Fuji RAW "RAF" How to read with photoshop?

[Charleton_A_Wyman]

Anyone tell me how to read a RAF file please?

I am using PS Elements 8 and a Fuji X20 with *.RAF files.

The PS e8 is fully updated.

[Noel Carboni]

Adobe doesn't make a practice of adding new camera support to older versions of Photoshop that are no longer currently selling.

If your camera is newer than your version of Photoshop, you'll want to do one of two things:

1.  Use the latest version of Adobe's free DNG converter to convert your raw files to the .DNG format, which can then be read by your older version of Photoshop.

-or-

2.  Upgrade Photoshop to the latest version, which (assuming support for your camera has already been added) will be able to open the raw files directly.

-Noel

[Charleton_A_Wyman]

Reply. Thanks for the advice.

If true this is yet another reason why I do not intend to buy anymore Adobe Software.

But thanks all the same.

Which of the multide of versions and updates would I need?

It's obvious enout to me that a simple patch to my version of Photoshop would be easier for everyone, expecially Adobe.

[Noel Carboni]

You bought a new camera...  Why not buy the latest new software to deal with its files?

-Noel

[Charleton_A_Wyman]

Yeah , and why don't you take a flying leap and burn the entire contens of your own paycheck?

[Noel Carboni]

Gee, if you're that nasty to people who try to help you for free, I'd hate to see how you act toward adversaries.

You're welcome.

-Noel

[Charleton_A_Wyman]

NAsty? - that's a joke.

You call that helping?

What you asked was "You bought a new camera...  Why not buy the latest new software to deal with its files?"

That is what is know as as stupid question.  I'm smart enough to have thought of that, don't you think.

If I wanted to re-buy my software again, I'd not be asking how to AVOID it.

Think about it!

[JP Hess]

To put it straight, and to put it bluntly, if you want the best support for your new camera then you really should update your software. Yes, that means spending some more money. If that isn't acceptable to you then you will have to get by with whatever solution you can find. The DNG converter is one choice. Other third-party raw converters are another choice. It's up to you. Which is the best? Everyone has their own opinion. Try them all and decide for yourself.

[Noel Carboni]

Clearly you haven't "thought about it" because you apparently can't imagine that the engineering that goes into the software you use costs someone time and effort, and they need to sell their product to put bread on the table.

Just how nuch support did you really think your hundred bucks bought you 3+ years ago?  They DID after all provide you a complete solution for free in the form of the DNG converter.

Also, have you considered that Adobe might have actually added things to the latest version that nake it worth having?  Hint - they did, and I've been trying to lead you to that knowledge.

Why DID you buy a new camera anyway?  I'm betting the answer has something to do with making better pictures.  You don't think the software has something to do with that?

-Noel

[Charleton_A_Wyman]

Dear Noel "objective and in no way bias in favour of Adobe" Carboni,

Your argument is self defeating and based on ignorance.

Adobe choose not to offer a patch to encourage people to buy and buy again.

Responisble software houses provide support for thier products by providing patches that keep thier software up-to-date.

If they canb provide a DNG converter to do the job them they can just as easily provide this facility "in-program'.

If you knew the first thing about software design then you would know this.

I have good reasons for buying another camera that has nothing to do with better pictures. Clearly you are not only ignorant of basic software design but lack an imagination too.

And has to your commment;" I have been awarded several gift certificates and software subscriptions by Adobe. These awards and gifts in no way affect my being truthful or open in my postings here"

Methinks he doth protest too much!

[areohbee]

Charleton A Wyman wrote:

Noel "objective and in no way bias in favour of Adobe" Carboni,

You obviously haven't read very many of Noel's posts in this forum. His other nick-name is:

Noel "you complain too much about Adobe & Camera Raw" Carboni .

Cheers,

Rob

[areohbee]

Charleton A Wyman wrote:

You call that helping?

Noels first response:

Noel Carboni wrote:
Adobe doesn't make a practice of adding new camera support to older versions of Photoshop that are no longer currently selling.
If your camera is newer than your version of Photoshop, you'll want to do one of two things:
1.  Use the latest version of Adobe's free DNG converter to convert your raw files to the .DNG format, which can then be read by your older version of Photoshop.
-or-
2.  Upgrade Photoshop to the latest version, which (assuming support for your camera has already been added) will be able to open the raw files directly.
-Noel

I call that helping. - and if I may add: could hardly have been a more perfect response - exactly correct, unbiased, polite...

(The "less helpful" replies came later )

R

[Charleton_A_Wyman]

Sadly the DNG software  does not do such a good job as the MAC OS (Preview).

The converter program looses light and definition in the convertion.

Pretty poor show Adobe!!!

