Fuji X100s help needed! Desperately!

[Isoterica]

Close to remedying it. [X100s help needed! Desperately!]

So my new X100s is supposed to be able to post process RAW [.raf] files and yet when shooting raw images, using playback to select an image and going to menu/ok, the raw conversion option is on the list but not highlighted. I can't select it. I can't select crop or resize or red eye removal either. I can not edit after the fact though I can shoot using film simulations and filters etc. The book [pg 64] says alternatively, after explaining the Menu button conversion, that "if RAW is assigned to the Q button..." points to page 69 and that page details the Function button! Uhmm 'scuse me?? However I did try playback and press the Q button anyway, nothing at all happened. I should be able to do this, Fuji says so! Heck I even tried pressing the function button.

To add to this.. my Adobe Lightroom 3.6 says "preview not available" when I try to open the .raf files. I was told to unstack the jpeg's from the raw. since I had shot in both, and yet I don't see any way to do that IF.. that is the problem. And shooting in raw only they still aren't able to be previewed.

Another bizarre thing is my photo counting / file naming.. is all over the place. They started as DSCF0001 up to 12 [DSCF could be seen in LR] and then they changed to S0010013. Pleaseee tell me I'm not having a bad camera nightmare. The last photo I took was S0993102.. I have not taken that many photos! Just in changing from Raw files to jpg.. and taking a shot in jpg, my filename/count went from S0944074 to S0954075. What results from all of this madness is that my photos in a folder are all scrambled up and do not show in order of when they were taken. It's random. **Frame number is set to Continuous.

I'm hoping here someone has experienced these things and can tell me what to toggle to make it all better. I haven't even had it a week and this is happening.

 

[Isoterica]

Menu - Reset - Shooting Menu Reset - OK. Page 88 says it will change setup menu to default minus date/time, shutter count etc. Did that and they are back to DSCF file names however the last number is DSCF4078. I haven't shot that many pictures. I am now able to edit the basics in camera [though not filters] .
Still can't see in Lightroom.

 

[Isoterica]

I probably shouldn't hit up both forums, I won't in the future .. at any rate here is the thread on Serious Compacts and where I've gotten to so far. Here

 

[Gary]

You will need, IIRC, Lightroom 4.4 (maybe just 4),
In order for Lightroom to read the Fuji files and more.

Gary

 

[Isoterica]

You will need, IIRC, Lightroom 4.4 (maybe just 4),
In order for Lightroom to read the Fuji files and more.

Gary

Be careful not to hurt yourself with all that And sadly you are right. I need a cheaper hobby!

 

[entropic remnants]

Be careful not to hurt yourself with all that And sadly you are right. I need a cheaper hobby!

Stop. Buying. New. Cameras.

That's a mantra I've repeated to myself over and over and it's finally been successful... now I buy OLDER cameras, lol. I hope you get things where you need them to be soon.

 

[Isoterica]

Stop. Buying. New. Cameras.

That's a mantra I've repeated to myself over and over and it's finally been successful... now I buy OLDER cameras, lol. I hope you get things where you need them to be soon.

I have had used stuff much of my life. I guess I wanted a shiny new first run something.. and kept trying to pacify myself with anything other than the X. Kept of course only meant the G12 and the GR which are both good cameras, just not a fit for me. Mind you I am not looking up to the Xpro or to the RX1 or a Leica though I could have gotten a 7D for similarly. The X100s cost more than my cars.. I really have no business having it. Might even need to sell it but for right now.. I am having fun. It's my guilty pleasure.

 

[entropic remnants]

I have had used stuff much of my life. I guess I wanted a shiny new first run something.. and kept trying to pacify myself with anything other than the X. Kept of course only meant the G12 and the GR which are both good cameras, just not a fit for me. Mind you I am not looking up to the Xpro or to the RX1 or a Leica though I could have gotten a 7D for similarly. The X100s cost more than my cars.. I really have no business having it. Might even need to sell it but for right now.. I am having fun. It's my guilty pleasure.

