# Mystery with Fuji X10



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 7, 2012)

I have used LR for some years together with my Canon cameras. When LR doesn't work I use to proceed editing in Photoshop CS4 by right-clicking on the image and forwarding the image with LR corrections to PS. Has worked flawless.

Now when doing exacely the same method with images from FujifilmX10 with 4000*3000 resolution in LR the image gets croped to 2000*1500 in PS after forwarded from LR, if the X10 file is a raw file. This crop does not happen with Canon raw files. The crop does not happen with jpg files, regardless of camera brand.

It's a mystery to me. Why do I get a file crop to 2000*1500 for X10 raw files, but not for jpg and never for Canon files? Does anyone understand this?

Regards Hans


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Jan 7, 2012)

Hans,

Welcome to the forum!

That is indeed a mystery. Do you see the entire image in Photoshop, but at half the resolution?

Hal


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 7, 2012)

Yes, I se the entire image, but it looks grainy. As I see it it's 1/4 resolution. 2000*1500=3000 while the image in LR is 4000*3000=12000.


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Jan 7, 2012)

Hans,

That's what I thought was happening, but the question is _why_, and _what can you do about it_?

Are you passing the raw file directly to PS, or do you create a TIFF (or PSD) and pass that? 

Is there anything special in how you're shooting pictures on the X10? Raw + JPEG, perhaps?

Hal


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 7, 2012)

The _why_ is the big mystery. When I import files to LR I always convert them to DNG. Then I do som basic adjustments. If needed I then pass the image further to PS by right-clicking and selecting edit in PS. I always shoot raw, so it's raw origins. I do nothing special with the X10 compared to my Canon 5DmkII or 7D or G10. Allways the same, but the forward result in PS differs. I can't see what I shall change.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 7, 2012)

Further more... If I open the DNG-converted X10 file directly in PS then the size is correct.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jan 7, 2012)

Have you tried using the original proprietary RAW file (i.e. without converting to DNG)? Does that make a difference? It shouldn't if you're seeing the correct pixel dimensions of the DNG in LR, but worth a try?


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 7, 2012)

Hi Hans, welcome to the forum!

Any chance of getting hold of one of those files please?  You can drop it on my server (www.vbftp.net, username webupload, password 123) if that works for you.  If would be good to rule out something machine-specific, and I'll see if I can spot the problem - or at least get a bug report in.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 7, 2012)

Victoria,  I'm not on friendly terms with your ftp. I will mail you some examples on the email address you have in your ftp upload. Please confirm you got them. Thank you for your concern!

Regards Hans


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 7, 2012)

Hans Wahlgren said:


> Victoria,  I'm not on friendly terms with your ftp. I will mail you some examples on the email address you have in your ftp upload. Please confirm you got them. Thank you for your concern!
> 
> Regards Hans



Well, the files are too big to put in an e-mail Tried the upload even if it looks "strange", did it work? Please conform.

There should be tree files, -RAF file from the camera, -DNG file from LR after DNG conversion and a Photoshop file after an editing experience in PS. The PS file shows the crop that happens when I forward a file from LR to PS.

Regards Hans


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 7, 2012)

Hans Wahlgren said:


> Well, the files are too big to put in an e-mail Tried the upload even if it looks "strange", did it work? Please conform.
> 
> There should be tree files, -RAF file from the camera, -DNG file from LR after DNG conversion and a Photoshop file after an editing experience in PS. The PS file shows the crop that happens when I forward a file from LR to PS.
> 
> Regards Hans


Hrrmmmm.... I've pushed the files through the mail system. Tree mails, one file in each. Hope you can understand something I don't understand.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 7, 2012)

I've got the emails Hans.  Bedtime here now, but I'll have a look in the morning and see what I can come up with.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I've got the emails Hans.  Bedtime here now, but I'll have a look in the morning and see what I can come up with.




Victoria, I have an idea for you, a track to follow...

I allways shoot raw and when import to LR I allways convert to DNG. So everything done i LR is done on DNG files.

Been looking at the DNG files.

When I use my Canon 5D Mk II the typical CR2 file size is 24375 and after DNG conversion the same file size is 19774. The DNG size ration is approx 81%
The Fuji X10 RAF (raw) file size is typical 19375 and after DNG conversion the file size goes down to 11093. Size ration 57%!

My amateur conclusion is that the DNG conversion in LR for X10 raw files one way or the other is incorrect. I don't see this in LR byt I see that the DNG files from X10 is very grainy. Can the explanation be that an incorrect DNG conversion in LR first have size ipact in PS and after saving in PS the impact also shows up in LR? 

