have 768mb of RAM but most of my images are 6mp and JPEG. By default some extra details are active, for example, in the grid view it gives you a lot of information, from EXIF to rotation, changing those options (command+J) will improve the speed. Also, it works by adding the canges to an XML card, it doesn't change the photo, so when you load the image all the changes are applied to the original, but nothing is saved besides the XML information.
The first time you see a photo at 100% it will be a little slow, but that will improve the next time.
Usually i open Ligthroom, iTunes and Safari without much problem, but again, my images are 6mp.

My images are 9mp, which translates to just a sniff over 18MB per image. I am not sure how many of these images it caches, I had Camino and Entourage open when I 1st tested it out.

I'll play with the options, but I have to say that for a 'lite' version of Photoshop, this is good stuff. You get nearly all tyhe same RAW options I saw in CS3 beta in terms of creating your TIFF or JPEG from the originals. I'm really grateful for the tip, no one has ever mentioned this programme before... I guess people don't like admitting they use a cut down version of Photoshop. At this point I could go into a rant about how people should learn to actually take a photograph before diving into something like CS3, but I have no right to say that... oh, I just did! :rolleyes:

mraya
04-16-2007, 11:16 AM
... At this point I could go into a rant about how people should learn to actually take a photograph before diving into something like CS3, but I have no right to say that... oh, I just did! :rolleyes:

:oneye:
I learn Photoshop before i learn a anything about photography... (not that i know much about Photoshop or photography)
But what you say is true, when i got my first camera i was lazy about learning how to use it because i was always thinking, "i can fix that later with Photoshop..." I don't use it unless i have to go beyond average editing, Lightroom gives you great control over colors, exposure, curves and more, it is more than enough 90% of the time.

gilesjuk
04-16-2007, 12:05 PM
You can only fix so much. You can't do anything with bad focus, composure (other than cropping out stuff). With RAW you can get away with the wrong exposure to a degree, boosting will show noise though. Blown highlights aren't curable.

Zoolook
04-16-2007, 12:09 PM
:oneye:
I learn Photoshop before i learn a anything about photography... (not that i know much about Photoshop or photography)
But what you say is true, when i got my first camera i was lazy about learning how to use it because i was always thinking, "i can fix that later with Photoshop..." I don't use it unless i have to go beyond average editing, Lightroom gives you great control over colors, exposure, curves and more, it is more than enough 90% of the time.

Well of course it's all a matter of opinion and taste and my opinion is probably based on snobbery more than anything, which isn't very nice. I do think there is a certain art in the actual taking of the photograph and to hear that someone spent 2 hours removing a lampost from a picture (maybe coming out of the back of someone's head) when a simply step to their left or right when shooting would have achieved the same thing, is a concept I find strange.

It's just a different approach, both of which have merit.

gilesjuk
04-17-2007, 07:05 AM
I do think there is a certain art in the actual taking of the photograph and to hear that someone spent 2 hours removing a lampost from a picture (maybe coming out of the back of someone's head) when a simply step to their left or right when shooting would have achieved the same thing, is a concept I find strange.

It's just a different approach, both of which have merit.

Indeed, you really have to engage your brain and eyes a bit more when taking quality photos, especially when visiting monuments and landscapes otherwise you will end up taking the "walk up" shot which is the same shot everyone else does when then walk to the scene.

You should delay setting up the tripod, have a look around, use the viewfinder to help figure out a nice shot.

Photoshop does help you remove things that are unavoidable and beyond your control.