[ssprengel]

What version of Elements and what specific camera model are you trying to adjust RAF files from? And what version of DNG Converter are you using? Each version of Elements is compatible with particular versions of the camera raw plug-in and each camera model is only natively supported by versions of the camera raw plug-in newer than when the camera was introduced. The DNG Converter just creates a version of a raw file that can be adjusted by obsolete versions of the Camera RAW plugin that don’t natively support a particular camera model. There are also compatibility options in the DNG Converter that need to be set for the image to look right.

[Charleton_A_Wyman]

Camera Fuji x20

Adobe PS Elements 8

[Yammer]

Charleton A Wyman wrote:

Sadly the DNG software  does not do such a good job as the MAC OS (Preview).

The converter program looses light and definition in the convertion.

Pretty poor show Adobe!!!

That's all down to the way you use the software. If you prefer the preview (made by the camera, not MacOS) then there's no point shooting Raw. There's a common misconception that Raw files are supposed to impress, straight out of the camera. They are "Raw" and need cooking. Camera JPEGs (and Raw previews) are already cooked. Shooting Raw enables you to be a better chef than the camera. Metaphors over.

[Charleton_A_Wyman]

You are missing the point.

I want my Adobe software that I already paid good money for to do the job.

[Yammer]

Charleton A Wyman wrote:

You are missing the point.

I want my Adobe software that I already paid good money for to do the job.

You're missing the point: it doesn't do any less than it did when you bought it, and Adobe provides a free download to fix backwards compatibility.

You should be complaining to the camera manufacturers who unnecessarily invent a new raw file format every time they release a new camera. They support JPEG and some support TIFF, why not DNG?

[Charleton_A_Wyman]

I don't have to buy a new car when I have a new child, or change my wife.

[Yammer]

Charleton A Wyman wrote:

I don't have to buy a new car when I have a new child, or change my wife.

Some might disagree!

[Noel Carboni]

I once argued as you are, Charlie.

Yet I met with the same answers that you are now getting, and I saw the light.

Yammer is right on - your software does everything it did when you bought it.  In fact one of the features it has (and had when you bought it) was the ability to open DNG files.  Now, it may be that your version of Photoshop Camera Raw doesn't do as good conversions as today's newest versions, owing to engineering advancements in the past few years.  Your car maker doen't retrofit every new feature they deaign either into your old car, especially not for free!

That Adobe provides you the DNG converter for free is proof they have stopped short of being predatory.  But if you want the ultimate in convenience and the best image quality, of course you have to pay.  Personally I think the balance they've struck is genius.

You seem convinced you're not able to get good images via the RAF->DNG->Raw conversion process.  That's very likely YOUR fault, not the fault of the software.  You should concentrate on improving your skills there.

Oh  and I can assure you I've forgotten more about software engineering this morning than you'll ever know.

-Noel

[Charleton_A_Wyman]

Noel,

            ignorance upon ignorance. You do like to make yourself look stupid.

1) My name is not Charlie, not any derivative thereof.

2) You have not a clue as to the depths of my understanding of sofware design and have already shown your self deficient in this respect.

3) Nothing you are saying here is anything that I don't already know.

4) Your suggesting to spend more cash is still ridiculous.

Anything else?

[Yammer]

Charleton A Wyman wrote:

4) Your suggesting to spend more cash is still ridiculous.

How? You bought a program without support for your camera, because it didn't exist at the time. You've been given a free solution, but you don't like it. The only other alternative is to upgrade or use other software.

I understand where you're coming from. I have previously suggested that it's not rocket science to build something very similar to DNG Converter into the Camera Raw workflow, but Adobe is in it to make money, and they still provide a free alternative. It's the camera manufacturers who are at fault here but no one complains about them. Is it because they make hardware, which is perceived to be more valuable than software?

Anyway. This is a user-to-user forum, so your beef is not being directed at Adobe. We're just a community of end-users, and the occasional Adobe techie, who don't make company policy.

We could go back to your statement: "Sadly the DNG software  does not do such a good job as the MAC OS (Preview)." You never fully explained what you meant. As we are here to help each other out, we could tackle this aspect of the discussion, and get it back on track. Even old versions of Camera Raw should give you better results than the embedded previews. Maybe you have it set up wrong? Would you like some help with that?

[areohbee]

Yammer wrote:

We could go back to your statement: "Sadly the DNG software  does not do such a good job..."

Yeah, that concerns me - I mean: it should preserve the raw data exactly, so if there is some problem rendering a converted file, there must be some critical exif data that is amiss or something. Maybe OP could post a sample... Even if he/she has decided not to go that route, if there is a problem there I'm sure Adobe would want to know about it.

[Charleton_A_Wyman]

It does ntpt seem to be a Forum where people are interested.

They would rather give cash to Adobe than suggest where their corporate responibility might better be.