If my amateur conclusion is correct, then this must be a LR bug, or maybee a ARC bug..? I would love this to be the explanation, because then I could hope for a better raw / DNG conversion in future LR.

Regards Hans


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jan 8, 2012)

Hans, have you tried my earlier suggestion of importing the Raw file into LR *without* first doing the DNG conversion, then take the Raw into PS using "Edit in...". Does that make a difference?


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

TNG said:


> Hans, have you tried my earlier suggestion of importing the Raw file into LR *without* first doing the DNG conversion, then take the Raw into PS using "Edit in...". Does that make a difference?




Jim

I can't do that. I have PS CS4 and Adobe's not user friendly enough to make ARC backward compatible. The RAF files from Fuji is workable in LR but I can't open them in CS4. I expected this to work until CS6 as I allways convert my raw files to DNG. When CS5 came I didn't find the improvements worht the upgrade cost, decided to wait for CS6. So, regardless of PS version, as I allways work with DNG the DNG files should open flawless in PS regardless of camera. that's what I expect.


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jan 8, 2012)

I wasn't suggesting a permanent change of workflow, merely just trying different things to narrow down the area where it's going wrong.

Despite the fact you're using PS/CS4, I think that you *should* still be able to use the "Edit in Photoshop" option on the Raw file.....you should get the "ACR Mismatch" dialog which gives you a few options....try choosing "Render using Lightroom" and check the dimensions when the TIFF/PSD file opens in Photoshop. Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but worth a try maybe?

You could also try the standalone DNG Converter outside LR, import the resulting DNG and see if that operates any differently when you pass it to PS.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

TNG said:


> I wasn't suggesting a permanent change of workflow, merely just trying different things to narrow down the area where it's going wrong.
> 
> Despite the fact you're using PS/CS4, I think that you *should* still be able to use the "Edit in Photoshop" option on the Raw file.....you should get the "ACR Mismatch" dialog which gives you a few options....try choosing "Render using Lightroom" and check the dimensions when the TIFF/PSD file opens in Photoshop. Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but worth a try maybe?
> 
> You could also try the standalone DNG Converter outside LR, import the resulting DNG and see if that operates any differently when you pass it to PS.



Jim

When I try to open the raw file in PS CS4 nothing happens. LR starts PS but no file opens. I shall try the stand alone DNG converter in a few minutes.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

The situation is as follows:

Regardless if I have converted the raw file in LR or in the the stand alone DNG converter the DNG file opens in PS with correct size if i open the file directly in PS.
Regardless if I have converted the raw file in LR or in the the stand alone DNG converter the DNG file opens in PS with INcorrect size if i open the file by using 'edit in PS'-command from LR.

This might overturn my earlier assumption that the DNG conversion goes wrong. Maybee it's more fruitfull to search for what LR sends to PS.

Don't forget, this problem only happens with Fuji raw->DNG files, not with Canon raw->DNG.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 8, 2012)

The good news or the bad news?  The good news - I can reproduce it, and Adobe are investigating.  The bad news, no fix yet.

Opening either DNG or original raw from LR into ACR 6.6 in CS5 works fine, so that files are fine.

Opening the DNG from LR into an earlier ACR version creates the small size and the original raw obviously fails.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> The good news or the bad news?  The good news - I can reproduce it, and Adobe are investigating.  The bad news, no fix yet.
> 
> Opening either DNG or original raw from LR into ACR 6.6 in CS5 works fine, so that files are fine.
> 
> Opening the DNG from LR into an earlier ACR version creates the small size and the original raw obviously fails.



Victora,  Shall I hope for a fix to make DNG work in PS CS4, or will Adobe just advise me to upgrade to PS CS5? Will Adobe regard this as a bug or a strategic development decision to force customer to update? 

I also recently read on a site that Adobe is change upgrade policy. This site clames that only CS5 owners wolud be titled to a upgrade license for CS6. CS4 users and down has to pay full CS6 license. Can this be true?  /Hans


----------



## Hal P Anderson (Jan 8, 2012)

Hans,

Can that be true? That's what they announced, to less than enthusiastic acclaim. If they get enough grief from their customers, they may change their mind. Hard to say at this point.

With regard to the bug, if it requires a change to CS4, you're probably out of luck, but if they can fix Lightroom, I suspect that you'll see a version that works for you. In the mean time, is it possible for you to choose to send a TIFF image to PS instead of the DNG? That could be a workaround until you see a fix.

