16635459425 757cb6ed83 B

Film Simulations in RAW File Converter EX Version 2

Share

Film Simulations in RAW File Converter EX Version 2

by Rico Pfirstinger

Talk to Rico (open forum for questions & feedback)

Rico’s Books at Rocky Nook – Fuji X Secrets Workshops – Rico’s Flickr Sets

The Fujifilm X-E2: Beyond the Manual (use coupon XPERT40 for a 40% discount)

NEW: The Fujifilm X-T1: 111 X-Pert Tipps (use coupon XPERT40 for a 40% discount)

Fuji Film Simulation Sample Images

My new book featuring 111 tipps for X-T1 users is now available as an eBook. Please use this link and enter coupon code XPERT40 to get a PDF version and an ePub (Apple iBooks) file and the Kindle version for just $11.99, all DRM-free. If you are still undecided, click here to download 47 free sample pages. If you like the book and can afford the time, please leave a review at Amazon.

On Thursday (26FEB), Fuji will release a new version of its free Silkypix-based RAW File Converter EX converter for Windows and Mac OS. It isn’t much different from the previous version, with one notable exception: RFC EX 2 supports Fujifilm’s original film simulations Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, Pro Neg. Hi, Pro Neg. Std, Monochrome, Monochrome+Yellow filter, Monochrome+Red filter, Monochrome+Green filter and Sepia. Only those simulations will be available in RFC EX 2 that are also available in the respective camera. So if your camera doesn’t support Classic Chrome, neither will RAW File Converter EX 2 when you are processing a RAW file from this camera.

Once the release version of RFC EX 2 is available, you can find your free download here. Initially, the software will offer Fuji film simulation support for X-T1, X100T, X-A2, X30 and XQ2 cameras. Film simulation support for older X models will be available later this year through a free update.

As of now, it’s unclear if the current commercial version of Silkypix 6 will also be updated to support Fuji’s film simulations. I certainly hope so, since Silkypix 6 is more advanced than RAW File Converter EX 2, which is still based on an older release of Silkypix (probably version 4).

Compared to the previous version of RFC EX, sharpening and noise reduction algorithms have been enhanced. However, there is still no Retina display support for Mac OS users.

During the past three weeks, I was able to preview a beta release of RFC EX 2. Since the feature set of version 2 remains mostly unchanged, I concentrated on the new film simulation aspect and compared several straight-out-of-camera JPEG samples with their respective film simulations in RFC EX 2. I also compared shots that were recorded with varying dynamic range settings (DR100%, DR200% and DR400%), and I looked at differences regarding highlight clipping and rendering.

Our first example shows a Pro Neg. Hi image from my X100T:

^ Pro Neg. Hi with the X100T (DR100%): SOOC JPEG (above) and RFC EX 2 version (below)

Both images are standard conversions without further contrast adjustments. Click here or on one of the images to browse the complete sample images album for an easier and more direct comparison.

At first glance, RFC EX 2 is doing a great job at reproducing the tonality of the SOOC JPEG image. This makes RFC EX 2 a valuable tool for those who are looking for a free PC/Mac converter with 16-bit TIFF output and Fuji film simulation support.

Let’s look at another DR100% example, a Velvia image from my X-T1 with some light highlight clippling:

^ Velvia with the X-T1 (DR100%): SOOC JPEG (above) and RFC EX 2 version (below)

Again, the conversions from the in-camera converter and RFC EX 2 are not identical, but definitely close enough. Even the color clipping in the highlights looks quite similar.

Here’s another DR100% example, this time using Classic Chrome:

^ Classic Chrome with the X-T1 (DR100%): SOOC JPEG (above) and RFC EX 2 version (below)

There are slight differences in saturation and tonality, and in this case, I actually prefer the RFC EX 2 version. If you click on any of the images, the Flickr album will show you additional DR100% examples that demonstrate small differences between straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) and RFC EX 2 results.

It’s important to know that in order to directly compare the built-in RAW converter with RFC EX 2, you must use the camera’s default contrast settings for HIGHLIGHT TONE and SHADOW TONE. You also have to make sure that all converters use the same color space (either sRGB or Adobe RGB). My examples were converted in sRGB, which is the preferred color space for general use and online viewing.

Highlight Recovery at DR100%

One particular issue affecting Silkypix/RFC EX is recovering blown highlights. So let’s have a closer look at a Provia DR100% sample with blown highlights in the SOOC JPEG. How is RFC EX 2 handling this file?

^ Provia with the X100T (DR100%): SOOC JPEG (above) and RFC EX 2 version (below)

It is obvious that the popular assumption that RAW data offers more dynamic range than the camera’s JPEG engine doesn’t apply here. In fact, the sky in the RFC EX 2 version features less color texture (and more channel clipping) than the SOOC JPEG from the X100T.