I totally understand and my comment was meant to be a light chuckle and not a serious criticism of what you bought. I think it's a great camera and you could maybe save up for a Lightroom upgrade which you can have for about $80 I think? Then you can go full bore with that cam.

Personally, I'd keep it. It's a machine you can enjoy for years to come.

 

[Isoterica]

I totally understand and my comment was meant to be a light chuckle and not a serious criticism of what you bought. I think it's a great camera and you could maybe save up for a Lightroom upgrade which you can have for about $80 I think? Then you can go full bore with that cam.

Personally, I'd keep it. It's a machine you can enjoy for years to come.

Oh I know you were poking at yourself John, we're good. But I do feel guilty. I'm having a hard time recouping the money and too scared to try ebay as far as selling. Have a ten year old account we have purchased on and a 100% rating and I just have nightmares of sending something to a buyer and having them say they didn't get it or it was broken and me losing the money and the item and the rating due to a liar. Paypal also seems to want more info just to release the money I do have coming to me. It's interesting that they have taken it from me for a decade without all the dancing.

 

[jnewell]

If it helps, it looks like you can go from LR3 to LR5 for the upgrade price without worrying about paying for LR4. You'll be amazed by the improvements.

Q. Can I upgrade from Lightroom version 3 (or 2 or even 1)?
A. Yes. The Lightroom 5 upgrade will work for any version of Lightroom (1 thru 4). As long as you own a previous version of Lightroom the upgrade costs $79.

 

[ean10775]

You can also use Adobe's DNG converter to convert the RAF files to DNG files which LR3.6 will read. You'll definitely get better results from LR4 or 5 simply do to the advancements in those versions of the software, but if you don't want to upgrade, the DNG converter is an option.

 

[entropic remnants]

You can also use Adobe's DNG converter to convert the RAF files to DNG files which LR3.6 will read. You'll definitely get better results from LR4 or 5 simply do to the advancements in those versions of the software, but if you don't want to upgrade, the DNG converter is an option.

Eric, I believe that converter is free, isn't it? I already convert in LR automatically to DNG as I like the "portability" of it.

 

[flysurfer]

Non-demosaiced DNG is less portable than RAF. Demosaiced DNG is portable but also isn't RAW, anymore.

 

[entropic remnants]

Non-demosaiced DNG is less portable than RAF. Demosaiced DNG is portable but also isn't RAW, anymore.

Hmm... Is that unique to the X-Trans -- because I definitely have no problems with DNG's for micro four thirds cams. I can see no loss of ability to edit from the RAW and portability is improved. Is it just then the RAF files?

 

[flysurfer]

This is universal. But since RAF is not supported by all converters, neither are their DNG containers. Actually even less so, hence my post. Only very few RAW converters support all DNG versions and formats, they are usually much quicker in supporting new RAF formats. And demosaicing beats the purpose of RAW, anyway.

 

[entropic remnants]

This is universal. But since RAF is not supported by all converters, neither are their DNG containers. Actually even less so, hence my post. Only very few RAW converters support all DNG versions and formats, they are usually much quicker in supporting new RAF formats. And demosaicing beats the purpose of RAW, anyway.

Ah, that makes perfect sense. Unless you're using a "standard" defined Bayer pattern, there is additional information needed for the demosaic of the X-Trans which is something completely different as the Python's would say. If I'd read your first post carefully about the demosaic I would have picked that up.

Thanks for explaining that.

 

[flysurfer]

Yep, it's a common misconception that DNG was some common denominator that could render all RAW formats compatible with all RAW converters that can open DNG. It is not, often rather to the contrary (as in DNG RAWs becoming incompatible with converters that still support the unconverted RAF). Of course, DNG is very flexible, it is possible to demosaic the RAW and store the demoasiced image in the DNG container (basically a 16-Bit-TIFF), but as I said, that beats the purpose of using real RAW files.

It's funny that so many users do not see that, all they see is the .DNG extension which makes them believe that they are dealing with RAW files. In many cases, they are not. OTOH, real non-demosaiced DNG RAW files are at least as incompatible with other RAW converters as the original RAF.

So just keep the RAF file.