Hal


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

What's even more mysterious..... I installed PS CS5 trial version, just to see everything work as expected. To my BIG surprice there was no  change. The raw files from Fuji are still 1/4 or expected size when I open them in CS5 througt LR. I don't understand anyting, anymore!


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

Hal P Anderson said:


> Hans,
> 
> Can that be true? That's what they announced, to less than enthusiastic acclaim. If they get enough grief from their customers, they may change their mind. Hard to say at this point.
> 
> ...



Hal  A TIFF works, but the TIFF is SOOOO BIIIIG! 70 GBt or so  !


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jan 8, 2012)

Hans Wahlgren said:


> What's even more mysterious..... I installed PS CS5 trial version, just to see everything work as expected. To my BIG surprice there was no  change. The raw files from Fuji are still 1/4 or expected size when I open them in CS5 througt LR. I don't understand anyting, anymore!



The trial version is probably not the most up-to-date version in terms of the ACR plug-in. Go to Help>Updates in the PSCS5 menu bar and see if there is an  ACR update to apply.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

TNG said:


> The trial version is probably not the most up-to-date version in terms of the ACR plug-in. Go to Help>Updates in the PSCS5 menu bar and see if there is an  ACR update to apply.



Jim

You were right on that! Phuu! After updating CS5 with the latest ACR it works as expected. Still.... I think it is terrible if Adobe deliberately made DNG not work in CS4. My belive was that DNG should be the universal roubust camera neutral file format that survives over time. Adobes is shooting themself in the foot if they make DNG not work in CS4. Then DNG is nothing but another proprietary format.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 7, 2012)

I have used LR for some years together with my Canon cameras. When LR doesn't work I use to proceed editing in Photoshop CS4 by right-clicking on the image and forwarding the image with LR corrections to PS. Has worked flawless.

Now when doing exacely the same method with images from FujifilmX10 with 4000*3000 resolution in LR the image gets croped to 2000*1500 in PS after forwarded from LR, if the X10 file is a raw file. This crop does not happen with Canon raw files. The crop does not happen with jpg files, regardless of camera brand.

It's a mystery to me. Why do I get a file crop to 2000*1500 for X10 raw files, but not for jpg and never for Canon files? Does anyone understand this?

Regards Hans


----------



## Jim Wilde (Jan 8, 2012)

Hans, I really doubt very much that this is a deliberate act by Adobe. It's much more likely to be a bug, IMO, and it would seem from Victoria's earlier post that they are already working on it.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

TNG said:


> Hans, I really doubt very much that this is a deliberate act by Adobe. It's much more likely to be a bug, IMO, and it would seem from Victoria's earlier post that they are already working on it.



Jim,  I do hope you are right on that, but regarding Adobes new release policy I have my doubts. 
When Adobe presents a solution I will be more then happy to admit I was wrong. This might just be food for my conspiratorial mind.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 8, 2012)

There's a thread on the Adobe Forums about the same camera with similar issues, and Eric Chan posted there saying he's looking into it.

When you converted to DNG, what did you set as the compatibility version?  That may be related - it sounds like this is a very unusual sensor.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> There's a thread on the Adobe Forums about the same camera with similar issues, and Eric Chan posted there saying he's looking into it.
> 
> When you converted to DNG, what did you set as the compatibility version?  That may be related - it sounds like this is a very unusual sensor.




When converting to DNG in LR I just klicked that option in LR. Don't know if I can change settings there. When I used the stand alone DNG converter I used compatibility for Camera Raw 5.4 and later. Is this answering your question? If there is some place in LR where that can be changed, please advise me where to look.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 8, 2012)

The setting in Lightroom is in Preferences.  When you converted that DNG file, did you use LR or the DNG converter?  It may not make any difference - I'm just interested to know if it does.  I'm on the wrong computer to check at the moment.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> The setting in Lightroom is in Preferences.  When you converted that DNG file, did you use LR or the DNG converter?  It may not make any difference - I'm just interested to know if it does.  I'm on the wrong computer to check at the moment.




OK Found it in LR. 

I have tried both LR and stand alone. Both with the same settings, 'Camera raw 5.4 or later'. I found the problem with files converted in LR and I made a double check by converting them in the stand alone converter. Made no difference when I opened the converted DNG files through LR. Same problem regardless of conversion method.

/Hans


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 8, 2012)

Tomorrow I will not be able to nurse this topic during working hours. Do hope som kind person updates this thread if any solution comes up. Will read all helpfull notes on this tomorrow evening. Now it's bedtime in Sweden.  /Hans


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 8, 2012)

Ok, I'll double check into the bug reports tomorrow to double check they're aware of this variation.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 10, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Ok, I'll double check into the bug reports tomorrow to double check they're aware of this variation.