What about active highlight recovery? After all, RFC EX and Silkypix feature a floating highlight recovery palette that, as least in theory, should be able to reconstruct blown highlights from the data in the RAW file. However, Silkypix/RFC are really bad at doing this. Here’s the RFC EX 2 result with manually increased highlight recovery:

^ Provia with the X100T (DR100%): RFC EX 2 version with enhanced highlight recovery

For comparison, this is how the highlights in this images could be recovered in Adobe Lightroom, also using the Provia film simulation setting:

^ Provia with the X100T (DR100%): Adobe Lightroom version with enhanced highlight recovery

Simple rule: If you shoot RAW to capture more dynamic range than the in-camera JPEG, do not use Silkypix or RAW File Converter EX. Use a different converter, such as Adobe Lightroom/ACR, Iridient Developer or Photo Ninja.

Highlight Recovery at DR200% and DR400%

Silkypix and RAW File Converter EX are currently the only RAW converters that can automatically emulate Fujifilm’s built-in DR function (which is used to increase the highlight dynamic range in an image):

  • DR200% underexposes the RAW file by one stop to capture more highlights and then pushes the shadows and midtones up one stop during RAW conversion, while leaving the highlights intact.
  • DR400% underexposes the RAW file by two stops to capture even more highlights and then pushes the shadows and midtones up two stops during RAW conversion, while leaving the highlights intact.

The in-camera RAW conversion (aka the JPEG engine) automatically takes care of the tone-mapping of DR200% and DR400% images, and Silkypix/RFC is emulating this feature by automatically pushing the RAW data one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops and then applying one or two stops of additional highlight recovery. In theory, this should lead to results that closely resemble in-camera JPEGs that were taken with DR200% or DR400%.

How closely the RFC EX 2 conversion actually matches an in-camera JPEG very much depends on the particular image. In other words: your mileage may vary.

Here’s a popular DR400% example from my books:

^ Provia with the X-T1 (DR400%): SOOC JPEG (above) and RFC EX 2 version (below)

Here, the RFC EX 2 version and the image from the built-in RAW converter look quite similar, including the recovered (pulled-back) highlights. Yes, there are differences, but it could be much worse. For example, matching the SOOC JPEG would be much more difficult in Adobe Lightroom.

Here’s another DR400% sample, this time using Classic Chrome:

^ Classic Chrome with the X-T1 (DR400%): SOOC JPEG (above) and RFC EX 2 version (below)

Again, both versions look quite similar, although parts of the shot look a bit darker in the RFC version. To reveal more shadow detail in RFC EX 2, you could adjust the exposure, brightness and contrast sliders.

Let’s have a look at a DR200% Provia example:

^ Provia with the X-T1 (DR200%): SOOC JPEG (above) and RFC EX 2 version (below)

Using the DR function to achieve a high-key look is one of its several applications. In the above example, we can see that the RFC EX version is once again slightly darker than the SOOC JPEG, but the most striking difference is the color rendering of the yellow/orange highlights in the flowers. With its default setting, the highlight recovery function of RFC EX 2 renders these colors in a more orange looking way than the camera’s built-in JPEG engine. However, RFC EX lets us adjust several parameters in the Highlights control palette. In this particular case, I moved the Saturation/Hue slider from its default Zero position to around 40. This puts more emphasis on the correct color hue and less on maximum color saturation:

^ Provia with the X-T1 (DR200%): RFC EX 2 version (with adjusted highlight recovery parameters)

This enhanced version from RFC EX 2 better matches the SOOC JPEG. However, there are cases where the differences between the tone-mapping of the camera’s JPEG engine and RFC EX 2 are more pronounced. Let’s have a look at this DR400% sample:

^ Provia with the X-T1 (DR400%): SOOC JPEG (above) and RFC EX 2 version (below)

Once again, the RFC EX 2 version of this shot is darker in the shadows, and there’s also a difference in the rendering of highlights. However, we can once again adjust a few parameters in the converter’s Highlights palette. In the version below, I moved Chroma/Luminance from 0 to 35, and Saturation/Hue from 0 to 45:

^ Provia with the X-T1 (DR400%): RFC EX 2 version (with adjusted highlight recovery parameters)

It’s still no perfect match, but maybe a little bit closer to the rendering of the SOOC JPEG. I also looked at how RFC EX 2 handles film simulations with RAWs from the X30. Along with the X20, XQ1 and XQ2, the X30 uses a different sensor with a quite different color response. That’s why cameras featuring Fuji’s 2/3-inch sensor can’t use color profiles that were made for Fuji’s current APS-C cameras. Let’s have a look:

^ Astia with the X30 (DR100%): SOOC JPEG (above) and RFC EX 2 version (below)

Once again, there are some differences, but I assume the RFC EX default result will be sufficient for most users.

Since these samples were made with a beta version of RFC EX 2, it is possible (yet unlikely) that the release version delivers slightly different results. For those of you who are looking for a free PC-based RAW converter software that can automatically emulate the look of the camera’s film simulation, RFC EX 2 is definitely worth a try.

