RAW plugin for RAF files?

[ianmcc]

how many of you are using the CS RAW plugin for your RAF files?

I just upgraded recently and find the new browser with the RAW plugin a much happier way to read my RAF files than the Fuji converter.

But I am wondering if there any disadvantage to converting this way? Seems too easy to be without some penalty.

[crabby]

I haven't found any disadvantages. The advantages are great for my work flow. I haven't done a lot of side by side comparisons with EX Converter but I did enough to dump fuji in favor of PSCS.

[easternherp]

I agree with Crabby,

PS CS seems great and you can push the final size much larger. The controls are different but results so far are great.

[ianmcc]

Yes the latest issue of PhotoshopUser talks about the interpolation directly within the RAW Plugin. It said the interpolation is a linear one before outputting the file and that's better. Anyone hear about this and if it's good?

I have a RAF file that's a horizontal that the client has decided to crop a vertical for a cover of a magazine! <Gulp>

[proberts]

I was using the old converter with PS7, and the new one seems better. I think the Adobe workflow is the easiest, especially for sharpening. I haven't seen any disadvantages to it- but I also tend to archive the original unconverted RAF files to ensure that if there's a change in the future, I can re-process the images.

Paul

[jeffinkansas]

I also use the CS plugin. I love it. ( a little embaressing, but I also like the vingetting effect!)

[easternherp]

I have just done some more tests and found that the ps plug in produces softer results compared to the fuji Ex converter so if you like the pictures punchy then the EX converter is better.

[ianmcc]

Interesting, what were the sharpening settings in both?...

[easternherp]

I used the as shot on both.

[jeffinkansas]

I have found that it works best when I apply no sharpening whatsoever in the raw converter. I prefer selective sharpening in photoshop.

[frankgh]

Seeing how i only had fuji's LE before, I love the PSCS converter!!!

[jknights]

I ahve found the new CS plugin to be a big improvement on the old version.

I am still working through the new features but I need to test with some of my more difficult RAF files.

[wmercado]

I also dumped EX in favor of ACR 2.0. I did enough tests to realize that any differences in image quality were not important enough to put up with the woeful interface of EX.

At 6meg output, the detail is about the same. If anything, ACR seems to handle some things better, ie. highlights and noise pattern.

EX still produces better detail when outputing 12meg files, something I rarely need.

However, I have a much higher preference for CS color and tone curve. In addition, I prefer CS' settings for white balance and exposure. CS just makes it easier to consistently get the results I'm looking for.

The settings you use have a lot to do with the final results. When using EX, I used a custom curve (for increased brightness,) std color, and no sharpening. For ACR, I turn off all noise reduction and sharpening. In addition, I most often set the contrast to 0 and the color saturation to +15. In addition, I sometimes but not always increase the brightness as high as +75.

Noise reduction, sharpening and contrast enhancement are all done in later using alternative techniques.

[easternherp]

I have just had some phorographic prints done from PSCS Raw converted files and have found that they came out very soft and flat compared to an inkjet or even screen.
I had the contrast set at 10 and the saturation set to 10 also. The pics were taken with flash and on screen the image looked great.
To overcome the washed out look I had to change the contrast to 75 and the saturation to 50 which got the effect that I wanted. I used to use a Kodak High Contrast pro film and like the contrast and brightness rather than fuji's softer films.
It seems that you need to adjust what you do depending on where you are going to get the output done.