Victoria,  Today and tomorrow I will be working with photo-related issues. Any news on my DNG-problem?

Regards Hans


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 10, 2012)

Hans Wahlgren said:


> Victoria,  Today and tomorrow I will be working with photo-related issues. Any news on my DNG-problem?



No news yet I'm afraid, and I wouldn't expect it too soon.  Everyone's pretty tied up with the Lightroom 4 beta right now.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 10, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> No news yet I'm afraid, and I wouldn't expect it too soon.  Everyone's pretty tied up with the Lightroom 4 beta right now.



OK. How do I  keep an eye on this? As I understand there is a ticket / bug report / bug question on this. Will you keep an eye on the development of this ticket and post progress on this site? I hate to trouble you with status questions when there is no status change to report.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 10, 2012)

Yes, I keep a spreadsheet of all the bugs I'm tracking, so I'll let you know if/when I hear anything.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 16, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Yes, I keep a spreadsheet of all the bugs I'm tracking, so I'll let you know if/when I hear anything.



Guess we'll never hear anything from Adobe on this. I downloaded LR4 Beta to see if there were any differens, but 'No', just the same. My theory is that this is done deliberately. This is Adobe's way of 'engouraging' me to upgrade. The talk from Adobe on the roubustness and future proof in the DNG format suddenly sounds like the usual CBS from someone who doesn't want us to know the real truth. DNG is just another propreitary file format as DNG doesn't travel flawless from LR til PS regardless of PS version. If DNG was all that Adobe claims, then DNG would be DNG, regardless of how the DNG was created, and regardless of source file. If a file was converted to DNG then it would byo DNG through the whole work flow, hazzle-free.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 17, 2012)

I've just heard back from Eric Chan.  He said: "I am guessing this happens because the older ACR doesn’t support the high-res merge option of the X10 EXR sensor.  (To review: the X10 has an EXR sensor, which consists of two Bayer planes offset by 1/2 a pixel from each other.)  Hence, what is likely happening is that the older ACR only sees the 1st Bayer plane and presents that (6 MP output) instead of also recognizing the 2nd Bayer plane, and doing a merge with the 1st Bayer plane to produce the high-res version (12 MP output).  A workaround is to force "linear DNG" during the conversion to DNG."


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 17, 2012)

Hans Wahlgren said:


> The talk from Adobe on the roubustness and future proof in the DNG format suddenly sounds like the usual CBS from someone who doesn't want us to know the real truth. DNG is just another propreitary file format as DNG doesn't travel flawless from LR til PS regardless of PS version.



It's future-proof.  It's just not past-proof.  The first DNG's created are still supported and will continue to be in any future software, which can't be said of proprietary formats.

As with any format, they continue to add new features which older software doesn't necessarily understand.  It understood the DNG features that were available at the time of CS4's release - and allowed you to open the file which wasn't possible with the proprietary format - but didn't know what to do with the new-fangled dual sensor.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 17, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> I've just heard back from Eric Chan.  He said: "I am guessing this happens because the older ACR doesn’t support the high-res merge option of the X10 EXR sensor.  (To review: the X10 has an EXR sensor, which consists of two Bayer planes offset by 1/2 a pixel from each other.)  Hence, what is likely happening is that the older ACR only sees the 1st Bayer plane and presents that (6 MP output) instead of also recognizing the 2nd Bayer plane, and doing a merge with the 1st Bayer plane to produce the high-res version (12 MP output).  A workaround is to force "linear DNG" during the conversion to DNG."



Hrmm....A lot of tech talk here that I don't fully understand. But what I see in PS is 2000*1500. To me that counts up to 3 MP. Guess the conclution regardless of MP is that the only solution is to upgrade. Vicoria, thank you for your effort.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 17, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> It's future-proof.  It's just not past-proof.  The first DNG's created are still supported and will continue to be in any future software, which can't be said of proprietary formats.
> 
> As with any format, they continue to add new features which older software doesn't necessarily understand.  It understood the DNG features that were available at the time of CS4's release - and allowed you to open the file which wasn't possible with the proprietary format - but didn't know what to do with the new-fangled dual sensor.



I don't buy this. The DNG from X10 is 12 MP in LR. It's also 12 MP in PS CS4 when opened in PS CS4. But it's only 3 MP when opened in LR and TRANSPORTED from LR to PS CS4.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 17, 2012)

Hans Wahlgren said:


> But it's only 3 MP when opened in LR and TRANSPORTED from LR to PS CS4.