For your convenience, here’s a TOC with links to my previous X-PERT CORNER articles:

Rico Pfirstinger studied communications and has been working as journalist, publicist, and photographer since the mid-80s. He has written a number of books on topics as diverse as Adobe PageMaker and sled dogs, and produced a beautiful book of photographs titled Huskies in Action (German version). He has spent time working as the head of a department with the German Burda-Publishing Company and served as chief editor for a winter sports website. After eight years as a freelance film critic and entertainment writer in Los Angeles, Rico now lives in Germany and devotes his time to digital photography and compact camera systems. His new ebook The Fujifilm X-E2: Beyond the Manual is available at Rocky Nook.

Share
  • Kevin Purcell

    Minor correction: “Fuji’s 1-inch sensor”

    That would be the X40? We wish! The X30 is still using the type 2/3″-inch sensor.

    • Indeed, 1 inch was what everybody wanted. 2/3″ is correct, of course.

  • Anthony

    Also, when is that X100s firmware coming????? Classic chrome. Electronic shutter. Programable buttons. Exposure controls ISO in auto ISO mode. Etc. Lets go folks!

  • Chris

    I have been expecting it for over 2 weeks. Finally here it is. But it seems fuji still have some work to do to make raw files match their sooc jepg.

  • Vernon Szalacha

    Still no Classic Chrome for the X100S? C’mon Fuji, don’t leave us out.

  • nwcs

    I’m really curious to see if their English translation is any better. Their terminology is quite odd. Price is good, though.

  • Mr_Electability

    It is obvious that the popular assumption that RAW data offers more dynamic range than the camera’s JPEG engine doesn’t apply here.

    What you’ve written is wrong, and you prove it wrong in the next paragraph or two by using Adobe. I think you meant say something correct, “…the popular assumption that all RAW processors offer more dynamic range than the camera’s JPEG engine…”

    If not, I’m curious how you justify the above quote.

    • “Here” obviously means RFC EX 2, because it’s an article about RFC EX 2 and the quote refers to an image that was processed with RFC EX 2. So you are right on the money with your understanding of the phrase. :)

      It’s simple: With RFC EX 2 or Silkypix, you can’t extract more highlight DR from the RAW than the camera’s JPEG engine. So use a different converter if that’s what you want to do.

      • Didiergm

        Roci, as far as you’re aware would the full Silkypix version allow for better DR ?

  • Rico Tubbs

    Rico, thanks for the write-up. When the converter update comes later to support the older X models, will all the film simulations be available to them including classic chrome?

    • The older models don’t have Classic Chrome, only the X-E2.

      • Rico Tubbs

        Thank you sir. I can understand why, but I won’t upgrade for want of film sims.

        • You can upgrade for better NR, better sharpening, film simulations and other enhancements that were made from Silkypix 3 to 4. Or just keep using the old RFC EX as long it is supported by your OS version.

          • Martin Griffiths

            Hi Rico,

            Would you that overall the best raw converter is capture one pro 8? Or would it be one of the other software companies?

            Best

          • There is no best converter. I use 8 different ones, and each has its pros and cons. Personally, I mostly use Lightroom and Iridient Developer.

  • Koox

    Thanks Rico. What are the sharpness settings you use on RFC EX2? Or would you rather recommend simply export a TIFF with film simulation and do all the post processing in LR? Thanks for sharing. So far, my tests with RFC EX2 are a mixed bag. But it is the first time I am using this tool and I must be missing something. I’ll have to dig into it to get a proper opinion.

    • Settings depend on the image. Samples are mostly standard settings.

      • Koox

        ok thanks. Your image samples seemed sharper than mine so I thought you used a different setting. I’ll keep trying. Cheers.

        • I actually reduced Demosaicing Sharpness for the X30 flower samples to zero.

          • Koox

            for the Fuji X100T, you were around 82 according to the first image sample. Is that correct?

          • That’s the default at base ISO.

          • Koox

            I see. I definitely need to check this out a bit more. The UI is not the best and it is very slow on my mac to export but your results are interesting even though the JPEGS are still better to me if not for the very slight loss of fine detail when viewed at 100% (in comparison with your exports from RFC EX2. Thanks for your feedback.

          • Koox

            After further testing, I have found RFC EX2 to be very interesting (as a free option). Basically, it does give you slightly better macro detail when viewed at 100%. The trick is to leave the sharpness level to default. Whenever, I play with the settings it gets messed up. Also, on my images, I have found that 90% of the time (for me) SOOC JPEGS are more pleasing in terms of colour. In some cases, the colours seems to be on par with the JPEGS of the camera. So it all comes to level of detail you want to retrieve. If only, Fuji enabled to set off NOISE REDUCTION in the JPEGS, I believe it would be even better. Finally, the NOISE in the RAW’s converted with RFC EX2 are very pleasing and better than the JPEGS form the camera as they look more natural (almost film like).

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The Fujirumors website, Fujirumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close