I missed that bit!  Let me ask.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 18, 2012)

Hans Wahlgren said:


> I don't buy this. The DNG from X10 is 12 MP in LR. It's also 12 MP in PS CS4 when opened in PS CS4. But it's only 3 MP when opened in LR and TRANSPORTED from LR to PS CS4.



Been sleeping on this and the more I think about it, the less logical it becomes.

Let's try a parallel with tiff. Let's say I scanned a film strip to tiff some years ago. When Adobe launches a new combination of LR and PS that combination doesn't read this tiff, because it was scanned with an old version of the scanner program. That will of course never happen. A tiff is a tiff. I expect DNG to be the same. Once converted to DNG the DNG file should be as tiff, solid and readable. To some extent it does, as the DNG works in LR and in PS as stand alone programs. My conclusion is that Adobe is deliberately putting up a tripwire for my workflow by reducing the resolution to 1/4 when I want to transport the file from LR to PS untill I upgrade to the latest version of PS. I hope I'm wrong, but probably I'm not.


----------



## Victoria Bampton (Jan 18, 2012)

Hans Wahlgren said:


> Let's say I scanned a film strip to tiff some years ago. When Adobe launches a new combination of LR and PS that combination doesn't read this tiff, because it was scanned with an old version of the scanner program. That will of course never happen. A tiff is a tiff.



Yes, DNG is the same in that way - _Forwards_ compatible.  If you create a DNG now, then Adobe launches a new combination of LR and PS in future, it'll still work.

On the other hand, if you create a TIFF now with some of the newer features - layers perhaps - and then try to open that TIFF with software from a few years ago, before the software understood layers, the software would probably open the bits of TIFF it understood, but you wouldn't magically be able to see the layers.  Same deal with DNG's.

I'm not going to be able to convince you that it's not a conspiracy, however hard I try.  But how could they have put that tripwire in intentionally - the camera wasn't even built when they built CS4!  And if they were going to put a tripwire in, don't you think they'd have done it for all cameras instead of just yours?  As the file opens into ACR, I'm guessing it's a bug in BridgeTalk, which LR uses to communicate with Photoshop.  Whether it'll get fixed for LR3/CS4, I don't know.  CS4 is no longer updated, so it depends on where the bug lies.


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 18, 2012)

Victoria Bampton said:


> Yes, DNG is the same in that way - _Forwards_ compatible.  If you create a DNG now, then Adobe launches a new combination of LR and PS in future, it'll still work.
> 
> On the other hand, if you create a TIFF now with some of the newer features - layers perhaps - and then try to open that TIFF with software from a few years ago, before the software understood layers, the software would probably open the bits of TIFF it understood, but you wouldn't magically be able to see the layers.  Same deal with DNG's.
> 
> I'm not going to be able to convince you that it's not a conspiracy, however hard I try.  But how could they have put that tripwire in intentionally - the camera wasn't even built when they built CS4!  And if they were going to put a tripwire in, don't you think they'd have done it for all cameras instead of just yours?  As the file opens into ACR, I'm guessing it's a bug in BridgeTalk, which LR uses to communicate with Photoshop.  Whether it'll get fixed for LR3/CS4, I don't know.  CS4 is no longer updated, so it depends on where the bug lies.



Victoria,  I think/hope you are on the right track when you assumes a bug in the relation (Bridge talk) between LR and CS. If it's a bug, then it might not be a conspiracy, then it could be a misstake. Regarding the conversion discussion, of course you are right. No one can develope with an eye in the cristal ball. If it's a bug I hope they will fix it as the same happens from LR4. The downside of that is that the bug might be on the PS side, and Adobe might not have an interest in fixing that. Why should Adobe fix a bug in CS4 if that bug enables me to proceed with that version instead of upgrading? We just have to wait an see if they decide to fix it or not.


----------



## sizzlingbadger (Jan 19, 2012)

Hal P Anderson said:


> Hans,
> 
> Can that be true? That's what they announced, to less than enthusiastic acclaim. If they get enough grief from their customers, they may change their mind. Hard to say at this point.
> 
> ...




http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cs6-new-upgrade-policy-changes-postponed-cs3-cs4.html


----------



## Hans Wahlgren (Jan 19, 2012)

sizzlingbadger said:


> http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cs6-new-upgrade-policy-changes-postponed-cs3-cs4.html



Good news, I needed that!


----------

